User talk:73.75.115.5

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have read what you've written about Kiev. I think some of the diffs aren't great. I also don't know that it adds up to quite all that you're suggesting. That said I am not privy to the preparations of going before ArbCom other to know that it's happening as you suggest. When that happens you can (hopefully more briefly) present the evidence you see. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Point taken: please let me know when the ArbCom proceedings start and please add my arguments to the ArbCom case (I agree they need to be trimmed: I'll create a TL:DR version (and will place it on your talk page to later move it to the ArbCom proceeding), and perhaps the full argument could be hidden under the spoiler).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for disruptive editing in the rename discussion, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month from certain pages (Talk:Kiev). 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. 

Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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."

Hi @Barkeep49: since I was blocked today and can no longer edit Talk:Kiev could you please re-instate my edit, which was removed by User: Paine Ellsworth on Aug 30 with a comment Remove text that causes malformed request - it can be place elsewhere however not at the beginning of the reques (diff). The removal of my edit by Paine Ellsworth is in violation of WP:TPL and should be reverted.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me when that information had been added (or better yet give me the diff)? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure @Barkeep49:. Kahastok asked me to move my update into a separate comment with a new signature/time-stamp on 16:43, 30 August 2020 (diff), which is what I did on 16:44, 30 August 2020 diff. --73.75.115.5 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like you followed the advice but put your discussion at the top of the discussion rather than threading it. I'm not sure that this needs to be restored given the other points you've already made in the discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I see @Barkeep49:, I am happy to move it from top to making it threaded, but obviously cannot now (given my block).

Speaking of the block @Barkeep49:, you mentioned in your message that I may also appeal directly to me (by email), however for obvious technical reasons I cannot do that. Given that, would it be possible to appeal your decision here, on my talk page? Specifically, I am asking you to unblock me now (rather than in 30 days); I apologies for any disruptive editing that might have been done on my part in Talk:Kiev discussion and give you my word that I will not make any more disruptive editing in that thread. Kind regards, --73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP - the ping did not work. I have been pinged by IPs before so I'm not sure why it didn't reach me. Glad you left the talkback. Talk page appeals are permitted so no worries about that- email is just an option. Did you read the guide to appealing blocks? It will give you some advice on how to form a good unblock appeal; in this case I need to be convinced that disruptive editing will not continue and while I appreciate the apology it's not specific enough to assure me of that. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: thank you for your reply. I have re-familiarized myself and re-read with WP:Guide to appealing blocks (although I was already familiar with it). In terms of your ask above that you need to be convinced that disruptive editing will not continue and that my apology is not specific enough to assure you of that, I am honestly not sure what else can do to convince you: I have already said that the block is no longer necessary, that I understand what the block was for (it was for disruptive editing) and that I give you my word that I will not do any disruptive editing on Talk:Kiev. I am genuinely do not sure what else I can give you beyond my honest word that there will be no disruptive editing from me on Talk:Kiev. Or did I misunderstand you and did you mean that in order to convince you, a regular sentence asking for an unblock is not sufficient and that an unblock request has to be set-up the using the {{unblock}} template?--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It would help if you were more specific in why you were disruptive - so I can make sure you understand we're in alignment on what that means - and also offer any specifics about how you'll avoid it. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

An example of a disruptive editing on my part on Talk:Kiev was being uncivil through casting an unnecessary aspiration on User:Beyond My Ken. In terms of specifics of how I plan to avoid it: I plan on engaging enwiki community on Talk:Kiev (and elsewhere) through a constructive dialogue that is void of any uncivil language.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This is sufficient for me to unblock. However, please remember you're on thin ice in this area so please do be mindful of your promise and plan of action. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you please adjust this comment so you're not calling out a specific editor as representative of systemic bias of hypocrisy? You can make that point without that public call out. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Barkeep49, certainly, it shall be done now. p.s. done now--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for disruptive editing in the rename discussion, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks from certain pages (Talk:Kiev). 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. 

Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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 am reinstating the block after this message which followed my notice from earlier. If this RM is closed before the block is up I would entertain an unblock at that point. But it's clear that this disruption has continued. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Barkeep49 thank you for your message. I just want to clarify that this message was posted on 14:09, 9 September 2020, i.e., it was posted before your notice on my talk page on 15:17, 9 September 2020‎ [1] (it other words when you said which followed my notice from earlier, my message did not follow your message, but pre-cluded it). Anyhow, I am fully sympathetic to your block of me as I do know how the politics of enwiki work: your hand was essentially forced by the barrage of requests to block me from TaivoLinguist/Kahastok/Impru20 on your talk page. The last thing I will say: I will not be asking you to unblock me this time (unless you yourself unblock me, per my timeline clarification above; I myself now see how my thanking User:TaivoLinguist for removing offensive language that cast unwarranted aspersions on me could be perceived by him as offensive - I would have probably just removed it (and was frankly about to do so, after I saw TaivoLinguist's language about it on your talk page). Regards,--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I would like to add that another editor ProcrastinatingReader diff rightly pointed out that both I and TaivoLinguist last two comments (i.e, mine diff and his diff) were probably unnecesary. I want to repeat that I myself realized that my last comment was probably unnecessary (although I did under an impulse, after reading TAivoLinguist's bitter and unfounded asperations against) and was about to remove it myself (but could not because you re-blocked me). Consequently, Barkeep49 I do ask you to please take into account the order of comments and that my comment pre-cluded your notice on my talk page (and was not done after, as user TAivoLinguist made it sound on your talk page).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Just to further clarify: I was about to remove that comment myself (which I confess was done under emotional duress, after seeing offensive accusations from TaivoLinguis), but your block prevented me from doing so. Therefore could you please unblock me so I could remove it (i.e., so that there would be a fair way for me to remove my note (just like TaivoLinguist was able to remove theirs diff)--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I further acknowledge that ProcrastinatingReader's comments are correct diff and that I have (as well as some other editors) have made my point clear and there is no need to add much else. I simply ask you Barkeep49 to unblock me to allow making such positive, constructive contributions like I did after you unblocked me (see for example this diff)--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

73.75, first just a reminder that we're all volunteers. I had not really been around onwiki since I did the block (and actually started doing it about an hour before I finished, so I wasn't ignoring you. Just busy at work. Second, your original unblock was, for me, a marginal call. I defaulted to assuming good faith and did it which I don't regret. But I'm not sure you ever have understood what the disruption was that got you blocked originally and so it's not too surprising that it happened again. I was willing to defend you when people were upset that you had returned at all. However, the combination of complying with the letter but not the spirit of my request to reformulate your comment about Tavio and the the diff from my reply to the talk message were enough to say that the "thin ice" I had said you were on had broken. I hope that explains things better. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for you reply. I am not sure you read what I sad above, particularly this diff, where I said that I am pretty much sick and tired of Talk:Kiev at this point, both because it has become a time drag for me too, but also I fell like I have said everything I wanted to say; I am also not sure you read the part where I said that I was about to remove the comment diff for which you blocked me, after seeing how upset TaivoLinguist got about it, based on his comments on your TP.

Like I said above I am fully sympathetic to your block of me as I do know how the politics of enwiki work: your hand was essentially forced by the barrage of requests to block me from TaivoLinguist/Kahastok/Impru20 on your talk page.

The last thing I will say: all I am asking of your is to WP:Assume good faith and understand that I was already about to delete the comment for which you blocked me diff; please unblock me, let me finish what I was about to do (i.e., remove that comment) and give me an opportunity to continue doing productive non-contentious edits like this diff.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

And RE I am not sure you understood what the disruption was that got you blocked - I understood full well what the disruption was that I was blocked for the first time (and that is precisely why changed my behavior and did my best to engage in in a constructive and civil dialogue on Talk:Kiev). Answer me this: Do you believe the folks who asked you to re-block me claimed on your page that I came to Talk:Kiev to "spread battleground mentality"? Or do you believe when I say that I came to Talk:Kiev to genuanely engage in a constructive dialogue (not a battleground) with other enwiki editors? If it the former - fine keep my block (because if that is all my comments seem to others, then there is no point in editing anyways), if it is the latter - please unblock me because I do have good faith (and I do have genuine desire to contribue constructively and civilly to discussion (and not to spread disruption or battle-warmongering as was claimed). --73.75.115.5 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have read everything you've written. Which has been a lot. Others have also written a lot so I'm not calling you out, I'm just stating a fact. I believe you want constructive dialogue. I do. But I think if you write more at Talk:Kiev, where despite your exhaustion you continue to want to write, it will stand a high chance of being disruptive. You've gotten to make your point about the RM. It's time to see how that plays out. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 when you say despite your exhaustion you continue to want to write, it will stand a high chance of being disruptive, believe with 100% certainty there is not going to be any disruption from me: I essentially no longer want to participate in that discussion after the non-stop barraging at me from various directions accusing me of all sorts of things. The ONLY, contribution I plan on doing is these type of edits diff (it is NOT clearking, but I don't really know what to call it). If you unblock me, I give you my word that this will be the only type of comments from me, so please do re-consider your block and please give me 2nd chance.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Barkeep49, after careful consideration I decided to ask you the second time to unblock me. Specifically, I am asking you to give me a 2nd chance (well, I guess actually a 3rd chance) per "appealing for clemency" type of unblock appeal, since I A) fully acknowledge the disruptive editing conduct on my part both prior to your Sep 5 block of me and your Sep 9 block of me and B) I give you my word that i) I will not bludgeon the Talk:Kiev discussion with any excessive comments from me, and ii) I will not behave disruptively or uncivilly to anyone in the discussion on Talk:Kiev.

Furthermore, If for some reason you do not believe that I will keep my word and will not do any disruptive editing on Talk:Kiev, I ask you to consider unblocking me under supervision/mentorship from your fellow sysop User:Mzajac, who has kindly agreed to mentor me in the event of you unblocking me

Lastly, if even unblocking under supervision of Mzajac is not something you are willing to consider, then I ask you that you at least shorten the duration of the block from 3 weeks to 1 week. Kind regards,--73.75.115.5 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss changing the length of the block if the RM closes before the three weeks up. For now all the regulars (including Mzajac) need to be taking a step back from that discussion at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49: RM is now closed by sysop Wugapodes diff, could you please re-consider the length of your 2nd block of me? Regards,--73.75.115.5 (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

73.75 so you mention above what you won't do which is helpful. Can you tell me what you are planning to do? Also this is the first time in a long time I got your ping so whatever you just did worked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49:, I do not have anything specific in mind that I am planning on posting on Talk:Kyiv regarding RM (given that RM is now closed and I do not see what else is there to say about the RM, given walls of texts had already been written about it); however, I plan on potentially posting some things related to the actual updating of the Kyiv article, such as clarifying pronunciation of Kyiv (I might just make the edit directly on Kyiv, but given the sensitive nature of this article, it is probably better to first discuss this on the talk page) - specifically, there were some factually incorrect statements made during the RM discussion around how pronunciation of Kyiv is not different from pronunciation of Kiev (i.e., statements like [pronunciation of the city] has not likely changed at all diff) and I think it is important that these factually incorrect statement do not make it to the article (especially because it was mentioned by reliable linguists that Kyiv's pronunciation is different from that of Kiev (see Upenn Language Log's article Pronouncing Kiev / Kyiv, Kansas University News Service's article How do you pronounce Kyiv, anyway? that are mentioned on Talk:Kyiv/sources/comments).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Anon IP, if you truly want to demonstrate that you'll edit constructively after your block is over, a good start would be deleting this wall of pointless attacks which had been deleted from Talk:Kyiv. If not, and I don't really care if you delete it or not, there's no skin off my back because I trust the admins to see it for the personal attack that it is. This is the only comment that I will make on the matter because our paths will probably never cross again. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:TaivoLinguist I would consider deleting this if I actually saw that the pattern of behaviour described there by you (and other editors) has been reversed. However, you recent actions (i.e., from Sep 16) point to the fact that there does not seem to be any behavioural changes on your part: you called me a troll and then made a suggestion to another user to put me on a suicide watch (whatever that is); in order to prove to me that your behaviour described there actually changed, please strike out those personal attacks against me (i.e., troll-calling, suicide watching).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:TaivoLinguist thank you for striking the "suicide watching" language directed at me diff, however, you did not strike the "troll-calling" language - please do so.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Kyiv (disambiguation)

I've answered your question on the Kyiv (disambiguation) talk page. Leschnei (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Leschnei, I responded there.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

I opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#73.75.115.5, please comment there if you wish.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No thank you, feel free to block me, if you see fit.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to block you now, this would not be appropriate in this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. This is a checkuser block and can only be removed by another checkuser. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

---