User talk:Volunteer Marek

Immigration

Re revert: I removed the weasels. A ty przywróciłeš je. Czemu? Zezen (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which weasels you're referring to. Can you provide a regular diff? Dzieki.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini

Hi Volunteer Mark, thanks for coming over to the Mukti Bahini] page. The discussion had been deadlocked, and I didn't have the energy or knowledge to do anything about it. I should have thought of calling you in fact, but I have been tied up with too many other things. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN on communism

The noticeboard will be where the recent talk page discussion will be negotiated: here. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: disruptive canvassing

You go right ahead and report me. I stand by what i said there, your behavior with regards to this subject has been nothing but abusive. Bonewah (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what you said. It's about you engaging in disruptive canvassing. Read WP:CANVASS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I know what canvassing says, that has nothing to do with what i did. He was already substantially involved in this dispute before i left a message on his page. I messaged him for exactly the reasons i stated, because you and lipsquid have never missed an opportunity to revert me, and yet didnt lift a finger to revert him. That tells me your behavior is some kind of personal grudge against me and has nothing to do with making a better Wikipedia. Why dont we talk about that for a minute? Why dont we discuss you constantly ignoring my concerns with regard to those edits in favor of endless time wasting and reversions? No matter how many times i say that the issue is that the edits dont match the sources cited you never even bother to respond, including this last time where the only reason you cite for opposing removal is that "What may be undue on Jude Wanniski page may not be undue here. Especially since the curve was, you know, named after him." as if that has anything to do with anything. I cant help but notice you couldnt even be bothered to address any of the objections listed in the RfC both by me and the numerous other editors who also objected. And thats not to even mention that this is the fourth page youve done this on.

I have no idea what your deal is, why you are so determined to waste my time, but if an admin notice board is the only way to make it stop then so be it. If you really think your actions have been in the best interest of Wikipedia then go ahead, waste more peoples time. But I implore you, either substantially respond to the concerns expressed, ALL the concerns on ALL the pages which you have both read and participated in, or for the love of god drop it. Bonewah (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you know. WP:CANVASS is pretty specific: ""Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking."

This is *exactly* what you did. The moment there was a disagreement you went running to a user's talk page and requested "help". Based on this users' prior statements it was obvious that they would be willing to support you. And that was the reason for you request for "help" (i.e. reverts in an edit war).

And I did address your objections, you just haven't listen. Sort of like you claim to have read WP:CANVASS but have not really understood what it says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

He already voted. He didnt just vote, he removed the material in question. I went to him for help because he saw, and acted on what you constantly ignore, the very clear consensus against including this material. And you have not addressed my objections, you didnt in the RfC, you didnt on Art Laffer or anywhere else. If im wrong, then feel free to link to the part where you substantially replied here or at Art Laffer and ill address them. And when i say objections i mean the objections i spelled out clearly in the RfC, the ones where i said that the source doesnt support what the edit says. You know, one of the Three Core content policies that youve been activily ignoring for months now. Bonewah (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. You went to him to help you in an edit war because based on his previous votes/comments you knew he would be willing. That's disruptive WP:CANVASS to a tee.

I'm not going to rehash the argument here as it appears to be a waste of time. Talk page is over that way, feel free to start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want another RfC you start one. The wp:ONUS is clearly on you if you would like to re-add this material. Be sure to include links the the other three pages where consensus says that we should not include this material as im interested to hear your logic as to why this page is so different. Bonewah (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no it's not. Just because one RfC on one article is closed one way, that doesn't mean - as several users pointed out to you - that it applies to any other article you fancy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The inevitable ANI thread

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giedroyć family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish-Lithuanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland

Please check the talk page of this article, where I have laid out my reasons for my edits. 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:2954:44A6:3A12:4111 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but is there any reason why you're using multiple accounts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies! It logged me out before I made that comment. Indy beetle (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have found new information concerning Danzig's role. Please look at Talk:Invasion of Poland. Indy beetle (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rusiecki/Ruseckas

When I first created that article, I had him as "Polish-Lithuanian". Someone changed that to "Lithuanian", with two references to back it up. Honestly, I'm a poor Angeleno of Scandinavian descent who's totally confused about the appropriate use of place names, personal names, ethnic identities, etc. in the whole Poland-Lithuania-Belarus-Ukraine area. I suspect I'm not alone among English Wikipedia users. Anyway, my rule here is: If you disagree...fine, no argument, I was just trying for consistency. WQUlrich (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

