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)[reply]

Nomination of Etymology of Szczecin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Etymology of Szczecin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of Szczecin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the nomination edit-conflicted with someone else's revert of the resirect, and I wanted to speedy my nomination, but after the first user commented this is not anymore possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Poland

Nie znam nikogo z obsesją na punkcie Białych Serbów ani nie jestem zbanowany, co Ty wygadujesz?
Co do sekcji, którą usunąłeś to faktycznie nie była oparta o zbyt dobre źródła więc niech tak zostanie.
Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF

Mark, your comments directed at PackMecEng and myself come across as antagonistic rather than civil. Perhaps I'm misreading things but can we try to stick to discussions rather than short one liners? I've tried to push a compromise text later in the discussion. Springee (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Report at AE

[1]--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you self-revert your revert at Yigal Amir, I'll take responsibility for it. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns with BOLO edits

Hi, I've noticed that you, myself, and at least one other editor have noticed BOLO's vandalism. This is concerning to say the least. He continues to make political, unilateral edits which disrespect consensus. I'm not familiar with the process to prevent this vandalism, but I wanted to voice my concern to someone who might be. --AlexOvShaolin 03:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not vandalism, but it is disruptive. Has he gotten a discretionary sanctions notice? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe he has. He just keeps doing edit revision vandalism. He doesn't even accept voted consensus... --AlexOvShaolin 03:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"vandalism" refers specifically to stuff like putting in "penis" into articles. Complete nonsense stuff. This is just WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and unwillingness to respect talk page discussion. Anyway, I put a notice on his talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, the classic "penis" insert into articles. Thanks for clarifying :) AlexOvShaolin 03:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of vandalism and make accusations of "political, unilateral edits". Also I'm respecting the talk page discussion on that specific article. You are the only one who is being WP:TENDENTIOUS and not respecting talk page discussion and you have violated WP:MUG several times now. Please stop. BOLO 97 (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your account became active on August 3rd 2018 and... you know what WP:MUG is? Riiiiggggghhhhhhttttt. When are you going to disclose your other accounts? Anyway, there's five editors on talk that disagree with you, so no, you are not respecting talk page discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yea and based on all the available evidence 3 of those 5 are probably you so I'm not sure it's a good idea to accuse me of being a sock. BOLO 97 (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. If you really think those are my accounts feel free to raise the concern at WP:ANI or WP:AN or WP:SPI. But you won't because you know they gonna look at your history too, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolo, if you stop vandalizing then I will stop accusing you of vandalism. Looking at the talk page, I'm not the only one. Consider your actions in a thoughtful non-political manner.AlexOvShaolin 04:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you are doing. I'm not as dumb as you think. The gaslighting you are engaging in is pretty apparent. As far as actions go, Volunteer Marek you're the only one acting political based on a 5 or 6 minute browsing of your many edits. BOLO 97 (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worth nothing, he admitted to violating the rules then edited his comment[2] --AlexOvShaolin 06:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it with the WP:GASLIGHT I admitted to nothing, THAT IS A BLATANT LIE. You just got caught in one of your many lies, I didn't "admit" anything I altered the word because I realized that I was RESPONDING to your false accusation scumbag. BOLO 97 (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Volunteer Marek. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Trump administration family separation policy.
Message added 02:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please respond on the nomination page if you wish to continue with it. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special discretionary sanctions

Please be aware that you are now subject to the following sanctions:

The No Personal Comments sanction ~~and Thicker Skin sanction~~ outlined at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions#No personal comments sanction This sanction applies only to article talk pages.

These sanctions are for the topic area of post-1932 politics for a duration of 1 year. The sanctions have been imposed based in part on off-topic remarks about other editors like the comments inside the collapse box at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_88 dated 88 15:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC).

