Hi Qayqran! I noticed your contributions to Ukrainians in Russia and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Burrobert ( talk) 15:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, and topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
|
| This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Please note that you are currently edit-warring at The Grayzone. I saw that your edits have been reverted by multiple users, and nobody agreed with you in the discussion you opened at the talk page. This means that you are acting against consensus. Continued edit-warring would result in a block.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is no such consensus. Two editors cannot gang up on a third to deny an edit conflict exists by removing tags regarding sourcing while refusing to engage in the substance of the dispute, taunting and engaging in personal attacks. This is the opposite of consensus and is contrary to various Wikipedia policies as you know well if you are a Wikipedia administrator. May I ask, have you been through any kind of administrative process questioning your neutrality as an admin? Beyond the massive flag on your user profile I see you state you will not edit articles related to former USSR countries. This article is certainly related to this topic. In any case I will take this entire case to ANI. -- Qayqran ( talk) 17:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Please remember to
assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on
Talk:The Grayzone. Thank you.
Drmies (
talk) 17:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, Drmies I very much assumed good faith on Talk:The Grayzone. My comments and (rather harmless) tags were immediately met with personal attacks, snarky comments, taunts and generally uncivil behavior (concentrated in but not limited to edit summaries) when I politely tried to discuss my policy concerns with the substance of the article. I have already pointed you to the diffs. Qayqran ( talk) 19:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template. Prolog ( talk) 19:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
|
| This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Russo-Ukrainian war. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Please note that only extended-confirmed users are allowed to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian War ( WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog ( talk) 19:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —
Michael
Z. 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Courcelles (
talk) 20:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)- You clearly have no interest in following the rules here, continuing to violate the general sanctions. This block will be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War. Courcelles ( talk) 20:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Qayqran ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have not breached any Wikipedia policy nor general sanctions. I have not even edit warred with any other user.
Decline reason:
If you truly believe that you have not breached any Wikipedia policies then this block is needed to prevent further disruption. Ponyo bons mots 20:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Qayqran ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Ok. Apparently I have violated some Wikipedia policy. But I don't know or understand what policy I violated. No one gave me any warning about it or explained what I did wrong. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have been super careful not to do anything wrong since I joined. I even spent an entire day reading the policies. How can I be just blocked forever without any warning at all? And above all, what did I do wrong? If a warning isn't enough punishment for whaever I did shouldn't I be blocked for a week first? This seems a little extreme. If someone explains the issue, I simply won't do it again. Qayqran ( talk) 20:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not an unblock request. You are saying you don't know or understand what policy you violated. Until you do, the block will not be lifted. Yamla ( talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Courcelles I did not know anything about this rule of extended confirmation - I thought I could edit these articles. Also I was not informed about the notification on the admin noticeboard. I think it is unfair and a little cruel to block me indefinitely. Had someone told me that I was not allowed to edit or discuss those articles I would have stopped immediately. I am a new Wikipedian who has strived to abide by all the rules. Its not easy to digest them all in 2 months. Qayqran ( talk) 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Courcelles If you unblock me I guarantee it will never happen again and I will always come to you for advice before doing anything which might be contentious. I seek to contribute positively to Wikipedia and I'm not even that interested in these topics which are under general sanctions. I was just using them to practice my editing skills and better understand policy. Qayqran ( talk) 21:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Someone telling you about that rule is literally two sections up on this page, dated 14 April. Add that to your extensive POV pushing? I think my block was exactly what was needed. Courcelles ( talk) 21:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Courcelles It was not made clear to me in that post that I did not have extended confirmation or that I had done anything wrong. Especially considering there were a bunch of other notifications saying specifically "there is nothing wrong with your edits but...". I don't think I have been involved in any POV pushing. All I have focused on is improving sourcing. Its sad that someone apologizes for an honest mistake yet you still feel the need to permanently expel her from the project. Qayqran ( talk) 21:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Qayqran ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I violated a Wikipedia policy out of honest mistake. I am a relatively new Wikipedian and I had no idea that certain articles under "General Sanctions" could not be edited except by extended confirmed users. I had no idea what "General Sanctions" were or how they applied to me. The person who reported me to ANI did so on the 14th and did not inform me until I was blocked today on the 18th so I was blissfully unaware that I was breaching policy. I am 100% to Wikipedia's rules and policies and swear I will never breach a policy again. I would just like to have someone to guide me so I never make mistakes again. Had I been aware of being reported on the Admi noticeboard I would have simply ceased my behavior and apologized. All I ask is for another chance to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Qayqran ( talk) 21:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm skeptical that you have seen the light in the 27 minutes between these two requests, but even if I thought you did, you don't tell what edits you will make; you'll likely need to agree to a topic ban from the Russia-Ukraine war as part of being unblocked. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 23:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ask yourself a few questions:
- Did I ever criticize the POV of an article?
- Did I ever criticize the political POV of a source?
- Did I ever criticize other editors?
