Lumberrr

March 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Khojaly Airport. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 07:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Freedoxm,

I'm surprised to come across with strong words such as "unconstructive" and "disruptive" to my edits which was simply intended to reflect the factual and legal realities on the ground.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Lumberrr (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Freedoxm

I was surprised by your description of my edits as “unconstructive” and “disruptive” when my intent is solely to ensure the article reflects verified facts and legal realities on the ground. My revisions were made in good faith, to present the established international consensus that Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity—including the Karabakh region—is legally recognized.

Wikipedia’s Dispute Resolution guidelines clearly state that when encountering biased or unsourced information, editors should improve and balance the content rather than remove verifiable facts. By reverting my edits without substantive, referenced counter-evidence, the article risks misrepresenting this consensus.

In addition, international law reinforces Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Multiple United Nations resolutions affirm that the borders of Azerbaijan, including the Karabakh region, are inviolable. For instance, UN Security Council resolutions and subsequent UN General Assembly decisions consistently emphasize the importance of maintaining recognized national borders.

Should these revisions be repeatedly dismissed without due consideration, the article will continue to reflect an inaccurate portrayal that contradicts both established international legal principles and the neutral, balanced content expected on Wikipedia.

I invite you to review the evidence and engage on the article’s talk page so that we may reach consensus. However, unless you can present clear, reliable sources that dispute the well-documented legal status of this region, I must insist that the article be updated to reflect these indisputable facts.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I remain committed to a collaborative and constructive editorial process, as outlined by Wikipedia’s own policies.

Sincerely, Lumberrr (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

To @Freedoxm

Adherence to Wikipedia Policies: Wikipedia's guidelines encourage editors to be bold in updating articles to enhance their accuracy and neutrality. My edits were made in good faith, aiming to improve the article's balance and adherence to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Labeling these efforts as "disruptive" and "unconstructive" without any justification is higly inappropriate, unprofessional and unethical.

Disruptive Editing: According to Wikipedia's Disruptive Editing policy, behavior that hinders the improvement of articles is considered disruptive. Unjustified reversion of constructive edits and issuing unwarranted warnings align with such behavior. Editors who persistently engage in disruptive editing may face blocks or bans.

Administrator Intervention: If this pattern persists, I will have no choice but to report this conduct to Wikipedia's Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. Wikipedia does not tolerate intimidation or obstruction of collaborative editing. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

I urge you to engage in constructive dialogue on the article's talk page to address any content disputes. Collaboration and adherence to Wikipedia's core principles are essential for the integrity of this platform.

Sincerely, Lumberrr (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

How am I disruptive editing? A warning on your talk page doesn't mean I am editing abusively too. If you would like to continue this discussion with replies feel free to continue this at my talk page. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 17:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Lumberrr, Please listen to Freedoxm. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 12:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:GS/AA

Hi Lumberrr. Please see WP:GS/AA - topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan are under an extended confirmed restriction. You are not allowed to edit these topics as you're not an extended confirmed user. As in regards to talk pages; "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." HistoryofIran (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

March 2026

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Stepanakert Airport, you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned about this a year ago - Wikipedia policies are to edit collaboratively, not try and force your way onto others. If you believe the airport name needs changing, then provide reliable sources which show the name change, and request the page be moved by opening a Move Request so other editors can comment. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

You are vandalising Wikipedia.

You are spreading your personal opinions on Wikipedia.

You fail to uphold the principles of objectivity, integrity and professionalism.

You force and expect others to accept your personal opinions.

Please note that this airport name has been changed in 2023 which I have already mentioned in the explanation. I have doubts as to whether you read my explanation. Therefore, I have concerns about your editing, as it seems to reflect your personal opinion.

I hope this makes sense.

The airport name will be changed to reflect the factuaities, and this changes are in line with Wikipedia's Terms. Lumberrr (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing through edit warring across multiple articles and accusing other editors of vandalism for disagreeing with your edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of Wikipedia for disruption and edit warring. I don't believe that you are able to edit this articles neutrally. The talk pages remain available for you to discuss and achieve consensus.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Appeal blocking decision

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I respectfully request that my Wikipedia account block be reviewed and lifted. Please note that there is already a consensus in the Talk page of this article regarding name change to "Khojaly Airport". Please refer to other user's requests. The requests date back to 2020, including my own request from April 2025 in which I received no response. The argument of other users' "There are plenty of reliable sources which give the existing name" is wrong and not valid and lacks any objective standards. Current sources (from 2023 Oct) are referring to this airport with the name of "Khojaly Airport". Citations have been added to the article confirming this.Khojaly Airport. Khojaly Airport This name change is because, the airport and the surrounding are has come under Azerbaijani control in 2023 Sept-Oct. There is no single source that refers this airport with the name of "Stepanakert" anymore, unless some schovanist and irredentist media organs who are also spreading their personal opinions and biases. Therefore, there is no reason for this article to continue have the name of "Stepanakert Airport". The fact that my edits have been reverted and vandalised within a short period of time shows that those edits were not made in good faith to serve the community's information need, but rather to spread certain personal opinions and biases. I have reasonable belief that considerable number of Wikipedia editors do not adhere to professional and ethical standards of editing which then makes their editing questionable on the basis of reliability. I am aware that Wikipedia (along with other platforms) are being abused by such users who try to challenge the realities with the aims of irredentivism, schovanism and spreading hatred. This policy of Wikipedia implies discrimination for users from certain background who desire nothing but the dissemination of real and factual information. I am an academic and an experienced editor who wishes to help ensure the encyclopedia reflects accurate, reliably sourced information. My intent has been to improve the article’s verifiability and accessibility for readers worldwide while adhering to Wikipedia’s neutrality standards. I welcome constructive feedback and will follow any moderation guidance. We, as Wikipedia editors, have a duty of care to help internet users all around the world to access real and reliable information. My intention is to keep upholding that principle, in line with neutrality. My expectation is for this block to be removed based on reaaons mentioned above.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but your expectation will not be met. You violated various guidelines and policies here, including that against edit warring, and your unblock request is based on the fact that you are right. You still violated various guidelines and policies. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2026 (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.