PS, I've put all the links back the way they were...there's still going to be a redirect page for the Lithuanian version of his name. WQUlrich (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, these things are always a mess. Best thing to do is to check how sources describe him. And who knows it could be Ruseckas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of linking to other articles

Clearly the topics in the commons/anticommons articles are completely related. Do not remove appropriate mentions of other articles in Wikipedia on completely dubious grounds like this.GliderMaven (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Find a source or it goes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR defines OR in a particular way; you are instead engaging in disruptive editing. If this continues I will be getting you suspended.GliderMaven (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR is pretty clear. This little table does not have a source. It appears to have been concocted by you out of thin air or some other Wikipedia user. That's the definition of original research. It's unsourced. If it's unsourced it needs to be removed.

If you want to "get me suspended" please be my guest. You might want to read this first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the History of Poland (1939–45) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin

That article has been controlled by Putin-bots forever, it is a lost cause. Will only get you sanctioned if you continue.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see that. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried agrueing for neutrality at it once but it was futile. So in the end I thought it made more sense to just go over board with the praise and hiding inconvenient stuff[1][2].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the AN3 report as "no violation" but Manus is right - there are some battles you can't win and if you scream at people who disagree with you until you're blue in the face, you'll just get blocked, which is just a big waste of everyone's time, isn't it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit appalled though that everyone seems to agree that there are serious problems with the article but walks away from it because "it's too much trouble". Which it is, but... . Anyway, I'm going to stick with discussing things on talk and trying to work it out. Outside eyes on the article are much need though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You would need at least a handful of dedicated neutral editors with lots of time on their hands to turn the tide at that article. ANd my guess would be that if more folks show up to try to claim the article back to the encyclopedia, more people will appear on the other side as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest making use of RfCs a lot I really love RfCs for getting outside input to solve stalemates.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, RfC or mediation or DRN or something is needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of a Augean stables problem though in that it's such a mess it's hard to know where to even start.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

DRN and Arbcom doesnt work for this kind of thing at all. Its the Augean stables except its the stable of a six-butted Hydra and everytime you plug one of its butt two new ones appear. Kind of like the R&I area is becoming lately.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, tilting a bit at the windmills over there. Really the argumentation they make should itself be the cause of banning as they go directly against the idea of being an informative encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There are classes of articles that ought to have Hic Sunt Dragones at the top of them as a warning to editors coming armed with common sense (I'm not going to say what exactly but here is a clue). The specific problem with Putin is that, unlike those articles, it's one ordinary people from just about anywhere in the world might actually want to read and get some information from it. It's made doubly hard that the news (at least round here) frequently paints him as a power-crazed warmonger who has stolen so much money he makes Ronnie Biggs look like a 7-year old caught with his hand in the till, so getting decent, high quality sources is something of a struggle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that man does not deserve a decent BLP page. Let it be ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact you agree with Maunus that the article is controlled by "Putin-bots", shows that neither of you should be editing the article on Putin. I will make mention of this to the administrative board, so you don't continue to push a POV on the page Solntsa90 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you're fresh of a week long block for disruptive behavior, you should really ask yourself if that's what you want to do. But whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini

I have started a discussion at Talk:Mukti Bahini. There was no consensus about anything there, i just did not have time to reply, when there is too much stuff to evaluate, i need to set aside some time to do that. People have other things to do in life beyond Wikipedia. Sometimes i can only do minor edits, so if i could not reply due to a time constraint, you cannot think that i agreed with you but if you think there was any consensus then it is broken now. You need to address the objections and let's see if we can have an agreement otherwise we have other ways to resolve this matter. Moreover you have misunderstanding about WP:CONCENSUS. I suggest you review it. You cannot force WP:CONSENSUS to include unsourced material in an article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The material is sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not except the paragraphs in "International reaction" section which are irrelevant to the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Lithuanization

I wonder why you inserted this material again. It has no place there, because everything was done according to laws. Just to make it clear, read Law on the State language sections VII. Names and VIII. Signs and information. Sourced material doesn't particularly mean it belongs in the article. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not actually relevant. It's not about whether some law exists or not, but whether this process constitutes Lithuanization.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it's relevant. In my opinion, this article has to be removed, because it doesn't contain neutral POV, as it tries to show that Lithuanians are bad to Polish people only. There's no mention about Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really. And that's not a reason for "removing" the article. If you want to add about Lithuanization of other groups, be my guest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The state doesn't force the Lithuanization of surnames. Lithuanian alphabet doesn't have Q, W and X, so it doesn't constitute as Lithuanization. If your name/surname was Marek (just an example, because I know it's a name), you don't have to change it to Marekas (Lithuanian form). There are many names/surnames that don't have the Lithuanian ending. This section sets a perfect example, why the statement about surnames should be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As for bilingual street signs, there was a proposition to allow bilingual street signs, but it was never passed and therefore, fines are being issued for breaking the law. This also doesn't constitute as Lithuanization. And it's the same situation as with surnames – only Poles cause these problems (don't have anything against your people as I have Polish friends/acquaintances). – Sabbatino (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Something can be "according to law" and still be a form of discrimination or of "Lithuanization". The government policy on Lithuanian names and signs is perceived as such by many Poles and it is also the view taken by most reliable sources on the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

...perceived as such by many Poles... Can you justify this claim? Are there any sources about this? Because in Lithuania very few Poles see things as you claimed. Maybe in Poland you hear that Poles are being harmed in every way (I don't know the real situation about the news you hear), but in Lithuanian we hear the same about Lithuanians in Poland. I don't know what you or anyone else in Poland think about Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania, but they are seen as a laughing stock in Lithuania, Poland and whole Europe. They tend to create conflicts which can be avoided. Their view doesn't represent Polish or Russian minority in Lithuania as they like to claim. Here's something that might give you a good idea who identifies himself as the leader of Poles in Lithuania. I'm not trying to make Polish people look bad, but not everything is true what you hear about things related to them. P.s. Feel free to reply if want as I'm not trying to create a conflict here. I just state facts from my own view. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!!

I just wanted to thank you for all your efforts on the Vladimir Putin article. That article looks like a nightmare to deal with.CometEncke (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up the polish tribunal page. It looks like we may be getting (a very scaled down version of) one here in the US. Should be fun! Costatitanica (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! And yeah, when I saw the thing with Scalia I couldn't help but chuckle. (though the details of the situation are sort of reversed) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder

Please respond to me in the talk page of said article so we can discuss further edits or revisions to that page and come to a consensus. Thank you for your time. 24.185.84.80 (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request word limits

Hi, Volunteer Marek. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it exceeds this limit because I am the one being attacked and lied about! When four or five people get 500 words to attack one person each, that means they get 2000 or 2500 words to lie. But that person still get 500 words to answer them.

If ArbCom requests were handled and done differently, this wouldn't be an issue, but they're not, are they? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Don't let yourself be dragged down to the level of the PoV pushers, SPAs, sockpuppets, &c. You're a good editor, and Wikipedia needs you. I know that this arbitration business is a mess, but I'm sure that the peanut gallery won't prevail. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello VM. I took the liberty of fixing the link about the editor Macaque123 at your 3rr report. You had left out the "123" - I hope you will forgive my doing this - It is just that I didn't want the report to get sidetracked by not having the correct editors name on it. I hope that you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Vladimir Putin". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You issued a DS notice but without specifying the case name

Hello VM. In this edit the name of the arb case is missing. Did you intend to specify Eastern Europe? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, no Syria, but I guess EE would work too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There are no Arbcom sanctions for Syria, only the community sanction. But Russian bombing might be covered by WP:ARBEE, since Russia is in Eastern Europe. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

1971 Indo-Pak War Article

1. The Agartala Conspiracy Case cannot be excluded from the background section. It was a fundamental part of the mistrust between the West Pakistani establishment and Awami League. Furthermore nearly all sources pertaining to that section are either Bengali or neutral sources.

2. My edit of the following sentence needs to be restored:

Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces including paramilitary personnel were taken as Prisoners of War by the Indian Army

I added the clause 'and civilians'

You have removed this too. Even though on the 'Bangladesh Liberation War' page it mentions 24,000 civilians as part of the POWs taken (and that statistic are sourced)

3.In the Aftermath-Pakistan section there's a great deal of emphasis on Pakistan's 'humiliating' losses and failures. This section does not take into account the extreme circumstances Pakistan's Army found itself fighting in.

So that statement in praise of Pakistan's millitary performance from the Indian Chief of Army Staff in 1971, Sam Manekshaw (who was a pivotal member of the conflict from the Indian side), should be included to provide a fair assessment of Pakistan's millitary performance in the conflict.

Furthermore the info I added in this regard was sourced, a Youtube clip of Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw's interview was provided.

4. I added a neutral source to backup the paragraph (in the 'Background' section) which said that the Pakistani state claimed that the Pakistani millitary deployment and Operation Searchlight was in response to anti-Bihari mob violence and rioting. You have excluded this pivotal info.

The source for this info is D'Costa, Bina (2011). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. p. 103.

You can search the source yourself.

5. BBC says that most Independent researchers say that the number of civilians was killed was between 300,000-500,000. It also says that 3 million is the Bangladeshi government's figure.

That too should be restored. It is a sourced sentence I had added.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 

The place for this is on the article's talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Vladimir Putin, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Marek, if you are going to refile the MEDCOM case after the ARBCOM case is concluded, let me suggest that you wait until the RFC that's pending expires so that you can get all of your issues into a single case without complications of who should and should not be notified. - TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, will do that. There actually is no ArbCom case just a request for one, which it looked like it was going to be declined when I filed the request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Kanazawa defence is back

Hi. In the Satoshi Kanazawa article, you removed from the lead the mention of the "Sinned against, not sinning" of 23 scientists defending him, mentionning that most of these people were associated to the racist Pioneer Fund. Someone readded the mention, and I tried to find a source for your claim, in order to qualify it, but all I could find was a comment on a freethoughtblog article[3]. Do you have another source we could use to make it clear that this man is *not* supported by unbiased scientists? --Jules.LT (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a question of whether the letter can be regarded as a reliable source and whether it should be given UNDUE weight. That's why it's better to just not include rather than include and qualify it. Really quickly the folks associated with the PF on that list, include at least: Brand, Gottfried [4], Lynn, McDonald, Nyborg, Rushton, Vanhannen. Probably everyone else too, those are just the ones I'm sure of off the top of my head. If you google each name along with "Pioneer Fund" or "American Renaissance Magazine" (or even "white supremacist") it pops up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for letting me know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. But I think that the only way to really justify its exclusion from the intro on Undue Weight grounds (and making sure it's not put back there again) is to include and qualify it in the body of the article, ideally with a secondary source --Jules.LT (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

MilHist WWII FA/GA discussion

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

Thanks for the notification. I commented on the delist discussion for Walther von Brauchitsch [5] since that one seems straight forward. On Otto Kittel and the others I'll have to go through all the information provided - I'll try to comment later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I plan to do a summary of the discussion over the weekend, so just a heads up in case you were interested in commenting. The thread has grown long, but the more pertinent discussion is under the main headline, and also in the subsection "Kurowski: journalism of gray and brown zone". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Hi @Volunteer Marek:, May i know the reason, why you remove the image from here? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It got accidentally removed when trying to undo some other edits. Thanks for catching that, and I put it back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

A request for arbitration you were party to has been declined.

The case has been declined as the subject area is already subject to discretionary sanctions and no alternate dispute resolution has recently taken place regarding the issue at hand.

For the Arbitration committee. Amortias (T)(C) 20:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

WT

I am unaware of any RFC or wide decision banning washington times as a reliable source. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be an RfC or anything like that. It's enough that it doesn't satisfy the criteria for WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the U.S. Climate Action Partnership page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are hereby banned from making any edits to the article Bernie Sanders for 1 week.

You have been sanctioned for a direct violation (making a contentious edit without firm consensus, edit warring) of the discretionary sanctions already in effect at Bernie Sanders: "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Coffee - ummm... I made a single revert - *removing* contentious material - and I started a talk page discussion on the subject. That's not "edit warring" that's WP:BRD. I also have not been notified or warned prior to the topic ban in anyway. Coffee, would you re-consider removing this topic ban? Maybe you missed that it was only one edit and I did start talk page discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not a topic ban, it is an article ban. You were made aware of the discretionary sanctions in the edit notice on the article; if you failed to read it before editing that is not of my concern. This editing sanction is to prevent further back and forth edit warring, I've placed it on several users already (you can look at the log of sanctions) for the same reason (one person has tried to appeal, but the admin community - and later, ArbCom - backed my decision per the current sanctions being already in place on the article). This ban does not prevent you from discussing further edits over the next week on the talk page, but it does prevent you from making unilateral contentious edits without getting firm consensus first. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

One more time - there was no "back and forth edit warring". There was a single revert per BRD, complete with the "D" in there. You also didn't place it on the other user. Not that you should or anything, that would be just as ridiculous as this topic ban, but it's worth pointing out.

