Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:39, 10 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 information

Shortcuts

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

62.0.34.134

Clear violation after several warnings. Blocked 72 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 62.0.34.134

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 62.0.34.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA3#500/30

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

08:18, 4 August 2016 Editing in the topic area despite repeated notifications that IPs are prohibited
17:06, 1 August 2016 Editing in the topic area despite repeated notifications that IPs are prohibited
12:33, 18 July 2016 Editing in the topic area despite notification that IPs are prohibited
13:36, 19 May 2016 Highly POV edit in the topic area despite notification that IPs are prohibited

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has been repeatedly warned[1][2] [3] that IPs are prohibited from editing any article that may be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet the IP continues to make such edits. It would appear from the content that the same editor has been using this IP for several weeks,

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning 62.0.34.134

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 (username)

Result concerning 62.0.34.134

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

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)[reply]

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 [4] [5] [6] [7] and the fact that she was booed off the stage at the DNC [8] [9].

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 [10] [11].

Same thing at Clinton Foundation on 8-9 July: Mvbw steps in to revert on behalf of VM over a POV tag [12][13]. They're tag teaming over other information as well: [14][15].

Same thing at Donald Trump on July 4: VM adds some text [16], 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 [17]. 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: [18][19][20] followed by Mvbw's reverts [21][22][23]. Then an attempt to have their opponents blocked at 3RRN [24]. 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.

In order to see the extent of the tag-teaming, I have provided an extensive list of tag-team edit-war occurrences over the past year here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25][26]

@Lord Roem: I just want to clarify that Mvbw did not state that "Putin doesn't fall under the BLP policy"...he said Putin "does not deserve a decent BLP page." Two very different things. He then pushes the notion that Putin is a fascist and similar to Adolf Hitler using that very same article ([27][28]) from that very same comment. It's not a joke, and it's quite serious. As for the timing of this report, it is largely in response of the recent tag-teaming that spread to other topic areas such as AP of which I find concerning. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about attempts of ADMINSHOPPING. VM has been going around trying to have admins, who have either sympathetic towards him in the past (perhaps even friends), or on the same sides in disputes, to speak for him. Posting on MelanieN's TP here and Drmies' there, even after pinging them on this very report. I commend MelanieN for commenting as an editor, but Drmies should recuse himself (I presume Drmies didn't comment at the ARBCOM case request for that very reason, after all, he was involved at Putin), or do what MelanieN rightfully did, and comment as an editor.

And Drmies' comment is also strange and vague. It does not appear that he went over the evidence, or the arguments brought forth at this report. Mvbw's remark that Putin "does not deserve a decent BLP page." should be taken seriously, especially considering the fact that he pushes the notion that Putin is a fascist and similar to Adolf Hitler using that very same article ([29][30]) from that very same comment just days after the comment was made(!) That's as serious as it gets. I'm surprised that this is even debatable.

Marek's foul language and gratuitous personal attacks, are disrespectful to the venue of AE and its administrators. If Marek makes PAs like this towards admins at AE reports, just imagine what we average folk endure at TPs with him. I for one can pull out dozens of PAs if need be, from him calling me an "asshole" to creating entire sections at talk pages just to attack me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have no contact with MVBW and I've never asked them to do anything

User:Coffee - what evidence? I have no contact with MVBW. I have NEVER 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.

This was already rejected by ArbCom
{{{1}}}

ED's "evidence"

ED's two examples of my "disruptive behavior" champion edit-warring sock-puppets/SPAs
{{{1}}}

ED's "evidence" just shows similar watchlists - as others have pointed out. Also, this is FORUMSHOPPING

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.

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).

The purpose of WP:AE is not to "try" cases that the ArbCom rejected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth pointing out, now that Athenean has seen fit to comment here, that EtienneDolet's and Athenean's interests overlap in a way similar to mine and MVBW's. And they do edit war together (the Vladimir Putin article being the prime example), support each other in discussions, and on noticeboards - the same kind of "evidence" list can be constructed with cherry picked data. What this means is that unless ED and Athenea want to fess up to some kind of coordination or tag-teaming right here and now, the "evidence" that ED strung together is not evidence at all.

And yes, as Short Brigade Harvester Boris points out ED has been trying to get me sanctioned for quite some time. It's a personal grudge. He's pretty relentless about it. Indeed, this report right here is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING after all their previous failures. The fact that he's bringing up articles from way outside his usual topic area (Donald Trump and DWS) does evidence however that he obviously keeps track of my edits even when they don't concern him, just to try and find something he could report me for (as weak sauce as it is). I believe that's pretty much the definition of stalking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)

@User:Lord Roem Re [31]. Thank you, exactly. Why is EtienneDolet trying to get me sanctioned for another user's behavior? Especially when even that behavior (MVBW's) isn't sanctionable/disruptive itself? My edits are not disruptive, they haven't broken any policies, they all aim to improve the encyclopedia. Why am I even here??? And yes, EtienneDolet has now tried to get me sanctioned on every single drama board available, from AN/I to 3RR to ArbCom to, now, here. And ALL of these request so far have ended the same way. They were rejected and on several occasions ED has been told to cut it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to new comments

Athenean, why are you here? Do you have any interest in articles related to American politics? No. The only reason you are here is because we had a disagreement on a completely unrelated article several months ago (Vladimir Putin). And because you and EtienneDolet regularly "tag-team" in both your "edit-warring" and discussions. Which is why this request is so unbelievably cynical and bad-faithed. It's like you two are projecting your own failures and bad behavior unto others. So you show up here, to opportunistically pursue an old grudge and to help your buddy do the same.

