Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive197

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)
et 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
WP:ARBIPA

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 [1] [2] [3] [4] and the fact that she was booed off the stage at the DNC [5] [6].

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 [7] [8].

Same thing at Clinton Foundation on 8-9 July: Mvbw steps in to revert on behalf of VM over a POV tag [9][10]. They're tag teaming over other information as well: [11][12].

Same thing at Donald Trump on July 4: VM adds some text [13], 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 [14]. 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.
• Both users are aware of WP:ARBIPA 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: [15][16][17] followed by Mvbw's reverts [18][19][20]. Then an attempt to have their opponents blocked at 3RRN [21]. 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.

As a result of this MfD discussion, the previous page has now been moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive197/EtienneDolet_evidence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22][23]

@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 ([24][25]) 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 ([26][27]) 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]

UPDATE I have updated the report to add another case, WP:ARBIPA. At 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Mvbw and VM appear to be pushing an identical POV in the form of vote-stacking ([28][29]) and main space editing ([30][31]). 1971 Bangladesh genocide is a rather obscure article and the likelihood of them sharing the same POV in this field would be rare. As usual, Mvbw has never edited this article before, let alone the ARBIPA topic area, until VM found himself embroiled in a conflict there. I find the chance of this being just coincidental mutual interests to be slim to none. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In his latest defense, VM claims several times that I have “brought these diffs to multiple venues. From AN/I, to 3RR, to ArbCom itself” or that I “brought this to other drama boards”. This is completely false, I have only ever brought this evidence here, and a small subset of it at ARBCOM once, who told me to bring it here. I have never gone to 3RR or ANI or any such venue with this particular evidence. So this claim is completely bunk, and VM knows it, but it’s the only way he can defend himself. As for going to the “drama boards”, Yes, I did take VM to ANI twice for his personal attacks, but definitely not for tag-teaming. And one of those reports, for which he called me an "asshole", I withdrew. One can't help but notice how VM doesn't show any diffs of his claims that I took this evidence to all these venues, because such diffs don't exist. In fact, VM is perhaps the last person who should talk. Witness here how in the space of a few months he went block shopping simply because these people had the temerity to disagree with him [32] [33] [34] [35] (all closed with no action btw). Nor is this behavior “old news”, as VM will try to claim. Witness how obsessively he trying to get Doc [36] blocked for merely having the temerity to participate in this AE thread (which somehow he manages to claim is related to Donald Trump). So if anyone has a problem with obsessively pursuing grudges and block shopping, it is VM. The rest of his post consists of nothing more than the usual personal attacks and bluster. VM has shown tremendous disrespect for the venue of AE, by using foul language, making personal attacks and unfounded accusations without providing any evidence, and by refusing to keep his posts succinct. The length of his posts is not coincidence: It is intentional filibuster, a favorite tactic. But in the end, for all its ferocity, VM’s bluster fails its main purpose: To address the evidence that he and Mvbw have been very successfully playing this little tag-teaming game for quite some time now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VM saying that I outed him is entirely misleading. I simply stated his old username (Radeksz) at the ARBCOM case request, because he and Mvbw were one of the main protagonists in the notorious WP:EEML case. He even made an attempt to remove his old username from the case request itself and demanded that I be blocked. VM subsequently called me an "asshole" just for that...just because I wrote his old username down. As for that ANI report, I really did not know of any other way to handle someone calling me an asshole and not apologizing (even till this very day) other than letting admins know about it. But before the ANI report, I wanted an apology from him on his TP, but he just deleted my request. And now, he again shows no diff of me "outing" him because it's simply not true, and he knows that. At any rate, I know this is old stuff but VM just now distorted the reality of this episode to such a degree that I feel compelled to correct it. But it goes to show that nothing has changed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "taunt". I don't know where you can come up with such a characterization, especially after calling me an "asshole". And are you seriously saying that "you were throwing my name around simply to intimidate and harass" and that I was "behaving despicably" just because I placed your old username in an ARBCOM case request?! This is just insane. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ED's "evidence"

@User:Lord Roem Re [37]. 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]

@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]

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]

Re: EtienneDolet's newest attacks. EtienneDolet's is only showing that he's obsessively pursuing a grudge, forum shopping, and is incapable of WP:DROPTHESTICK. User:Drmies was pinged in large part because he was making administrative decisions on Vladimir Putin article, which this report tries to dig out of the the ground and present as new. Hell, he gave me a block at that time. I don't see how he can be said to be playing favorites. EtienneDolet is just upset that in this case Drmies dismissed his accusations as the ridiculous attacks they are. This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on ED's part. MelanieN was pinged because she is the administrator most active on articles related to the current presidential election and knows more about the context and atmosphere there. Again, EtienneDolet is just throwing out smears because he's unhappy that this administrator too spoke favorably of me. EtienneDolet is also dishonestly characterizing both my edits and MVBW. He's basically complaining that reliable sources - academic and scholarly publications - don't say what he wants them to say and gosh, darn it, the fact that some editors wish to consider these source is just so unfair! Those professors and experts who wrote those reliable sources should've written exactly what EtienneDolet wants them to have written! But I guess since he can't file AE reports against respected academics who've written scholarly articles, he just has to settle for smearing MVBW. By pretending that MVBW discussing scholarly sources on talk is equivalent to saying "Putin is Hitler". This is outright, shameless lying by ED. Same for the other diff.

But here's the thing. None of this matters. This is from six months ago. And during those six months, EtienneDolet has LITERALLY (this isn't hyperbole) brought these diffs to multiple venues. From AN/I, to 3RR, to ArbCom itself. This is what a WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior does. Take a couple diffs. Portray them in a false light to make it look sinister even when it's not. And then go around ALL the drama boards over and over again crying "Please ban these guys! See how bad they are! They won't let me push my POV in peace!". Until you find some naive or cynical or simple minded admin who'll fall for this tactic. In my 10+ years on Wikipedia I've seen this done multiple times but never with a level of shamelessness, dishonesty and obsessiveness that ED displays.

It has been suggested multiple times by other editors - when ED brought this to other drama boards - that ED should really stop trying to settle disputes by abusing AN/I or other noticeboards. In absence of doing so voluntarily, they need a explicit restriction on their block-shopping behavior. He creates WP:BATTLEGROUNDs in multiple areas with this behavior, and he refuses to discuss issues in good faith on talk because he thinks that he can get his way and "win" instead by having those who disagree with him banned. That's what's going on too. This is tendentious and yes, it is WP:HARASSMENT. It short circuits the consensus building process - why discuss and compromise when you can go running to some admin and beg them for a block?

Since he insist on piling this on, since he can't let go of grudges from six months ago (which have been reviewed multiple times by administrators already), since he is likely to repeat this behavior in the future (this very report is evidence of that), this needs to WP:BOOMERANG on him and he needs to be restricted from drama boards indefinitely.

