User talk:Piznajko

Archive: My archived talk page content is located at User talk:Piznajko/Archive 1

Introduction[edit]

Hi, thank you for visiting my talk page. Due recent negativity pushed on me by pro-Russian editors, I'd like to keep this talk page to official messages only; to make myself more clear: unless you're a WP admin or bureaucrat, who came to my TP to leave an official WP message, your contribution to this talk page is not welcome (and will be removed). Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piznajko (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You got two warnings on discretionary sanctions. I told you last time that the next time you would be blocked. Yesterday, you were clearly told that your activity at Talk:Kiev/Naming is disruptive. You preferred not to listen and went to hound an uninvolved user who closed the discussion [1]. The following blocks will be longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

Request reason:

I request to be unblocked, since the block was not necessary. Admin Ymblanter blocked me, stating that I'm being accused of:

1) Being disruptive on Talk:Kiev/Naming and 2) Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING editor Fyunck(click) on his TP

What I have to say in my defence:
- Regarding disruptive behaviour Talk:Kiev/Naming, I disagree with this accusation. I believe I was 1) behaving civilly and was not rude in any way whatsoever to anyone in any discussions on Talk:Kiev/Naming. 2) I was not being WP:Disruptive in that discussion and all of the 3 recent discussion on that TP that were initiated by me there were all done in good faith and were all based on separate new circumstances that recently happened in regards to Kyiv spelling: 1) the 1st one was regarding AP Stylebook change to Kyiv spelling, 2) the 2nd one was regarding NPR changing its stylebook to Kyiv spellign and 3) the 3rd one was regarding the Library of Congress change to Kyiv spelling.
  - However, Ymblanter is correct in his assertion that there were accusations of disruption against me on Talk:Kiev/Naming yesterday, particularly by admin Black Kite as well as editors Khajidha and TaivoLinguist. I however, disagreed that my behaviour on that TP was disruptive (per my points raised above) and another member of that discussion @Roman Spinner: disagreed with Black Kite, Khajidha and TaivoLinguist that my behaviour was disruptive. I urge a neutral admin to review all 3 recent discussions that I initiated on Talk:Kiev/Naming and see for himself/herself that my participation their was not disruptive
- Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING editor Fyunck(click) on his TP, , I disagree with this accusation. I came to editor's Fyunck(click) and asked him very civilly to unclose that discussion at least to give user @Roman Spinner: a chance to respond to my apology to him (I don't want to get into long debade what happened there, but long story short it wasn't that I myself behaved uncivily towards Roman Spinner, yet I unwittingly caused uncivility of another user in that discussion towards him. I urge a neutral admin to review my discussion with Fyunck(click) on his TP and see for himself/herself that I was not Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING in any way whatsover

I ask for a fair review of this case by an uninvolved admin. By uninvolved admin, I mean that I am asking my case to be reviewed by an admin who:

has not been involved any Talk:Kiev/Naming discussion over the past 15 years
has not been in any in any WP:EEML-like topics (and by WP:EEML-like topics I don't mean that specific ArbCom case, but rather more broadly any Eastern European discussion at all; e.g., fully neutral admin who has not been involved in any Eastern European discussion at all) over the past 15 years

If among 1000+ English admins there is no one who hasn't at one point or another been involved in Talk:Kiev/Naming and more broadly Eastern European discussion, then I ask at least that it be an admin who has never been involved in Talk:Kiev/Naming and discussion around Ukraine-related topics.

Lastly, I ask of @Roman Spinner:, if he be so kind as to do this for me, to be the mediator between me and the admin who ends up reviewing the case. Specifically, since I'm blocked and no longer have access to any WP page beyond my TP, I ask him to copy any relevant messages from me to any admin boards where my case might be discussed.