Response to D.Creish's comments - the Debbie WS article.

First, this editor claims "VM removes the accusation replacing the text with the message "(text removed to shorten)" when really text was removed because it was untrue." Jeez christ. That's what I get for trying to follow instructions and shorten my comments. No, just no. I removed the text to freakin' try and shorten my comments. The text was and is true. I presume that D.Creish is incapable of reading my mind so I find it quite obnoxious of them to try and pretend they know what I was thinking when I removed the text. Sheesh.

With regard to User Activist. Yes, he was canvassing. On their talk page they wrote: "@Zigzig20s:, @D.Creish:, @Notque:, I restored the most recent scrubbing of the DWS article by VolunteerM. I expect he or she may be very unhappy.". [32] These are all three users that have "tag-teamed" with Activist on this article before to push a particular POV (which was also a BLP violation). The "he or she may be very unhappy" combined with "I restored" is a pretty clear indication that s/he is ping-ing these users to let them know to come to this article and help them in edit warring or to brigade the discussion. Again, the irony of this report is striking. I, for one, have never written on my talk page anything like "hey MVBW I reverted this guy on this article, and they probably will revert me back so can you keep an eye on it". Yet for some reason I am the one being accused of "tag teaming". Gimme a break.

As to the issue on the Debbie Wasserman Schultz article. The texts that D.Creish and Activist kept on inserting were/are a BLP violation. The first one concerns a frivolous lawsuit [33] which has not gone anywhere. If this wasn't a BLP maybe that'd be acceptable. But in BLPs our primary concern is not to defame the subject and including such material is in violation of BLP policy (of course if the lawsuit actually results in some kind of legal action we can put it in - but then we have to wait until that happens). There are a couple other issues. I'll omit details for sake of brevity. But in each case the issue is the same - BLP violating material which is being inserted into the article simply to make the subject look bad, but which doesn't actually add much encyclopedic value.

So yes, I have reverted these BLP violations. EVEN IF for some reason this material could be legit in this article BOTH BLP policy AND discretionary sanctions require that this is only done with strong consensus. Which, canvassing aside, currently does not exist. On talk, *I* suggested several times that editors who wish to include this material start an WP:RfC or take it to WP:BLPN. Indeed, I took it to WP:BLPN myself: [34]. There User:Sphilbrick essentially agreed with me that these additions were problematic with regard to BLP policy.

I also want to note, that in addition to brining this to WP:BLPN, I'm also the one who initiated the talk page discussions [35], [36]. It was THE OTHER USERS involved in the dispute who simply reverted without bothering to discuss it on talk, until forced to do so.

So. It was a BLP violation. I am the one who tried to bring it to WP:BPLN. I am the one who initiated discussion on talk. And I am the one who suggested that the issue be resolved via WP:RfC. I haven't broken any restrictions on the article and I've justified all of my edits.

Let's be honest here. At the moment, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not exactly a popular person. And because of that some people take pleasure in her recent political troubles. Which is fine, we're all allowed to feel some schadenfreude regarding politicians we don't like. But we are NOT allowed to inject these feelings into Wikipedia articles, especially when they concern living persons. The BLP policy is there EXACTLY for these kinds of situations. Living people who are popular don't really need BLP protection. It's the unpopular ones (yes, even Putin, even DWS) whose article need to be closely watched so that their articles don't turn into attack pages.

I still think the issue on DWS needs to be resolved via a WP:RfC or at WP:BLPN but I haven't had time to actually make edits to that article for a while.

As to the other articles related to "American Politics", like Donald Trump or whatever - I'm going to suggest that you ask User:MelanieN, an administrator who has been active in the topic area and has done a great job keeping articles related to the election encyclopedic and neutral, about my conduct. If she says that my editing in the topic area has been problematic in some way, I will happily reconsider my self-evaluation and take whatever steps are necessary to correct my behavior. But I don't see a reason why I, or anyone else for that matter, should take the attacks by a bunch of users here to pursue a grudge (ED, Athenean) seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean. Re: "No firm consensus, but the majority of users seem to think that some of this material (especially the booing off the stage) belongs in the article. Certainly no consensus to keep the material out. " - this is a BLP and according to the discretionary sanctions of American politics topic, any challenged material that does not have "firm consensus" stays out. So "no consensus to keep material out" is not sufficient to put it in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, User:Lord Roem, please note that some of the users are listing consecutive edits I made separately to make it look like I made more reverts than I actually did. Alternatively, they get fast and loose with the timing, like Athenean when he claims "In a 40 hour period between July 30th and August 1st" - actually it was between July 30th and August 2nd and not a 40 hour period but something like 60 hour period, and not four reverts but three - and all of them based on implementing BLP policy. Maybe this is just sloppy math, or maybe it's stretching the truth to make it look like something it's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Coffee " this type of childish behavior on a world-leader's article potentially merits a ban" - wait, what what what???? What. In. The. World. Is. Wrong. With. This. Edit??? What is "childish" about it? I really do not appreciate you describing my good faithed edits as "childish". When I make an edit to Wikipedia, my purpose is to improve it, and I damn well make sure that my edits are not "childish". The fact that you resort to making personal attacks throws serious question on your competency as administrator. Again. That was a 100% legit edit, I have no idea what you're seeing there, it certainly DOES NOT "merit a ban"... what the hell are you talking about???

And for fig's sake, that is an edit from a stale dispute from what, six months ago? Again, that discussion was already had, reports were filed, users got banned, requests were rejected, etc. etc. etc., it's old shit that there is no reason for you to dig up again. Seriously, what are you doing? User:Drmies was all up in that dispute, warning and blocking people, so if that edit had been "childish" or whatever, they would have already taken care of it. Long long time ago.