Those are all dangerous things for any newbie to do. Start by assuming good faith that articles are written by editors who use good sources to write good content. If you disagree with any of those things, then assume you are on the wrong side of history, do not understand the issues, do not know how to vet sources for reliability, have been getting my info from bad sources, and don't know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough to do much more than completely neutral and minor copy editing yet. Start by assuming you are likely wrong and then seek clarification from other editors without arguing with them. Believe their explanations because they are likely correct. Seriously. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Qayqran! I noticed your contributions to Ukrainians in Russia and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Burrobert ( talk) 15:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
|
| This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, and topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
|
| This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Please note that you are currently edit-warring at The Grayzone. I saw that your edits have been reverted by multiple users, and nobody agreed with you in the discussion you opened at the talk page. This means that you are acting against consensus. Continued edit-warring would result in a block.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is no such consensus. Two editors cannot gang up on a third to deny an edit conflict exists by removing tags regarding sourcing while refusing to engage in the substance of the dispute, taunting and engaging in personal attacks. This is the opposite of consensus and is contrary to various Wikipedia policies as you know well if you are a Wikipedia administrator. May I ask, have you been through any kind of administrative process questioning your neutrality as an admin? Beyond the massive flag on your user profile I see you state you will not edit articles related to former USSR countries. This article is certainly related to this topic. In any case I will take this entire case to ANI. -- Qayqran ( talk) 17:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Please remember to
assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on
Talk:The Grayzone. Thank you.
Drmies (
talk) 17:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, Drmies I very much assumed good faith on Talk:The Grayzone. My comments and (rather harmless) tags were immediately met with personal attacks, snarky comments, taunts and generally uncivil behavior (concentrated in but not limited to edit summaries) when I politely tried to discuss my policy concerns with the substance of the article. I have already pointed you to the diffs. Qayqran ( talk) 19:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template. Prolog ( talk) 19:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
|
| This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Russo-Ukrainian war. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Please note that only extended-confirmed users are allowed to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian War ( WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog ( talk) 19:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —
Michael
Z. 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Courcelles (
talk) 20:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)- You clearly have no interest in following the rules here, continuing to violate the general sanctions. This block will be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War. Courcelles ( talk) 20:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Qayqran ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have not breached any Wikipedia policy nor general sanctions. I have not even edit warred with any other user.
Decline reason:
If you truly believe that you have not breached any Wikipedia policies then this block is needed to prevent further disruption. Ponyo bons mots 20:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Qayqran ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Ok. Apparently I have violated some Wikipedia policy. But I don't know or understand what policy I violated. No one gave me any warning about it or explained what I did wrong. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have been super careful not to do anything wrong since I joined. I even spent an entire day reading the policies. How can I be just blocked forever without any warning at all? And above all, what did I do wrong? If a warning isn't enough punishment for whaever I did shouldn't I be blocked for a week first? This seems a little extreme. If someone explains the issue, I simply won't do it again. Qayqran ( talk) 20:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not an unblock request. You are saying you don't know or understand what policy you violated. Until you do, the block will not be lifted. Yamla ( talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Courcelles I did not know anything about this rule of extended confirmation - I thought I could edit these articles. Also I was not informed about the notification on the admin noticeboard. I think it is unfair and a little cruel to block me indefinitely. Had someone told me that I was not allowed to edit or discuss those articles I would have stopped immediately. I am a new Wikipedian who has strived to abide by all the rules. Its not easy to digest them all in 2 months. Qayqran ( talk) 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Courcelles If you unblock me I guarantee it will never happen again and I will always come to you for advice before doing anything which might be contentious. I seek to contribute positively to Wikipedia and I'm not even that interested in these topics which are under general sanctions. I was just using them to practice my editing skills and better understand policy. Qayqran ( talk) 21:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Someone telling you about that rule is literally two sections up on this page, dated 14 April. Add that to your extensive POV pushing? I think my block was exactly what was needed. Courcelles ( talk) 21:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Courcelles It was not made clear to me in that post that I did not have extended confirmation or that I had done anything wrong. Especially considering there were a bunch of other notifications saying specifically "there is nothing wrong with your edits but...". I don't think I have been involved in any POV pushing. All I have focused on is improving sourcing. Its sad that someone apologizes for an honest mistake yet you still feel the need to permanently expel her from the project. Qayqran ( talk) 21:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Qayqran ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I violated a Wikipedia policy out of honest mistake. I am a relatively new Wikipedian and I had no idea that certain articles under "General Sanctions" could not be edited except by extended confirmed users. I had no idea what "General Sanctions" were or how they applied to me. The person who reported me to ANI did so on the 14th and did not inform me until I was blocked today on the 18th so I was blissfully unaware that I was breaching policy. I am 100% to Wikipedia's rules and policies and swear I will never breach a policy again. I would just like to have someone to guide me so I never make mistakes again. Had I been aware of being reported on the Admi noticeboard I would have simply ceased my behavior and apologized. All I ask is for another chance to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Qayqran ( talk) 21:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm skeptical that you have seen the light in the 27 minutes between these two requests, but even if I thought you did, you don't tell what edits you will make; you'll likely need to agree to a topic ban from the Russia-Ukraine war as part of being unblocked. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 23:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Ask yourself a few questions:
- Did I ever criticize the POV of an article?
- Did I ever criticize the political POV of a source?
- Did I ever criticize other editors?
Those are all dangerous things for any newbie to do. Start by assuming good faith that articles are written by editors who use good sources to write good content. If you disagree with any of those things, then assume you are on the wrong side of history, do not understand the issues, do not know how to vet sources for reliability, have been getting my info from bad sources, and don't know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough to do much more than completely neutral and minor copy editing yet. Start by assuming you are likely wrong and then seek clarification from other editors without arguing with them. Believe their explanations because they are likely correct. Seriously. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)