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)

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)

Talkpages of Wiki articles are officially called as FORUMS

Hello Marek! You confused the Wiki articles, which are NOT FORUMS with the talkpages of Wikiarticles, which are the definition of forums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought See POINT 4: Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages.

So in talkpages we can spoke about anything, which things are strongly related/belong to the original topic of the article, this is the place of the debates about the article and the discussion forum about future editing.

Have a nice day! --Creator Edition (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Just an FYI, a user named WhizICE attempted to doxx you on the RSN, including posting a photo of you. This was swiftly oversighted thanks to my intervention, but I thought I should let you know it happened. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RSN misuse

VM, I got your two pings — what are you doing? A 10K conduct report, really? (diff) I would have expected an editor with your level of experience to already know that WP:RSN is not for that. Please only use designated venues for such complaints. You cannot misuse RSN in such a manner, so please do note this for future reference. Thank you. El_C 18:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If RSN isn't a place for that, then why is FR bringing it to there? What do you think this is? It's not-so-thinly veiled block shopping and agitation. That comment of his has NOTHING to do with the discussion at RSN. But hey, that one's just hunky dory. Can I remove that?

And the length? If I don't include the diffs I get accused of making unfounded ASPERSIONS (because, you know, I can't expect people to read my mind). If I do include diffs, it's too long. I'm sick and tired of this. FR has been warned again and again and again and again. He's done this to several users and has a history of it. He has one IBAN already, blocks for doing it to others and almost got indef banned for harassing yet another editor. And none of that has stopped him or led him to modify his behavior.

Read what I actually wrote and tell me that this right there isn't the fundamental problem in this topic area right now. Tell me that he isn't PURPOSEFULLY trying to escalate the dispute so he, or some Icewhiz sock, can go and file a request for a case. Volunteer Marek 19:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

VM, in fairness, you're the one who brought it up first in that RSN discussion. And secondly, just like a pea and watermelon aren't the same, a 500K addition isn't the same as a 10,000K one. This much ought to be plainly obvious, I challenge. El_C 19:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The 500k addition was short because it was a snide, false unfounded accusation. The 10,000K addition was long because it had a diff supporting every single statement and frankly, it's not my fault that he's received so many warnings and has gotten away with doing this for so long. If he had gotten indef'd like admins proposed previously or if he had taken heed of the warnings, then my comment would've been good bit shorter. But alas. Volunteer Marek 19:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Green for hope

Lenten Rose

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:APLRS clarification request

Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

I realise I botched the ping in the edit summary too - don't know what's wrong with me this afternoon. Thanks for confirming you saw the comment, I was at a loss for what to do at that point! GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Irena Solska

On 15 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Irena Solska, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the German occupation of Poland, the Polish dramatic actress Irena Solska (pictured) worked with Żegota and helped to hide and rescue Jews? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irena Solska. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Irena Solska), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about Polish actress Irena Solska and her work to rescue Jews from the Nazis drew 7,599 page views (633 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

what is the problem with edits on German settlements?

Please explain --Tino Cannst (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A thought

I saw that you removed the timeline box from Teutonic Order. What are you thoughts about this?

• Teutonic timeline

Good? Bad? Total garbage? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. Hope it is ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the timeline itself, it's just that it totally messes up the layout of the article. If there was some way to incorporate it in a more aesthetic way that'd be good. Volunteer Marek 17:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification - Jan Żaryn

Hi, this is just an info that there has been a thread opened about Jan Żaryn at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Azov Battalion

Good evening, I would like to notify you that a new RfC on Azov Battalion has just started. I am sending you the message because you participated in the 2015 RfC and the topic might be of interest to you. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop

Stop edit warring. Discuss the matter on the talk page. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Who are you and what are you talking about? Volunteer Marek 20:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I am a Homo Sapien and your edits at Jan Żaryn TigerScientist Chat > contribs 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Your account is barely 6 months old and there's basically no way I can think of that you could "accidentally" stumble upon that particular article or my talk page. Did you accidentally log into the wrong account? Volunteer Marek 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek nope. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 22:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Also ping me next time. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Zhovti Vody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aleksander Koniecpolski.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Poznan Protests

Can you check these edits. Does the Polish source (city web site) really says that the protestors demanded more gentle version of national socialism or is it (as I suspect) a vandalism of some sort. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alex Bakharev: I can't find the part in the source where it mentions this detail but I'm assuming it's referring to the so-called "national path to socialism", a la Yugoslavia (a model of socialism tailored to a particular country rather than the Soviet approach) not "national socialism" as in Nazis. We should probably have an article on that. Volunteer Marek 12:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Edited the article accordingly Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Jan Żaryn - 500/30 policy

This is a continuation of my latest reply. Do not transfer your answer here back to Jan Żaryn's talk page.

Maybe I wasn't clear about the chapter, but the criteria of awareness are defined here, and the rules about striking out users are outlined here. Users should know that they are part of a discussion with heightened restrictions, and while entering it, I was not - I just did so as I would do on a normal talk page, and besides it was even not protected at all. The 500/30 restriction you link to is now part of the rules on discretionary sanctions on the topic due to the ArbCom ruling, so the rules from AC/DS apply too. If they only meant to notify users like you did, they would have decided so; but since such text-only warning can hardly be tracked, there is a specific form to do so that could be monitored for abuse.

And yes, since you have no administrator rights, you may not unilaterally enforce 500/30 restrictions (as you tried to do here) - this was a clear overreach. (Cf. Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use.) Of course, you can, however, notify users of restrictions being in place, as defined in the rule, or somehow get an uninvolved administrator enforce them, which I personally have nothing against - in fact, impartial administrators are badly needed in heated discussions like these. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You forgot these parts:

This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

Frankly, I could've just removed their (and your) comment by revert. Striking it instead was a courtesy.

Volunteer Marek 19:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't change anything. The prohibition may be enforced, including by reverting edits, for sure, but those who may do so must be uninvolved administrators. Apart from the quote above, see also: Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. and Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard discretionary sanctions procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control.

Since you are neither an administrator nor an uninvolved person, I'd ask you to refrain from enforcing the 500/30 rule for the future. Please just participate in the discussion as a plain user.

PS. FYI I have just received an official notice about discretionary sanctions, so according to the rules, I will not edit the talk page until I reach 500 edits (as my account is already active for a month). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, there's nothing in there which says only "uninvolved administrators" can revert violations of 500/30 rule. Anyone can revert those just like anyone can revert vandalism. Volunteer Marek 20:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Community Sanctions Alert

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 Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on 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.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Volunteer Marek, I’m not sure if you care or not but just letting you know I mentioned your name here[1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI case filed

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

As for your remarks on my talk page, I have noted them in the case, but I don't consider them substantiated. Some minor corrections were made to clarify some of my diffs presented. Please keep the discussion on ANI. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Other ANI Case

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FIFIphilippe. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been resolved. Feel free to disregard. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Assassination of Meir Kahane and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--SoaringLL (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

For reference, this request has now been removed as premature. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.SoaringLL (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Volunteer Marek 06:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Gotta love a good self inflicted wound, right?Shadybabs (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

SPI

Hi VM, I filed the SPI regarding the user you have interacted with lately. Please see - [2]. Regards - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72h for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you decided to continue reverting after you have seen GCB blocked, after I mentioned discretionary sanctions, and after I told you explicitly that you should not continue reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You made four reverts withing 24h, this was not vandalism or BLP violations. No, nobody asked me to block you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You have got to be shitting me. I reverted an account with like twelve edits [3]. I SPECIFICALLY mentioned the 500/30 restriction in my edit summary [4]. The part which says "Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.". THOSE DON'T COUNT AS REVERTS. The whole point of that restriction is to prevent sock puppetry which plagues this area! Best case scenario here is that you were trigger-happy and pressed the block button before actually reading the relevant policy/sanction. Worse case scenario is that you got miffed because I challenged your bad block of another user by asking for diffs and blatantly abused your admin authority. I'm gonna split the difference that subconsciously you were annoyed and hence got trigger happy but are now rationalizing that actions with this "but you edit warred" nonsense. Volunteer Marek 15:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Look, I am not going to argue that I am editing Wikipedia in good faith. I understand that you are annoyed, but the correct way out is to post an unblock request, not to continue ad hominem attacks against me.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Ok. I had to run and take my dog to the vet, and I've cooled down a bit. I hope you have to. Let's see if we can resolve this rationally - and I'm sorry but hiding behind bureaucratic procedures is a cop out.

Here is the text of the 500/30 restriction:

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case:

7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

I bolded the relevant parts.

The "Kowkaw" account is exactly this kind of account. At the time of me reverting them they had 12 edits. 9 of those in November 2020. It became active again just now solely to revert. This is exactly the kind of account that this remedy was designed for.

The part of article in question is the part that relates to Warsaw concentration camp. Obviously this article is about World War II. The controversy/conspiracy theory over this article involves the issue of whether this camp was falsely portrayed (it was) as a "extermination camp" in order to make the suffering of Poles during World War II similar to the suffering of Jews. This is obviously related. On top of that, this whole article was one of the main reasons for the decisions made in the arbitration case and its aftermath, the very case that led to 500/30 restriction. You simply cannot get more "related" to the ArbCom case and sanction than that.

I referenced the restriction explicitly in my edit summaries here and here as a justification for my reverts. I guess it's possible you missed it.

I'm asking you one more time, as politely as I can under the circumstances, to undo this block. It's a bad block. Mistakes can happen but the important thing is to fix them. Volunteer Marek 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The page you were edit-warring on is not an article (and not about anti-semitism in Poland), so 30/500 restriction does not apply. To stretch it, we do not revert IPs on the talk pages, for example, even if they touch topics of the articles they are not allowed to edit. This was just a 3RR breach without a good reason. No idea whether the editor you were reverting was a sock, but in any case the first revert of your edit was done by an editor in good standing. It was your responsibility to stop reverting and go to the talk page. I have seen that you did go to the talk page after your last revert, and this is good, but the block is valid notwithstanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The page I reverted on is a "List of hoaxes" and one of these supposed hoaxes is about Warsaw concentration camp, which is the part I edited. Are you seriously arguing that Warsaw concentration camp isn't related to World War 2 or history of Jews in Poland? Volunteer Marek 16:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To start with, I am saying that the page is not an article. It is not in the article namespace. The arbitration decision clearly says "articles". Once your block expires, I would also suggest filing a clarification request on whether the 30/500 rule applies to articles which are not about antisemitism in Poland but contain some pieces related to antisemitism in Poland (I remember that for PIA it was a big deal which in the end resulted in the modification of the arbitration decision).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

How about you undo your block right now and I will immediately go and ask ArbCom for clarification as you suggest (and of course refrain from making any further edits to that article for now)? Volunteer Marek 17:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, i would prefer you to sit out the block so that next time you would think well whether to go up to four reverts. I am sure the Arbcom meant to say "article" and not "page", there is nothing to clarify here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So you are seriously gonna try to WP:WIKILAWYER the wording of the restriction to justify a bad block (right after another bad block)? Here’s the part I don’t get - why are you bending over backwards to support, enable, and reward what’s most likely a sock of an index banned user? What exactly is the benefit to Wikipedia of that? I really love how you guys, admins, repeatedly enable disruptive editing by sock puppets and throw away accounts, and then you run around crying “oh why is this topic area so toxic? So horrible!” Gee, maybe if you didn’t do muddle headed stuff like this the area wouldn’t be so toxic? Volunteer Marek 17:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter - if you are going to Wikilawyer, then the 500/30 restriction under "General Rules", as referenced by ArbCom in their amendment "DS advice; 500/30 Rule" is here. Note that this says " prohibited from editing content", not articles, and furthermore, the rule ALSO allows for such accounts to edit talk pages of articles but "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc."

In other words, this account was not only restricted from editing that page but they were also restricted from editing the talk page. The restriction is EVEN MORE stringent when it comes to pages such as this one compared to regular articles.

I am asking you one again (insert Bernie meme here) in good faith to reconsider and undo the block. Volunteer Marek 17:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No. I disagree with your arguments and in fact I believe that you are one here who is wikilawyering. Please post an unblock request if you want to be unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I would think that the person who is rewarding and enabling disruptive sock puppets is the one who would be "wikilawyering" to defend a bad block here. And I've tried to be nice here - I've left out entirely so far the fact that your block very much looks like petty revenge-block for me daring to question your authority (another bad block) here where now I see you're trying to justify your block of GCB by claiming that it was done on the basis of edits that *I* made AFTER you imposed the block on *HER* [5]. What, are you clairvoyant or something?

I was trying to assume good faith and attribute this to an error on your part but honestly it looks much more like petty abuse of admin tools. Volunteer Marek 18:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Whoa

@Ymblanter: Whoa dude. Did you just block me because I questioned a block you made???? [6] This is quickly turning into blatant abuse of admin tools here. Volunteer Marek 15:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I blocked you for 3RR violation in a DS area, and the fact that I have warned you before does not really help your cause.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

First, you did not "explicitly tell me that I should not continue reverting". Your comment was after I already reverted.

Second, the 500/30 restriction explicitly says "Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring." I reverted an account with 12 freaking edits!

Are you TRYING encourage sock puppetry in this area???

You're really going rogue here. Volunteer Marek 15:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can try to convince an independent administrator by posting an unblock request that this was a valid 3RR violation case, though I doubt you would be successful.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah the usual "you can always ask my admin buddies to review my actions" weaseling. Don't worry I will.

Read. The. 500/30. Restriction. Here in bold for you:

Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

And you still haven't provided a single diff to justify your block of GCB - no evidence of "part of pattern of edit warring" or "multiple warnings". You just made that up. Two bad blocks in a row, with one used to cover up another. Volunteer Marek 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, explain this in your unblock request, and do not forget to mention what page you were edit-warring on, so that the reviewing administrator can check whether the exception applies for this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: - would you object to an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I explained this in the section above.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Object" is probably too strong, but my opinion is that VM should sit out the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Taking this to ANI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't reply there obviously but could someone please point out:

1. Ymblanter's claim that there was "four reverts" is incorrect since these edits are explicitly not counted as reverts under 30/500 restriction.

2. I asked Ymblanter repeatedly to reconsider and made them aware of the 500/30 restriction. I really did hope he'd realize he had made a mistake and reverse this himself.

3. Ymblanter's block came right after I complained about another block of his and it does have the appearance - especially given the spurious rationale - of a revenge-respect-my-authority-block. At the very least they should've said something first.

4. Ymblanter's justification for the block of GCB appears to be that *I* reverted the account with 12 edits AFTER he blocked GCB [7] (GCB made one and only one revert but Ymblanter is suggesting they made five). I'm not sure how something that happened AFTER the block can justify the block itself, or how what one editors does justifies a block of another user. I think this just shows how Ymblanter is clutching at straws here (WP:WIKILAWYER).

5. I was and am perfectly to drop this, with a trout slap for Ymblanter, if he just undoes the block (he should unblock GCB as well).

Thanks. Volunteer Marek 20:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request

{{unblock}}

i unblockied. I disagreed with the unblock, but I want to stay alive.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. But did you really have to put "I want to stay alive" in the explanation for the unblock? I'm not sure how to interpret that. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

They mentioned high blood pressure, maybe they are just really tired and they want to avoid excessive stress/drama? I definitely agree that that is going a little too far, though.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And you really should unblock GCB as well. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of clarification request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Volunteer Marek 02:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A motion has been proposed

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland where you are listed as a party. You may view the motion here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stanisław Aronson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bruno Streckenbach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

2013

Minor technicality: other issues aside, I think 2013 is correct, and 2014 was an error. Re: this. He died in 1942, so 2013 is +70 +1. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Socialism. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh god. I made two reverts. The other guy made six reverts. Sheesh. Volunteer Marek 01:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The irony is glaring. You accused the other editor of not being able to count. You should really look at the history of the article, only counting those edits that were made today (September 27). I'm not going to list each of them, but you made five reverts, the first one in a series of consecutive edits beginning at 6:36, and the last in a series of consecutive edits beginning at 17:46. I was lenient with both of you. I didn't block either of you for violating 3RR, even though both of you did, and I blocked both of you for only 24h.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait wait wait wait. I wasn't going to pursue this because frankly it's not worth the effort but your reply here obviously shows that... you don't even know what a revert is! Yes, the edit at 6:36 is a revert. I also made a revert at 12:46. That's the two reverts I mentioned.

However, the edit at 17:46 is NOT a revert! This does not undo any other user's edit!

Likewise, there is no "five reverts". You seem to be under the impression that ADDING content to an article is "reverting". It's not.

How are you administratin' on people at 3RR when you don't even understand the very basic concept of a revert????

I mean I thought this was just a typical arrogant "respect mah authority" block from a trigger happy admin, but it seems the problem is a bit more fundamental.

Volunteer Marek 03:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Bbb23:, can you explain WHOM this edit is actually reverting? Volunteer Marek 03:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's late and I'm editing on a tablet, which I hate, so this will be my last reply. I didn't say that the one edit at 17:46 was a revert, just that it was the first in a series of consecutive edits, and that the end result of all those edits constituted one revert. I'm off.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No, no, no @Bbb23: We can all make excuses that “it’s late” (it’s late here too) and whatever (I’m also editing on a tablet, and I also hate it). But since *I* took the time and made an effort to collect diffs, file a proper report and document the other user’s violations - which took approximately two hours of my time - THE LEAST you can do is show me the courtesy of actually stating what these supposed “five reverts” of mine were. Yes, I am going to ask you to list them. If you’re brave enough to block somebody, be brave enough to actually talk to them about it.

And holy crap, I just realized - you are punishing me for the fact that my edits got reverted. Not that *I* reverted but because I made edits which the OTHER GUY removed. All the edits in between the times you mention is me *adding* stuff to the article (and then BeZet reverting it, in violation of 3RR). NONE of them (except the one mentioned above) are me undoing anyone’s edits. Volunteer Marek 03:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also I’m unclear on what “end result of all those edits constituted one revert” even means. Again, WHOM did these edits actually revert? Diff please. You also seem to be having trouble with basic math. EVEN IF these edits “constituted one revert” (they don’t) that would make it 3, not 5, reverts. It’s sounding more and more like, you’re just trying to come up with contradictory, muddled and confused post-how rationalizations for your actions. Volunteer Marek 03:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Since you refuse to provide the diffs for these "five reverts" you accuse me of, here, let me do your job for you and list ALL the edits you claim were five reverts... or rather, "a series of consecutive edits (...) that the end result of all those edits constituted one revert" (you seem unable to make up your mind whether it was FIVE or ONE revert)

• Here is the edit at 17:46 which you yourself say was NOT a revert [8], and indeed, it wasn't.
• Here is the next edit I made [9] at 17:56. It ADDS additional, brand new, additional information to the article which had never been in there before. Obviously not a revert.
• Here is the next edit I made [10] at 17:57. It adds a "better source" tag to an outdated newspaper story about a study that had been widely criticized. This tag had never been added before or removed. Obviously not a revert.
• Here is the next edit I made [11] at 18:00. It adds a "failed verification" tag to a piece of tag, because, well, because the info is not actually in the source. This tag had never been adder before or removed. Obviously not a revert.
• Here is the next edit I made [12] at 18:13. It adds brand new text to the article that had not been added or removed before. Obviously not a revert.
• Here is the next edit I made [13] at 18:15. It names a ref and adds brand new text to the article that had not been added or removed before. Obviously not a revert.
• The next two edits [14] and [15] simply move text within the article. There had been no objections to this realignment nor does it undo anyone else's edit. Obviously not a revert.
• Here is the next edit I made [16] at 18:22. It simply moves a piece of text within a paragraph. Obviously not a revert.
• Here is the next edit I made [17] at 18:22. It adds a tag to an unreliable source. This tag had not been previously added or removed. Obviously not a revert.
• Here is the next edit I made [18] at 18:28. It adds brand new text to the article. This text had not been previously added or removed. Obviously not a revert.
• Here is the next edit I made [19] at 18:35. It adds brand new text to the article. This text had not been previously added or removed. Obviously not a revert.

Annnddd... that's it. The next edit is BeZet reverting [20]. So I made 12 edits, NONE of which could possibly be construed as a "revert". These are the edits you first claim included "five reverts" then later that these "constituted one revert" (the fact you can't make up your mind is not my problem). Yet none of them are reverts even with a very generous interpretation of what a revert is. None of them "reversed a prior edit or undid the effects of one or more edits" or even anything close.

Now, yes, all of these edits were reverted by BeZet. That's precisely why I filed the 3RR report. User:Bbb23, either you simply do not understand what a revert is or for some reason you decided to block me because someone else reverted me. Seriously, how does this work? Another editor reverts you and that counts as a revert for me??? Volunteer Marek 05:02, 28 September 2021 (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:

Like I said above, I originally was gonna let this one go because it's not really worth the effort. But then Bbb23 had to show up to my talk and do a bit of grave dancing. Their comment made it crystal clear that this was a very bad block - in particular they appear to be confused as to what a WP:REVERT is. Above Bbb32 states: "I'm not going to list each of them, but you made five reverts, the first one in a series of consecutive edits beginning at 6:36, and the last in a series of consecutive edits beginning at 17:46." Their refusal to actually list these supposed reverts kind of gives it away - there was no five reverts. There were two, which I acknowledged right at the outset, including in the 3RR report I filed against User:BeZet, that led to this block [21]. My edit at 6:36 is indeed one of these two reverts. However NONE of the edits beginning at 17:46 are reverts. Please see the list and diffs above. Here they are again for completeness: [22], [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. With regard to these Bbb32 claimed initially that these edits included five reverts then later changed that to "the end result of all those edits constituted one revert". So which one is it, five reverts or one? Actually, it's neither, NONE of these edits are revert and this isn't some judgement call. ALL of these edits added brand NEW material to the article which had not been present or removed previously. Adding something completely new to an article simply cannot be a revert, logically. Along that line, Bbb23 has refused to actually state WHOM I was supposedly reverting with these edits (and the reason for that is because the answer is "nobody, these aren't reverts") It looks very much like Bbb23 glanced at the article history, saw a lot of edits and without bothering to actually check them, assumed these must be reverts. Or alternatively they saw that my edits were reverted en-masse by BeZet (which is why I filed the report in the first place) and for god knows what reason decided that BEING reverted was just as bad as REVERTING (honestly, I have trouble understanding what kind of logic led to this conclusion). Feel free to look thoroughly through the history of the article [34]. After my revert at 12:46 [35] NONE of my edits were even close to being reverts. They all constituted new material. I know that most of this block will probably have gone by by the time some admin gets around to looking at this appeal, but there is a matter of principle here - additions to an article are NOT reverts, and Bbb23's muddled attempts at ex-post justifications for their action and lack of understanding of what a revert is acerbate the situation. Why am I suppose to have a record of a block in my log just because an admin either doesn't know what a revert is, or makes a power-tripping block then tries to justify it with obfuscation? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 08:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After reviewing the edit history of the article again, I determined that my original analysis was flawed. I have therefore unblocked you and made clear in your block log that my block was erroneous. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

At the very least I'd appreciate it if Bbb23 stepped up and actually made an effort to back up their false WP:ASPERSION that I made five reverts by PROVIDING DIFFs. You know, like we ALL are expected to do, admin and Wiki-peon like me both. Volunteer Marek 08:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't have time to review this, but the block at ANI/3RR does not specify the diffs which got VM blocked: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:BeŻet_reported_by_User:Volunteer_Marek_(Result:_Both_blocked_24_hours). This is strange. If I was an admin and I'd block someone I'd at least list the diffs, in the form "you reverted 4 times, 1,2,3,4, hence you are also blocked". This was not done and IMHO the block should be vacated due to this immediately. Plus there is the analysis by VM above, IMHO he makes a valid point. Frankly if I were an admin I'd probably protect the article for 2-3 days to let ppl cool down and talk this over, blocking is not ideal, and both parties are talking to one another - just not enough. They should be encouraged to talk, not victimized. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bbb23, I appreciate that and want to acknowledge it. My respects. Volunteer Marek 14:53, 28 September 2021 (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)

Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 recent edit

Hey, I've added a new section on the talk page of this article regarding your recent edit. Maybe what I wrote can clear up some confusion. I can't even edit the article directly, so if you feel so inclined, maybe you want to reintroduce the removed section, probably in a better wording. Greetings. Liekveel (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

November songs

The memory of SlimVirgin is pictured again today, in the context of my dangerous thoughts about arbcom. I mentioned you here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Levivich 00:14, 27 November 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)

DS notice

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 Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AllatRa

I know you're busy with the whole ArbCom kerfuffle, but I was wondering if you had a few moments to give me some assistance with an article. I'm assuming, based on all the Eastern European stuff going on that you're Eastern European, or at least familiar with the languages and culture. I've been trying to clean up AllatRa, but I'm having to rely on machine translations, and there are several PDFs/papers that I can't read. I asked User:Ymblanter, who seems to think the sourcing is pretty bad, but I'd like another opinion before I bring it to AfD. Because of my lack of familiarity in the area, it could be that the movement or religion, or whatever it is, could be notable on it's face and I'm just unaware. Any assistance you can offer here would be appreciated, and if you're unable to help, thanks for your time none the less. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've never heard of this thing and looking at User:Ymblanter's comments, I agree with their assessment of the sources. If this was at AfD i'd vote to delete. Volunteer Marek 18:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Levivich

Levivich has commented on the case, his editing will likely be scrutinized, and he could be viewed as an involved party, per your statistics. [36] You need to understand that these statistics say nothing about fault. The just point to who is involved, and that there has been a persistent, intractable dispute that ArbCom should investigate. Involvement is not equal to fault. If you want to provide a list of who you think is involved, I can add them to the list. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You claim here that "these statistics say nothing about fault" yet on the ArbCom page you most certainly are trying your hardest to insinuate that they do say something about "fault". Spare me the two faced hypocrisy J. Volunteer Marek 23:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I assure you it's one faced. You guys are jumping to the conclusion that I'm out to get you. That's not true. I've recently had rather intense disagreements with Levivich. An observer might think I was out to get him. Actually, I'm just trying to straighten out the encyclopedia and don't need to get anybody. I just want our articles to be accurate and informative. You likely want the same, so there's really no need for conflict between us. Jehochman ^Talk 23:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything you've written at the RfAA (and a couple other places) evidences to the contrary. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman --> Quote from above --> I've recently had rather intense disagreements with Levivich.

• Which disagreement are you referring to? Please, supply a diff below (one is okay) Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down

I suggest you take a long sip of a nice cup of tea and don't let trolls and derivatives, including well minded people who don't know much but have "good intentions", get under your skin. I have an idea of the harassments you received and the resulting stress, but obviously a lot of people do not, and blaming the victim is clearly common ("How dare you act all hurt! It makes me uneasy to be around you, hence clearly you are causing trouble!"). Diffless accusations are painful, but reflect badly only on the editor(s) who make them, and in large enough volume, are sanctionable. I suggest that it is more productive to compile evidence of such behavior than engage in it. Or even healthier, just try to forget about all wiki things, this tiny s-t storm will pass like all the others. Happy XMAS and New Year and don't let the Icebugs bite. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Typo?

Not sure what happened here, but pretty sure it wasn't what you intended. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Named in arbitration request supplemental motion

Hi Volunteer Marek, in the open Warsaw concentration camp arbitration case request, a supplemental motion has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this motion and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. The committee has also granted you a word limit extension to respond to these motions. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

FEE

Hi Marek, best wishes for the new year. I was thinking you may have a better understanding of whether this RSN discussion is fair appraisal in respect to the Foundation for Economic Education? (The article says it is a "think tank", is that right?) --Nug (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of that discussion. It’s not reliable. Maaayybbbeee like in 1950s it would’ve been reliable for some things. Volunteer Marek 06:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, am not that familiar with some of these US based foundations and it saved me from looking like bit of a goose in this RFC related discussion I'm involved in. Cheers. --Nug (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

arb typo

[37] - had me confused since it's actually two letters transposed and I thought maybe it was User:Kauffner a notorious banned sock with far-right leanings. Anyway I tried to fix it, was reverted. - GreenC 05:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Volunteer Marek 05:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Total AE requests.png

Thanks for uploading File:Total AE requests.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In case you didn’t know...

The US Holocaust Museum has made the PDFs of their ‘’Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos’’ available for free at here. Ealdgyth (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have them already, but thank you. Volunteer Marek 02:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Warsaw concentration camp case request declined

The case request Warsaw concentration camp that you are a party to has been declined by the committee. Several motions were passed instead of a full case which can be viewed at ACN. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page edit revert

Hey there. I hope you're well. Can you explain your talk page revert of my edit here [38]? I was trying to get community consensus on what is felt about the PopCulture website as a source because I would like to use it in an article, but there is no mention on Wikipedia whether the community finds it reliable or not. Thank you! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User:JudgeJudyCourthouse25 - my apologies, I must've hit rollback accidentally while scrolling through my watchlist. Volunteer Marek 05:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Haha! That's funny because I could see myself doing that by accident to. Lol! No worries! Thanks for your response and happy editing. :) JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. In reverting my hat of a completely inappropriate and irrelevant comment, you also removed my comment. Do neither next time. Kingsif (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Volunteer Marek 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Page move

Since you performed the page move of Attack on Snake Island, could you move the archives and close discussion, too? Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding bareurls to avoid linkrot

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine! However, you should know that adding a bare url is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref>...</ref> tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Inline citations. As for the Russian invasion article, I've gone ahead and fixed the bare urls using reFill, so you don't have to. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:58, 3 April 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Volunteer_Marek reported by User:AdrianHObradors (Result: ). Thank you. AdrianHObradors (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

~Asarlaí 21:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a case in which you are a party being opened for discussion. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Anonimu (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Attack on Snake Island

On 13 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Attack on Snake Island, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that when a Russian warship asked the Ukrainian defenders of Snake Island to surrender, their response was "Russian warship, go fuck yourself"? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Attack on Snake Island), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,191 views (932.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of War

You removed a section stating that the Institute for the Study of War has been linked to neoconservative advocacy circles - with the reason "not RS"

Which of the sources specifically are not reliable?

1) Article by Harvard political scientist Stephen Walt, published in Foreign Policy 2) Article by Philip Garaldi in the American Conservative (agreed that this one could be problematic, will remove) 3) Two sources from the Militarist Monitor (haven't seen anyone else on Wikipedia have a problem with this source - let's ask others for comment) Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The last two are def not RS. The first one, maybe, but then the question is whether it’s due. Volunteer Marek 02:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you point me to where it's been established that militarist monitor is not a reliable source?

As for WP:DUE, I think it's very relevant to include the partisan bias of a think tank somewhere prominently in the lede, especially if the think tank claims to be non-partisan while having been founded by, and staffed with, prominent neoconservatives with funding from defense contractors.

Let me remind you that there is a whole section of the article talking about the political stance and influence of the group, which can be neatly summarized as "neoconservative" in the lede.

Here are some additional sources, some of which I had previously included until a previous editor removed them for "excessive sourcing." Now I have someone removing that sentence because it isn't sourced well enough.

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/civilian-analysts-gained-petraeuss-ear-while-he-was-commander-in-afghanistan/2012/12/18/290c0b50-446a-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_print.html

The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/17/new-york-times-iran-israel-washington-think-tanks/

Asia Times: https://asiatimes.com/2021/12/neocons-bent-on-starting-another-disaster-in-ukraine/

The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/whos-paying-pro-war-pundits/ Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the article's talk page. Volunteer Marek 18:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

if you don't know what 1939 has to do with 1945

Perhaps you should read up a bit. I say this as nicely as I can, having been accused of POV pushing all weekend. I have zero, nada coat to hang on any coatrack, also. I have agreed with you in the past, and would welcome some constructive help, emphasis on constructive. There is a long history both to the article and the topic, and I am exhausted from dealing with editors who won't read sources. Can we do this tomorrow maybe? Speaking of, what's up with the RS tag? GizzyCatBella is complaining about the Kyiv Post, which is ridiculous, but I expected better of you. What exactly are you taking issue with? I might even agree with you, as I have some queries in to the article author. BUT. There is a lot of work in the article that may not be immediately apparent. I seem to recall that you speak a language that I don't. It wouldn't be Czech or Polish would it? If so I have some suggestions.

Meanwhile, I said "be serious" because the very next sentence gives details of the Polish pogrom, with a wikilink and a reference. Start by telling me why you would delete the lead-in. Tomorrow, please. Elinruby (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and that next sentence I also removed because it was also off topic (and incorrect). I don't know what RS tag you're talking about. Volunteer Marek 04:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW, what is this source: Кентій А. В. — 5. Боротьба ОУН і УПА на протибільшовицькому фронті // Розділ 4. «Двофронтова» боротьба УПА (1943 — перша половина 1944 рр. — cт. 2 (Kentiy AV - 5. The struggle of the OUN and the UPA on the anti-Bolshevik front // Chapter 4. "Two-front" struggle of the UPA (1943 - first half of 1944 - p. 2 ? Volunteer Marek 04:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

what's the topic, according to you? It changes daily. Piotrus tracked down the author and he is a respectable archivist. But it looks like some of the sources were machine translated from Polish to Ukrainian to English so at the moment we aren't sure if the title is a mangled version of one of his books or a journal article yet. I haven't had time to look into it yet. Also, some of the references are in Czech for some reason. That was the suggestion Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation presumably, which is why the stuff that got removed was removed, since it didn't have anything to do with it. As far as the author, yeah I can find him, but what was the year of publication? The place? The publishing house? Volunteer Marek 04:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That's at his talk page if you are interested. Seriously, I can't do this right now. You do realize I didn't write this article and am trying to fix it, right? If you speak Polish, I went over most of those last night, except for something about an archive that baffled me last night and that I need to get back to. Elinruby (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I realize it but I haven't said anything about it. Volunteer Marek 04:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

er. the unfinished thought above is that I am careful but don't speak Polish, and Piotrus wants to do them all at once, which I can respect, but this is still a work in progress and if you want to check translations, that would be helpful. Where no language is specified I believe that at least part of the references is in Ukrainian, and text in parens is what Google translate makes of the reference text, which is helpful for month and sometimes for publisher but can definitely be wrong when it comes to trans-title. Also sometimes the the title and the name of the journal are in different languages Elinruby (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably should continue on talk. Volunteer Marek 04:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I am about half asleep but there are a couple of other people that have answered questions there and I will be happy to answer anything if I am still awake, or tomorrow if not. Consider what I just said a brain dump of what I know about the references. 05:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014)

Hello, Volunteer Marek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014

Hello, Volunteer Marek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding pro-belligerent sources...

In the Rules for editing the map at Talk:Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War, 1.b. says that "A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes)." Therefore, a pro-Ukrainian source can be used to document Ukraine's setbacks, but not their successes.

Previously, we have added "Control claimed by [belligerent]" to the More information column to include this information while adhering to the rules for editing the map. (In fact, I was about to do so.) Moreover, when there is no existing source for a settlement, we have used claims by belligerents where no better source was available, followed by {{needs independent confirmation}}.

Finally, note that the source does not claim Ukrainian control of Cherkasi Tyshky, but that it is contested. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Where does this rule even come from? Was there a discussion or did someone just unilaterally make it up? Was there consensus for it? And if you're really gonna go by that then almost ANY source can be classified as pro-this side or pro-that side. Volunteer Marek 23:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The rules were, I believe, directly copied from Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war – so that's where to look if you want to research how that consensus was reached (perhaps over as long as a decade). To your next question, while one can argue that any source is biased, it should also be uncontroversial to class sources such as the BBC or the ISW differently to a belligerent government in this regard.

I appreciate how you resolved our conflict today by citing the ISW's statement on the settlements in question, so thank you for that. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

That was unilaterally added here without any discussion of what the rules should be and no consensus regarding these rules. Also, Ukraine isn't Syria so it's also not obvious why the same rules would apply (in case of the Syria page, the problem there was people citing twitter best I can tell). And Interfax isn't a "belligerent government" source. AFAIK, they're considered RS. Volunteer Marek 05:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

While unilaterally added, the fact that it has been part of the talk page for almost seven years, and through thousands of talk-page edits, without major change shows that there is consensus behind this rule. To your second point, the Control of cities page, the detailed map, the Scribunto module behind the detailed map, and the SVG used on the page for the invasion all have their equivalents for the Syrian civil war, while all these pages and resources can be classed as part of Wikipedia's documentation of territorial control during an ongoing war. Therefore, copying procedures which were found to work for Syria makes more sense than reinventing the wheel.

While Interfax may be reliable, the particular article which you cited in turn cites the Ukrainian General Staff (i.e. part of a belligerent government) as its source. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

All reliable sources are pretty much quoting government sources (or local witnesses). ISW is too and you had no objection to that. This is not a legitimate objection. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, where ISW has merely quoted belligerents, I have objected to taking the relayed statements at face value. (In fact, I did so only today.) As I recall, the ISW, BBC and CNN have all discussed "independently confirm[ing]" this sort of claim. Through methods such as geolocating footage, comparing landmarks in footage to landmarks in or near settlements, or sending journalists to near the front lines, reliable sources do much more than merely quoting belligerents. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Your approach to war crimes

... is terribly tendentious. And actually, that wouldn't be that bad. I've nothing against POV-pushers, provided that they work towards consensus and refrain from disruptive editing. I'd love to have a couple of enthusiastic Ukrainian nationalists willing to write notable and verifiable contents on the many crimes committed by the Russian army in Ukraine. There's lot's of work to do, and I don't understand why you can't try to be more cooperative and productive. There's no need of an editor playing the political commissar on the article, striking the balance between Right and Wrong, lecturing others about "whitewashing" and "bothsidesism", storming the talk as if it were a battlefield, constantly trying to set the record straight and right great wrongs. I've spent dozen of hours reporting crimes committed by the Russian forces - nearly 30% of the article is the result of my efforts - and so has done Ilenart626. Contrary to you, both Ilenart626 and I have shown in practice that at least we're trying to be as objective and neutral as we possibly can. To be honest, I've only one big POV there: when working on war crimes, I don't give a damn about Russians vs Ukrainians, and I'm only interested in victims vs perpetrators. I stand for the victims, as nothing should be forgotten: what they've suffered should remain as the scandal it is. Therefore I'm super-inclusionist: my bias. But weaponising the discourse on war crimes for petty political goals is intolerable, and frankly it's also quite stupid: what do you think you're going to achieve? If there are more war crimes against my party (reported on Wikipedia), that means that I'm (on the side of) the True Victim, which in turn means that... we're going to win the war? NATO will enter the war and war crimes will cease? Russian people will be ashamed and they'll ask their soldiers to behave nicely? I don't even understand the point of playing this ridiculous game of POV-pushing in an article as that one; it shows disrespect for the real victims and it's utterly useless. Anyway, it's also terribly time-consuming. You're blocking our work and you are a liability. As an experienced editor, you could do fantastic work and help us improve the quality of the text and the sources. It's a pity you prefer to spend your time (and ours) antagonising and blocking. I strongly suggest you reconsider your approach both to discussions and editing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Explain to me why I should bother past your first two and a half sentences. Volunteer Marek 01:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)