Nothing wrong with that edit. Strike your personal attack please. I don't go around calling your edits "childish".

And this is also completely ridiculous: "coupled with edit summaries like this one (which is VM making legal accusations against a major campaign, that have not been confirmed and are not supported by the sources in the relevant article), is merit for bans for post-1932 American Politics as well" You have no idea what you're talking about. Here. "The Sanders campaign employees who accessed the Clinton voter information without authorization appear to have run afoul of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, said Jason Weinstein, a former supervisor of the Justice Department's computer crimes section. Those employees "have reason to be concerned about legal exposure," he said, for what appears to fit the definition of illegal hacking".I am not making "legal accusations". What the fuck? I am stating what sources say. What, you think I'm gonna sue the Sanders campaign or something? You are being completely and utterly ridiculous.

And I resent this accusation as well "VM has a clear POV". No, no I don't. I mean, I have opinions like anyone else, but in my edits I take care to be neutral. But OF COURSE insisting on neutrality will LOOK LIKE "bias" to partisans. I am NOT editing with a POV. Again, ask someone like User:MelanieN.

Seriously, Coffee's latest comments just blew my mind. They are irresponsible. They consist of personal attacks and they leave me wondering "what the fuck???". Can someone explain to me what the hell is going on? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee, I've been trying to shorten my statement (look through the history of this page) but these continued baseless attacks sort of make that hard. As to your contention, NO, it was not a "POINT"y edit. It was just an edit summary which pointed out the logic of a particular argument. That is, that the same argument applies to other parts of the text. You are inventing stuff. Pulling it out of your thin air. You simply misunderstand or purposefully misconstrue the nature of the edit and then propose a sanction on me because you have no idea of what you're talking about. And you could've made that point without resorting to name calling. Seriously, administrators are suppose to be held to a higher standard, and you calling legitimate edits made by established long term users "childish" is unbecoming of an administrator. And greatly insulting. And one more time. That edit is SIX MONTHS OLD. Those arguments and disagreements have already been discussed to death, administrated upon, arbitrated upon and everything else. It's old news. Forgive me for getting the impression that you are going out of your way to find something, no matter how inane, trivial and stale to try and sanction me. This is beyond ridiculous. You should probably consider the fact that other editors and administrators have taken a completely different view of the matter from you and ask yourself if you're not making a mistake in judgement here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and let me point out that WP:SPADE is suppose to apply to unambiguous situations and SHOULD NOT be used as a cover for making personal attacks. Which is what you're doing. See WP:NOSPADE. If I had a dollar for every time someone made a personal attack and then tried to excuse themselves by claiming "oh I'm just calling a spade a spade" and then got themselves rightly blocked - because you know, they WERE making personal attacks - I'd be a rich man indeed. You can't just invoke WP:SPADE as if it was some magic incantation which gives you immunity from the WP:NPA policy. Strike it please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee's newest. Look. Did I try to put into the article that "Sanders campaign illegally hacked the database". No. Even though that could also be backed by sources. But it would be off-topic in that article. And I see you're obviously back tracking here. First, you say "are not supported by the sources", then, once I provide a source you back down and say "one source positing that...". What, you want more sources? No problem. [37]. I'll let you write your response in which you say "two sources positing that...", before I provide the third, fourth etc sources saying the same thing. But seriously. All of this is irrelevant There was no dispute about whether there was hacking (even though there was) and whether it was illegal (sources say it was). This was just an edit summary the purpose of which is pretty clearly to indicate that you can't put in text - in a BLP - which omits the context. OF COURSE these sources weren't "in the article" - that's because the whole point was that this text does NOT belong in the article. Am I suppose to put in sources "in the article" for the text that is not in there? I'm sorry but you are making no sense, you're just doubling down on your initial ridiculous accusation. And seriously, trying to topic ban somebody for an edit summary BECAUSE YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE TOPIC is just pure incompetence, if not malice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other: " Are you claiming that the edit summary was not for the edit you were making, or are you claiming that you didn't state in the summary that you removed that text to make a point (which you didn't even agree with)?" - I'm sorry, maybe I'm just a big dummy, but this question is giving me a headache. What are you asking me? Huh? Let me take it piece by piece. Let's see, yes, the edit summary was for the edit I was making, so no, I am not claiming that the edit summary was not for the edit I was making and I have no idea what would make you think otherwise. Let's see, yes, I *am* claiming that I didn't state in the summary that I removed the text to make a point. That's pretty obvious, no? Does the edit summary say "hey guys, I'm making this edit to be WP:POINTy"??? Not even close.

What the edit summary says is this - IF the consensus is that certain things are UNDUE, then you have to remove ALL of them, not just cherry pick the parts that you don't like and leave in the parts that you like. Now, I personally might NOT agree with the idea that these things are UNDUE, but if that's what we're going to do - remove certain information because consensus is it's UNDUE - then we need to do so in a NPOV manner.

Specifically - and sorry this is getting long, but you're asking for it - the dispute here was whether information about the economy belongs in this article. Some users wanted to put in ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY those years during which this economy was doing WELL, but OMIT any mention of the years during which the economy was doing BADLY. Does this sound like NPOV to you? These users (ED, Athenean) argued that economic information was UNDUE in the article but they kept only removing the "bad" numbers and leaving in the "good" numbers. All I'm saying in that edit summary is that IF you're going to completely remove information about economic performance AT LEAST you should do so in a consistent manner.