Maybe that will allow him to learn how to discuss, cooperate, compromise and build consensus rather than block shopping admins for a block at the sign of the slightest disagreement. If not, since Wikipedia is a collaborative project, maybe this isn't a good place for them. Plenty of internet forums out there where he can pick all the fights he wants.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(and to bring India-Pakistan-Bangladesh topics into this is just more evidence of bad faith. Funky bamboo, I was one of the few editors who actually was willing to stop into that nationalist battleground and try and clean it up a bit. I guess that's the flutin' thanks. Anyway, in that topic area, like these two others, there wasn't a single damn thing wrong with my edits and ED really needs to stop lying by trying to make it look bad.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting really sick and tired of these smears. ED claims he "withdrew" one of the AN/I request against me. And that this wasn't "forum shopping". Well, it was. And he "withdrew it" precisely because he was warned about forum shopping. I mean his own diff shows it [38], if you just read the comment right above his. And yes, I did call ED an "asshole" once. On my talk page. Because ED was trying to WP:OUT me although he was being cute about it, in a way which would allow him deniability (did I mention this user has engaged in long term WP:HARASSMENT and WP:STALKING?) This is also old news, this is also something he's brought up all over the place and this is also something that's been considered. He's also not clear on what "block-shopping" involves. Reporting disruptive users is NOT block-shopping - that's what I did in the requests ED provides and most of these were validated with blocks. "Block shopping" is when you go to one admin to get a user blocked, that admin says "no, no block", so you got another venue/admin and ask for a block again for the same thing, then another and so on until you get that one naive admin gullible enough to fall for your nonsense. *That* is what ED is doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EtienneDolet, you can make all the bullshit excuses you want, but at the end of the day, you know, and I know, that you were throwing my name around simply to intimidate and harass. You can WIKILAWYER the definition of "outing" all you want, but the truth of the matter is still that you were behaving despicably. That's probably why NO admin or arbitrator actually thought my response to you was problematic enough to warrant a sanction. Oh yeah, and you fail to mention that I made that comment after I had told you to stay off my talk page, but you insisted on coming back and making provocative remarks. Then you followed it up with taunting.

And hey. Buddy. You're forum shopping again. At some point that credit card is going to get maxed out and the bills will come due.

@Athenean - "Because there is simply no way for him to disprove it" Well, no shit there's no way I can disprove it. The whole report is formulated, purposefully and in bad faith - in a way which makes it impossible to disprove anything. What am I suppose to disprove? That I am not coordinating or tag-teaming with MVBW? How am I suppose to do that? You can't prove a negative (at least not this one). I mean, if there was some mind reading machine or something, I guess you could come over to my house, plug me in and read my mind. But there ain't. That's the whole point here! The accusation is so bogus precisely because you can't defend against it.

How about you and EtienneDolet "disprove" that you two are coordinating? Prove to us that you two are not frequent off-wiki correspondence. Prove that you don't follow EtienneDolet's edits around and tag team with him. Come on, "disprove" it! Or alternatively, you can stop being ridiculous.

Throwing accusations at people is cheap and easy. And that's all you got here. And if you don't want me to write more in this report then it's simple. Stop. Making. More. And. More. Baseless. Accusations. I get it, you expect me to take these dishonest attacks and smearing of my reputation laying down. You're annoyed that your bullying and harassment is running into brick walls. Like, for example, that half a dozen administrators here, and a bunch of other users, who say that there is nothing sanctionable on my part. So you're doubling down, throwing even more shit at me. And then you have the temerity to whine and complain that I respond? Disgusting.

And you really really have some fucking gall to accuse ME of "character assassination". I genuinely hope that you are ashamed of yourself. And anyone can go through and check my diffs. Yes, the ArbCom rejected the case with several arbs saying it lacked merit. Yes, EtienneDolet DOES keep bringing up same stuff to various noticeboards - hell, he himself accidentally provided a diff where he is being chided by an administrator for that exact thing. So I'm not the one who's lying here.

Athenean re [39], there's SEVEN editors (including admins) commenting in the general section here who are telling you that the accusations you are making in that diff are baseless and unwarranted. There are TWO admins commenting in the "for uninvolved admins" section who are also telling you the same thing (one against). So the reason you're not getting your way here is NOT my "filibuster, spinning, distorting, and character assassination" but rather the fact that your accusations have no merit. But, just like on article talk pages, you have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem and for some reason you seem to think that the best way forward is to double down on your accusations and just throw more of them at me. Honestly, really, that kind of approach to editing Wikipedia is gonna come back and bite you in the ass sooner or later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're bringing up old stuff

HERE IS EVIDENCE, from just one discussion, of how EtienneDolet approaches editing Wikipedia. It shows clear disregard for Wikipedia policies, a nasty WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, dishonesty, manipulation, obscurantism, tendentiousness and... very problematic POV. It also shows that Athenean and EtienneDolet "tag-team" (or at least, that's what it looks like judging them by their own standard). This is just one discussion but it is fairly representative of Etienne's behavior and honestly, if it wasn't outdated, there's enough in it to warrant an indef ban until ED promises to actually abide by Wikipedia policies.

(work in progress)

Oh freakin' a, can we just close this. D.Creish, if you disagree with some of my edits, the article talk page is over that way -->. I'll be happy to discuss them. I am already discussing them. WP:AE is not a place to pursue grudges, but it is also not a place to try and recruit editors to your POV by bringing standard content disputes here.

Enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that para that you complain about *was* indeed based on a blog and a non reliable source. Two actually. The rest of the material did indeed have a couple reliable sources but their inclusion made no sense once you remove the non-reliably sourced part, mostly because the reliable sources were being used to cite unimportant details, while it was the non-reliable sources that were sourcing the fringe claims made. Anyway, really, this is stuff for the article talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.Creish, I did not say youo held a grudge. I was referring to this report in general, and its originator in particular. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Anyway, the general point - that the issues you're bring up here, don't belong here but rather on the respective article pages. This isn't a place to hash out content issues.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint suppose to be about my alleged and recent misbehavior in two subject areas, but I do not 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 [40]. 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 [41]. 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 [42] 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]

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

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

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]

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]

@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 [73], Two [74] [75] [76] (these 3 are consecutive), Three [77], and Four [78]. 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 [79] [80]. 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 [81] [82]? John Maynard Keynes [83] [84]? Philip M. Breedlove [85] [86]? 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 negatively on the subject, in effect saying, "you can't add something without consensus (i.e. if I object to it) [87]. 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: [88] [89]). His argument there was "It doesn't matter if you object, the material is reliably sourced so it belongs, not a BLP issue." [90] [91] [92]. And sure enough, he and MVBW editwarred and double teamed to keep the material in [93] [94] [95] [96]. What happened to the need for consensus there? In other words, the 180 degree opposite of his arguments at Debbie Wasserman Schultz. One interpretation of BLP at the Putin article, the opposite interpretation at the DWS article. 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. [97] - note one of the sources here is Politico.com, which he tried to remove at DWS arguing BLP [98]). 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 POV, and it is unmistakable. Athenean (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the level of filibuster by Marek is reaching ridiculous levels. All the character assassination, name calling, shouting in ALLCAPS, and tl;dr walls of text thrown up by this user are attempts to divert attention from the subject of this report: That he and My very best wishes have been and still are edit-warring in a coordinated fashion across wikipedia. Because there is simply no way for him to disprove it, he is resorting to what i have dubbed "the full-court press filibuster" (I've seen it before, many times): Go on the offensive, throw up walls of text one after another, and try to change the subject by attacking the opponent's character relentlessly, especially with copious untruths (which will force him to respond so as to set the record straight, therefore resulting in an even longer report, and also change the subject). Above all, constantly spin, distort and exaggerate. Justs several examples where Marek has distorted and exaggerate something so much so as to make it an outright lie (these are off the top of my head, I'm sure there's lots more but there's walls of text to wade through):

1) Marek's version of the "truth": "The Arbs rejected this case on lack of merit". The actual truth: Some did, some didn't. [99]. Most declined because "the topic already covered by discretionary sanctions."

2) Marek's version of the "truth": "EtienneDolet keeps bringing this same material to different noticeboards over and over again", such as AN3 and AN/I. The actual truth: EtienneDolet never showed this evidence at AN3 or AN/I, or any other venue. EtienneDolet did refer Marek to AN3 for edit-warring, and to AN/I for gross personal attacks, but that is a completely separate matter. This evidence was never shown at any of those venues, only a very very small part of it at the ARBCOM case.

3) Marek's version of the "truth": "I apply WP:BLP in a neutral fashion across the board". The actual truth: Marek cynically uses BLP selectively, to push POV (see above for a thorough debunking of this claim, using Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Vladimir Putin as examples).

Just the lies, distortions, insults, and filibuster by Marek in this AE thread alone are block worthy, never mind the edit-warring in a coordinated fashion across wikipedia. Athenean (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek asks how is it possible to disprove the accusations leveled against him. Easy: How about not having article after article where one of you gets into an edit-war and the other miraculously appears within minutes/hours to revert for you even though he has never edited the article before. Of course, if that what you've been doing over and over again for years, then no, you can't disprove it. You can only resort to filibuster, spinning, distorting, and character assassination, and hope to get away with it. Athenean (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 ([100]) 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]

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

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]

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: [101] [102]

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: [103] [104]. 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]

EDIT: Regarding the erroneous "BLP violation" accusation, VM's explained he had me confused with another editor. D.Creish (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Questionable Editing

VM continues the pattern of misleading edit summaries I outline above.

Here he removes criticism of the Clinton Foundation sourced to the NY Times and Boston Globe, with the summary: "POV section based mostly on non-RS (with a few RS thrown in as spice). Wikipedia is not a vehicle for pushing political agitprop."

Next he traces the criticism to the article Clinton Cash and in probably the worst of his edits removes the entire section on Stephanopoulos. His misleading edit-summary claims "this whole thing is based on a blog and a non-RS (WFB)" meanwhile the actual sources for that section are (or were):

• Politico blog
• NY Times
• NY Times (again)
• NY Times (again)
• CNN Money

His article editing seems to focus largely on Hillary Clinton, her associates and opponents with a reasonably apparently aim.

Reviewing his edits to Debbie Wasserman Schultz for example I find edits where he's added positive content, more where he's removed negative or critical content but I can't find a single instance where he added or expanded critical content (@Volunteer Marek: I would appreciate a diff that contradicts this.)

I see the same pattern in his edits to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 and Clinton Foundation and 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and 2016 Democratic National Convention.

One might think it's a sensitivity to BLP standards but if we examine his edits to Donald Trump and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 the exact opposite is true. Every edit I examined was either neutral or critical.

The more I see the more I'm convinced VM should not be editing political topics. D.Creish (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this section VM says:

WP:AE is not a place to pursue grudges, but it is also not a place to try and recruit editors to your POV by bringing standard content disputes here.

It's ridiculous to claim I have a grudge against you. I disagreed with some of your edits to Wasserman Schultz but agreed with others (the removal of the lawsuit for example.) That article has been stable for some time I don't believe I've interacted with you in any other articles, recently or in the past. It's only since I've examined your edits in the context of this request that I've come regard the problem more fundamentally. AE, as I understand it, is exactly the place to discuss long-term patterns of editing and behavioral problems in topics covered by discretionary sanctions. D.Creish (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.[105] Removing cited material and using the edit summary to say what he said? The next edit is no better.[106] This is not encyclopedic behavior, folks! Wake the hell up! Really just terrible "editing". Doc talk 09:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This destroyed the last shred of credibility for me.[107] Folks, it's not "outing" to mention the name of a previous account that this one operated. All anyone has to do is go to the beginning of the user's contribution history and look how they used to sign. For instance, here.[108]. Volunteer Marek used to be known as Radeksz. It's not "outing" to point that out at all. To erroneously revert and personally attack the user is very disturbing behavior for an editor who's been here this long and claims to not get into PA's. It's quite sad, really. Outing is a very serious allegation of harassment. The freely available fact that the username "Radeksz" was used does not constitute any actual "personal information" that would have otherwise (hopefully) already been oversighted. An actual outing attempt goes well beyond what was alleged to be outing in that diff. Doc talk 09:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "On July 22, 2016, speaking before the Florida delegation in Philadelphia, Wasserman Schultz was "booed off stage". Shortly thereafter, it was announced that Wasserman Schultz had 'abruptly' cancelled plans to gavel open the convention." VM removed this cited material multiple times on the grounds that it allegedly violated BLP (i.e. here[109] and here[110] and here[111]). I see absolutely nothing in those sentences that even approaches a BLP violation. Not even close. Why wasn't he blocked for those edits? How does he get to decide what violates BLP and what doesn't violate BLP when he clearly doesn't know what a BLP violation even is? Mainstream left-leaning sources like the NYT[112] and MSNBC[113] extensively covered it. A BLP concern? Hogwash. The fact that it's in her article right now, replete with the "booed off stage" phrase intact, should demonstrate that VM's BLP concern was a red herring all along. "Whitewashing" does not equate to NPOV. Doc talk 11:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

I've been watching this and, while I've thought it best to bite my tongue, the latest comparison comments and diffs by ED regarding genocide articles has prompted me to comment on how badly wiki tools can be misused in order to evaluate the contributions by long time editors who work on articles constantly. While I don't have any personal problems in working with ED (or Athenean for that matter), I do feel inclined to think there is GRUDGE involved. While ED's belief that there's tag-teaming at play here is undoubtedly good faith, he has the wrong end of the stick as to how MVBW became involved with genocide topics (aside from his work on "Holodomor"): it was through me that his interest was piqued. Please see this discussion on the "Genocides in history" talk page here. It was in early April - correlating with MVBW's foray into the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and other specific articles. I've worked collaboratively with VM and MVBW for years, but that does not make editors who have the intestinal fortitude to edit controversial and heavy traffic articles component parts of various tag teams. Interest and mix 'n match editing is how our watchlists and contributions grow. Trying to make mud stick by rummaging around without comparing edits against an increase in all activity on any given article at any point in time is an easy way around of finding Moby Dick in the Bible and getting rid of the competition. As has already been noted by others, the tools you've used to create comparisons could be easily used against you and Athenean (or any number of editors) to 'prove' you're a tag team. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I have had very little contact with VM, a bit more with MvBW. I have argued with the latter on a few pages; they have a tendency to revert a bit too much, but are also very willing to discuss on the talkpage. One particular page The Harvest of Sorrow was mentioned by ED in their remarks.)

Can we separate out the two things? Volunteer Marek has stated that he does not collude with MvBW off-wiki and MvBW has denied collusion as well. Absent evidence to the contrary, this part should be the default finding. Furthermore, VM has stated that they do not follow MvBW's contributions (and there has been no evidence to the contrary). MvBW does follow VM's contributions: this is self-admitted and fairly common (I do it myself sometimes).

I share ED's annoyance at this kind of reverting by multiple people. It is fairly common in contentious areas, where views are very polarized - so there are really two camps - and thus reverts by people with a certain viewpoint seem like getting around WP:1RR restrictions. How to fix it? The overall solution is simple: the participants should follow WP:BRD (not a policy, but a good practice) - discuss on the talkpage after the first edit-and-revert. In particular, MvBW should refrain from reverting the third time, as documented in ED's evidence. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's very disappointing to see that the resident Admins here would keep this complaint open for so long when there's been no evidence to document the alleged violation for which they are authorized to sanction.

It's far too common that a battleground editor or group with a grudge (acronym "gag") use AE to pursue other editors. Too often the Admins here seem unable to recognize this for what it is and to shut down these nasty threads. It undermines community respect for the process. This needs to be closed toot sweet. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So here we are yet again: VM, unwashed since 2009, as usual professing to have the cleanest hands on Wikipedia ever, and his ardent follower MVBW with his strange routine of retiring and then unretiring and then retiring and then unretiring and then retiring and then unretiring. I find it strange that what for other editors would be condemned as activities promoting edit warring is for these two editors always dismissed as just a case of editors having "similar views" and watchlists. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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'm on the fence here on a few things and would love some other uninvolved admins to give their thoughts-- @Laser brain:, @Bishonen:, @NeilN:, @The Blade of the Northern Lights:, @RegentsPark: --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:01, 12 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]
• There are some things in evidence that make me blow air out of my nose, but nothing I would say is sanctionable. Tag-team editing is a very difficult thing to characterize, let alone prove. My watchlist is full of pages across many domains where there are discernible groups of good faith editors acting similarly. I don't think we want to get into the business of calling that sanctionable behavior. With due respect to the filer, I understand why you perceive collusion, but you'd need a lot more specific and non-circumstantial evidence. --Laser brain (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Aggressive editing, yes. Sanctionable, no. The heart of this complaint is the 'tag-teaming' but, like it or not, there are sub-networks of collaborative editors who look at each others edits and then appear in odd places to comment, revert and become part of the discussion. Unless there is evidence of off-wiki collaboration, this isn't really sanctionable. --regentspark (comment) 13:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag-teaming can be disruptive but I don't see that here. Unrelated to this issue, we have a group of great content builders who work together and support each other because they have similar views on article content. We can't call that kind of cooperation "tag-teaming". With this matter, from the diffs I've looked at, Mvbw uses different reasons than VM for his reverts. If he stops doing that, then we have a good case for tag-teaming. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm closing this with no action based on the consensus that the complaint doesn't rise to anything sanctionable. Of course, this is without prejudice to future issues, if any arise. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

AmirSurfLera (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:ARBPIA

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

1. 04:34, 12 August 2016 Breach of topic ban; see below.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15 June 2014 Blocked for 48 hours by Callanec for "Breaching 1RR restriction on 2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks"
2. 21 June 2014 Blocked for one week by Callanec for "Breaching 1RR restriction on Basic Laws of Israel"
3. 5 July 2014 Blocked for one month by Bbb23 for "violating WP:1RR at Mandatory Palestine"
4. 7 May 2016 Blocked for three months by Seraphimblade for "Multiple topic ban violations"

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 8 July 2014 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Immediately on returning to editing after their latest, three-month, block for "multiple topic ban violations", this editor edited a BLP clearly marked as covered by ARBPIA sanctions, to reinsert repeatedly removed trivia based, according to their own edit, on "rumours and hearsay". This is both a defiance of the topic ban, and an egregious breach of BLP policy.

Bishonen, please note that I did provide a link to the original topic ban in my submission above. There was no need to post it again with the suggestion that I had neglected to do so. RolandR (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian, it is not simply an "atrocious" edit; this editor has already been blocked four times for breaches of the ARBPIA sanctions, and one of their first edits on return from a three-month block was to revert a recent edit of mine (as can be seen from the date on the tag included in the edit), in order to restore this piece of idiocy to a BLP. This demonstrates not only contempt for the sanctions and topic ban, but also a complete disregard for the requirements for a BLP and obvious edit-warring and battlefield tendencies. RolandR (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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.

What's the relation between Netanyahu's IQ and the Arab-Israeli conflict?--AmirSurfLera (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit in that article, but could you explain me the connection between the IQ of an Israeli politician to the conflict with the Arabs? There are some articles that fall only partially in ARBPIA, such as history of Israel, that's why I edited about ancient topics unrelated to the modern Arab-Israeli conflict, the same way not everything about Netanyahu is related to the conflict, such as his family, education, etc.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Is this really how AE will operate? We don't need to be so petty and it's usually the same core group of posters who submit these "gotcha" style AE actions. RolandR's MO just seems to be reverting and reporting. For something as simple as this a simple message on the talk page should have sufficed.

There was clear topic ban breach, but one could make an argument that WP:ARBPIA notices are sometimes overly broad. It would be a bit silly to indef block for such a borderline case, imho. If one wants to "punish" AmirSurfLera, a month block would be enough.

The edit was atrocious, by the way. A clickbait and dubious source used to assert that Netanyahu had an IQ of 180. It should fail WP:BLP at the very least. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is another flagrant violation of this user's topic ban immediately after returning from a three-month block for the same. We're not going to debate how the page falls under ARBPIA—it's clearly marked as such. Dennis Brown was calling for an indef block last time, and I'm going to agree with that. POV/SPA editor needs to exit. --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If this editor can't see how editing an article about an Israeli political figure would be prohibited under a topic ban on Israel-Palestine, I think there's no hope here. At this point, I would agree with an indef (first year under DS, thereafter under admin discretion) and absent any objections, will do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there seems to be some hesitation about an indef, I'm willing to go with six months this time as an escalation from three. I will warn AmirSurfLera that this will be the fifth violation for which they have been blocked, and at some point, enough will be enough. Don't edit about Israel or Palestine, or anything closely related to it, period. Absent objection, I'll close the request as such shortly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• With some effort, I've found the record of this topic ban here, linked for the convenience of others. It's an indefinite ban, and the user's edit of Benjamin Netanyahu certainly does breach it. I'm on the fence about an indefinite block for such an infraction, as I have some sympathy with Sir Joseph's protest above. But it's of course proposed as a "last straw" sanction, and I won't directly object to it. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

RolandR, I didn't mean to hint that you had been neglectful; I just couldn't find it. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• No objection to a long or indef block, as proposed by Laser brain and Seraphimblade. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The edit on Netanyahu certainly violates the topic ban so, I suppose, a block is in order. But, like Bish, I'm on the fence about an indef block. On the one hand, I can see that bans should be enforced strictly, otherwise we'll be debating each case endlessly and who has the time for that. On the other hand, I have some sympathy for Kingsindian's view that, perhaps, a simple talk page request (to withdraw the edit) would have sufficed. Since the editor has been blocked recently for similar violations, it's probably best to let seraphimblade (the previous blocking admin) make the judgement. --regentspark (comment) 22:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

JGabbard (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

1. 23 August 2016 Aspersions
2. 23 August 2016 Aspersions
3. 23 August 2016 Aspersions, accusations of being a shill, personal attacks.
4. 17 August 2016 Aspersions, accusations of being a shill.
5. 17 August 2016 Aspersions, "this talk page is full of shills". These comments were later redacted by the user after they were pressured on their Talk page. However, they show that this has been an ongoing issue that the DRN (itself cited above as an example of aspersions) is unlikely to solve.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18 August 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

One more recent diff to show aspersions, conspiracy theories about other editors, unwillingness to collaborate [114]. 23 August 2016.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification [115]

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.

I am not a politically-oriented person, as my editing history will attest [116]. It is rare for me to take interest in editing any articles on politics or current events, and when I do I seek to remain on the periphery of the fray when such exists. Consequently, I do my work quietly and seldom collaborate with other editors. That being said, is it not odd that such intense scrutiny and meticulous negative attention would be shown by a group of editors to an article which they allege to be "non-notable" and even wish to have deleted? What might one infer from the systematic deletion of so many well-referenced facts (as documented here [117])? I feel that my at times cheeky response to such bizarre editing activity is not beyond the pale, nor difficult to understand. I have no personal vendetta against any individual editor at all, only seek to criticize their argumentative modus operandi as a group. My fellow editors (the majority) are likewise perplexed by the brick wall they have collectively erected. We feel that this article should be allowed to be develop naturally, without interference from those who wish for it to disappear, either in part or entirely. A somewhat objectionable comment to one such user who accosted me on my talk page has been redacted, with apologies. - JGabbard (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate behavior at the article and talk page led the editor to behave inappropriately.

I'd encourage admins to review the DRN request (particularly the comments from others) which give a largely accurate picture of the issue. Whether it's best to address the fundamental issue which resulted in poor behavior, the poor behavior, or both, I can't say.

I will say JGabbard seems to be passionate about this issue as do several other participants in the dispute but given the limited scope and the minimal likelihood of further developments, resolving the current DRN request will most likely end disruption. D.Creish (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: That appeared to be the most likely venue for lasting resolution. Even if JGabbard never edits the article again, the issues raised in the request persist and will likely result in further disciplinary requests. D.Creish (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of controversy over the Murder of Seth Rich article, and is the only article where JGabbard's comments are cited in this complaint. It was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion, large amounts of sourced material have been removed, JGabbard has begun a discussion at DRN and the article is locked from editing. I believe that we should see if the current process in content dispute resolution works before issuing sanctions. TFD (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JGabbard launched the DRN content discussion thread with an unusually harsh, scattershot, and demonstrably false stream of misrepresentations and personal attacks. If any of it had been true, the proper venue would have been ANI or AE. This suggests, in addition to disruptive editing, that JGabbard is not competent to understand basic WP policy and conflict resolution. JGabbard should be banned from BLPs and American Politics. It's that bad, and it's clear that there's little hope this behavior will change. The diffs already cited are sufficient, but if Admins here want more, there are many more, and perhaps some editors are willing to supply them upon request. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also [118]. A long block is warranted. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The DS notice posted to JGabbards talk page was for American Politics but what user:Mastcell posted on the article talk page was for BLP. Which DS applies to this case? Both sides in this dispute are passionate and emotional, but I believe the good faith collaborative approach can work here and we can close this with a warning. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. I think this diff has already been supplied [119] - here JGabbard attributes nefarious motives to other editors in his comment. But also notice removal of a newly opened section in the talk page and edit history comments as well [120].

B. User SPECIFICO was never engaged in any kind of edit warring, as was either implied or stated.

C. JGabbard's descriptions of the editing taking place, including talk page editing, appear to be inaccurate.

D. I cannot fathom why JGabbard unilaterally went to DRN, as the talk page discussion was unfolding as talk page discussions normally do. Nobody has been casting aspersions at one another (except for JGabbard I suppose). For my part, I ignored this person because his comments did not make sense and they were few. One comment sounded like a call for editors to band together and protest [121] - but we are all on a talk page and we wouldn't be able to see each other carrying signs and banners, nor is there a street where we can congregate.

But seriously, in retrospect, I have to say that all the talk page editors involved have been very respectful of one another while focusing on disagreements pertaining to content. Please, don't mind me saying so, but this is surprising, because I have been involved in and witnessed other heated discussions where casting aspersions did happen and always seem likely to happen in heated discussions - and this is a political page. So, hopefully the good luck continues for all of us. So, again there was no need to unilaterally rush over to DRN - everything is going well. A bunch of us happen to disagree is all - and there is nothing wrong with that. So, of course I disagree with the statement that there has been inappropriate behavior during talk page discussions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who gave the DS alert on the 18th. I did that after observing JGabbard's conduct in the Seth Rich AFD. Other editors have already covered the NPA portion of all this, but I'd like to draw the admins' attention to the substantial BLP issues with some of JGabbard's comments there. Wikipedia has no (explicit) rule against idly conspiracy-theorizing, but it is an entirely different matter if aspersions are being cast against living people. I refer the admins' attention to JGabbard's initial !vote at the AFD, in which he accuses two living public figures of conspiracy to commit murder. (See also subsequent tweak After being notified that his comments were in violation of BLP, JGabbard made a number of changes to his comments, but still kept the accusations in his comment, removing the subjects' names but still explicitly identifying them. He acknowledged that this was a conscious decision. I subsequently struck the accusations and left a note explaining my rationale and encouraging JGabbard to change course. This one incident alone may not be sanctionable, but it remains quite concerning. And regardless of any sanctions, I would encourage the adminstrators to delete all of the revisions in which the accusations appeared. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:DRN request was closed because DRN does not accept a case that is also pending in another forum, namely this forum. If the conduct dispute is resolved or closed, moderated content dispute resolution can be requested again. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would advise JGabbard to comment here as soon as possible. The diffs presented certainly do seem to show an unacceptable pattern of attacks on other editors rather than discussion regarding article content. From what I see here, I would support a six-month topic ban from the area, by which time the political season will hopefully have cooled off. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with User:Seraphimblade that the attacks on other editors are unacceptable and that a ban is justified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I very much agree with @Seraphimblade and EdJohnston:'s assessment, and JGabbard's statement here does nothing to dissuade me. I would recommend that the ban be issued; if one of the two of you could do the paperwork, I would much appreciate it. NW (Talk) 23:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the sentiments above and will now close with the proposed 6-month topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

D.Creish (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

Edit warring and "crying BLP" on Jared Taylor. Repeated removing sourced material that has been present and relatively unaltered for over one year (compare diff from 15 July 2015 until 24 August 2016 regarding material in second paragraph of lead [122]). Repeated claims of BLP violation where none exist and insistence on gaining consensus, despite clearly editing against long-standing consensus (WP:STATUSQUO). User has reverted edits by Volunteer Marek and myself. All diff below related to this:

1. 03:32, 26 August 2016‎ edit summary: rm BLP vio; NY Times was the only good secondary source and it doesn't support the txt. Do not restore w/o consensus
2. 04:33, 26 August 2016 edit summary: Sources included do not describe Taylor as supporting racist ideologies. Removed on good-faith BLP grounds. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. You must not restore without consensus
3. 04:40 26 August 2016 edit summary: Undid revision 736242559 by Volunteer Marek (talk) There can be no consensus to violate BLP; do not restore
4. 05:32, 26 August 2016‎ edit summary: removed BLP violations; do not restore without talk page consensus
5. 05:43, 26 August 2016‎ edit summary: editor restoring BLP violations without consensus; reverting

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 06:22, 9 August 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Should mention I chose to come here instead of AN3 because of (1) the political nature of the article and its contents, (2) extended discussion of DS on the user's talk page earlier today related to another matter (User_talk:D.Creish#Note_on_DS), (3) participation in past AE filings related to the ARBAPDS, and (4) threats by user to file AE against Volunteer Marek ([123]). BLP DS also apply here, but APDS seem more directly related. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User also promised to continue removing the content: [124]. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: The issues is the user was gaming by claiming BLP. The wordpress source needed to go (and did). The NYTimes piece didn't support it well, so it was replaced. The other sources supported the statement well though, so there was no reason to remove the entire thing. Moreover, the user kept removing content despite replacing lower quality sources with better ones. They wanted the statement gone, not to improve it so they claimed BLP and edit warred over it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. 06:06 26 August 2016

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.

This is the text I removed inititally and in subsequent reversions:

Taylor, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.

The sources cited were (3) as follows:

1. An unusable weblog: http://mediamousearchive.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/student-group-h/
2. A NY Times article, which by the filer's own admission does not support the claim: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/18/us/conservatives-voices-enter-clinton-s-dialogue-on-race.html
3. An SPLC listing (primary source): http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-renaissance

When the filer refers to content that was "relatively unaltered for over one year" and WP:STATUSQUO these are the sources it was based upon, which I find (as I assume most will) insufficient.

To keep this short: my intent was to remove the content until suitable sourcing could be found. To that end I began a dialogue on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jared_Taylor#BLP_violations_in_lede

Rather than participating in that dialogue both editors reverted my removal, at times providing additional sources - none of which I've examined so far support the initial text.

I was under the impression that to claim someone "promotes racist ideologies" required strong sourcing and that, if it was not present, additional sourcing and dialogue must precede restoration. If that is not the case, I apologize unequivocally; if it is, I'm owed an apology but I'll settle for a critical discussion of sources and claims on the article's talk page. D.Creish (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor clarifications::

• The "extended discussion of DS" EverygreenFir refers to concerned a procedural question I had for Jytdog about who may place "DS" notices on article talk pages and under what circumstances.
• To be accurate: I threatened to pursue sanctions against Volunteer Marek, not "to file AE against" him. Part of the reason I did not was because (a) I wasn't sure which venue was appropriate, (b) the filing processes appears overwhelming to a first-time filer and (c) I hoped the possibility of sanction would force him into discussion on the talk page. D.Creish (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have no idea why editors with whom I've never interacted are suddenly behaving so rudely towards me. Nomoskedasticity complains I left a discretionary sanctions alert on his talk page. What preceded that alert were two comments he left on the article talk page:

1. [1] The first source (Pittsburg Post Gazette) is not a dead link. Perhaps it's time for you to take a break? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC) - was incorrect. The link only worked because I later found the article reprinted elsewhere and corrected it.
2. [2] I see you're taking a more constructive approach now, finding sources yourself instead of blanking material. Congratulations! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC) - was needlessly condescending and inflammatory.

I feel like I've stirred a hornets' nest. I expected editors to observe a higher degree of civility in articles under Discretionary Sanctions but I'm finding just the opposite. D.Creish (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comment

I'm not going to clutter this section with a tit-for-tat - I want to make position clear and then I likely won't respond except to address direct questions:

It is not that I believe Taylor is not a racist or does not (in my personal view) promote racist ideologies. But review the sources here, especially the high-quality ones - they all use precise language to describe his views. I want our article, especially the lede, to mirror that precise language. The existing sources did not support the reverted phrasing; despite this, several editors insisted on restoring the phrasing and sourcing when even a cursory examination would have shown one of the sources was a non-existent page and another didn't directly address the claim. Rather than participate in a search for improved sources, tangential sources were added scattershot and in questioning their relevance I was met with reversions rather than discussion. That's a violation of the process and intent of the BLP policy as I understand it. D.Creish (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sort of thing intended under the DS system? It looks an awful lot like silly games to me, given the context of the report under discussion here. (Just to be clear: What I'm asking about is the fact that D.Creish placed a DS notice on my talk-page, even though I've never done a single edit to the article in question here.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the report itself: D.Creish will have to learn to work with other editors more effectively. Crusader-style reverts under the flag of "BLP violation!!" usually end in tears. The question is whether we're likely to see more of this sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.Creish has made six (!) reverts in less than 24 hrs. So there's that. There's no BLP grounds for edit warring here either, as others have pointed out simply because this is actually what the subject is known for. It's sort of like trying to remove the fact that David Duke is a former KKK Grand Wizard from that article on BLP grounds. Which is also why the info is actually well sourced. Now, I can see objecting to the mediamouse source, but there were two other, reliable sources (NY Times and SPLC, which is NOT "primary") there. And indeed, I removed the mediamouse source myself [125] and added additional reliable sources [126] [127]. That didn't stop D.Creish who continued to edit war, reverting other editors another four times. And yes, this content has been in the article a long time, it's been discussed on the talk page (though D.Creish did not bother participating in any of the discussions), etc. etc. As Evergreen and others point out, in addition to WP:TENDENTIOUS edit warring, this also appears to be a bad-faithed attempt to WP:GAME both the BLP policy and discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Jared Taylor is associated with or in charge of the New Century Foundation, a white supremacist group, National Policy Institute a "white nationalist" (whatever that is) "think tank", the The Occidental Quarterly a "a far-right racially obsessed US Magazine", and American Renaissance (magazine) a a white supremacist publication. So yeah, saying that some sources have said that this guy is associated with racist organizations and publications is NOT a BLP violation by any stretch. Again, it's pretty much THE reason he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this has been a recurring problem, mostly from anonymous IPs and drive by editors, for many years now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian. First, this isn't about "calling someone a racist" (although that can easily be sourced too). The actual text is that he is associated with organizations which promote racism. And for that the NY Times and the SPLC were fine, unless you really are trying to misread what the sources say. Also, this is a summary of the article present in lede. The actual sourcing needs to be in the body of the article itself. Which it is.

Anyway, I don't know if this is sufficient for a topic ban (from American Politics, or Race & Intelligence, because this article probably falls under both?). A "probation" for sure though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts like this one with an edit summary "Sources included do not describe Taylor as supporting racist ideologies. Removed on good-faith BLP ground." are indeed WP:CRYBLP and WP:GAMING. Sources, including the SPLC, plainly verify the disputed sentence "Taylor, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US."

The New York Times says "Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, based in Louisville, who argues that blacks and other minorities are, because of genetics, less intelligent than whites and that non-whites are bent on destroying America culturally and politically.". The SPLC elaborates, for example saying "Founded by Jared Taylor in 1990, the New Century Foundation is a self-styled think tank that promotes pseudo-scientific studies and research that purport to show the inferiority of blacks to whites.". Salon (a weaker source) just says "Taylor has ties to a variety of domestic and international racists and extremists."

Three experienced editors support the content in question. D.Creish edit warred claiming WP:3RRBLP, which does not apply. I have no idea if this is a pattern of behavior from D.Creish, but in this case, it seems to be a sanctionable offense.- MrX 14:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: Ideally a block would not be necessary if D.Creish would acknowledge the his particular interpretation of WP:BLP was wrong, and that WP:3RRBLP is an exception to the edit warring policy only in unambiguous cases. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. D.Creish could have reported the alleged violation to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the edit warring exemption.

One way to know if a potential BLP violation is unambiguous is the absence of several experienced editors reverting you. The longstanding presence of the material in the article would also suggest discussing before reverting. - MrX 16:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This filing is bad and everyone should feel bad. If a claim about a living person fails WP:V it's a BLP violation. One source was unreliable, NYTimes did not support the claim, and site-wide consensus about SPLC has not been reached. It should be no problem to say SPLC says this and that about him, but if there's a reasonable doubt its reliable for summarizing what third parties think about Taylor, people should try to establish that consensus rather than edit warring. On the technicalities, D.Criesh is entirely justified in reverting an unlimited number of times. On the content, though - what the fuck? In the New York Times it says he argues that blacks and other minorities are, because of genetics, less intelligent than whites and that non-whites are bent on destroying America culturally and politically. Could everyone not just WP:STICKTOSOURCE and be happy? Put that gem in there and Wikipedia:Let the reader decide. Who cares what SPLC says somebody's third cousin thinks. Trouts all around. Rhoark (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: About the additional sources added, Fox mentions in passing that unspecified critics have called him a white supremacist only as a segue to giving more attention to Taylor's denials. All ABC does is quote SPLC. If you wanted to break that off and buttress the use of SPLC as a source to say what SPLC says, that would be fine. As far as broadly characterizing third-part reactions to Taylor, it's still not good enough. D.Criesh has a long row to hoe if he doesn't want any mention Taylor's racism, but as far as this particular use it is not CRYBLP. Rhoark (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather puzzled by Lord Roem's comment. Let me make a simple but fundamental point. Something can be true without there being adequate verification and proof of something being true. Please read the discussion here about the issue. There were three original sources: one a wordpress blog, one an NYT source which doesn't support the reference and one the SPLC. Only the last is a half-decent source and it should not have been presented in Wikipedia's voice in the beginning. This is as straightforward a BLP violation as I can find. Calling someone a racist requires much stronger sourcing than this. I'll note that several sources in the article still don't make claims about Taylor, but rather about the alt-right, of which Taylor is a part. In fact, the Fox news source is simply quoting "critics" who say that Taylor is a racist, with Taylor denying it.

There's enough sourcing about Taylor's views on race to write something correctly summarizing the situation, which will probably not be too far from the current phrasing but better phrased and sourced - this should be discussed on the talkpage and not edit-warred. I second Rhoark's point. Everyone should feel bad about their conduct here. D. Creish is playing the well-justified role of the Devil's Advocate here and whatever their motivations should be thanked for correcting a massive BLP violation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark's comments sum up the situation, but this is reflective of what I've seen a lot of late based on AN/ANI posts or the like, in topics that are left-vs-right political aspects, with knowledge that the bulk of the press is generally left-learning, that editors will readily hang lots of negative statements about a right-leaning topic because the mainstream sources seem to give that impression. WP must be much more conservative (middle of the ground, not in the political sense) and not assign judgement or give that impression. Loading up a statement like that in the lede of a BLP, while technically supported by some sources and thus meeting V and NOR and avoids an outright BLP violation, is a failure of NPOV as it establishes a specific tone that immediately makes the article read negatively about this person. The first line even of the current article "Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, an online magazine often described as a white supremacist publication." is a huge COATRACK if the magazine or Taylor doesn't self-state being about white supremacy (which I don't immediately see evidence of). This is becoming way too common in any politically-charged topic and thus challenging coatrack statements in BLP should be a valid action. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should get in the habit of sanctioning good faith edits by users in good standing. This filing seems premature and references one specific issue without any history of other issues. A warning reinforcing the correct collaborative approach would suffice. I'm curious why there was no attempt to solve this first on a user talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this back and forth made me go check out this guys writings and his associated organizations and now I feel like I need a shower. Saying he pushes a racist ideology is putting it lightly. That said I don't think any of the editors involved at the page disagree but the sourcing was bad and it seems like it's improved a bit. It could still probably get better and rather than sanction anyone I'd think the involved parties could accomplish that. We have a bunch of decent editors that got heated. I see no benefit from blocking anybody. Capeo (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Murder of Seth Rich it was made clear by a group of productive editors that inclusion of Wikileaks related content is in contradiction to BLP, BDP, and AVOIDVICTIM. This was amplified by User:Mascell, an Admin [128]. I have sent a couple of emails to Lord Roem denoting with diffs, what appears to be (to me), D.Criesh's continual failure to get the point WP:IDHT. Below is information not contained in those emails:

Here, I summed up repeatedly having explained BLP violations, along with other productive editors [129]. After similar statement by User:Marek, D. Creish conflates issues (already noted in the emails) and then he raises three strawman arguments [130] - the RFC, WP:DRN, and impasse have nothing to do with the points Marek and I just made. And, it is not clear to whom he is speaking (maybe thin air). Then is the circular statement about "majority" and "numbers" and appears to also not be relevant. But note, within the entire response he twice defers to support by a number of other editors

Jytdog asks D. Criesh to say he understands Mastcell's announcement [131] Here D.Creish equivocates about that [132] and equivocates to me about conflating and understanding the issues (bttom of diff).

After discussion about PROFRINGE, DUE WIEGHT, and NOTNEWS with another editor (see above in next diff) D. Creish firmly disputes policies against insertion of Wikileaks material [133], and is discussing how WP policies might support insinuations (which they don't).

At the BLP Noticeboard [134] he claims "No one has offered a succinct, rational explanation" per BLP, of adding to the article "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction". Which at this point, appears to be both contentious and failure to get the point. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The 5 or so reverts is clearly a problem that deserves a block, which I'll impose absent good reason not to. There's definitely a debate regarding the sources (even if the underlying claim is probably true, considering the subject matter, as VM says). Is there a reason to ban D.Creish from the area though? I'm not seeing that as of yet. Open to hearing feedback/thoughts either way. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very much of the same opinion with MrX-- there's a content dispute here regarding the sourcing, how to word the section at issue, and whether (as a few have raised) it'd be appropriate or not to include at all. But it's not unambiguous, and being reverted by others should've been a sign to stop the edit war. A warning would be sufficient here; I don't think there's evidence of any generalized conduct issue over the topic. Also, Kingsindian, the section isn't fiating that the subject "is a racist," but that he is "often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups." The sourcing definitely wasn't as good as it could be, but it was a far cry from something 'utterly libelous' or untrue. This is, by its nature, a controversial 3RR exception, something the 3RRBLP policy says itself. A better course would have been to talk it out on the talk page or the relevant noticeboard. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

75.140.253.89 (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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014 :

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

The anonymous editor in question is using the talk page of the biography of Shaun King to repeat entirely-unsupported and virulently racist claims about the article subject - that he is lying about their racial heritage because they claim the subject is "phenotypically Caucasoid" (whatever that is supposed to mean.)

1. 27 August 2016 Demanding that the article subject undergo "a geneaological study" to prove "that his father is actually black" — implicitly accusing him (without evidence) of lying about his race/ethnicity.
2. 24 August 2016 Claiming that the article subject "is phenotypically Caucasoid" and that we should thus remove the article subject's stated race/ethnicity which is supported by reliable sources.
3. 25 August 2016 Again claiming that the article subject "is phenotypically Caucasoid and exhibits no traits whatsoever of an African American" and that we should thus remove the article subject's stated race/ethnicity which is supported by reliable sources.

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)

• Notified of sanctions here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor is, quite simply, a racist conspiracy theorist, and should not be permitted to edit this person's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user's own statements are self-evidently reason to bar them from this article - they have demanded that reliably-sourced information about the biographical subject be removed based upon nothing more than their personal opinion that he "does not look like an African-American." We write biographies based upon sources, not upon stereotypes, personal prejudices and beliefs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has now demanded that "a geneaological study" be provided before describing the article subject, as multiple reliable sources do, as black and as the son of a Caucasian mother and African-American father — a demand completely and utterly out of line with what we do on Wikipedia. Their attitude is that of someone conducting a background investigation into the article subject, not of an encyclopedia editor writing a biography. We are not here to conduct investigative journalism, we are here to write articles based upon reliable sources. The editor quite obviously is not here to write a biography of Shaun King, but rather is here to grind an ax about Shaun King, and should not be permitted to do so. The entire point of BLP is to prevent political or personal opponents of a living person from using that person's biography as a weapon, as the anonymous IP editor is doing here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified here.

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.

• The complainant is accusing me of racism. I have never once made any claims that any race is superior to any other by any means at all. Nor do I hold such views. This accusation is unfounded.
• The complainant is accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist. I have never once insinuated that any conspiracy has been going on. The complainant is the only one involved who has used the word "conspiracy". I have only suggested that a simple collection of errors has occurred. The accusation is unfounded.
• The complainant has tried to close discussion before any discussion could take place. The complainant has invested much time editing this article, violating the invested-party clause of discussion closure procedure. The complainant has attempted to enact an early closure of discussion (prior to the minimum 7 days) without claiming WP:SNOWBALL, and on a discussion for a proposed change that does indeed have a snowball's chance in hell.

I have never once insinuated that Shaun King has willfully misrepresented his own racial identity. It is clear that his own very tangled family history is very confusing (as Shaun King has proclaimed in interviews), and his mother told him that his current father is not his real biological father. King has never met or even seen his father (as admitted in interviews). King, based on his own admission, cannot be sure of anything about his father without a paternity test. King cannot be certain about his heritage or racial identity, black or white, or even asian.

King exhibits no physical traits typical of an African American male. King exhibits physical traits solely that of a Caucasian male. The claim is that King is an African American male, despite his outward appearance. This is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The "reliable sources" are lifestyle and fashion magazines that cite mere hearsay. This does not satisfy the need for extraordinary evidence.

Comparable case: Elizabeth_Warren, who has consistently claimed to be Native American. Her case for claiming her heritage was that she and her maternal lineage have "high cheekbones...just like the Indians do". [135] [136] Like King's case, it is a murky claim not based on any genetic or genealogical investigation. Yet unlike King, her racial identity is not listed as fact on her article. I am interested in accuracy. I believe that it is better to lack a potentially true statement than to include a possibly untrue statement. Removing an extraordinary claim until better evidence surfaces is not an unreasonable request.75.140.253.89 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In short summary, complainant tried to preemptively block a change by misusing closure and even by filing this request before the WP:CONSENSUS process could even be properly attempted. This reflects poorly both on the complainants objectivity in this request and in maintaining of the associated article. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This filing was probably premature. u:NorthBySouthBaranof hadn't tried simple discussion in this case. That being said, anonymous user has shown reluctance to operate within WP Policies. They are not however being overly disruptive as their activity has been limited to talk page discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur with the complainant NorthBySouthBaranof. There was enough discussion to determine that 75.140.253.89 was attempting to use a Wikipedia article and/or its talk page for maligning the subject (insinuating the subject is a liar, requiring original research to prove something that we only rely upon reliable sources to back up, and therefore that discussion should have been closed (at least). There was no reasonable continuance of such discussion. If 75.140.253.89 had conducted a discussion based in Wikipedia policies/guidelines without seeming to malign the subject, that would have been a different ball of wax. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have blocked 75.140.253.89 for 72 hours as a standard (non-AE) administrative action for substantial violations of WP:BLP and strongly encourage them to disengage from the topic area. This request will be kept open for further action if anyone feels it warranted. NW (Talk) 20:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally, don't think anything else is necessary at this time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]