User talk:Mirhasanov

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Beshogur (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirhasanov, I am not happy with the overall content of your discussions on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war page. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Armatura (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armatura (talk) Seems like you understood your mistake and deleted it :). Mirhasanov (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: What are you talking about? What mistake? Who deleted what? Armatura (talk)

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of an imposed topic ban, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War).

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. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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."

• I have unblocked you following your AN appeal. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your post at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. That is supposed to go on noticeboard. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard click "new section" and post your text. I have slight adjusted your comment but of course you are free to post whatever you like.

I request an independent review for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mirhasanov and User talk:Mirhasanov#November 2020.

The ANI issued by users without providing proper evidences and supported by admin in an organized way following my ban from the topic. I tried my best to justify but, the ban imposed without my participation. I do think that the imposed ban is not fair. Moreover, admin didn't explain me what tban means and he waited me to make a mistake in order to document them and justify his decision. I believe admins must guide users not trick them. Considering all unfair action conducted by admin, I am asking an independent person who can help sort the dispute. [REPLACE WITH FOUR TILDE SIGNATURE]

Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Just to avoid any inconvenience. Shall I repost same thing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as you edited in above? Mirhasanov (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: thanks for notice and guidance.

Please revert your most recent edit because you put it on the talk page. It has to go on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: It is so complicated :). Hope I did it right this time.Mirhasanov (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note - first, I wanted to apologise for reverting your edit to Levivich's talk page last night. I'm afraid that was an accident - my finger must have brushed the Rollback link on my phone last night, I didn't realise I'd done it until just now. However, I'm not going to undo my action: partly because he thanked me for doing it so I can't in good conscience undo it, partly because Levivich isn't actually an admin anyway, and partly because your post at AN discussed above is the better way to request a review.

Second, I haven't threatened you. I warned you not to continue posting at Rosguill's tall page after they asked you to stop; since you have stopped doing that, all is well. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: no problem, we all do mistakes and get emotional. Accepted. . Please also accept my apology if I did anything wrong against you. I just was very emotional and disappointed on how Rosguill instead continuing discussion ANI waited me to do a mistake. I even didn't know what tban means in terms of my actions. Anyway, I think all of this has nothing to do with you and again thanks for your advices. Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Mirhasanov is banned for 6 months from edits, pages, and discussions relating to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this ANI thread and your AN appeal.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any misunderstandings (and Wugapodes can correct me if I am wrong) you cannot edit articles about the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, or their talk pages, or discuss that subject anywhere on Wikipedia, including on your own talk page, or the talk pages of other users. In short, for the next 6 months, you cannot discuss this subject on Wikipedia except as described in the appeals process. I would even avoid using Wikipedia's e-mail system, alters, and notices if they are related to the subject. I hope that's clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for clarifying, and if you have questions, Mirhasanov, you can feel free to ask me. As you've unfortunately experienced already, even good faith mistakes can lead to a lot of frustration, so it's better to ask if something isn't clear. BMK lays out what you are not allowed to do, but to offer some practical advice, I would recommend finding an area of the encyclopedia you would enjoy working on that has nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan. We have a lot of projects listed at WP:BACKLOG that can use help, and you may want to try improving some articles with poor sourcing. Not only will this show everyone that you are here to help, it will give you more time to get used to the cultural norms of our project with less conflict. I look forward to your edits! — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wug·a·po·des thanks for information. However, my question still unanswered even on Admin Notice board. What Wikipedia Rule did I break?Mirhasanov (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here pretty much to give you the same warnings posted above. I see that you have posted to AN in violation of your topic ban. In all probability you will be blocked before you can comply with the following, but I assure you that if not I will block you if you do not. Strike your original post and explain that you were unclear on the limits of your ban. Then we can come here and discuss further. If I have misread the timestamps and you did not post to AN after receiving the information above, please let me know. In the meantime, my advice is to not push the limits of the ban. Stop reading talk page discussions, stop monitoring article history; these activities will only result in frustration and provoke blockable action on your part. Tiderolls 13:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiderolls I am frustrated with your bureaucracy anyway. Blocking my account without telling me which wikipedia rule I broke is clear demonstration of corrupted system. Hence, I decided leave Wikipedia forever. This is the reason why I want my account to be not blocked but Vanished. I don't want contribute such useless encyclopedy, where information and article published based on who shouts louder or who acts faster to report opponent. I would welcome anyone who could help to vanish my account. Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirhasanov, you are either so frustrated that you are misreading what is being posted here or you lack the competency to understand the help you are being offered. I haven't blocked though you plainly violated your topic ban. I came here seeking your help in keeping you unblocked. I explained that I could have misinterpreted the circumstances and instead of helping me you find it necessary to stop editing and abandon the project. How are those two sets of circumstances even remotely related? Anyway, should you change your mind and want my help ping me. Tiderolls 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Courtesy vanishing:

"A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return, and for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits. ... Courtesy vanishing is discretionary and may be refused. It is not intended to be temporary. It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. It is not a fresh start and does not guarantee anonymity." (emphasis added)

I do not believe that Mirhasanov is in good standing at this time. Also, given their inability or unwillingness to understand Wikipedia's policies and processes, I do not think that they can be trusted to stay away if they are allowed to vanish. I believe it is more likely than not that M. would return under a new name and cause the same kinds of problems in the A&A subject area. Thus, I would not recommend allowing a courtesy vanishing. If they don't want to edit here anymore, they can simply stop editing and scramble their password, with the proviso that if they return and pick up again it will probably be pretty obvious who it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken thanks for idea, I never thought about this but, I wouldn't take. It is enough fraturation for me talking to people like you. I don't want leave anything here, this is the reason I want full vanish in order never come back again. Mirhasanov (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, Mirhasanaov. I can understand that Wikipedia policy can feel impenetrable, and especially if English isn't your first language. Here's the explanation from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Independent_review: with an AA2 topic ban in place you are still not supposed to edit 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war or any other Armenia-Azerbaijan pages, talk pages, AfDs, project pages etc, or to discuss Armenia-Azerbaijan topics at any other pages, including user talk pages. See WP:TBAN for an explanation of how topic bans work. If you do violate a topic ban while you are subject to it, you may receive a more severe sanction, such as a WP:BLOCK. A topic ban means you need to pretend the topic doesn't even exist on Wikipedia. You need to completely ignore everything that is happening at that topic. What you should have done was read the link provided, and ask someone you trust to explain more fully what you were not supposed to do. If you'd gone to some trusted user's talk and asked about what the topic ban (TBAN) meant, it's very likely people would have seen it as a good-faith effort to comply. Instead you immediately opened a thread at AN complaining about something happening at the topic you were banned from. That violated your topic ban. That's why you were blocked. It has nothing to do with shouting louder or acting faster. —valereee (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for you to continue posting to the AN/I thread. I've decided not to block you as I detailed above because you have said you were leaving the project. If you wish to stay I applaud your decision but you now need to move on to constructive work. I will not block you if you can make the transition to editing outside your topic ban but you shouldn't abuse this consideration by continuing to rant at AN/I. Tiderolls 19:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Tiderolls 19:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tide rolls Accepted. I am stopping.