Thank you Piznajko (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I want to also point out the UTMOST restraint that @Roman Spinner: (and I, for that matter) has shown over the last few weeks in Talk:Kiev/Naming discussion, despite the fact that several of the editors involved in that discussion were behaving blatanly uncivilly towards him; I'm not going to list all the diffs and all the instances here, but will just show 1 example: admin Ymblanter provided a false statement regarding the Kiev vs. Kyiv Google search results that we were discussing - I'm paraphrasing here, but Ymblanter basically said that my statement immediately above "that Kiev vs. Kyiv had about 2-to-1 lead in Google search results" was false and that actually based on his search of the same google querry he got 3000-to-1 lead for Kiev vs Kyiv (verbatim quote I just tried exactly the same searches (more exactly, pasted the above urls to my browser). The first one produces for me 297 000 results, whereas the second one produces 80 results, which is approximately 3000:1 ratio diff) - no biggie, we all make mistakes and I did not in ANY way whatsoever respond to him rudely or uncivily to him, instead opting for a very polite explanation of why his numbers were wrong and how he could fix them(e.g. I told him Ymblanter the answer lies in your Google search settings (the # of results will also depend on your location and language settings); however, while the exact number of search results will differ by individual (and will also differ for the same individual when performed on different days/times), the general ratio of results should still be the same. Ymblanter, please look for preferences in your Google search - your search results #'s for Kyiv seem way wrong. diff) In his response to my comment Ymblanter, rather than civillly admitting that he had made a mistake and previously had some unusual settings in his Google search and after updating them to Locatoan:US, Language: English he was able to confirm the same ration of 2-to-1 (he wouldn't get the exact same #'s, that's jsut the nature of Google search, but he would still get the ballpark #'s that would correspond to the same ratio), goes on and blatanly uncivilly insults @Roman Spinner: with some unrelatted jab at some Miami Herald comment that Romman Spinner hasn't made in over a year (verbatim quote Or may be your search results are way wrong. I believe 3000:1 is much closer to reality than 2:1. I am sure though Roman Spinner will find a way to explain us for the 1000th time that all English speakers will embrace the "correct" spelling Kyiv pretty soon, following the trend set by Miami Herald. diff). After this - I will be honest - I saw it plain and simple that Ymblanter was behaving rudely and uncivilly towards Roman Spinner, but I said nothing because Ymblanter is an admin, and what can one do against an admin - correct, nothing. But to Roman Spinner's credit I'm sure that he also saw Ymblanter's insult towards him and yet showed UTMOST restraint (as did I actually, as I was very unhappy by that offensive remark) and said no insulting remark in response.

p.p.s. Also additional background information on Talk:Kiev/Naming over the last multi-year period: I have only started 4 discussions in TOTAL over the last multi-year period; 1) One discussion (split into 2 parts) was started in March 2018 (see archive 13 for details) and was focused around the 'List of major English news outlets that use Kyiv spelling'. 2) Three discussions in Aug-Sep 2019: (one currently active, and two in archive 14) A) the 1st one was regarding AP Stylebook change to Kyiv spelling, B) the 2nd one was regarding NPR changing its stylebook to Kyiv spelling and C) the 3rd one was regarding the Library of Congress change to Kyiv spelling. That's it: I have never behaved uncivily towards anyone in that TP, despite the fact that many editors habitually show warmongering behavior towards me and have been uncivil towards me (e.g., several editors in that discussion, both regular and admins, have been repeatedly uncivil towards me and despite WP:No personal attacks that asks to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" they have repeatedly attacked my "brain capacity to edit Wikipedia" or made offensive comments of other type. diff). In summary: of the 4 discussions that I have initiated on Talk:Kiev/Naming in all of the multi-year period that this TP existed, I do solemnly admit that my behaviour was somewhat nonconstructive in the 1st discussion in March 2018 - for that, I sincerely apologize and admit my guilt (which however still cam from good faith edits, it's just that back then I was less experienced and did not know well as to how TP work son Wikipedia); however, the last three discussions that I initiated in Aug-Sep 2019 were all non-disruptive and were all initiated based on new significant and separate developments related to the topic.

Decision: Neither Decliner nor Accepted. None of the admins were willing to review the case before 2-day block expired

Appeal moot, block has expired. MER-C 09:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: something is broke in the above template - it looks all wonky. Could you please assist? Thanks!--Piznajko (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request template was intentionally neutralized because your block has expired. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately broke it. The unblock template gives me only "accept" (unblock) or "decline" (stay blocked) options. The outcome is neither of those - I have not made any decision on the merits of your block because I did not need to. P.S. long appeals don't get read. MER-C 09:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the clarification @MER-C:. By "long appeals" I assume it's meant appeals that are still not reviewed by the time the block expired, so the appeal becomes simply unresolved. Is that a correct assumption?--Piznajko (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long as in length of prose. MER-C 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement request[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Piznajko, as I promised earlier--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the subject of Ukraine, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing in this topic area, as shown at the following arbitration enforcement request: [2]

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ukrainian-speaking people by occupation[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Ukrainian-speaking people by occupation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]