User talk:Volunteer Marek: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:33, 7 November 2022

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to see this

[1]. 😍Doug Weller talk 12:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I was wondering why I saw you clearing your talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gandy orders a second round. Cheers to one of our best! Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*hic* here's another :) sláinte! ——SerialNumber54129 15:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	A Resilient Barnstar
	I’m very sorry to see the harassment you have faced. Stay strong Volunteer Marek! starship .paint (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

A kitten in the hopes that it improves you evening.

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regular.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Regular.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Please note that I (favorably) mentioned one of your contributions here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Man, all those old school people of days long past. Volunteer Marek 19:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I filled a complaint about you for Harassing me

hi there, I left a complaint about you for continuously falsely attributing me as sock and calling my account as SPA such attitudes discourages new editors to join wikipedia

link to complaint

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1104659258 Mrboondocks (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Volunteer Marek 11:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cool!

Hi! I just want to point out that you seem to have lost your cool in recent editing on Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin [[2]]. You forgot to sign several comments, were very negative about other editors, and seemed unable to read what other editors have written. Perhaps you need a break? Best wishes,♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 00:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Destructive editing with false edit summary

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&type=revision&diff=1106116140&oldid=1106115388 In this edit you reinstated text claiming that "sources are right there". There is no valid source for this text you reinstated -- According to Alexander J. Motyl, an American historian and political scientist, Russian fascism has the following characteristics:^[1]

An undemocratic political system, different from both traditional authoritarianism and totalitarianism;
Statism and hypernationalism;
A hypermasculine cult of the supreme leader (emphasis on his courage, militancy and physical prowess);
General popular support for the regime and its leader..

Please explain your actions.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 07:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Мотиль [Motyl], Олександр [Alexander] (8 March 2022). Війни творять нації, а народні війни творять непереможні нації. Олександр Мотиль — Локальна історія. localhistory.org.ua (in Ukrainian). Archived from the original on 25 April 2022. Retrieved 14 March 2022.

Please refrain from calling other editors' good faithed edits "destructive". I added another source, which is accessible via the source already given. Volunteer Marek 08:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added annother source, but it didn't support the text you added. The source clearly says that Russia isn't fascist.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 11:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slater, your "restore old version" edit mostly just removed source that was added to an unsourced text (which btw, is not a revert). Can you please be bothered to at least check what it is you're reverting? Volunteer Marek 12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to not take sides in who was right. I left you a waring in the name,e of fairness, as there was a lot of reverting going on. So (again) I was trying to not take sides). Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, you may be blocked from editing. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ~~and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but~~ a recent edit of yours to the page Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. ~~Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits.~~ "lol" isn't an appropriate edit summary. Also the total amount of summaries you fill in is very low. Thank you. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC); edited template AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianHObradors you’re welcoming this almost 20-year-old user to Wikipedia? Recommendation to practice at sand-box page? How can your notification be taken seriously? 🧐 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, you're right, edited. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiHannibal, I didn't add any "unsourced or poorly sourced content" as your spurious templating suggests, not to mention that you're trying to intimidate someone over a possible content disagreement. Don't do it again. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 20:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs

Hi Volunteer Marek, please try not to add references as WP:BAREURLS, as you did here, as it can lead to WP:LINKROT. Thanks — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can you please stop spamming my talk page? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 06:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see this

[3]. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of NAFO (group)

Hello! Your submission of NAFO (group) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pbritti (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC) ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to administrators

{

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Volunteer Marek. The discussion is about the topic Jan Karski. Thank you. ~~~~

Marvoir (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LMFAO

Turbo nerd lmfao, edit war to see who’s more factual and smart 🤓 Senor0001 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Volunteer Marek 19:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why you doing this

Why you delete all information of Kherson oblest Russia? Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's all bullshit. No such "oblest" exists. Volunteer Marek 11:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "hoax" and there are sourced materials, it still makes no sense why you deleted it. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sourced materials and it's 100% a hoax. Show me these sources which say there is such an oblast. Volunteer Marek 13:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a federal subject Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or a de facto one Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither. Show me the sources which say that these oblasts exist. Volunteer Marek 13:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was all over the news 2 days ago, heres one [4], [5], [6], [7]. They were all annexed and Putin used the term region when he announced the annexation instead of oblast. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Russia said it annexed these Ukrainian regions. We already have an article on that Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. But there are no sources which say that such oblasts exist. In fact, your statement that "Putin used the term region (...) instead of oblast" proves the point. There are no oblasts. Maybe there will be in the future. But when this article was created and as of this writing there are no oblasts. Whole thing is fake info. Volunteer Marek 13:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting for Deleting all the information on Kherson Oblast (Russia)

The information was sourced and is highly notable and you still deny it. I will report you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not sourced. Report. Please!!!! This definitely needs more eyes on it because having HOAXES on Wikipedia is embarrassing to the whole project. Volunteer Marek 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. RadomirZinovyev 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something a bit more lighthearted....

