Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:56, 8 August 2016

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Doc9871

62.0.34.134

Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:03, 7 August 2016‎ (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:EE
WP:ARBAPDS

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes have a history of tag-teaming in edit wars. Lately they have been doing this in articles relating to American politics.
Examples: Since July 24, Volunteer Marek was edit-warring at Debbie Wasserman Schultz, especially regarding material on criticism of how DWS handled the NGP VAN data breach and the fact that she was booed off the stage at the DNC .

Then on August 2, My very best wishes, who had hitherto never shown any interest in the article, appears out of nowhere to revert on behalf of Volunteer Marek .

Same thing at Clinton Foundation on 8-9 July: Mvbw steps in to revert on behalf of VM over a POV tag . They're tag teaming over other information as well: .

Same thing at Donald Trump on July 4: VM adds some text , and after it is removed, Mvbw shows up a few hours later to re-add it, even though he has never edited the article before . This appears to be a clear-cut example of WP:GAME so as to circumvent the 1RR restrictions in this particular article.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• I have warned both users about the tag-teaming here and here.
• VM alerted of EE sanctions by Callanecc. VM also alerted of WP:ARBAPDS sanctions by Kelly
• Mvbw alerted of EE sanctions by EdJohnston. Aware of WP:ARBAPDS sanctions here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I had previously made a case request at WP:ARBCOM regarding tag teaming in eastern Europe related articles, but since that area is already under discretionary sanctions, I was told to file at WP:AE instead. There's a long history of tag-teaming, and it is not limited to WP:EE or WP:ARBAPDS.

Beginning mid-2014 (and possibly earlier), Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes appear to be helping each other out in edit-wars by tag-teaming. VM is the more active of the two, and the tag-teaming typically has the form of VM getting involved in an edit-war in an article that Mvbw has not previously edited. Once the edit-war is under way, Mvbw appears out of nowhere and reverts on VM’s behalf. In a minority of instances, it is VM that steps into an edit-war that Mvbw is involved.

Since mid-2014, the tag teaming has occurred over a large number of articles (at least 40 in 2015 alone, although there are possibly more), some of which are quite obscure (e.g. Philip M. Breedlove, Khan al-Assal chemical attack, The Harvest of Sorrow). Initially the tag-teaming was restricted to Eastern Europe-related articles, particularly the Ukraine crisis, but as of 2015 it has spread to non-EE articles (example), hence I'm inclined to believe that it's not merely mutual interests that guides them. Furthermore, though both these editors have edited for a long time, they edited few articles in common in the period 2012-mid 2014, with the number of articles they edit in common skyrocketing after that. It should be noted that VM edits a far larger variety of articles than Mvbw does; however, most of the articles Mvbw chooses to edit after mid-2014 appear to be articles VM edits, especially of those he is facing contention (i.e. the April contributions of Mvbw and VM are noticeably similar). The disruption this has caused is considerable. One example below:

• WP:GAME - Tag-teaming so as to circumvent 1RR articles, which appears to be the case at WP:ARBAPDS as well. See: followed by Mvbw's reverts . Then an attempt to have their opponents blocked at 3RRN . An example of this occurred recently at Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, where VM ran out of 1RR reverts, only to have Mvbw revert and ultimately have the user blocked.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Volunteer Marek

User:Coffee - what evidence? I have no contact with MVBW. I have NEVER... EVER EVER EVER EVER asked them to make any edits, say anything or anything of the sort on my behalf. I have NOT BROKEN POLICY in ANY WAY. If there is ANY evidence to contrary can you please point it out to me?

Yes, it's obvious that MVBW follows my edits (though I think it's equally clear that I don't follow theirs). So what? Is there a policy against that? Is there a prohibition? Is there an arbitration decision to that effect?

No, no and no.

Now, please note very carefully that User:EtienneDolet has brought THIS EXACT SAME ISSUE to ArbCom before. They failed to link to that request - I wonder why? Could it be because it was completely rejected and thrown out??? Here is their request . This is just ED not knowing when to WP:DROPTHESTICK and pursuing a grudge.

ED makes a lot of vague accusations like "hence I'm inclined to believe that it's not merely mutual interests that guides them". I don't give a flip what ED is "inclined to believe". I'm inclined to believe that he is an obsessive POV pusher who holds grudges, but I don't bring that to WP:AE. They need to provide ANY evidence of actual collusion, or shut the hell up, because I'm getting pretty sick of this obsessive harassment.

YOU need to also provide evidence, not just claim that it exists or that you find it "damning". ArbCom rejected ED's request - ON THIS VERY ISSUE - for a reason (and no, ED was not told to "bring this to WP:AE". They were told to bring SPECIFIC actual behavior which was disruptive to WP:AE. This isn't it).

Let me point out that it's the job of WP:AE admins to ENFORCE ArbCom decisions, not to USURP them by making up conclusions which the ArbCom never made.

PS. If I sound annoyed then that's because I am. This is like the 6th or 7th time that EtienneDolet has dragged me to some noticeboard in an attempt to get me sanctioned. He's taken me to AN/I several times. Nothing happened there except he was told to cut it out. (text removed to shorten) This is the definition of harassment, stalking and disruptive behavior. He needs to let it go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that EtienneDolet's ArbCom Case Request on this very issue was rejected nine to one!!! In other words, it was overwhelmingly rejected. Arbitrator Amanda stated "two people editing on the same side of an argument for an article is not tag-teaming. Without evidence of collusion, I don't see the basis to proceed here. ". This perfectly describes this request as well. Arbitrator User:Opabinia regalis said: "a look at the examples of alleged tag-teaming provided by ED and others here shows a common thread of removing questionably sourced material added by a relatively inexperienced editor. Sure, that's a pattern on Misplaced Pages that can be frustrating for all involved, but not firm evidence of anything beyond having similar watchlists". I.e. There's nothing here, and ED is not adding anything here either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

ED's "evidence"

Now let's look at the two examples ED provides which he claims are "evidence of disruption".

• Here is the first one:

"The disruption this has caused is considerable. One example below: WP:GAME (...) Then an attempt to have their opponents blocked at 3RRN "

Oh, this is rich. ED is claiming that I, somehow in collusion with MVBW, was "attempting to have the opponent blocked". Who is is this opponent? A newly created single purpose account which after creating the account immediately started an edit war on a contentious topic. Most likely a sock puppet of another user who just got banned (this was assessment of other editors, not just me. This user was pretty clearly trying to sabotage an ongoing WP:MEDIATION probably because they were excluded from it for acting like an a-hole). And it was THE OTHER USER who filed the 3RR, NOT me. So how am I "GAMEing" Misplaced Pages policy here? By having myself reported to 3RRN or something? How in the world would I do that? I must have send psychic waves at that other users and mind-controlled them to get them to file a 3RRN report against me, right? I'm sorry but this is just fucking stupid. And what in the world does MVBW have to do with that 3RRN report? Absolutely nothing. They have made no comment in that 3RRN request. This is not evidence. It's mud slinging by ED. Very very dishonest mudslinging - and here is why:

User:NeilN closed that 3RRN report against me with "No violation BRG~itwiki warned about WP:GAMING" (the other user continued to act disruptively and was eventually blocked ) . That's right, it was THE OTHER USER that was warned about WP:GAMING but here is ED busy dishonestly pretending that it was me who was guilty of WP:GAMING. You're being gaslighted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here is the second piece of "evidence" that ED claims shows that myself and MVBW are "GAMING" the rules: An example of this occurred recently at Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, where VM ran out of 1RR reverts, only to have Mvbw revert and ultimately have the user blocked.

It's pretty much like the first example. It's the same article, same issue ... wait a minute... could it be... that this right here is EtienneDolet's actual interest in bringing this issue here? That it really has nothing to do with Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Donald Trump or whatever, but that he's just trying to... WP:GAME discretionary sanctions on American-politics articles to try and get his way on a completely different article? Naaaahhhhhhhhhh, couldn't be.

Anyway. Like I said, it's the same thing. Brand new single purpose account immediately starts an edit war on a controversial article. Same edit war that the other brand new single purpose account started and got blocked on. It's a freakin' sock puppet folks. Come on. Anyway, I make one revert. MVBW makes one revert. So here comes running EtienneDolet claiming that after I "ran out of reverts" (no shit, you only get one) I "had MVBW revert"

Bullshit. I didn't "have" MVBW do ANYTHING. They did whatever they wanted to. I didn't ask anything of them. If ED has evidence to the contrary then they should present it. Else, stop lying about people.

Anyway, just like with the previous example, ED actually fails to provide a link to what actually happened with the resulting edit warring report (because then, you'd see that the admins were very much on my side rather than the SPA sock puppets EtienneDolet is trying to champion here). Here it is . It was closed by User:EdJohnston as "24 hours for WP:1RR violation. This editor seems to be limited in their use of English, and this can make it hard for others to understand them". I.e. The SPA newly created account was indeed edit warring, not listening to discussion, etc. And guess what? MVBW did not comment on that report either.

• ED's "hit list" is here. Aside from the Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donald Trump articles, this is pretty much exactly the "evidence" they brought to ArbCom when they filed a request for a case. IT WAS REJECTED 9 to 1, because all it is is evidence that two users "have similar watchlists". Which I'm sure we do. And I'm guessing MVBW does check my edit history from time to time. I honestly don't look at theirs. But so what, they have a right to do that.

Note also that this is cherry picked data. There have been plenty of times where myself and MVBW have disagreed on things but of course ED fails to include those in his list (since it'd pretty much show that his "evidence" is full of it).

Since this is more or less the same evidence as the one presented in a REJECTED case request, it should also be rejected here. The purpose of WP:AE is not to "try" cases that the ArbCom rejected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Wordsmith, I'm sorry but what is your basis for placing ANY kind of restriction on me in the AP area? I haven't broken a single policy. If you feel otherwise at the very least please indicate what policy I've broken so that I am at least aware of what I'm being accused of. Because right now, the most you could say here is that one user sometimes checks my edit history - not exactly sure how I'm suppose to change that.21:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And um, I hate to defend MVBW because then someone will cry "collusion", but guys... you are obviously misunderstanding a comment they made which was meant sarcastically, as a joke, as a response to the two previous comments, which were also jokes (I think User:Drmies can attest to that). If you really think that MVBW was being serious that "Putin does not deserve BLP protection" then you should turn in your Misplaced Pages-editor card in along with your common sense card. I mean, the "Let it be ridiculous" part almost explicitly says "Hey everyone! I am JOKING". To sanction somebody over a, perhaps stupid, joke is, well, stupid (and then you should sanction User:Maunus as well since he made the first joke). All you really need to do here (why do I have to do your job for you?) is ask MVBW explicitly: "Do you really think V Putin does not deserve BLP protection?". If they say "yes", then sure, go ahead, topic ban them or whatever. If they say "no, that was a joke" then just tell him "Don't. Ever. Joke. About. Putin" or whatever and move on. This isn't that hard. Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

The complaint suppose to be about my recent alleged misbehavior in two subject areas, but I do not really see it.

1. My most recent significant edit in EE area was two weeks ago, it was discussed and agreed about on article talk page. None of my recent edits in this area caused serious complaints or disputes. It seems that I actually have good collaborative relationships with many contributors in this area.
2. US politics. As a note of order, I did not receive a formal warning about discretionary sanctions in this area. Five days ago I made two reverts on page Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The edit was explained on article talk page . This discussion (five days ago) helped me to realize that US politics is a highly disputed area. Since then I did not make a single revert on these pages and only took part in discussions.

No, I was never involved in any inappropriate activities with VM. Tag team is not a policy. I was working to improve content per "five pillars". Yes, the content can be significantly improved by reverting disputable edits made by other contributors. If anything of that was problematic, please discuss my specific edits with me when I make them. I never avoided such discussions. However, I wound rather not discuss here my old EE edits because a similar request was submitted by EtienneDolet to Arbcom some time ago and rejected.

Yes, VM never followed my edits, however I sometimes looked at his edits, just as at edits by many other contributors. This is not forbidden by policy. But I never looked at anyone's edits only to blindly revert or support them. I frequently agreed or disagreed about something with others and discussed. Obviously, I had a lot less objections to editing by VM, who is smart, well-intended and highly experienced contributor, than to editing by POV-pushing SPAs. Agreeing or disagreeing with someone is not a violation of policy. To the contrary, this is a productive collaboration.

@Coffee and Wordsmith. This my edit was made almost six months ago, and this is not a BLP violation. Neither this is a suggestion to violate policy. This is just a joke on a user talk page. Yes, I believe that BLP rules must be respected.

P.S. I do not have any contacts off-wiki with any WP participants for many years; I never edited on anyone's behalf, and I never asked anyone to edit on my behalf. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean. This request is unusual. What normally happens? There should be a serious content disagreement about something. Yes, we had a content disagreement with EtienneDolet and Athenean about page Vladimir Putin, but it was almost six months ago! Why they are binging this back citing an essay as a reason for sanctions? I do not edit page about Putin for a long time, precisely because of the previous complaints by the same users. I do not see any real problems with my editing right now. There were only minor content disagreements on a couple of pages related to US politics a week ago, but I did not edit them since then; I was not engaged in prolonged edit warring anywhere, etc. Athenean brings this diff as an evidence against me dated February. What's the problem? I simply quoted an RS and asked: do you know other similar sources? But instead of simply responding to my question when it was asked (no one responded), he brings this here and now. And yes, I am interested in the current US elections (they are highly unusual), just as in all other subjects I edited. My very best wishes (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

Sorry about the rollback. Finger slipped on phone. Corrected my mistake. Again my apologies. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

Just to point out that surely WP:EE does not offer the sanction (or, indeed, any sanction!) requested...? 21:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

I edit in the American Politics area, so I'm recused from commenting as an uninvolved administrator. However as an editor, those diffs are troubling. Particularly the one where MVBW indicates that we should willingly break WP:BLP because he thinks that a world leader is unworthy of having a compliant article, just because he doesn't like Putin. After that one, I don't think MVBW is capable of editing in compliance with policy. My suggestion would be for a 'topic ban for MVBW for Eastern Europe and post-1932 American Politics, and a 0RR restriction for Volunteer Marek for American Politics. The Wordsmith 21:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

It's no secret that Marek and MVBW have similar views and thus makes edits from a similar perspective -- just as EtienneDolet has similar views as another group of editors and makes edits similar to their perspective. Are both of these groups tag teams? I don't think so.

The whole idea of "tag teams" is problematic enough that a highly respected editor and two-term Arbcom member nominated Misplaced Pages:Tag team for deletion. She is more articulate and concise than a science geek like me, so I'm going to quote her: "Many editors have identified that the 'characteristics' of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy and thus make similar edits." In the real world there are people who have similar views on certain topics and thus tend to make similar edits (and yes, revert similar material). That's true whether the topic is Vladimir Putin or global warming or anything else on Misplaced Pages that parallels a real-world dispute.

I'm a little more concerned about the BLP implications of MVBW's Putin comment. However, it is worth reading that entire thread in context. I'm also somewhat concerned with EtienneDolet's repeated attempts to get VolunteerMarek sanctioned for something (whatever seems to fit at the moment). But that's just par for the course in this topic area, unfortunately. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Athenean

There is a clear and unmistakable pattern of MVBW coming to Marek's aid when the latter is involved in an edit-war (regardless of whether in some cases the opponents are socks or SPAs or how justified the edits are). Time and time again, in articles he has never edited before, MVBW shows up at the right time to revert for Marek. Following the filing of a WP:RFAR by EtienneDolet (which wasn't "rejected" on merit as Marek falsely claims, more on that below), the frequency of such incidents decreased, but it has increased again since Marek became heavily involved in American Politics articles of late. I mean, what an incredible coincidence. Marek starts getting involved in some pretty gnarly edit-wars over American politics (more below), and lo, MVBW all of a sudden develops a new-found "interest" in American politics and shows up and starts reverting in a subject he has never edited before.