If this was an article on Barrack Obama and someone came in and put in "between 2008 and 2010, and in 2014, the average income in the economy fell" - but left out the fact that in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 it increased, that would be violating POV. If I went and inserted that additional info in the article and it was removed by the other users because "economic information is UNDUE" then it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say "ok, if it's undue then let's be neutral and remove ALL of it". You understand now?

Seriously, the fact that you are making such a huge deal out of this one edit summary - from SIX MONTHS AGO (!), which you clearly DON'T UNDERSTAND - sort of betrays your bias here. I don't know what your problem with me here is but it's obvious you got one.

One more time - please strike your personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake, so you said "in the relevant article" instead of "in the article" - is that another reason for me to get banned from something or other? You know what I meant. And this is a minor point isn't it. Why are you trying to play semantic games here? The point is the info is in the sources AND THE ISSUE IS IRRELEVANT anyway, since no one was trying to write stuff about the hack. And so what if the Newsweek source doesn't say "hack". It very clearly DOES say the following: " The Sanders campaign recently fired a staffer for illegally accessing Hillary Clinton campaign voter data,". You were claiming that when I said - in a freakin' edit summary, NOT in any kind of article - that there was an "illegal hack" that was "unsourced" and that I was making "legal accusations" (you basically were trying to make it sound like I made some kind of WP:LEGALTHREAT which was not at all true - you were being extremely dishonest). Well, I just gave you two respectable, reliable, sources, one which explicitly call it an "illegal hack" and the other which doesn't say "hack" but does say it was "illegal". You want more? No problem. This source doesn't say "hack" but it does say "stolen". And how in the world is this a BLP violation??? And why are we talking about it here? This is something that should be discussed on some article's talk page, I've provided sources which show that I wasn't saying anything crazy but what actual sources say, so what is the relevance of this here?

You are trying to hang a sanction on me for no reason at all and then when I asked you to actually point to any kind of evidence that would warrant a sanction, you came up with this nonsense. This is bang-head-against-the-wall material here. You got one edit summary which you happen not to like - even though there's nothing wrong with it. And then you have another edit summary - from freakin' SIX MONTHS ago - which you completely misunderstand and apparently are not capable of comprehending - and these are suppose to be a basis for a topic ban??? And on top of all that you make personal attacks and insults against me.

And THEN you have the chutzpah to say stuff like "So far you have not convinced me...". Well no kidding - if you honestly think there's something wrong with either one of those edits/edit summaries then there isn't a damn thing in the world I could do to convince you. You can't convince people who don't want to be convinced (perhaps because they said something silly initially and then feel like they must "stick to their guns" rather than be a grown up and admit they were wrong ... oh crap, here I go stooping to your level).

I got to go sleep. Enough. Coffee's comments are ludicrous. I have no idea where any of that came from. I hope they have the good sense to drop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, it is extremely disingenuous, dishonest even, for you to ask me to "shorten my statement" but then follow that up with a bunch of unsupported evidence-free accusations and demands that I explain myself. You want shorter statement? Stop making BS accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender - "all the drama" surrounding "these two users" is just EtienneDolet and Athenean, plus a couple banned users sockpuppeting (Lokalkosmopolit and Antidisinformation are the two sock masters that regularly pop up in these discussions), bringing this crap over and over and over again to various drama boards. You say "community is tired of it" - I didn't know that you were the voice of the community, but from what I've seen if there's anything "the community" (you always got to be wary of people who start talking about what "the community" thinks) is tired of is the WP:FORUMSHOPPING involved. That's what they - ED and Athenean - were told at AN/I, it's what they were told at 3RR, it's what they were told by ArbCom. Neither one of us - neither me nor MVBW - have been sanctioned for any of this or even warned or anything like that. It really is just two users who are upset they didn't get to push their POV on one particular article, pursuing a grudge. And hey, I am as sick of it as "the community".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

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

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.
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 [38]. 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. 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.

Yes, I sometimes checked edits by VM, just as edits by many other contributors. This is not forbidden by policy. But I never followed someone's edits only to blindly revert or support them. I 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 a 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.

Here is long list of alleged misdeeds created by ED. This is a misrepresentation by ED. He simply calls all legitimate edits "edit-war", even such as reverting edits by sockpuppets [39]. Other edits were also legitimate and reflect WP:Consensus and discussions on article talk pages. Actually, this is very common when a number of long-term contributors make similar edits on the same pages (yes, there were many other contributors on these pages, not only VM and myself, who were making the same changes). Why all of them are making more or less similar edits? That's because they are trying to reflect what reliable sources tell, and the sources tell something very definite on the subject. And how do I know about Polandball and other "obscure" subjects? Because they are not obscure to me.

@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. 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 did not edit page about Putin for a long time because of the previous complaints by these users. Athenean brings this diff as an evidence against me dated February. What's the problem? There are literally hundreds publications on this subject. (Here is one of them as a random example. I do not insist this should be included, but discussing something reliably published on the subject is legitimate.

@Lord Roem. Yes, this is excellent question: "Is this editor causing disruption and POV-pushing on the page?" - based on recent evidence. OK. Here are all my edits in main space during last five weeks. Only five of them have an overlap with editing by VM. Yes, many of these edits are reverts. However, some of them did not cause anyone's objections; others were discussed on article talk pages, which resulted in successful resolution of the disagreements by keeping either my or someone else version. Was that disruptive? Note that I edited very different subjects, which is hardly compatible with pushing any specific position. I tried to improve WP. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem. The complainer brought only five my recent edits in the area of US politics as a proof or wrongdoing. All these edits were discussed on article talk pages, and I took part in these discussions. All of them were reverted or otherwise modified by other users. That's OK. I agree with WP:Consensus on these pages (meaning I agree with VM and some other contributors that changes made by D. Creish on Schultz page [40] are undue and represent a BLP violation, but will gladly leave this matter to community). I do not see what's the problem with my behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I promise never look at the editing history of VM in the future, even though this is not forbidden by policy. That however, does not guarantee that I will not appear on the same pages as him, because we have a significant overlap of interest, including US politics. My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender. Even if I was not interested in these subjects (yes, they are actually interesting to me), but only wanted to improve content as a generally disinterested contributor, that still would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^{Talk to me} 21:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

Opening comments

The evidence shows 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 (and possibly whose existence he wasn't even previously aware of), MVBW shows up just 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, see 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.