Belarussian guest on Russian state TV learns who is next. Skip to 5:25 if you cant stomach the obvious rubbish before that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that! Have you seen the one where Solovyov gets a mobilization notice? It's fake but hillarious (link within the source). Volunteer Marek 15:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I am surprised there are not more western-created meme's similar to the Hitler/Downfall ones. Certainly there is plenty of stock footage to work from. Personally I have enjoyed all of Darth Putin's tweets. Especially all the ones that end 'I remain a master strategist.' Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

Russia has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Russian torture chambers in Ukraine

Hello! Your submission of Russian torture chambers in Ukraine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gwillhickers (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Russian torture chambers in Ukraine

On 21 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Russian torture chambers in Ukraine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the liberation of towns in Ukraine during the Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive, authorities found evidence of numerous Russian torture chambers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Russian torture chambers in Ukraine. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Russian torture chambers in Ukraine), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,911 views (659.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming the lack of objection to this is because all the youngish men who would normally be trolling the internet in Russia are in the midst of either running away or being rounded up and pressed into service. Regardless, good job! Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for NAFO (group)

On 27 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NAFO (group), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Shiba Inu memes of NAFO have been called "an actual tactical event against a nation state"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NAFO (group). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, NAFO (group)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde 00:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: the pageviews page is giving me some error message but afaict the article had more than sufficient number of views to add to the stats page? Volunteer Marek 01:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's 12,000+, as far as I can see, using the link in the template. So yes, it's eligible to be added to the stats page. Keeping that page updated isn't a mandated responsibility of anyone involved, though, so I suggest you do it yourself. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For recent scrutiny. Thanks for standing up to Twitter POV brigading efforts. Nutez (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Aaron Maté) for a period of 1 week for edit warring by circumventing a community-imposed 1RR: last revert before being notified of 1RR; same addition, 27 hours later; same addition, 31 hours later. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also:

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 the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, courtesy note that I've increased the 1RR window from 24 hours to 72 for the next month. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: - whoa whoa whoa. I clearly didn’t break 1RR. What are you doing? Volunteer Marek 17:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tamzin I believe you made a mistake.

You instructed a temporary increase to 72h 1RR [8] - at 05:35 on November 6

But you blocked VM at 04:39 on November 6 -->[9] which is

1 hour before the increase notice. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but if you put an article under a 1RR restriction you can’t then go and be all like “well, I actually, meant 1RR per week, not per day, I just didn’t tell you”. If you wanted to put the article under that or 0RR restriction then you should’ve done that.

Also judging by the gleeful response of the other user you blocked - an account that was dormant for many years and was just recently re-activated specifically for this edit war - congratulations on enabling disruptive users. They certainly seem to think “mission accomplished”. Volunteer Marek 17:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Tamzin I don't see 2+ reverts on that page for VM. What is going on here? 114.203.14.24 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you overlook signing on IP 114.203..? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I know unblock request are where you beg for forgiveness and all but I'm sorry, this is a 100% ridiculous block. Not just of myself but also of other users involved in the article, specifically User:Poyani and User:Hobomok. None of us broke 1RR on the article after the restriction was imposed. Yes, all three of us made edits to the article within 48 hours but the restriction is 1 revert per day, not 1 revert per week or whatever. If Tamzin wanted to impose a 1RR per week restriction on the article they should've done that. If they wanted to impose a "any further edits will result in a block" restriction they should've done that (well, tried, though that's really not in admin's powers I don't think). What they CAN'T do is impose one kind of restriction than start blocking people for NOT violating it, but for violating some other rule they just made up post-fact.

The fact that THREE users (two of them long term users) got caught up in this mess shows that this was a set of bad blocks. You have three people making edits which they didn't anticipate would get them in any trouble (because none of these edits broke any rules or restrictions) yet they all end up being blocked out of nowhere. If nothing else this is a profound failure by Temzin to communicate what they actually wanted to enforce.

