User talk:Youngkyf
ANI notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]
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.
Doug Weller talk 13:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Youngkyf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting that my account be unblocked. I was blocked while just barely beginning the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion. Please see that arbitration discussion HERE The first thing I will ask is to look at the full statements, not the clips very selectively included and then elipsis-ed manipulatively to make it sound like I said "I don't really care" about something the user said, I said, I don't really care about including something he wanted me to take out. In other words, that I was fine with that particular request because that one issue of his wasn't important to the factual accuracy of my edit. The issue was whether or not to accurately identify Melik Shanasar II as Turko Armenian on the Melikdoms of Karabakh page or not. He is Turko Armenian, and I said I don't really care about labeling him that as the label already existed on Melik Shanasar II's individual page. User historyofiran deceitfully cut off the quote to make it sound like I was being rude. Also, I have never used foul language, or insults. I have not call anyone stupid or ignorant or anything like that. The worst might be telling him that, he was embarrassing himself when he called "instability in Persia" "new, un cited information", when it was both cited, and the original was "unstable situation in Persia" I simply corrected the chronology only and the phrasing worked better in the corrected chronology. Please look at the edit history of Melikdoms of Karabakh. In the current issue with historyofiran, I fully cited all my sources, I kept my edit relevant to the Changing of Names Section of the Anti Azerbaijani Sentiment page. All of my edits were related to this specific topic only. I would ask that you please review the factual accuracy of my edits, very much so, my attempts to discuss this issue and not just continually resubmitting edits or something like that, which I did not do even once without first fully discussing it, the full history of my edits will show this, as they will show total transparent pursuit of honesty and accuracy and against omissions of convenience or deceitful pseudoscience misrepresentations. If you look at my edits, I am confident that you will see the factual accuracy. If there is another reason, please tell me what it is. If there is something else I need to avoid, please tell me. People cannot just call something disruptive if it is the facts. This argument currently comes down to a very deceitful claim on the page. I factually addressed this claim, asked for the revisions to be accepted, attempted to discuss it, and told people that I would be pursuing my edit to the highest levels, because it is an entirely factual edit. I used judicious language in the edit, I used only facts. I cited them. The claim on the block was that I was "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" however, I am doing exactly that, and to a high degree of truthfulness and honesty. I did not include anything in my edit other than facts, and detailed them. If there is another reason, please make me aware, so I can avoid it. Again, I am confident of the factual, historically accurate nature of my edit and very much believe that if you look at my edits, and the arbitration discussion, you will see that I am very much trying to add to the factual, accurate information of wikipedia. I also wasn't only blocked, but blocked from editing in arbitration, blocked from editing my own page, etc. Again, didn't insult anyone, worst I did is call someone's "argument" ridiculous. People threatened to block me, and I simply told them expect to be involved in the highest levels of the dispute resolution process because that is how much I am confident of the factual, historically supported edits I have made, again, if there is another issue, please let me know. I would like to avoid future blocks. After my block is lifted, I will be maintaining and continuing my efforts, but would very much like to know why factual edits and a very legitimate defense of those efforts got me blocked. historyofiran is very much trying to use the disruptive edits warning to bully people. Disruptive edits can only be disruptive if they lack total and complete factual support. My edits are 100% factual, to any honest observer. Just because something is contrary to the claim on a page doesn't make it disruptive IF it adds nothing but 100% total honest historical factual truth, supported by the evidence and citations. My edit does. If there is any factual misrepresentation, please let's address them individually and if they are wrong, I will certainly correct it. My entire edit was reversed because it is contrary to an agenda, not to the truth. I hope that after viewing my edits, and telling me of any specific things I should not do, this block is overturned. I will continue to participate in arbitration before re-submitting the edit, and I really think it is very disturbing and concerning that I was blocked while following the dispute resolution process, in good faith, participating in arbitration and not just re-submitting the edit. I will continue to monitor and participate in accordance with the rules to the highest levels of resolution. I will also be steadfastly participating and monitoring this, and hope that truth, accuracy, and facts win over any kind of partisan desires from any individuals from any groupYoungkyf (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC).
Decline reason:
WP:WALLOFTEXT. Please reread WP:GAB to understand how to craft a reasonable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2022 (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.
UnBlock Request
[edit]Youngkyf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I promise to ask 1 question at a time on the talk pages prior to making a major edit. Since I never once just re-submitted contested edits, I will continue to not do so. I resubmitted the Melik Shahnasar II edit after discussion, because it is factual, I cited it, and waited for any further criticisms or issues, if you look at Melikidoms of Karabakh talk page, you can see the dates of my questions and statements and how long I waited for a response before re-submitting the edit. This is evidence of good faith effort to discuss, but I did not discuss strictly constructively, and came across as a bit of an aggressive jerk. In regards to the Anti Azerbaijani sentiment, I understand now to handle these issues in arbitration, I won't just do new edits without first discussing and then arbitrating if necessary, and again, I never continued to re-submit edits or refuse to discuss. I very much tried to discuss, and there is evidence of this, and I apologize for the way I handled myself as less than strictly neutral and polite, but I never used foul language or direct insults, threats etc. of any kind, and next time I will engage strictly constructively on the merits of the facts and not besmirch anyone's intentions or character. And in the future I will absolutely only stick to merits and discussion of the issue and not talk about pursuing the full dispute resolution processes against someone etc in a mild intimidation attempt, and promise never again to question the motivations of administrators, or others, or be argumentative and difficult. I will purely ask questions, make arguments on the merits and facts and nothing more. I do understand how I came across. It did not help my efforts. Youngkyf (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2022 (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.
Youngkyf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to wikipedia. I understand the contentious nature of the edits related to Armenia and Azerbaijan and will not make such edits. I understand that I have been blocked for not properly discussing and editing. I understand that I had a bad attitude, was rude, and now understand the process better. I will not disrupt and will make useful contributions after politely discussing edits and reaching consensus first. Youngkyf (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please discuss the edits that you intend to make, or what subjects you intend to edit about. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2022 (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.
Youngkyf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to wikipedia. I understand the contentious nature of the edits related to Armenia and Azerbaijan and will not make such edits. I understand that I have been blocked for not properly discussing and editing. I understand that I had a bad attitude, was rude, and now understand the process better. I will not disrupt and will make useful contributions after politely discussing edits and reaching consensus first. Factual, cited, world history, grammer, spelling, and chronological edits. Any contentious edits will be diplomatically discussed first and not made until agreement and consensus is amicably met. Youngkyf (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I'm assuming good faith and unblocking. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 04:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
.