User talk:Volunteer Marek

		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)

you might want to see this

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

A beer for you!

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

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

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

	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)

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)

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)

FYI

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

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

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)

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

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)

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:

• 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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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

You might want to see this

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

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)

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)

LMFAO

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

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

Why you doing this

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

		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)

• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

(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)

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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) 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.

Accept reason:

Unblocked. Time served. Good god this unblock request was way too long. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

@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)

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)

"Unbecoming conduct"? Seriously? I guess that's one way to reinforce the power dynamic - blaming the victim. And with that statement you made it clear that your objection to an unblock is not on the merits of your original block but simply because you're annoyed by some non-admin user having the temerity to question your actions. Got to put the little people in their place, huh? Volunteer Marek 04:35, 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 [18] [19] [20] Volunteer Marek 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? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Hobomok - I don't know why you think I am elated that you and VM were blocked. I was blocked as part of the same group. The change for which we were banned was for my edit changing the words "known for ..." to "accused of ..." You wrote that "there was no consensus on this subject, as Volunteer Marek and I both objected to changing the wording". Where? I did not see (and still do not see) where you objected to the change in wording in the talkpage. I made the change because I did not anticipate anyone would ever object to it. The RS listed says "accused of". "Accused of " and "known for" are totally different. I still don't know or understand your objection. You cited a source which says the subject is "accused of" action X. What is the justification that the article should say the subject is "known for" action X? Poyani (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing and personal attacks in response to your partial block for edit-warring on a WP:GS/SCW article. This is an act of community sanction enforcement. As this disruption has occurred on your own talkpage, I am revoking your access to edit it; you are welcome to submit an AN appeal through UTRS.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, with respect, which diffs contain the personal attacks launched on this page that warranted revoking TPA? I'm reading through this talk page and I'm having trouble finding direct personal attacks made by Volunteer Marek that have not been struck. Is there something I've skipped over? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I'm going to respect VM's request and not further comment on this page except as required in the course of administrative actions. To that effect, I'll reply to this on my own talk presently. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Continuation of my thoughts from here:

In this edit Tamzin writes: ..actively reverting comments that object to one's unblock request is a classic form of disruptive editing

This is not true, especially after what Tamzin wrote here --> (see Diff) That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin. Please don't ping me again in this thread.

Tamzin was not pinged by anyone, yet kept posting to the talk page after they said they would stop.

Conclusion:

If Tamzim believes that VM made personal attacks on them, then they should have let a reviewing administrator (Newyorkbrad) determine that. Unfortunately now, this looks like a revenge block for talking back to an administrator. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Alleged personal attacks by VM are below (listed by Tamzin here believed by them to be --> varying levels of violations of WP:NPA (via WP:ASPERSIONS), WP:CIV, and WP:TPG..):

• apparently it’s not actually a 1RR/day restriction but rather a “1RR/whateverTamzindecidesonaspurofthemoment” restriction
• Us lowly editors cannot be expected to mind read what you awesome all wise administrators actually want
• You basically just yelled “respect mah authoritah!” and refused to even consider the possibility that your block was out of line
• 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
• you also think YOU can read MY mind
• you made it clear that your objection to an unblock is not on the merits of your original block but simply because you're annoyed by some non-admin user having the temerity to question your actions. Got to put the little people in their place, huh?

GizzyCatBella🍁 08:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason of the conflict may be

6 Nov 2022 - Daylight Saving Time Ended in the USA Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236: Thanks for the suggestion, but the times are all UTC, and in any event were all after the changeover, so that is not relevant. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Self-requested review: Tamzin's blocks of Volunteer Marek. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• Noting I've restored talkpage access per NYB's suggestion at AN. Hopefully this is the last time in the foreseeable future I'll have to comment here; sorry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, last comment, hopefully

I apologize for overreacting and escalating the situation. Your behavior was not appropriate, but I should have brought it to AN/I rather than take matters into my own hands. From the AN thread so far, it's clear there will be no consensus to maintain the siteblock, so I've reverted to the previous p-block. I'll leave it to someone else at AN to decide whether the p-block should stay.

Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, you've been asked to stop posting on his page. Please do so. Buffs (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Now that all the drama has died down and all, I just wanted to say that I think that this is a really good article you did excellent work on. Volunteer Marek 04:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Warning

Repeatedly deleting an article [21] [22] after a failed AfD [23] may be considered disruption. Please stop it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Restoring blatantly false information IS disruptive. Please stop it. Volunteer Marek 14:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd encourage both of you to seek compromise here. Parts of this article were way over the top, the sourcing was questionable-to-perhaps-nonexistent, and a lot of it did need to be deleted. But there IS a precedent for similar articles relating to other countries. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are precedents for similar articles relating to other countries and all of them deal with torture committed by the authorities of the state rather than with torture committed (also by foreign countries? why not by private individuals?) within the boundaries of the state, i.e. over national territory. See e.g. the lead section of Torture in the United States: Torture in the United States includes documented and alleged cases of torture both inside and outside the United States by members of the government, the military, law enforcement agencies...; see Torture in the State of Palestine: Torture in the State of Palestine refers to the use of torture and systematic degrading practices on civilians detained by Palestinian forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I think this war has made everybody go crazy, if you think that an article on "Torture in Ukraine" must be an article about the war with Russia and about Russia torturing Ukrainians. Why don't we write an article "Torture in Russia" instead? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

United States hasn’t been invaded by anyone. To try to have an article on “Torture ****IN**** Ukraine” without mentioning extensive Russian torture is freakin’ insane. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

And there probably should be an article on “Torture in Russia” but that is orthogonal to the discussion here. Volunteer Marek 15:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

sorry, this is a discussion for the talk page and I should have posted my last comment there rather than here. I've done it know, so if you want to share your views on this it would be better to do so also there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

On user conduct issues, let's remember that what we started with was an article in a clearly unjustifiable state, but the topic could be legit. That fact is making it harder for everyone. Let's just all try to calm down. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

Do you read while you edit? The edition that you just reversed already stated that it is an extreme right movement (in a better section, that is the political position), in addition to specifically saying that it is a National Bolshevik movement.

If you want to add more sources, go ahead, but do it respecting the contributions of others and reach consensus before. Armando AZ (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello VM, can I recruit your help.

Re Mellk I see much of what has been said about this user and have viewed his log and all of his contributions are biased although not blatantly so and lean towards Putins views, hence I believe he is a paid (or other) editor for the current Russian state (or other). Examples include but nowhere near limited to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada They and also other users in same the above vein and or the direct opposite, heavily involved in the pushing of the right-wing type of divisionist approach, all of which is a proven tactic of Rus Fed to potential weaken democracy and I think both sides need to be addressed urgently, they and other users are blanking, strike-through or other removing relevant comments and deleting questions without answering, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mellk&diff=prev&oldid=1124718163 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=1124716417 which I feel was a totally reasonable comment or question, on topic, relevant etc. or so I can target my next edit to co-opt sources to meet his specific objections, however this does not "fit" their mission. So as I no longer use my account and only edit on IP and my "inputs" are negated I reach out to yourself. I have bookmarked your (this) page and will re-visit periodically under another brand new automatically IP (which I have no control over)2404:4408:638C:5E00:9180:E43:9970:A5D4 (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, firstly I 100% stand by my views above. I think the best solution at this time is to rename the article to Nazi monuments in Canada and treat as a normal article, e.g. not a list article, the lead can include analysis from this article the first I can find that was published https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ukrainian-canadian-community-urged-to-confront-past-amid-controversy-over-monuments-to-nazi-collaborators and this deeper analyses on one of the subjects of the current version https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/08/13/shukhevych-monument-canada-oun-upa/ both of which reference this tweet from Russia https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassyC/status/919329715407736834?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frussia-tweets-about-nazi-monuments-in-canada-amid-ongoing-concerns-over-political-interference and both determine it is Russian propaganda re Crimea and JT's opposition to their illegal act in 2014, both determine it is deliberate and diversionary, add some background, then list the statues involved in this deceptive and misleading style of undue weight on the Nazi activities of these persons, however for completeness and truth it must be mentioned.

FYI Mellk issued a couched threat to my editing privileges again, 2nd time, to an IP that I will 99.99% never see again, unless I am checking up on what he is interfering with recently. Which leads me to, recent obfuscations include https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1124914237, the only defence could be if this was country specific and a Russian Federation article existed, (as per USSR) and we list all of Putins and the corrupt states crimes there, and leave Russia as the migrating spot some of the Kievan Rus moved to in around 800bc (and extol and where needed castigate its real history, not this propaganda) and have specifically noted that both Ukraine and Kiev predates this i.e. and Specifically, they existed before Russia, it is where the moved from.2404:4408:638C:5E00:59:1B5B:5ADB:6C25 (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Arestovych

Hi, why do you think that openDemocracy and Neues Deutschland are not reliable sources? In addition, it has been repeatedly described that Arestovich has been spreading propaganda and lies since 2014, which he himself admitted. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all talk pages. Saying someone has been "spreading propaganda and lies" is a WP:BLPVIO. And no, neither of these sources are reliable for these kinds of claims. Volunteer Marek 17:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

By the same logic, the characteristic of famous Russian propagandists in the preamble that they are propagandists should not be indicated. But the thing is that Arestovich himself admitted that he had been spreading false statements, saying on Facebook that he had "lied to you a lot since the spring of 2014," for example, he overestimated the number of injured people on both sides. Independent media, including Ukrainian, write about this, but I have not yet added extended information about it to the article in English. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You need reliable sources which make that claim. Volunteer Marek 17:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you consider "reliable sources", why are you not satisfied with openDemocracy? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS. OpenDemocracy may be reliable for some things but not for WP:BLP claims such as these. Volunteer Marek 18:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Another false information edit promoting Ukrainian propaganda

Please stop rewriting history Gmw112252 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Before you revert a proper edit get a source

Before you revert a proper edit get a source or a citation Gmw112252 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gmw112252 - The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

You can’t edits that topic area yet. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wertwert55 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you getting at?

I link a podcast hosted by a Ukrainian Government official, but since it’s on YouTube, you remove it. I link a website that posts said podcast on it, with a summary translated into English. You remove it. One of the sources as a press talk hosted by the Defence Minister of Ukraine. You remove it. I see a lot of TASS sourced on that page. Are they somehow a more reliable than an advisor to the Ukrainian President, or the Defence Minister of Ukraine? I specifically kept them out of the info box and just mentioned them as a record, which is what I said, twice, but that seems to have gone past you. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there’s only one instance of TASS being used there, no? I don’t think rumors, off hand remarks and such don’t really belong on that page. Volunteer Marek 05:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

They’re not just rumors, they’re official comments by people pretty high up in the Ukrainian Government. While I do agree that they’re probably not accurate (that’s why I included the links from independent sources criticizing Ukrainian claims), I still think it’s important to at least keep a record of it, even more so if it’s not true, to juxtapose it to the more official figures. Kind of like many of the Wikipedia pages for World War II, where they have Soviet/German claims, as well as the actual numbers. Would adding a note be more preferable to you, rather than a whole paragraph in the casualties section? Tomissonneil (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I would be fine with a note. The main problem I have with the info is that a lot of it is just off-the-cuff remarks not “official statements”. Volunteer Marek 22:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear you, I’ll put in a note instead. Reznikov’s claim is definitely official, as he gave it while briefing a former U.S. ambassador, as well as a the Atlantic Council. Arestovych’s are mostly aimed at Russian speakers, probably for propaganda purposes, but I think it’s at least worth mentioning, just to keep a record of Ukrainian propaganda claims. For the record, I feel the same way about Russian propaganda too, if nothing else to contrast the two. Tomissonneil (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Kalends of January

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

I noticed you got into a dispute at Operation Mongoose with an editor Cambial Yellowing over POV and source misrepresentation, so I thought you might be interested that they copied the same material with the same problems on Cuban Missile Crisis. I might try to discuss it on talk but they have spammed so many cherrypicked sources in the edits. They write that significant numbers of civilians were killed and that Eisenhower recruited operatives specifically to kill civilians but none of the quotes in the sources even support this. 2A02:C7D:69B6:4300:491B:7A18:32F3:49A0 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

They even previously copied the same content onto Central Intelligence Agency#Cuba: Sabotage and Terrorism. 2A02:C7D:69B6:4300:491B:7A18:32F3:49A0 (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Your comment is in the collapse box

[24] maybe you want to take it out of the box? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Volunteer Marek!

Happy New Year!

Volunteer Marek,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Question

Why did you revert my edits? Be neutral, please. No,see you at school (talk) 9:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC) No,see you at school (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am neutral and that’s precisely why I reverted your edit. Volunteer Marek 10:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, this is a strang edit summary for a fairly new account. Have we interacted before? Volunteer Marek 10:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ostalgia (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

On articles and article talk pages that relate to Eastern Europe, you may not make personal comments accusing editors or groups of editors of doing things like assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, being biased, or being uncivil. In other words, you should basically just focus on article content instead of other users.

If another editor notifies you that you are in violation of this sanction you can remedy the problem by removing the comment, editing it with the appropriate strike and underline markup, or hatting the comment. If the comment was genuinely not intended as a personal comment you can explain how it was a miscommunication and apologise/refactor as necessary. Personal comments in edit summaries can also be resolved via apology. Be aware however that if you are subsequently reported to an administrator it will be the administrator who will judge whether the comment was personal or not and whether reparation attempts were adequate.

While the above only applies to articles and article talk pages you are warned not to cast aspersions when participating in conduct-related dispute resolution and instead to provide or refer to evidence that supports any accusations you make.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in this arbitration enforcement request.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)