You can't make one rule, then block people for breaking some other which you just made up after the fact. Nota bene - the discretionary sanctions alert was added AFTER the block notice, so you can't even invoke DS here as a defense.

In regard to my own specific edit. I made it THIRTY ONE hours after my previous edit. I have no idea how much time has to pass before some trigger happy admin decides to start waving their block button gun in my face and claiming that's "too close" to the 24 hour restriction - is it 6 hours? 10 hours? 20 hours? Am I allowed to edit the article again at all? If you make up arbitrary rules AFTER THE FACT there's no way to know. Which is this is a really bad block.

And look at my edit. I restored well sourced info that was removed under false pretenses previously and with a false edit summary ([10] the source is very clearly the Guardian not LinkedIn and the user even left the source in place!) After the user in question, Kmccook, removed the text, I left a talk page message asking them about it [11]. This was on November 3rd. They hadn't responded. They haven't responded even by now. My revert was on November 6th. So I actually waited THREE DAYS before undoing their edit. Three days should be plenty of time to respond to a talk page request and if they don't it should be safe to assume the user doesn't object to their edit being undone. I don't see how you expect anyone to edit this article when these ridiculously arbitrary blocks are being thrown around for what is actually standard editing practice on Wikipedia.

Finally, all through this time - since Temzin put 1RR in place - all three of us that got blocked have been discussing the issues on the talk page. It's heated but aside from Poyani I don't see any incivility there. So. Nobody broke any rules. Everyone was discussing. No one even imagined that these edits would lead to a freakin' one week block (which is also ridiculously long). That tells you right there these are very bad, arbitrary blocks. Temzin, I would appreciate it if you undid all three blocks. Volunteer Marek 18:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add: It seems that Temzin DID increase the restriction to 72 hours [12]. But they did so AFTER I made my edit! Am I suppose to be able to read their mind? See the future? If that is the policy they want to enforce then that is the policy they should've put in the first place. You can't block people under a rule you haven't made up yet and expect them to have freakin' psychic powers! I'm sorry but this is 100% ridiculous.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I know unblock request are where you beg for forgiveness and all but I'm sorry, this is a 100% ridiculous block. Not just of myself but also of other users involved in the article, specifically [[User:Poyani]] and [[User:Hobomok]]. None of us broke 1RR on the article after the restriction was imposed. Yes, all three of us made edits to the article within <u>48 hours</u> but the restriction is 1 revert per day, not 1 revert per week or whatever. If Tamzin wanted to impose a 1RR per week restriction on the article they should've done that. If they wanted to impose a "any further edits will result in a block" restriction they should've done that (well, tried, though that's really not in admin's powers I don't think). What they CAN'T do is impose one kind of restriction than start blocking people for NOT violating it, but for violating some other rule they just made up post-fact.

The fact that THREE users (two of them long term users) got caught up in this mess shows that this was a set of bad blocks. You have three people making edits which they didn't anticipate would get them in any trouble (because none of these edits broke any rules or restrictions) yet they all end up being blocked out of nowhere. If nothing else this is a profound failure by Temzin to communicate what they actually wanted to enforce.

You can't make one rule, then block people for breaking some other which you just made up after the fact. Nota bene - the discretionary sanctions alert was added AFTER the block notice, so you can't even invoke DS here as a defense.

In regard to my own specific edit. I made it THIRTY ONE hours after my previous edit. I have no idea how much time has to pass before some trigger happy admin decides to start waving their block button gun in my face and claiming that's "too close" to the 24 hour restriction - is it 6 hours? 10 hours? 20 hours? Am I allowed to edit the article again at all? If you make up arbitrary rules AFTER THE FACT there's no way to know. Which is this is a really bad block.

And look at my edit. I restored well sourced info that was removed under false pretenses previously and with a false edit summary ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1119826903] the source is very clearly the Guardian not LinkedIn and the user even left the source in place!) After the user in question, Kmccook, removed the text, I left a talk page message asking them about it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1119860614]. This was on November 3rd. They hadn't responded. They haven't responded even by now. My revert was on November 6th. So I actually waited THREE DAYS before undoing their edit. Three days should be plenty of time to respond to a talk page request and if they don't it should be safe to assume the user doesn't object to their edit being undone. I don't see how you expect anyone to edit this article when these ridiculously arbitrary blocks are being thrown around for what is actually standard editing practice on Wikipedia.

Finally, all through this time - since Temzin put 1RR in place - all three of us that got blocked have been discussing the issues on the talk page. It's heated but aside from Poyani I don't see any incivility there. So. Nobody broke any rules. Everyone was discussing. No one even imagined that these edits would lead to a freakin' one week block (which is also ridiculously long). That tells you right there these are very bad, arbitrary blocks.
Temzin, I would appreciate it if you undid all three blocks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Add: It seems that Temzin DID increase the restriction to 72 hours [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=1120282534&oldid=1120282421]. But they did so AFTER I made my edit! Am I suppose to be able to read their mind? See the future? If that is the policy they want to enforce then that is the policy they should've put in the first place. '''You can't block people under a rule you haven't made up yet and expect them to have freakin' psychic powers!''' I'm sorry but this is 100% ridiculous. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I know unblock request are where you beg for forgiveness and all but I'm sorry, this is a 100% ridiculous block. Not just of myself but also of other users involved in the article, specifically [[User:Poyani]] and [[User:Hobomok]]. None of us broke 1RR on the article after the restriction was imposed. Yes, all three of us made edits to the article within <u>48 hours</u> but the restriction is 1 revert per day, not 1 revert per week or whatever. If Tamzin wanted to impose a 1RR per week restriction on the article they should've done that. If they wanted to impose a "any further edits will result in a block" restriction they should've done that (well, tried, though that's really not in admin's powers I don't think). What they CAN'T do is impose one kind of restriction than start blocking people for NOT violating it, but for violating some other rule they just made up post-fact.

The fact that THREE users (two of them long term users) got caught up in this mess shows that this was a set of bad blocks. You have three people making edits which they didn't anticipate would get them in any trouble (because none of these edits broke any rules or restrictions) yet they all end up being blocked out of nowhere. If nothing else this is a profound failure by Temzin to communicate what they actually wanted to enforce.

You can't make one rule, then block people for breaking some other which you just made up after the fact. Nota bene - the discretionary sanctions alert was added AFTER the block notice, so you can't even invoke DS here as a defense.

In regard to my own specific edit. I made it THIRTY ONE hours after my previous edit. I have no idea how much time has to pass before some trigger happy admin decides to start waving their block button gun in my face and claiming that's "too close" to the 24 hour restriction - is it 6 hours? 10 hours? 20 hours? Am I allowed to edit the article again at all? If you make up arbitrary rules AFTER THE FACT there's no way to know. Which is this is a really bad block.

And look at my edit. I restored well sourced info that was removed under false pretenses previously and with a false edit summary ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1119826903] the source is very clearly the Guardian not LinkedIn and the user even left the source in place!) After the user in question, Kmccook, removed the text, I left a talk page message asking them about it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1119860614]. This was on November 3rd. They hadn't responded. They haven't responded even by now. My revert was on November 6th. So I actually waited THREE DAYS before undoing their edit. Three days should be plenty of time to respond to a talk page request and if they don't it should be safe to assume the user doesn't object to their edit being undone. I don't see how you expect anyone to edit this article when these ridiculously arbitrary blocks are being thrown around for what is actually standard editing practice on Wikipedia.

Finally, all through this time - since Temzin put 1RR in place - all three of us that got blocked have been discussing the issues on the talk page. It's heated but aside from Poyani I don't see any incivility there. So. Nobody broke any rules. Everyone was discussing. No one even imagined that these edits would lead to a freakin' one week block (which is also ridiculously long). That tells you right there these are very bad, arbitrary blocks.
Temzin, I would appreciate it if you undid all three blocks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Add: It seems that Temzin DID increase the restriction to 72 hours [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=1120282534&oldid=1120282421]. But they did so AFTER I made my edit! Am I suppose to be able to read their mind? See the future? If that is the policy they want to enforce then that is the policy they should've put in the first place. '''You can't block people under a rule you haven't made up yet and expect them to have freakin' psychic powers!''' I'm sorry but this is 100% ridiculous. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I know unblock request are where you beg for forgiveness and all but I'm sorry, this is a 100% ridiculous block. Not just of myself but also of other users involved in the article, specifically [[User:Poyani]] and [[User:Hobomok]]. None of us broke 1RR on the article after the restriction was imposed. Yes, all three of us made edits to the article within <u>48 hours</u> but the restriction is 1 revert per day, not 1 revert per week or whatever. If Tamzin wanted to impose a 1RR per week restriction on the article they should've done that. If they wanted to impose a "any further edits will result in a block" restriction they should've done that (well, tried, though that's really not in admin's powers I don't think). What they CAN'T do is impose one kind of restriction than start blocking people for NOT violating it, but for violating some other rule they just made up post-fact.