And let me also point out that this practice of yours of topic banning (even if it's a single article, it's still a topic ban) anyone who makes a single revert (but not those who undo that revert) basically allows people to ADD contentious material to a BLP article as long as they can sneak it in and get it to stay there a day or two. Then removing that material becomes hard because someone who does this risks getting this ban from you. That's NOT what you want in a BLP.

Can I also inquire why the Bernie Sanders article is the ONLY article from AmericanPolitics2 ArbCom case [6] which is being given this treatment? Surely other articles - other candidates in the election - are just as or even more subject to disruptive editing and edit warring? Any reason for this or is it just random? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made the reasoning clear at WP:AE, you can read my note there. The only thing I'll reply to here is your question about why this particular article is subject to sanctions... Another editor asked the same question a while back, you can see my reply to them here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Per consensus among uninvolved administrators and my closure here, this arbitration enforcement action has been reversed. The reversal will be noted in the log . --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Somme

Restored your deletion (meaning: deleted). Before bluntly deleting it, do please "consult the source", and the history thereof; to my knowledge this is the first time DonWar was compared with trenches, specifically with Somme (e.g., see the article for Genocide, as for the word)—Pietadè (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was, doesn't mean that it should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vladimir Putin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Putin was an officer in the [[KGB] for 16 years, rising to the rank of [[Podpolkovnik|lieutenant colonel]], before retiring to
• per year,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?)sy=1993&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=49&pr1.y=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop edits like this: [7], [8]. These are knee-jerk blankings where you automatically undo even slightest improvements. I've noticed for quite some time that your editing across the Russia-Ukraine topic is constantly violating key policies like WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you continue like this, I will have to report you at WP:AE. Take care. --Dorpater (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

These are NOT "knee jerk blankings". What they are is the restoration of a long standing consensus version after someone tried to POV the hell out of the article. I have not violated any policies so you might want to go and make threats to someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Marek, I'm sorry, but that comment--"Oh, wait, that's right, we can only remove anything that can potentially make Putin look bad (like the fact that there was voter fraud) from the lede, but not anything that makes him look good"--that's the kind of stuff I really can't let you get away with. I'm sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone ask User:Galassi to restore my comments which I think they accidentally deleted here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And that whole comment [9] was specifically about content. The part you excerpted above is a pretty accurate description of how trying to edit that article has worked so far. It's also not directed at anyone in particular but rather the atmosphere on the article as a whole, so I'm sort of unclear on how it's a "personal attack". But whatever, it's you guys' loss.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you should request a block review and an unblock, as I don't see how the above comment can be constituted a personal attack. As you say, it's not directed at anyone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

<comment by MyMoloboaccount removed - VM>

I personally think it's true what MyMoloboaccount says, but at the same time, I've witnessed seemingly much worse events that got away without a block. As to the merits of Marek's remark, I just saw a bit of sourced text removed from the Vladimir Putin lede with the justification that the lede is only a summary and disputed statements shouldn't be included. Well, the lede is a summary of an article, including the parts someone doesn't particularly like about it, if they're salient parts, in my book. I've now introduced something again that I think begins to give a bit of balance to the lede. I'm curious to see how it will be treated. LjL (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I restored the edits accidentally removed on the article talk page. P.S. I too probably will not be doing anything on wiki for a while. My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Piotrus, you know as well as I do that it was not a neutral remark: it lacks good faith and suggests one's opponents are POV-driven. Again, Marek, I'm sorry, especially since you have been doing good work there. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Marek was telling that edits by Athenian were POV-driven. In fact, it was exactly what he said. However, I have seen a lot of such claims around, and almost never saw anyone blocked for doing this. Athenian did not seem offended by the comment by Marek and responded reasonably, telling also that he is "willing to disengage" [10]. However, his next edit 7 minutes later was complaint to you [11] which led to this block... My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Athenean went running straight to Drmies to block shop [12]. I seriously doubt they were genuinely offended though, they just saw it as an opportunity. Never-mind comments like these [13].

Anyway, I don't care about the block. I always got better things to do anyway and the way I see it, when I edit Wikipedia I'm donating my own time, so I'm the one doing Wikipedia a favor, not vice versa. But my comment was an accurate description of how editing on that article works - it is simply impossible to make any kind of meaningful change or improvement unless it is explicitly pro-Putin. Reliable sources are dismissed on the flimsiest and often contradictory pretexts. Any attempt to cut down the overly long article, is instantly revert with disingenuous demands that these edits be "discussed first". Disingenuous because it's pretty obvious no one has much of an interest in genuine discussion but rather uses this "discuss first" tactic to keep control over the article.

The funny thing is that pretty much any outside editor that stumbles upon the article has pretty much the same reaction that I did - oh my god this is a piece of junk!!! But pretty much everyone of these people is also saying "leave it alone, it's not worth it", "it's too much trouble", "you can't win this, you'll just get blocked", "it's been controlled by POV editors for too long to change it" etc. So everyone realizes that a genuine problem exists, on an article of major importance, that it really could use some fixin', but everyone is either too busy, too lazy, or too scared (yes), to actually try to work on it. I find that kind of attitude... disheartening. I mean, I understand, I get busy too, I can be lazy and some of the antics going on definitely create a chilling atmosphere. But hey, if *I* want to work on it, I would appreciate some support. Leaving a comment or two on the talk page about how "the atmosphere here sucks" or "the article length needs to be cut" is not going to actually magically fix the problems with the article on its own. You got to actually go in, press that "edit" button and start making the changes, hatchet, buzzsaw and all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And I certainly agree. However, judging from the most recent arbitration request, this can only be done by people whose accounts were not compromised, who were not previously sanctioned, who are not open to accusations of "tag-teaming", and preferably not Russian citizens (many people were recently convicted in Russia for making innocent posts on the internet). But as a practical matter, I would be quickly topic-banned from editing this page, precisely because I would try to make an informative and NPOV version. How do I know it? Because I edited other pages more remotely related to this subject. One can not create NPOV versions of pages on very high-profile subjects (such as that one) in the open anonymous internet environment where "everyone can edit". My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

VM makes some very valid general points, and not just about this area of the project. It is very disheartening for many users, who feel intimidated from improving articles. I give my time freely, and I have to make a conscious decision based on an emotional profit/loss balance sheet wherever I edit. Is this going to inevitably end in a fight? Is this going to further shred my nerves? Real life crap is sometimes bad enough, but as a volunteer? So I scout before I edit. I wish I didn't have to. So yeah I get scared off by some areas of the project, I admit it. Irondome (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

One editor alone can't fix these problematic areas. Maybe a group of sane, like-minded editors can collaborate on the more gross examples, but often that just degenerates into a bad version of the gunfight at the ok corral. I think the admin corps could be more supportive if it is blatantly obvious that an article has been compromised in terms of POV and regular editing patterns and eds who own articles. That would encourage other editors, who have knowledge of the subject and wish to get involved. I am talking about perhaps thousands of articles that are affected. It's a systemic issue. Ironically, the I/P articles are less stressful of late. There are clear rules of engagement, high admin scrutiny and even a measure of respect among the regular eds of differing POVs developing. Because pissing about there has become a zero-sum game. Maybe a similar model can be put into operation in this area. Irondome (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. As someone familiar with this subject, I am laughing looking at the most recent edits on this page [14]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

And I'm laughing at how everyone showed up on the talk page, shook their heads gravely and they all said "this article is too long it must be shortened". Then the administrator and the commentator left and the regulars, who agreed that the article was "too long" when the administrator was watching ... proceeded to make the article even longer by adding even more pro-Putin puffery and adulation, sketchy sources and all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I think. My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm

You can deny it all you want, but this is sarcasm [15], no two ways about it. Which is very brave on your part considering you were told by an admin to "cut down the snark" and blocked when you didn't. This really needs to stop, otherwise you will be posting denials here instead of the article talkpage. Athenean (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

First, cut it out with the threats. You are obviously trying to intimidate me which isn't exactly civil. Second, which part exactly is suppose to be "sarcastic"? Everything I wrote was meant literally.

Please keep in mind that your comment above can easily be construed as both a personal attack as well as borderline WP:HARASSMENT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Mr Obama has said, that Mr Putin is "not completely stupid", should this be included into section Recognition, below the line "In 2015, Pope Francis awarded Putin the "Angel of Peace" medal"...—Pietadè (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Volunteer Marek. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Violation of WP:NPOVTITLE?.The discussion is about the topic Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Thank you. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Crimea annexation RFC

I've opened an RFC on Talk: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on the question

"Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection Crimean public opinion be moved into the subsection Crimean status referendum?"

As you recently edited this talk page, I thought you might like to share your views. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi Volunteer Marek, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dude, you've been edit warring on that articles for what, six months, now? Please take your attempts at intimidation somewhere else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)