Volunteer Marek claims he will be reducing his Wikipedia activity for the foreseeable

[Boink Boink]

What an odd thing to say (my bolding)....

Taken together I don’t see these restrictions as being challenging to follow, especially since I plan on very much limiting my Wikipedia activity in the foreseeable future. I believe that their imposition makes an indefinite ban unnecessary and hope you will agree with me in that regard. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 12:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"Very much" is a very strong statement. It implies a drastic reduction in activity, for a man who has previously averaged 14 edits a day, is closing in on 100,000 total edits, has never had a month away from Wikipedia since 2008, and whose editing pattern is not just spread right across the day, but crosses very much into his sleep pattern too. No surprise of course to see that such a deeply problematic Wikipedia editor has a deeply unhealthy relationship with Wikipedia.

It begs the question, is he even capable of such a thing? Assuming as we must, given his strident and principled denials that he would EVER sock-puppet, this will be genuine time away, not time wearing a different Spidey Suit.

But if we take him at his word, would I be correct in assuming he plans to limit his activity for precisely twelve months? Which is the first available opportunity for him to appeal his forthcoming ArbCom sanctons....

In liue of a site ban, Marek is being restricted to "1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert". As we can all see, part of the fun in Wikipedia for Marek is edit warring, and while he also likes a good argument, it's never about consensus building for him.

He is also being banned from interacting with Levivich and Francois Robere, who between them have 50,000 edits and are interested in Marek's favourite things, Poland and politics.

Rather amazingly, and purely by accident I am sure, with one sing!e restriction, ArbCom got straight to the heart of what Marek's editing philosophy has always been. He isn't interested in consensus building, he's there to fight others to ensure his preferred version of history is the one Wikipedia tells, and he tries to win by any means necessary.

And through the interaction bans, this recognises that this need to win at any costs includes being an absolute asshole to his perceived enemies (who are of course in his eyes, all Icewhiz socks or proxies).

It seems rather obvious what Marek is thinking here.

He is thrilled that he has avoided the terrible stain that a site ban would be. It is so much harder to win on Wikipedia when everyone knows you're officially a low down dirty cheat. And as corrupt as some are, pretty much every Wikipedia Administrator has the good sense not to get the reputation of being protector and enabled to a formerly site banned editor.

He knows that for what he wants to do on Wikipedia, his restrictions would In effect be the same as a twelve month site ban, so he might as well act accordingly, setting aside his need to win for twelve months, and feeding his addiction by tinkering with uncontroversial articles.

He knows that ArbCom would probably be dumb enough to think twelve months of trouble free tinkering on articles that nobody cares about, would be enough to start the process of lifting his restrictions. Perhaps he is even hoping that his nemesis will follow him to the hinterlands and start picking on him, which he can then use to further his pathetic I'm the real victim in all this narrative to anyone gullible enough to listen, using that to bolster his appeals.

Hopefully by still being on Wikipedia, tinkering, he'll be tempted to skirt his restrictions and test their boundaries, thereby making it less likely he will successfully appeal them in twelve months, and more likely he will earn his much deserved site ban. The jury is out on whether he is that dumb. To be as much of an asshole as he is, he definitely has to have a problem with impulse control. But he also clearly has the smarts of an experienced and time served wikilawyer.

The two traits taken together well explain his prior history of sanctions and current situation, actually. He has always been destined for a ban, it's just a matter of how much other people have to suffer until it happens. It can take 15 years for some. The inevitable demise of a good but not perfect Wikiwarrior.

It is sadly way too much to ask of Wikipedia's Supreme Court justices to realise that if Marek is planning to spend the next twelve months purposely avoiding conflict and not demonstrating he can play nice with others, either in his preferred topic areas or somewhere completely unrelated, then he really is intellectually dishonest and purposely hasn't learned a damn thing from the case. So you really would be fatally undermining the Universal Code of Conduct if you started to wind back his restrictions on this evidence.

That is a crime against humanity that cannot go unanswered. One way or another, Marek will be made to suffer for your ineptitude or indeed corruption. For the avoidance of doubt, giving preferential treatment to an editor because In your eyes they are writing the correct version of history and you dislike the methods of those who dispute it (who let us remember, only resort to such methods because Wikipedia is rigged to support editors who are skilled at POV pushing and are born wikilawyers) is corruption. As in, you have been corrupted in your thoughts and in your deeds. You are weak.

[Bbb23sucks]

Under a cloud, just like Jimbo.

[wexter]

....... his prior history of sanctions and current situation, actually. Volunteer Marek has always been destined for a ban

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... teer+Marek

In response to current arbitration restrictions and sanctions "I," Volunteer Marek, "welcome this as I think it will help me become a better editor."

"Thank you sir, can I have another" Chip Diller played by Kevin Bacon in Animal house.

For some power-participants, Wikipedia becomes the central aspect of how they perceive themselves; it becomes their center of self; it becomes their vocation and identity; and/or a measure of their self-worth.

Is Volunteer Marek (and others) suffering from Mental illness or are they just sad and pathetic losers?

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and participants are not building an encyclopedia, it is a toxic social network or cult.. of flimflam a confidence game of lies..

[ericbarbour]

Is Volunteer Marek (and others) suffering from Mental illness or are they just sad and pathetic losers?

lol hell yeh brother

[Boink Boink]

It says a lot about Wikipedia's history of dysfunction, of which being overly lenient in the face of rank and deliberate misbehaviour of those who have absolutely no excuses is a big part, that some people seemed to think Marek was still allowed to make one revert a day, and/or his revert restriction only applied to the topic area of this case...

Just slightly confused by VM's 1 revert restriction. Is that 1 revert period? Not per day, or week. 1 revert on an article and then no more reverts, even unrelated content weeks later, absent explicit consensus for that revert? Is that really what yall meant? nableezy - 21:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is confusing. Did y’all mean once per article per day, one revert for any particular piece of content, or one revert per article until the heat death of the universe? This needs to be clarified before the AE messes start. Courcelles (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless otherwise stated, it means reverts per article per 24 hours, subject to all the exceptions which apply to 3RR. Animal lover |666| 07:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It was intended to be 1 revert per piece of content until consensus is developed. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Well, it certainly doesn't say that. And unless my reading skills have failed, does this 1RR apply to the entire encyclopedia, or just this topic area? Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It was meant to apply to the entire encyclopedia, so your reading skills and the intention match there. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The post by "animal lover 666", assuming their username didn't already tell you, can be safely ignored as the opinion of a random nobody. The only relevant comments are the two posts by Barkeep, who was one of the three drafting Arbitrators on the case. He may deny it later if it becomes convenient, but for the purposes of Wikipedia governance, these are official clarifications. The clear intent of the court.

Note that Black Kite is an Administrator with a long history of corruption, especially in the form of subverting or indeed nullifying entirely the intent behind ArbCom sanctions. And indeed a history of making generally unhelpful but highly acidic comments about the very existence of ArbCom (a perk to being an asshole who makes it to Administrator being you have more right to "free speech" on Wikipedia).

The only reason he volunteers for work at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, is to further this subversive intent. He will have been thinking about this issue precisely because he will have been looking ahead and thinking about how he can help Marek get around these restrictions. The easiest way to make an AE report go away being to declare the sanction isn't applicable.

Sadly for Marek, this restriction is applicable. Everywhere. He's going to have one heck of a problem keeping track of which content he has already reverted once, lest he "accidentally" (honest guv!) revert it months later. Good. It is about time the burden of being an asshole fell on the person being an asshole.

He clearly doesn't relish this burden, hence his intent to reduce his editing for the forseeable. It's pretty stupid of him actually, since not only does it not show his mindset has changed (lack of evidence of good behaviour trumps lack of evidence of bad behaviour), it makes It harder for him to plausibly claim he had just somehow forgotten he had made a revert to a certain piece of content months ago, if he has throttled back to one or two article space edits a day.

It says a lot about the weakness of even a harsh sounding sanction like this, that over at Wikipediocracy, he is opining that things "could've been better, could've been worse." , while curiosly not even acknowledging the revert restriction in that assesment, suggesting he really does intend to approach this element of the case as if it were a ban in all but name.

No surprise that Wikipediocacy are keen to end the discussion of this case now.

Unpicking the details now we know who got what and how, is ripe for Wikipedia critics.

It's downright embarrassing for a forum that is infested with Wikipedia insiders, the very people who are often directly responsible and enthusiastic defenders of this dysfunction.

Of particular interest as always, was the esteemed NewYorkBrad's habit of turning up just at the right time to offer such unreasonable opinions delivered with an air of reason.

I'm surprised by the support so far for banning VM from Wikipedia entirely, which I would consider an overbroad and overharsh sanction

Does Brad think this revert restriction is overbroad or overharsh? Or is it justified? Does he see it having any realistic prospect of producing genuine reform in someone he inexplicably claimed during the Case was showing signs of "good faith"?

Nobody will ever know, because the Case is now closed meaning there is no longer any point in his eyes in offering an opinion. He wields great power, but shows little sense of the accompanying responsibility.

This is why engagement is becoming external, and Wikipedia's only option is to ignore it and die a slow death as their "brand" loses its lustre (because being the puppet of antisemites and the haven of assholes was always going to be far more damaging to a wannabe encyclopdia than its ease of vandalism and focus on pop culture) , or be seen to be laughably trying to extend its absurd ideas of what constitutes good governance beyond their shores, even though all it has produced in their sovereign nation is a bleached dessert populated by a handful of nasty individuals fighting over the odd cactus plant.