The fact that THREE users (two of them long term users) got caught up in this mess shows that this was a set of bad blocks. You have three people making edits which they didn't anticipate would get them in any trouble (because none of these edits broke any rules or restrictions) yet they all end up being blocked out of nowhere. If nothing else this is a profound failure by Temzin to communicate what they actually wanted to enforce.

You can't make one rule, then block people for breaking some other which you just made up after the fact. Nota bene - the discretionary sanctions alert was added AFTER the block notice, so you can't even invoke DS here as a defense.

In regard to my own specific edit. I made it THIRTY ONE hours after my previous edit. I have no idea how much time has to pass before some trigger happy admin decides to start waving their block button gun in my face and claiming that's "too close" to the 24 hour restriction - is it 6 hours? 10 hours? 20 hours? Am I allowed to edit the article again at all? If you make up arbitrary rules AFTER THE FACT there's no way to know. Which is this is a really bad block.

And look at my edit. I restored well sourced info that was removed under false pretenses previously and with a false edit summary ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1119826903] the source is very clearly the Guardian not LinkedIn and the user even left the source in place!) After the user in question, Kmccook, removed the text, I left a talk page message asking them about it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1119860614]. This was on November 3rd. They hadn't responded. They haven't responded even by now. My revert was on November 6th. So I actually waited THREE DAYS before undoing their edit. Three days should be plenty of time to respond to a talk page request and if they don't it should be safe to assume the user doesn't object to their edit being undone. I don't see how you expect anyone to edit this article when these ridiculously arbitrary blocks are being thrown around for what is actually standard editing practice on Wikipedia.

Finally, all through this time - since Temzin put 1RR in place - all three of us that got blocked have been discussing the issues on the talk page. It's heated but aside from Poyani I don't see any incivility there. So. Nobody broke any rules. Everyone was discussing. No one even imagined that these edits would lead to a freakin' one week block (which is also ridiculously long). That tells you right there these are very bad, arbitrary blocks.
Temzin, I would appreciate it if you undid all three blocks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Add: It seems that Temzin DID increase the restriction to 72 hours [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=1120282534&oldid=1120282421]. But they did so AFTER I made my edit! Am I suppose to be able to read their mind? See the future? If that is the policy they want to enforce then that is the policy they should've put in the first place. '''You can't block people under a rule you haven't made up yet and expect them to have freakin' psychic powers!''' I'm sorry but this is 100% ridiculous. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

And this isn't part of the block appeal, but just as a piece of advice to User:Tamzin, ~~if you want to go around blocking people for thrills~~, then (block people) (added by VM) do it in a useful way and block some of the fly-by-night throwaway accounts that popped up on the article after being canvassed off wiki (I'm the editor who asked for the page to be protected [13]). THAT would actually be doing an admin's job. Volunteer Marek 18:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be 100% clear, I'm not just appealing my own block, but all three of the related blocks made by Temzin. Myself, User:Hobomok, and yes, even User:Poyani (despite my disagreement with them, they didn't break any restrictions either. Well, maybe civility, but that's a separate matter). All three blocks were bad. Volunteer Marek 18:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin:I've been asked to take a look at this block and comment on it one way or the other. Before I consider doing so, as the blocking administrator would you like to comment on the unblock request? In the meantime, @Volunteer Marek, I see potential issues with the block, but I think the accusation of "go[ing] around blocking people for thrills" is unhelpful; AGF applies even to administrators. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newyorkbrad - I struck that part. Hard to keep your temper in a situation like this. Volunteer Marek 18:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I think all there is to say here is: I obviously didn't block anyone for violating a 72h 1RR I had yet to impose. I blocked VM for gaming the existing 24h 1RR (which I did not impose, but rather merely noted the existence of; it had rightly been in effect since the article was created). Which he did. Where's the line at which it stops being gaming? I don't know, but one revert after 27 hours, and another after 31 hours, with no intervening edits other than to revert that same content, has to fall short of it, if we want 1RR to count for anything. I would feel differently if he'd been making lots of constructive edits and some happened to qualify as reverts a bit past the 24-hour mark; but this is plain old edit-warring. Volunteer Marek has been an editor for longer than I have, and knows well that when you try to circumvent a policy on technicalities, it tends to wind up still being applied to you. Also, on a procedural note, since this is a 1RR enforcement block (logged as such as WP:GS/SCW), any appeal should be to the community. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: if you impose a 1RR/day restriction, how am I suppose to guess what exactly do you mean by it? Since apparently it’s not actually a 1RR/day restriction but rather a “1RR/whateverTamzindecidesonaspurofthemoment” restriction. I wasn’t trying to “game” anything. I raised the issue on talk and there was no response for three days. You say “Where's the line at which it stops being gaming?” Yes exactly! What if it was 46 hours? Would you still have blocked? 39 hours? Would you still have blocked? How in hell am I suppose to mean what you are thinking in your head? If the speed limit says 55 miles/hour and I’m driving 49 and a cop pulls me over and says “you’re trying to “game” the speed limit so I’m gonna give you a ticket even though you actually didn’t break any rules” how absurd would that be? That’s exactly what you’re doing here. You want a stricter standard? Then YOU should have placed a stricter standard on the article to begin with, rather than retroactively.

