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)
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.
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."
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)
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)
need to be convinced that disruptive editing will not continueand 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)
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)
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.
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."
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)
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.
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)
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.
[pronunciation of the city] has not likely changed at alldiff) 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)
I've answered your question on the Kyiv (disambiguation) talk page. Leschnei ( talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#73.75.115.5, please comment there if you wish.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
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)
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.
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."
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)
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)
need to be convinced that disruptive editing will not continueand 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)
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)
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.
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."
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)
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.
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)
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.
[pronunciation of the city] has not likely changed at alldiff) 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)
I've answered your question on the Kyiv (disambiguation) talk page. Leschnei ( talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#73.75.115.5, please comment there if you wish.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |