User talk:EljanM

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for canvassing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Hi EljanM, this is a routine message to notify you of the restrictions that exist within the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict area. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 17:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Xudayar Yusifzadə.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Khudayar Yusifzade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability aside from being a soldier killed in a war. No evidence of meeting WP:NSOLDIER.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Whpq (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Steverci (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for canvassing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GirthSummit _(blether) 19:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EljanM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please show me where I canvassed, Yes I canvassed once, but after 5 minutes I deleted it on the Yerevan talk page, because I knew my mistake. See Yerevan talk page. Archives908 has not deleted its canvassing yet. Is this justice?

Decline reason:

As per below. Additionally, only your actions are relevant, not those of other editors. See WP:GAB. Yamla (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

You had just come off a block for canvassing earlier this month. And, as I suspect you know, removing canvassing messages after they have been sent does not 'uncanvass' people - the notifications have already been delivered to the intended recipients. After this block, whether it is lifted or expires by itself, you must refrain from canvassing entirely. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Just look at Yerevan talk page. Just as you blocked me, you must block Archives908. He was also canvassing.

I agree that they were also canvassing, but please review the section of WP:CANVASS entitled "How to respond to canvassing". As far as I can see, Archives908 has not been warned (or blocked) for canvassing in the past. Hopefully this explains why I have warned them, but blocked your account. If you do it again after you block expires, your next block will probably be indefinite. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I understand your goodwill. But I just called AntonSamuel, Solavirum and Golden. Before the Yerevan discussion, we were talking about Shusha, you can see it on the Shusha talk page. We discussed Shusha, then we moved our discussion to Yerevan. Thank you very much.

Take the time to actually read WP:CANVASS. Read it all the way through, and think about it. Look at the table that compares appropriate and inappropriate notifications. It's not just about the people you ping: your message, Guys we should add "Irevan" to this page., can not be considered neutrally worded by any stretch of the imagination. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Please, read Shusha talk page and Yerevan talk page. I said why we should add Azerbaijani name to Yerevan in both talk pages. I wrote in full detail

@Ymblanter: @Girth Summit: Hello Mr Ymblanter and Mr GirthSummit. I wouldn't want to bother you, but a user named AntonSamuel started a discussion on the Shusha page for the third time [1]. He using the same sentences and starts an unfair discussion Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. He wants the name Shushi to be written in bold, and the reason is that 10% of searches are Shushi.
I want to talk with all the evidence. The city of Shusha was founded by Panah Ali khan ^[1][2][3].
During Artsakh's control, Azerbaijani cultural centers were completely destroyed[2] [3]. The first residents and founder of Shusha were Azerbaijanis. Later, the Armenians formed a majority in the city for a short time. Even in Soviet times, the name of the city was simply Shusha. Before the conflict, 86% of Shusha was Azerbaijani[4].
Before the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, all Armenians used the name SHUSHA, and I even have proof. Armenian priest Pargev Martirosyan used the name Shusha in 1992 when he prayed for the capture of Shusha[5] WP:COMMONNAME. The city of Shusha is de facto and de jure the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan WP:OFFICIALNAME. There is no reason to write the name Shushi in bold. Please end the unfair discussion on the Shusha page and tell Anton Samuel to be neutral. Thanks. EljanM (TALK) 11:08, 12 February 2021

EljanM - please read the notice below this one. You have been topic banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the Armenian-Azerbaijani topic area. You may not do so on this talk page, or anywhere else, and this request is a breach of that ban. Please don't repeat it. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: We are talking about Shusha. You have already blocked me. Read what I wrote. EljanM (TALK) 11:42, 12 February 2021

You are banned from discussing anything to do with the Armenian-Azerbaijani topic area. If you persist with this you will force me to reset the block, and revoke talk page access for its duration. You must find something completely unrelated to edit about, or stop editing entirely. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 09:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:I have never agreed to injustice in my life. You can block me. But you do not block Laurel Lodged, Steverci, AntonSamuel users. You are blocking me just because I support a neutral position and justice. Thank you very much. EljanM (TALK) 12:07, 12 February 2021

This is how it works: I blocked you for improper canvassing, which you had been warned about and blocked for previously. I have already explained that to you, with reference to the policy. If you believe I have acted improperly, your remedy is to make an unblock request. If that is accepted, or when the block expires, you apply for your topic ban to be lifted by following the instructions in the notice below this one. Until you have done that successfully and had the topic ban lifted, you must not mention this subject area anywhere on this website. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I'm saying again. I do not tolerate injustice. I made a mistake and I am being punished. And I agree with the sentence. Because I made a mistake. Please read what I wrote about the city of Shusha and decide accordingly. EljanM (TALK) 12:58, 12 February 2021

I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page, because you are continuing to use it to contravene your topic ban. You must not mention that subject AT ALL while your TBan is in place, and asking me to read and act upon your earlier breach is itself another breach. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the Armenian-Azerbaijani topic area (WP:ARBAA2) for one year, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per a complaint at ANI. The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war is still quite recent, so I'm inclined to give you a lengthy period in which to get the hang of things before returning to this fraught topic area. Contingent on productive editing elsewhere, a successful appeal of this sanction in, say, 6 months, would be a realistic prospect.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAA2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  El_C 16:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violation, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 18:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EljanM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no justice. I was banned to edit pages about Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. Armenian users can write everything about Nagorno-Karabakh. You added the Armenian name of Shusha to the Shusha page. Why, because Armenians were majority there once. However, you did not add the Azerbaijani name to the Yerevan page. You should also add the Azerbaijani name to Yerevan, because Azerbaijanis were in the majority there once. Am I wrong? I just invited neutral users to the Yerevan talk page. You banned me. Is there justice?

Decline reason:

Try again, after reading WP:GAB. Be warned, the reviewing admin may decide, as this is your fourth block for this, to extend your block significantly. Alternatively, if you demonstrate you understand why your actions were inappropriate, it's quite possible your block may be shortened or lifted. Yamla (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Yamla, it's a bizarre unblock request because who are they even talking to there? Not to me, because I've never edited Shusha before (pretty sure). So, yeah, that's weird. WP:CIR issues, guess. I've indeffed.

EljanM, I have now set your block duration not to expire. You need to provide assurances you understand the topic ban and are committed to observe it, strictly. Please respond directly, without all the politics. It doesn't help anything and it's just inappropriate. El_C 22:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EljanM, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

- Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EljanM, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

- Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]