Debunking "the evidence was rejected by the arbs
{{{1}}}

MVBW's stated intent to push POV at Putin
{{{1}}}

Edit-warring by Marek on US politics articles
{{{1}}}

Redundant comments

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)[reply]

Response to Lizzius
:@Lizzius: There is of course nothing wrong with editing overlapping articles and checking each others contribs, that's one thing. But performing identical reverts during an edit-war is quite another. That's what we're talking about here. Athenean (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem (talk · contribs): What's recent is the double-team edit warring at American Politics articles. Let's look at Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the most egregious example: In a 40 54 hour period between July 30th and August 1st (yes, Marek, August 1st US time, not August 2nd), Marek racks up 4 non-consecutive reverts: One [41], Two [42] [43] [44] (these 3 are consecutive), Three [45], and Four [46]. At this point, further reverts by Marek are risky. This is a fraught topic area and he has already edit-warred enough to possibly get blocked, even without breaching 3RR (Marek keeps involving BLP but this is debatable - the material is well-sourced). Then, less than 3 hours since Marek's most recent revert, MVBW appears out of nowhere and reverts to Marek's version twice [47] [48]. MVBW has never edited the article or its talkpage before, in fact his participation in US politics articles is minimal. Very fishy. I find it extremely unlikely that MVBW just happened to have the article watchlisted prior to this or just came to it by chance. And it's the same extraordinary coincidence at Donald Trump and Clinton Foundation. While the rest of the evidence may be somewhat dated, it is necessary because it points to a pattern: This same exact double-teaming has been going on since 2014, repeated across 40 articles. At first EE articles, but then it spread to other articles. Are we to believe that it's just due to common interests and overlapping watchlists? Human rights in Venezuela [49] [50]? John Maynard Keynes [51] [52]? Philip M. Breedlove [53] [54]? Where does it end? After March 2016, when EtienneDolet filed the RFAR, they dialed it down because they knew people were on to them. Now with Marek getting embroiled in some serious edit-wars in US politics, and several months since the RFAR, they're at it again. The mechanism of how they do so, whether off-wiki or just MVBW folliwing Marek's contribs, is entirely irrelevant. Keep in mind these users are not just editing together, they are edit-warring together. Edit-warring is disruptive, double team edit warring doubly so. Often times the material they remove is garbage and their edits justified, but often times it's not (as in the examples I give above), and they are clearly pushing POV. Often times it's against socks and SPAs, but often times it's against users in good standing. That said, I do agree with you that MVBW appears to be the more guilty party here (Marek's edit warring at US politics article is a separate matter, though no less significant). This problem can easily be solved with an interaction ban (even a one-sided one, since it appears it is MVBW who is the more guilty party), or simply a prohibition on MVBW making the same reverts as Marek (and this can even be amended to make exceptions for vandalism, reverting socks, BLP, Copyvio, etc.., basically wherever WP:3RRNO applies). But from experience, I can guarantee you 100% that unless some such measure is enacted, this kind of behavior will continue through the US election season and beyond. Athenean (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem (talk · contribs) As far as I can tell, there is a lot of back and forth between Marek (and after his reverts, MVBW) and several other users over whether the material belongs. No firm consensus, but the majority of users seem to think that some of this material (especially the booing off the stage) belongs in the article. Certainly no consensus to keep the material out. Athenean (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped to keep the focus strictly on the double-teaming, but Marek's claim that he rigorously applies BLP policy to all BLP articles regardless of POV is untrue and needs to be rebutted. At Debbie Wasserman Schultz, he fights hard to keep out material that reflects on the subject, in effect saying, "you can't add something without consensus (i.e. if I object to it)" [55]. But a few months earlier at Vladimir Putin, it was the exact opposite: There Marek was fighting hard (and Mvbw double teaming with him) to keep in material that reflected negatively on Putin, even though it was only very tangentially related to Putin (criticism of the Russian bombing campaign in syria, the sources do not even mention Putin: [56] [57]). His argument there was "It doesn't matter if you object, the material is reliably sourced so it belongs, not a BLP issue." [58] [59] [60]. And sure enough, he and MVBW editwarred and double teamed to keep the material in [61] [62] [63] [64]. Where was the need for consensus there? In other words, the 180 degree opposite of his arguments at Debbie Wasserman Schultz. One interpretation of BLP at VVP, another interpretation at DWS. The POV these two editors push at US politics articles is moreover connected to Eastern Europe and no accident: Keep in mind Trump is accused of being "soft on Russia" and "in Putin's pocket", whereas Hillary Clinton has taken a hard line on Russia. This explains why he is so protective of the Hillary Clinton campaign articles, but the opposite at Donald Trump related articles (e.g. [65] - note one of the sources here is Politico.com, which he tried to remove at DWS arguing BLP [66]). The claim that he merely applies BLP fairly across the board to protect people who are unpopular from unfair criticism is total baloney. There is a slant, and it is unmistakable. Athenean (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Further reply to Athenean, the diff you highlighted as further evidence that this is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg is indeed listed in ED's evidence page. It also seems the Arbitrators' opinion on dismissing the case were mixed, with some expressing they felt the case essentially reduced to overlapping interests. It isn't fair to consider VM's characterization of their opinion purposefully malicious, anymore than yours might also be considered so. Also (and this was first linked by another editor in the filing you referenced), if you run an interaction analyzer on you and ED it is comparable ([67]) to the analysis performed on MVBW and VM. Surely this could compel you to see how easy it is for editors with similar interests and world views to end up editing very similar articles? Have you found any truly compelling evidence that would demonstrate actual, coordinated collusion? Lizzius (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read how this has evolved, I'm disappointed in what seems like baiting to evoke a response from VM. The congruent calls to both shorten his statement and reply to increasingly pointed questions has contributed to the now querulous tenor of this whole conversation. VM is understandably frustrated as this has lead to what seems like dog-piling in this space over something that could very easily be reduced to sharing a watchlist. Some even from a user who was banned on this very page from a topic area where the editor obviously clashed with VM. How is any of this defensible? Hopefully this is closed quickly by a fair-minded administrator to prevent further damage to what is obviously a well-intentioned editor. Lizzius (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roxy the dog

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

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)[reply]

Statement by D.Creish

I encountered Volunteer Marek and MVBW on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. My interaction with MVBW was limited to his reverts and some talk page comments (more on that later) - most of my interaction was with VM. I see a pattern of disingenuousness from VM, stretching the truth or outright misstating things to help his argument. I'll give examples:

In this enforcement request he initially claims EtienneDolet was "told by the ArbCom (!) to drop it" (it being these accusations.) When it's pointed out in fact he was told AE was the appropriate venue (rather than the case request he'd filed), VM removes the accusation replacing the text with the message "(text removed to shorten)" when really text was removed because it was untrue. If it hadn't been caught by another editor it would have remained and helped his case.

On Debbie Wasserman-Schultz he accuses editor Activist of canvassing:

I just noticed that User:Activist in this message on their talk page [6] pinged several users to alert them about the presence of the disagreement above [...] This is a textbook example of improper WP:CANVASSing, followed by tag-team reverts. This sabotages the process of consensus, leading to false notion of consensus.

I point out that the pinged editors were all active participants in the discussion prior to the ping so while it may be TAGTEAM or some other discouraged practice it doesn't seem like canvassing.

He never follows up on the canvassing accusation (I assume because it's meritless) but continues to use it as a bludgeon to dismiss any consensus involving the pinged editors: "These editors are exactly the ones you canvassed on your talk page to help you in your edit war", "As to consensus, as has already been pointed out several times, several of the participants here were explicitly WP:CANVASSed here to edit war for this stuff" and reverting consensus edits with edit summaries claiming the false canvassing accusation as justification: [68] [69]

My interaction with MVBW was more limited. He was involved in a discussion about whether to include Wasserman-Schultz being booed off stage at the DNC in her article. The incident was covered in all major sources and led to to her not gaveling-in the convention (a first in DNC history.) A well-known political reporter described it as "one of the most painful moments I have ever witnessed." Seems pretty significant right? VM didn't think so and one he reached three reverts neither did MVBW.

MVBW's talk page comments were generic, they could have been cut and pasted (changing the subject) from almost any BLP dispute: [70] [71]. He dismisses the incident as a "minor detail". When I attempt to understand his reasoning, asking if it's the boo-ing or the gaveling he considers minor I get no response.

These incidents were (I believe) my first and only interaction with these editors. D.Creish (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

@Volunteer Marek: the pattern of half-truths continues in your response to my post here. You say:

The texts that D.Creish and Activist kept on inserting were/are a BLP violation. The first one concerns a frivolous lawsuit

At no point have I inserted or restored any text concerning a lawsuit.

Indeed, I took it to WP:BLPN myself: [62]

That's entirely true, but you leave out the part where you didn't notify any article participant about the posting. Didn't you find it strange that while we were all actively participating on the article's talk page, none of us participated in the BLPN discussion?

And let's look at your BLPN posting, which ends with:

One of them, D.Creish, has made BLP violations on related articles as well.

There is no basis for this claim whatsoever. I notice I wasn't pinged either so I couldn't refute the false claim. Very disappointing. D.Creish (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

Not being a Putin fan I've been pretty much indifferent to (if not supportive of) the obvious tag-teaming these two editors engage in and have engaged in for a long time. But when it spreads beyond the subject of Putin, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe in general, and spreads to dozens and dozens of articles, and articles and subjects which Myverybestwishes has never edited in or shown the slightest interest in, then in my opinion something definitely has to be done to stop it. I'd like to address myself specifically to Lord Roem: Having been nearly absent for so long on Wikipedia (indeed, in the six years since you've been here you've made less than 8,500 edits), you've not been subject to, or privy to, the frequent drama that surrounds these two editors. I believe the community is tired of it and that it needs to stop. Turning a blind eye and/or saying that VM can't help it if MVBW follows him around isn't going to solve or resolve the situation. If it isn't somehow resolved here, I think it's going to end up back at ArbCom, and I don't think it needs to. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc9871

I said from the beginning of my interactions with Volunteer Marek that he should have been topic-banned from this area for having a hopelessly biased, highly aggressive pattern of enforcing opinions over encyclopedic material. Volunteer Marek loses all credibility with this edit.[72] Removing cited material and using the edit summary to say what he said? The next edit is no better.[73] This is not encyclopedic behavior, folks! Wake the hell up! Really just terrible "editing". Doc talk 09:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MelanieN

I was pinged to this discussion by VM, I guess as a kind of character witness. So I should be considered as an involved admin, or better as just another editor. I am not familiar with the articles under discussion here (Vladimir Putin and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) so I cannot speak to the specific allegations regarding those articles. But I have observed and worked with both VM and MVBW over the past few months at several Donald Trump related articles. I have not observed, and cannot now find, any evidence of collusion or coordination between them at those pages. I have never had to caution either of them for their editing. Both of them use the talk page a lot - more than actual edits to the articles - and their contributions at the talk pages are constructive. That's all I have to say, except to note the allegations of forum shopping on the part of the OP; that would concern me if I were evaluating this case. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutrality

I'll keep this brief: I agree with the sentiments expressed by MelanieN and Drmies here. Editing in areas of overlapping interests, using the article watchlist, or checking users' contribs do not constitute evidence of improper collusion or meatpuppetry. This is a collaborative enterprise.

As a general rule (though not an invariable one), when multiple editors jump in to revert the same BLP-implicating content in good faith, the natural assumption (a rebuttable presumption, so to speak) is that the material is contentious and bears discussion—not that there is some impropriety going on.

I'll also call users' attention to the fact that Wikipedia:Tag team is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and the footnote to that essay states: "as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace. Editors have voiced a concern that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy, and that the essay can be used as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Wikipedia's editing policies to cast aspersions..." Neutrality^talk 16:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Setting the concerns of tag-teaming aside, this type of childish behavior on a world-leader's article potentially merits a ban (@Volunteer Marek: for starting it and @My very best wishes: for continuing it) from the Eastern European arena. And I'm also considering if the clear, slow moving edit-war on the DNC chair's article (assisted by Mvbw), coupled with edit summaries like this one (which is VM making legal accusations against a major campaign, that have not been confirmed and are not supported by the sources in the relevant article), is merit for bans for post-1932 American Politics as well. VM has a clear POV, and that is quite troubling considering the topics he's editing. The same applies for Mvbw. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Volunteer Marek: First, shorten your complete statement to 500 words or we'll be forced to hat them for you. Second, it was clearly a pointy edit; removing something you stated in the summary you, yourself, didn't think should go - just because the other editor had removed something you thought should stay. I consider edits like that to be below the level of maturity required here, and do not consider calling a spade a spade to be anything close to a "personal attack". Also, I find it necessary to remind you that there is no statute of limitations here, so any comments regarding the timeline without addressing the real issue are unwanted and unhelpful. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - As to the "hack" allegation; one source positing that it is possible the law was broken does not give you a free pass to go around claiming that the staffers actually hacked into the server. The relevant legal definitions can be found at this site, since you seem to be unaware of the legal ramifications that term entails. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Volunteer Marek: I never said "in the article", so stop using false quotation marks. I said "in the relevant article", and linked to that relevant article (NGP VAN). And that Newsweek source you just linked to never once used the word "hack", and in no way adds to your argument here. But, that's besides the point. Edit summaries are held to the BLP policy just like the article's themselves, and you aren't allowed to make statements of legal certainty that aren't actually certain. Especially, when stating a claim that someone has actually committed a crime. So far you have yet to convince me that your edits in this matter or at Putin's article are allowed per policy. Until you do that, my consideration of a ban still stands. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Volunteer Marek: "It was just an edit summary which pointed out the logic of a particular argument." - Are you claiming that the edit summary was not for the edit you were making, or are you claiming that you didn't state in the summary that you removed that text to make a point (which you didn't even agree with)? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- I think I should elaborate on my concern with the request here. It seems to rely on the assumption that MVBW follows Marek around with the intent to get around revert restrictions. Absent some evidence that Marek is telling MVBW to do this, I don't know why it's Marek's fault that another editor is following them around. I totally understand the basis of concern behind tag-teaming: it's a way for editors to push a position across pages by working together and never breaking the letter of the rules. On the other hand, how does one establish that two editors are working together? I think it's clear MVBW has some bizarre editing behavior that--yes, does--appear to indicate very similar watchlists. How is that, in and of itself, a sanctionable offense? If the AC establishes some standard to evaluate tag-teaming, then I'd be more comfortable enforcing this request. Otherwise, our go to is the simple question "Is this editor causing disruption and POV-pushing on the page?" I may need to look over some of the recent evidence, but my initial analysis is that there's nothing particularly disruptive in the edits being done. Is there anything recent, like in the last month, that would justify a sanction? Frankly, a lot of what's presented seems stale. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marek, could you hat some of your material and also respond to the Debbie Wasserman Schultz edits? Apart from the tag-teaming stuff, I'm sure you can see why so many reverts on that page of controversial material could be concerning. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, @Athenean: could you, or another editor, give some context on what the talk page discussion was like regarding these reverts? It seems a lot of the material being removed was critical coverage of Schultz. What was the consensus at the time, if any? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on both sides with both groups of editors, and I do not see evidence of tag teaming, nor do I see evidence of disruption by either Marek or ~~his sock~~ My Very Best Wishes. VM has a tendency to be a hothead, but he's not the only one, and the diffs I looked at (not all the diffs provided here, but a couple of random ones) prove him to work within policy. The edit to the Putin lead, for instance, makes a point but I wouldn't call it POINTy (even if that sounds contradictory), and this is stuff that has been discussed on the talk page. MVBW's BLP comment is not to be taken literally, that's obvious to me. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Malik Shabazz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

WP:ARBPIA3; WP:EDITWAR; WP:1RR; WP:CIVIL, specifically taunting and WP:HARASS.