April 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard.  CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you choose to appeal, please read the following pages before doing so:

• WP:LLMAPPEAL
• WP:BRIE

Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather @Blue-Sonnet You are hereby instructed to provide explanation as to the reason for my account's being blocked, and explain the basis for "clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia".

The stated rationale appears to include that I am “clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia” and that I have a “narrow interest”. I dispute that characterisation.

Please explain how the “not here to build an encyclopedia” rationale was applied in my case. Wikipedia’s own guidance recognises that editors may have different areas of focus, and that a narrow topic focus is not, by itself, proof that an editor is acting in bad faith or contrary to the purpose of the project.

Please disclose any paid arrangements you may have.

You are accusing me with having a "narrow interest". Not only this is incorrect, there are many Wikipedia users and administrators who makes edits only on certain areas in an attempt to serve their own benefit (breach of Wikipedia rules).

Wikipedia user AntonSamuel is a great example of this.

He has been making edits on the articles relevant to Karabakh - which is de facto and de jure Azerbaijan's territory. This is also recognised by United Nations.

Could you confirm that, by reverting correct articles on Karabakh related articles, you are taking actions that is contrary to UN's resolutions?

We are not calling New York as "New Amsterdam" in the present year of 2026. Same logic and principle would and should apply here.

I am unsure of your scope of knowledge about Caucasus, but please note that this is hot topic. This means that there will be some users who would be keen on edit-warring to serve their benefits. I note that I was wrongfully and unethically accused of edit-warring simply because I was trying to correct the articles according to factual information, by supporting it with references.

Could you please confirm that you have not made any warning against AntonSamuel?

I note that block against my account came right after I've made complaint against user Ponyo. As a Wikipedia user, I am entitled to raise any issues based on reasonable concerns with relevant admins - which I did.

Could you please confirm that the blocking decision was given after my complaint?

Please provide your response within 5 business days. Lumberrr (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet@CambridgeBayWeather @Uqaqatigijaa

I also note that I've included a request on the "Talk" page of the Wikipedia article named "Martuni". This was on 26/04/2026.

You blocked me on the same day - 26/04/2026.

As mentioned above, and also in the "Talk page", Martuni's name has been officially changed to "Khojavend". This is due to Karabakh becoming Azerbaijan's territory which is also recognised by United Nations and the neighboring Armenia.

I was simply making a request, without making any edits.

Could you please confirm that my request on the Talk page was the main decision behind you blocking my account? Lumberrr (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

STOP. You have already been warned. You are not permitted to discuss or edit about anything to do with Armenia and Azerbaijan. See WP:GS/AA. That specifically includes doing so here. Not permitted. Do so again and you'll lose access to your talk page. This is your final warning. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

First off Blue Sonnet had nothing to do with your block, That's mine alone. As per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1221#Unsupported accusation by User: Ponyo where you were "requesting uninvolved administrator input". The discussion there led to the block. As to not being here build an encyclopedia you are in the habit of using LLM to communicate and then saying you didn't. By the way your posting here is giving the impression of LLM use.

I didn't make any comment about you having a narrow interest. AntonSamuel, Karabakh, the UN, New York, New Amsterdam, Caucasus are all red herrings and have nothing to do with your use of LLM. In fact I don't believe that I have ever edited a Karabakh related article other than possibly some Wikipedia:WikiGnome type edits. As for the timing of the block you can look at the history and time stamps as you wish.

More red herrings with Martuni, Khojavend, and Armenia. Which had nothing to do with your block.

"Please provide your response within 5 business days." and what if I didn't? I don't get paid by anyone to edit. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 12:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, since I've been given such a polite & entirely reasonable demand, where I as a volunteer website editor have been hereby instructed to provide an official response to a complete stranger regarding a matter I wasn't involved in, and I only have five working days to do so, here it is:

No.

I note that you've still never confirmed whether you've been violating the Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models guideline at Wikipedia, however - considering the consistent errors we're seeing, along with the IMO pseudo-legalese antagonistic demand you've made, I strongly suspect it's still being used in some manner. In my personal opinion, of course. Blue-Sonnet 12:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Lumberrr, be wary of WP:NLT. We also don't tolerate legal threats here. You are free to take legal action, of course, but you will not edit Wikipedia while doing so. --Yamla (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)