Regarding the so-called "rejected" RFAR EtienneDolet filed earlier this year, the Arbs response, which can be seen here , was not to reject the case on merit, but that since Eastern Europe is covered by discretionary sanctions, there was no point in opening a new case, and ruled to simply refer the case to WP:AE, exactly what EtienneDolet is doing now. Marek's claims that the case was rejected on its lack of merit is patently false and an attempt to mislead.

Regarding MVBW's claim that his intent to sabotage the Putin article was a "joke" (the lamest excuse in the book), the POV disruption he has caused at that article is no "joke" at all (e.g. edit-warring to keep well-sourced material out , many more examples). Here for example Mvbw seems to be taking the "Putler" stuff quite seriously . No, no joke. He stated his intent to push POV, and followed through on it.

As to Marek's protestations that he has "done nothing wrong" at American politics articles, he has in fact been engaging in some pretty serious and protracted edit warring in this topic area (Debbie Wasserman Schultz: , 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: , Clinton Foundation: , and possibly others). I have seen people get 0RR and worse for less.

MVBW and Marek have been double-teaming since 2014. First their collaboration was restricted to Eastern Europe articles, the original area of common interest. Then Marek became involved in Syrian Civil War articles. And sure enough, MVBW followed him there. Now it's American politics articles. When called on it, they dial it down. When they think the coast is clear, they resume. And it works. While the users that get blocked tend to be socks and/or SPAs, experienced users typically give up to avoid getting blocked. Call it what you want, tag-teaming, collusion, meatpuppetry, it's a form of gaming the system and a mockery of the spirit of wikipedia. Athenean (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lizzius

Having reviewed the diffs provided in evidence, and the ones provided in the statements of many users here, there is no meat in this case (Athenean, your numerous linked diffs showing a "protracted edit war" cover weeks of edits to multiple articles and to my eyes absolutely no evidence of repeated content removal or what I believe WP policy would define as edit warring).

The "compelling" evidence here shows nothing more than an overlap in editing interests. No more or less severe than many editors (and admins) across this site with similar watchlists/interests/access to the news. Unless there is hard evidence of collusion between these two (apart from the fact that they both inhabit Earth, probably have access to Western media and thus tend to follow a similar sense of Zeitgeist when it comes to their individual interests, and happen to have a political ideology that departs from the sense of the filing editor) this should be chalked up to nothing more than partisan bickering. Throw on top of that the history with the filing party here (and a curious opinion from an "involved" administrator, followed by another administrator who could seemingly be cast into the same collusion bucket if the definition is allowed to be cast so broadly), and you have one curious set of circumstances here that absolutely shouldn't result in any sort of sanction against MVBW or VM. Lizzius (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Roxy the dog

It's called a Watchlist. -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

I would like to echo Boris here, ED has been trying to get VM sanctioned for something for quite awhile now. Given this has already been brought up and rejected by Arbcom, and there is no additional considerations here, some form of forum-shopping warning needs to be given. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• The evidence I've looked through so far is damning. I hope Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes can explain why they've clearly tag-teamed articles during edit wars for years, and why they continue to do so to this day. I'd also be very interested to hear why My very best wishes thinks that Vladimir Putin, the leader of the second most powerful nation on the globe, is exempted from the BLP policy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: and @My very best wishes: Please mind the word limit of 500 words per statement and trim down or hat longer sections as appropriate. Seraphimblade 21:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'll go over EtienneDolet's more extensive evidence page, but so far I'm not seeing anything that would merit a sanction. There's no evidence of direct collusion to evade 1RR and--absent that--I'm not seeing a specific disruptive act that would merit a topic ban. Usually we have conduct issues in how an editor interacts with others on a topic (sometimes an outgrowth of POV-pushing) or intensive edit warring. What's happened in the last several months since ArbCom rejected the case? As for this Putin BLP thing, in context it appears to be more of a joke or sarcastic than literally "Putin doesn't fall under the BLP policy," which would clearly be ridiculous. I'd advise Volunteer Marek to calm down and substantially reduce his response per this page's rules; otherwise, I'm not inclined to impose a sanction at this time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)