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

M.Shabazz made three reverts in a 24-hour period in an article and topic under WP:1RR:

2016-08-06T21:49:48 Kamel Tebaast's first edit.
2016-08-07T06:03:52 M.Shabazz's first revert [of Kamel Tebaast's edit] in 24-hour period.
2016-08-07T18:40:52 M.Shabazz's second revert in 24-hour period.
2016-08-07T18:44:39 Epson Salts's revert of M.Shabazz's edit.
2016-08-07T18:45:43 M.Shabazz's third revert in 24-hour period [however, his note states "Reverted 1 edit by Epson Salts

M.Shabazz then taunted to take him to WP:ANEW or [[WP:AE]:

2016-08-08T18:54:27
2016-08-09T20:43:31 This is a taunt to Epson Salts to "report" him, "or kindly shut the fuck up."

M.Shabazz uses threats [I believe to stifle opposing opinions]:

2016-07-23T22:57:20 M.Shabazz threatened to have me blocked for what he termed disruptive editing, violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and adding personal commentary.

The two examples that he gave here and here were WP:BRD, in which his first example, "security" was accepted into the lede and the second example "deleting the word "unilateral", seems to have come to a consensus in the Talk page here.

2016-07-23T23:05:58 I challenged M.Shabazz's threat against me.
2016-07-23T23:25:00 M.Shabazz again threatened me: "My promise still stands, though: "keep up the POV pushing and you'll get a one-way trip to WP:AE."
2016-07-23T23:36:19 I informed M.Shabazz about my BOLD edit and I asked why he didn't direct his energy to the "TALK page" where it was being discussed.
2016-08-07T18:45:52 M.Shabazz informed Espson Salts that his/her reverts "did not appear constructive".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Unaware.

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

I believe that user:Malik Shabazz was an administrator.
Made a 1RR pledge here.
I believe user Malik Shabazz was in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, dealing with some of these same issues, specifically regarding civility toward other users here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

M.Shabazz has made Wikipedia a difficult environment, especially for newer editors who may have opposing views. That is not in Wikipedia's best interest. Kamel Tebaast 04:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Yes, here.

Discussion concerning Malik Shabazz

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 Malik Shabazz

It's 1 o'clock in the morning, and I'll respond to this silliness in greater detail later. But I wish to say that if the novel interpretation of 1RR cooked up by editors Kemal Tebaast and Epson Salts is given any credence, editing controversial articles will become impossible. In my edit to Jewish Voice for Peace at 13:03 on 7 August, I added to what Kemal Tebaast had written; I did not make a reversion. Good night. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

There is an ANI report where Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs) (account created on 30 May 2016) uses perfectly formed procedures. Naturally no one can prove anything except for the obvious: WP:ARBPIA is not working. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

Oh good grief there's only one revert in all of those diffs. The rest is normal editing (and by the way, includes refactoring of what were previously WP:BLP violations). I agree with Johnuniq -- the details of that ANI are pretty damning and indeed the OP's entire edit history including this AE is pretty telling. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

This is a content dispute, there's no WP:1RR violation here.

A note on the wider dispute, since this is quite clearly broader than the small issue here. Kamel Tebaast is a new editor and they have a strong POV, which is fine as long as they remember that editors are allowed to have POV, but articles should be as WP:NPOV as possible. For instance, these two edits to the Israeli West Bank barrier clearly advanced a POV. If they had simply added "security barrier" to the "separation barrier" description, it would have been fine (indeed, the discussion finally converged to this solution). But simply changing the description is not correct. Similarly, Malik was quite right to warn Kamel Tebaast about his POV pushing in the second edit. It was not a "threat": if Kamel Tebaast thinks that his edits were proper, then they have nothing to fear from an WP:AE report, just like Malik replied to Kamel Tebaast and Epson Salts in this particular dispute.

In general, Kamel Tebaast seems amenable to reason and willing to compromise, so I see no reason they can't continue to work productively in this area. The veiled accusations of sockpuppetry made against them here and elsewhere should either be backed up with an SPI or discouraged. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Malik Shabazz

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 418: / Line 418: @@
 ====Statement by uninvolved Softlavender====
 Oh good grief there's only one revert in all of those diffs. The rest is normal editing (and by the way, includes refactoring of what were previously [[WP:BLP]] violations). I agree with Johnuniq -- the details of that ANI are pretty damning and indeed the OP's entire edit history including this AE is pretty telling. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 06:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
+====Statement by Kingsindian====
+This is a content dispute, there's no [[WP:1RR]] violation here.
+A note on the wider dispute, since this is quite clearly broader than the small issue here. Kamel Tebaast is a new editor and they have a strong POV, which is fine as long as they remember that editors are allowed to have POV, but articles should be as [[WP:NPOV]] as possible. For instance, these two [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=730794683&oldid=730569728 edits] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=731261129&oldid=731181111 to] the [[Israeli West Bank barrier]] clearly advanced a POV. If they had simply added "security barrier" to the "separation barrier" description, it would have been fine (indeed, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#Security_vs._Separation discussion] finally converged to this solution). But simply changing the description is not correct. Similarly, Malik was quite right to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=731263102&oldid=731261129 warn] Kamel Tebaast about his POV pushing in the second edit. It was not a "threat": if Kamel Tebaast thinks that his edits were proper, then they have nothing to fear from an [[WP:AE]] report, just like Malik replied to Kamel Tebaast and Epson Salts in this particular dispute.
+In general, Kamel Tebaast seems amenable to reason and willing to compromise, so I see no reason they can't continue to work productively in this area. The veiled accusations of sockpuppetry made against them here and elsewhere should either be backed up with an SPI or discouraged. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Kingsindian|&#9821;]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|&#9818;]] 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards