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)