User talk:Heach Kimme

Hello Heach Kimme

I deleted "The Scientific Outlook" as it was mostly copied from Good Reads. All text here has to be free of copyright infringements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

Please note that per WP:GS/AA, editors are not allowed to edit topics relating to the above topic until they reach 500 edits and 30 days of experience. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Does this mean I am also not allowed to edit completely non-contentious pages such as Bolgarchay or Sadatlı since they are also related to Azerbaijan? Heach Kimme (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, since topic restrictions are always broadly construed, it would be best to avoid such topics, since anything related to their history is likely to be off-limits (edits strictly concerning say, geology and fauna of the region would probably be ok). That having been said, I'm concerned that the pattern of edits you have engaged in thus far is highly consistent with sockpuppetry with intent to circumvent a ban. A successful unblock request will identify why you created your account and started editing at the times that you did, as well as how you became familiar with Wikipedia terminology and editors. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I am assuming I should explain myself in this thread? @Rosguill

As you can see, my account was created in 2015. I have made a few edits between 2015 and 2025. I only started actively contributing to Wikipedia a few days ago. Mostly because, well, it is Summer and I am little bored.

I have been reading talk pages on Azerbaijani history for quite some time now, which is why I know HistoryofIran and Grandmaster by usernames. They are both very active in these pages. I am not familiar with etiquette in Wikipedia, but it is normal in other corners of the internet to ping people you don't know for a discussion in public spaces.

As to my knowledge of Wikipedia terminology. It is all public knowledge and I try to do as much research as I can before writing. Essentially learning by doing.

Regarding the last edits I made, Azerbaijan no longer follows DST, hence multiple edits across so many pages. Of course I cannot edit all pages, but I figured it is a good way of increasing my edit account and becoming an extended confirmed user. I figured I would maybe get a warning about edit count, but I didn't know that I broke any rules (did I?). Heach Kimme (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was primarily concerned by the timing of account creation vs. edits, and the immediate apparent familiarity with specific Wikipedia policies and editors. I think that the DST changes would on their own have been fine, as they're useful and unrelated to the conflict, but together with everything else the pace of those edits made for a concerning overall pattern. I'd ask that you follow the instructions in the block template below to file an unblock request, as I would like another admin to consider your explanation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|(copying from the thread above) Heach Kimme (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Heach Kimme (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You are unblocked subject to the following conditions:

Indefinite topic ban from WP:CT/AA, appealable to the community after one year.
You will be required to apply for extended confirmed via WP:PERM/EC after six months from the present and 500 additional edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying from thread above)

As you can see, my account was created in 2015. I have made a few edits between 2015 and 2025. I only started actively contributing to Wikipedia a few days ago. Mostly because, well, it is Summer and I am little bored.

I have been reading talk pages on Azerbaijani history for quite some time now, which is why I know HistoryofIran and Grandmaster by usernames. They are both very active in these pages. I am not familiar with etiquette in Wikipedia, but it is normal in other corners of the internet to ping people you don't know for a discussion in public spaces.

As to my knowledge of Wikipedia terminology. It is all public knowledge and I try to do as much research as I can before writing. Essentially learning by doing.

Regarding the last edits I made, Azerbaijan no longer follows DST, hence multiple edits across so many pages. Of course I cannot edit all pages, but I figured it is a good way of increasing my edit account and becoming an extended confirmed user. I figured I would maybe get a warning about edit count, but I didn't know that I broke any rules (did I?).

Heach Kimme (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence here. If @Rosguill consents, would you agree to the following as a conditional unblock?

Indefinite topic ban from WP:CT/AA, appealable to the community after one year.
I will remove extended confirmed and you will be required to apply for the user right via WP:PERM/EC after six months and 500 additional edits from the time of your unblocking.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. If it is the only way, sure, but I still do not see why my activity is suspicious. AFAIK, my only mistake was tagging other editors? I went out of my way to not cause an "edit war" in Gangja Khanate page, and stopped contributing altogether after I was informed about WP:GSAA.

If it helps, I also have had a few edits on Azerbaijani Wikipedia and Wikisource back in 2019 and 2020. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Heach+Kimme Heach Kimme (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think voorts’ proposal is reasonable. There was a confluence of factors in your early edits that made it seem more likely than not that your account was created to dodge a ban. That having been said, your responses and explanations have been good, and you’re demonstrating a willingness to comply with guidance. The conditional unblock proposal allows you to get back to editing and provides a clear path to eventually editing contentious topics that shouldn’t be too much of a burden if our initial suspicions were off the mark. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Thank you both for the discussion. Heach Kimme (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree to the terms? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Heach Kimme (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]