These sanctions are 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 will be logged here. Violations of the sanctions will trigger the enforcement procedures outlined at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions#Enforcement: 1-week non-escalating topic ban. Note that you are extremely unlikely to be topic banned or blocked for accidental violations of the sanctions, provided you are willing to correct your own mistakes without administrative intervention. Also note that these sanctions are intended to enforce good behavioral norms that you should probably be observing anyway.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here, or directly to me. Please contact me with questions or if anything of the above is unclear. ~Awilley (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Awilley, I didn't make any comments at 15:49, 20 June 2018 on that talk page. You sure you got the right person? (And really? Sanctioning someone for something that was not even said two months ago?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And can you clarify what in the world "you are not permitted to enforce the no personal comments sanction on other editors" actually means? Like if someone makes a false accusation against me like here I'm not even allowed to say, "hey, you're making a false accusation?" - is this sanction really that stupid? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to make a guess, in that archive under this RFC there is a hatted section by Scjessey titled "Stop it." with the time stamp 10:49 am, 20 June 2018. No idea if that is actually it, but that is my best guess. PackMecEng (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's like four hatted sections and like I said I didn't actually make any comments at 15:49 and it was so long (in Wikipedia time) that I have no idea. Also "I told you so". This is dumb.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng is correct, I was talking about the collapse box with the time stamp of 15:49, 20 June 2018. You just need to open the page, hit Ctrl+F, type in 15:49, and go to the second result. The first comment is "Yup. More evidence of how dysfunctional the situation is here where a vocal minority obstructs to prevent obviously relevant info from being added to the article." followed by sarcastic back-and-forth with PackMecEng. I'm not imposing the sanction for that one isolated incident, but for a long-term pattern of pointed comments about other users and groups of users. (Otherwise I'd have leveled the same sanction against PackMecEng, which I nearly did anyway.) In looking for the long-term patterns I went back a couple of months into the archives. That's why the post was so old. If you're looking for more recent examples try this: [3] (implying that you're seeing more Trump-voting bigots on Wikipedia every day) or [4] ("The gate keepers intend on using the "consensus required" DS provision to keep out ANYTHING that might reflect negatively on Trump...") You almost got the Anti-filibuster sanction for your participation in that section...at least 20 edits so far. But I didn't see a long-term pattern of filibustering in TP threads, so you didn't. Does that make a little more sense? ~Awilley (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, look, in controversial topics, there always comes a point where someone just needs to blow off a bit of steam and complain about Wikipedia and its atmosphere in general. I mean, as content editors, we have to put up with a lot of shit, and sometimes it gets to be a lot and you just got to come out and say "you know, this place can really suck!". Now. Why exactly is this suppose to be a problem? As long as you're not attacking anyone personally, this is not disruptive and does not generally cause problems. I mean, yeah, if that's ALL an editor did then it would be a problem, but, that's not the case with me, nor is it the case with anyone else whom you've slapped around these past few hours. And yeah, I *AM* seeing more and more Trump-supporting and also bigoted editors on Wikipedia. Gee... maybe it's cuz they fucking post on my talk page all the fucking time, where they use ethnic slurs, make threats, AND identify themselves as Trump supporters??? But hey. That's no concern of yours. You got your priorities. Making up idiotic unclear rules for others to follow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what in the world motivated the "thick skin" provision? Like, are you seriously saying I'm sensitive to personal attacks? I put up with more insults and attacks than anyone else in this topic area and here you come strutting in with this bullshit. Is it because I asked PackMecEng, an editor you seem to be familiar with, to remove a personal attack (even though I could have easily taken him to WP:AE for it)? Like, where did this one come from? Is it just gratuitous? Is it just another way to set up a future block? Because I don't see any reason for that one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I didn't know about the people trolling you on your talk page. (I only just watchlisted your talk page today.) That sucks. And I get what you're saying about needing to blow of steam as well. Reading through the older talk page archive there were a couple of editors who made my head explode. (Many of those are now blocked, topic banned, or have moved on.)

Getting back to your question, I had linked the NPA and "thicker skin" sanctions because I've observed that in the majority of cases the editors who dole out the most personal attacks are also the most sensitive to perceived personal attacks directed at them. (I slaughtered that. WP:CGTW #10 says it better.) Now that you point it out, I'm realizing you're probably an exception to that. I can modify the sanction and remove the thicker skin half. ~Awilley (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WTH, "special discretionary sanctions"? Is that like double secret probation? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The man has to make it sound important!!! Don't question it! Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I didn't know what to call it. New and Unusual discretionary sanctions? ~Awilley (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, in regard to #civility, allow me to point out that in the list of male Wikipedia editors who get harassed, VM ranks pretty high. See the recent revdeleted edit in their talk page history, and the SPI that I just opened, including blocks for editors who were ragging on Marek. And there's a thing or two that regularly pops up and warrants revdeletion. I know one shouldn't respond in kind, and it's always the guy who hits back who gets the flag thrown, but please keep in mind the context. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck! ~Awilley (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ouch, I just realized this is serious. Apologies to all concerned, especially Awilley -- sometimes I forget that not everyone shares my warped sense of humor. VM, Awilley is a good admin. Follow his advice and you'll be OK. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)OK, here's the deal. I've modified the sanction, removing the "thicker skin" bit. Keep the personal comments off of article talk pages and if you screw up and somebody calls you on it, throw it in a {{hat}} template and call it "Extended content" or something. Do that and you won't get banned/blocked under this sanction. (The regular civility policy still applies everywhere obviously.) ~Awilley (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA is enwp policy. Discretionary sanctions does not give admins the authority to modify sitewide community agreed policies. By your wording, if VM was to remove a personal attack directed at them on a talk page, it would be a violation of the accusing yadda yadda... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is clearly trying to supplant established policy. I truly don't believe it would pass muster if brought before the community. 138.115.204.195 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if this quote from Awilley's policy talk page helped guide the implementation of this "discretionary" sanction, then we have a bigger problem indeed. "Most of the comments are directed against Trump supporters and include remarks about them being racist, anti-science, ignorant, etc..." 138.115.204.195 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

138, that quote was the opinion of someone else. Please don't attribute it to me. ~Awilley (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I attributed it to the TP mentioned above, where the editor who made the comment acted as an advisor to you regarding your new sanctions. The point I made stands... especially considering how you applied your first round of sanctions. 138.115.204.195 (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]