And I’m sorry “he didn’t actually break the restriction” isn’t a freakin’ “technicality”, it’s not actually breaking the restriction.

Us lowly editors cannot be expected to mind read what you awesome all wise administrators actually want. Volunteer Marek 01:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of “technicalities” User:Tamzin, there’s nothing in either your block or, the 1RR restriction requires an appeal “to the community”. The block can be undone by any uninvolved admin (or better yet, by yourself). Looks like youre trying to “hide behind a technicality” and are “gaming” the system by making this a requirement. Volunteer Marek 02:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to engage in good-faith discussion of this block. Your above comment is not that, so I'll let what I've said so far speak for itself. And it's my understanding that all GS-enforcement blocks must be appealed to the community. If that's not the case, I'm happy to be corrected. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you are not engaging in good faith discussion of this block. You basically just yelled “respect mah authoritah!” and refused to even consider the possibility that your block was out of line.

Let me ask you one more time, in interest of, you know, good faith: how are users suppose to know what you have in mind when you impose a restriction, if you are just going to make up arbitrary standards for what constitutes supposedly “gaming that restriction”? Sorry but, in all good faith, this looks a lot like “block hammer them first and then come up with excuses for the blocks later” approach to administrating. Volunteer Marek 02:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) VM, I understand that being blocked is unpleasant. I'm one of two admins who've been indeffed on purpose since the end of the Wild West block/unblock era, so I'd like to think I know that better than most. But you're coming at me with all sorts of accusations and insults, and then acting indignant when I say I don't want to engage in that. I have explained my block. You edit-warred, repeatedly restoring the same contested claim to an article. Edit-warring is grounds for a block, even when it takes case over the course of days. (And yes, it takes two to tango, which is why I blocked Poyani too.) The edit-warring was just on the outside of the 1RR, so I judged it to be gaming of that 1RR. The 1RR's authorization explicitly says editors are not entitled to a warning, so I blocked you. And again, I didn't impose the 1RR. The community imposed it in 2013, and it was in effect from the moment this article was created. But it would have been, as they say, a dick move to block everyone who was involved in the initial round of edit-warring before I put up the 1RR templates, which is why I left it at a mass ping.

I want to stress, I think it would have been within administrative discretion to block you even if there were no GS in place. Repeatedly making edits that you know will be reverted is edit-warring. Surely by your third revert in 58 hours, you knew that the reverts were not going to stick, and were just going to raise the temperature of a heated dispute that had already landed at AN/I. 1RR is not an entitlement to slow edit-warring. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin:, first I have not insulted you. You are confusing criticism for insults. Any active wikipedia editor and especially administrators should know the difference. Second, as I've already stated, I restored an edit because it was removed under false pretenses [14] (no, the source isn't a LinkedIn site, it's the Guardian. The person removing it even left the actual source in place). I left comment about it on talk page on November 3rd [15]. I waited for a response and didn't get one. So I undid it on November 4th. This was reverted by Burrobert [16] with another ... irrelevant edit summary. I brought it up on talk page AGAIN [17]. Again, there was no response on talk. So after MORE THAN 24 hours I undid the edit. This is normal editing. It's BRD to the T. ... BRD^T. "Just on the outside of the 1RR" is not true ("just outside of 1RR" would be like a few minutes after 24 hours or something). It's just what you're saying to justify a series of bad blocks. The edit was initially undone by someone who had never participated in the article before and appeared to be, to AGF it, confused about the source. Then it was undone again by someone who hadn't responded to my posts on talk with an irrelevant edit summary. Of course I thought it would stick, I wouldn't have made it otherwise! Apparently not only do you expect ME to read YOUR mind about what "1RR really means" (since it seems it doesn't actually mean "1RR") but you also think YOU can read MY mind. Huh?

And frankly, the article should be restored to the version YOU semi-protected, all changes from then on should be done with extensive discussion and the article protection should be upgraded to full. THAT was actually the proper course of action for an administrator in that situation, not going wild with the block button. Volunteer Marek 04:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is, without a doubt, the most unbecoming conduct I've seen from an experienced user in response to a block—a temporary one-article partial block, at that. Just to simplify things, I'll lift my procedural objection to a non-community-appeal unblock, but on the substantive side would advise the reviewing admin that I strongly object to any unblock. That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin. Please don't ping me again in this thread. If you have further concerns about my conduct as an administrator, you are, I will stress, blocked from precisely one page, and fully able to edit AN/I, AN, XRV, and A/R/C. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I haven’t even brought up the fact that for some reason User:Tamzin didn’t even bother blocking the one account that might have actually broken the 1RR restriction [18] [19] [20] Volunteer Marek 02:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second is a revert. I checked whether the first and third were reverts, when they were made, and didn't see previous revisions they were reverting to. Am I missing something? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not gaming. It's like police giving you a ticket because you were driving 59 kmph in area with max 60 kmph. 59? He was gaming it, of course. Let's be serious. If you don't want people to revert once every 25h+, yes, then you make a restriction of 1RR/72h, that's fine. But until you do so - nope. Law is not retroactive, nor bendable. 1 revert within 24h is allowed in 1RR cases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Details: 72 hours increased notice given--> - 05:35 on November 6

User blocked times:

User:Poyani partially blocked - 04:25 on November 6 1h and 10 minutes before the 72 hours notice introduction
User:Volunteer Marek partially blocked - 04:39 on November 6 - 56 minutes before the 72 hours notice introduction
User:Hobomok partially blocked - 05:29 on November 6 - 6 minutes before the 72 hours notice introduction

GizzyCatBella🍁 18:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - I have no doubts about Tamzin's good intentions, but I think full-page protection would work better than those partial blocks that produced mistakes. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents here regarding all of this: a cursory look at the talk page shows that I continually asked Poyani to use the talk page where discussion was ongoing about the edits they were making. Any reverts I’ve made to this page (outside of the 1RR window, as shown by editors here) have been in the spirit of keeping the page stable as discussion was ongoing. I’m shocked I was blocked over this.—Hobomok (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hobomok. You undid all my revisions within an hour of when they were made. The revisions were about 1 issue (changing "known for" to "accused of" which was the wording used in the cited RS) on which on which there was consensus on the talk page and no objections. You did not refer me to the talk page the first time. You wrote "that's not how it works as has been explained to you" as the summary of your edit. The second time you pretended the issue was being discussed when it was not. You were just edit-warring while keeping your reverts purposeluly 27 hours apart to game the 1RR rule. Poyani (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you did this despite me asking you politely on both the Talkpage and your talkpage to stop, explaining the issue was discussed in talkpage and the minor change aligned the wording with the Citation provided. Poyani (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Poyani - If Hobomok held 27 hours time frame before reverting, that is not gaming the 1RR rule but following 1RR per 24H rule. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poyani, I understand that you're elated User:Volunteer Marek and I are blocked. However, multiple editors, including myself, asked you to stop casting aspersions, clogging the talk page, and making edits while discussion was ongoing. I suggested you take a step away. You refused and kept changing the page while discussion was ongoing. There was no consensus on this subject, as Volunteer Marek and I both objected to changing the wording. Therefore, discussion was ongoing and there was no consensus, as I explained to you at talk.

Other users understood that discussion was ongoing, and I engaged at the talk page with those users. For example, when another user reverted me regarding this wording that was in dispute, in observance of the 1RR in place, I did not revert them. Instead, I engaged with them at talk, and they self reverted. Note that this user self-reverted, because discussion was still ongoing and there was no consensus.

Meanwhile, a short time later, with that same discussion I mentioned above ongoing, you went ahead and changed it again, despite that ongoing discussion. I changed it back because there was ongoing discussion (see above diffs), as I explained in the edit summary. I was then blocked, despite following 1RR and simply asking you to engage at talk or wait until some sort of consensus was reached. Over and over again.--Hobomok (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from another uninvolved admin (who never heard of Aaron Maté). Edit-warring is not restricted to violations of nRR restrictions, and Tamzin is entitled to make a good faith judgement that edit-warring is happening even when 1RR is not broken. I haven't studied the page history so I cannot say whether I would have made the same judgement. I just wish that the jargon "gaming the 1RR rule" would disappear from our lexicon. There is no such thing: someone who intentionally waits for more than the compulsory 24 hours is not gaming the rule but rather obeying it. The question is whether the new edit is a good one, for example whether the new edit has a value greater than merely continuing an edit war. Matters like thoughtful edit summaries and talk page engagement are relevant. It should be possible to say why the new edits are block-worthy without recourse to the "gaming" catch-all terminology. Finally, let me repeat that I have no opinion on whether this block was a good one. Zero^talk 03:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Motyl_2022-03-08-1] Мотиль [Motyl], Олександр [Alexander] (8 March 2022). Війни творять нації, а народні війни творять непереможні нації. Олександр Мотиль — Локальна історія. localhistory.org.ua (in Ukrainian). Archived from the original on 25 April 2022. Retrieved 14 March 2022.

[1]

@@ Line 226: / Line 226: @@
 :::::::{{ping|Tamzin}}, first I have not insulted you. You are confusing criticism for insults. Any active wikipedia editor and especially administrators should know the difference. Second, as I've already stated, I restored an edit because it was removed under false pretenses [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1119826903] (no, the source isn't a LinkedIn site, it's the Guardian. The person removing it even left the actual source in place). I left comment about it on talk page on November 3rd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1119860614]. I waited for a response and didn't get one. So I undid it on November 4th. This was reverted by Burrobert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1120159801] with another ... irrelevant edit summary. I brought it up on talk page AGAIN [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1120270397]. Again, there was no response on talk. So after MORE THAN 24 hours I undid the edit. This is <u>normal editing</u>. It's BRD to the T. ... BRD^T. "Just on the outside of the 1RR" is not true ("just outside of 1RR" would be like a few minutes after 24 hours or something). It's just what you're saying to justify a series of bad blocks. The edit was initially undone by someone who had never participated in the article before and appeared to be, to AGF it, confused about the source. Then it was undone again by someone who hadn't responded to my posts on talk with an irrelevant edit summary. Of course I thought it would stick, I wouldn't have made it otherwise! Apparently not only do you expect ME to read YOUR mind about what "1RR really means" (since it seems it doesn't actually mean "1RR") but you also think YOU can read MY mind. Huh?
 :::::::And frankly, the article should be restored to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Mat%C3%A9&oldid=1119826509 version YOU semi-protected], all changes from then on should be done with extensive discussion and the article protection should be upgraded to full. THAT was actually the proper course of action for an administrator in that situation, not going wild with the block button.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 04:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
+::::::::This is, without a doubt, the most unbecoming conduct I've seen from an experienced user in response to a block—a temporary one-article partial block, at that. Just to simplify things, I'll lift my procedural objection to a non-community-appeal unblock, but on the substantive side would advise the reviewing admin that I '''strongly object to any unblock'''. That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin. Please don't ping me again in this thread. If you have further concerns about my conduct as an administrator, you are, I will stress, blocked from precisely one page, and fully able to edit [[WP:AN/I|AN/I]], [[WP:AN|AN]], [[WP:XRV|XRV]], and [[WP:A/R/C|A/R/C]]. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 04:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 :::::And I haven’t even brought up the fact that for some reason [[User:Tamzin]] didn’t even bother blocking the one account that might have actually broken the 1RR restriction [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Maté&diff=prev&oldid=1120278549] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Maté&diff=prev&oldid=1120159801] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Maté&diff=prev&oldid=1119991035]<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 02:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 ::::::The second is a revert. I checked whether the first and third were reverts, when they were made, and didn't see previous revisions they were reverting to. Am I missing something? <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup>[''[[User talk:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</span>]]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 02:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)