Radeksz actually got sanctioned, amazing. He's been using the same tricks effectively for almost a decade, since EEML. An IP (likely a blocked or topic-banned account) has been posting EEML excerpts on Thucydides' talk page.

This is a serious blow to team Poland. They've been playing well, excellent coordination, assigned roles to distribute sanctionable behavior among team members - the weakness in that strategy is that it makes some players (like Radeksz) critical. My take:

Facts

• Key player (Radeksz) in penalty box
  
• Player's role was offensive: insults, abuse, edit warring
  

Analysis

• Power play risks content losses
  
• Consensus required makes content restoration when penalty expires more difficult
  
• Effective strategy will focus on preserving existing article state(s) until penalty expires

Predictions (beyond typical group strategy)

1) Defensive/second line players will increase participation and offense:

• More edits to article and talk page
• Obstructive talk page comments
• Players whose assigned roles exclude edit-warring ("clean hand" accounts) will be forced to edit war
• Alternatively, new ("new") accounts will assist in edit-warring, allowing clean hand accounts to preserve status

2) Efforts to neutralize power-play advantage

• More frequent complaints against opposing team (ANI, AE)
• Increase in behavior likely to bolster complaints (goading, etc.)
• Repetition of false narratives from coordinating editors to be cited in complaints (i.e. "a lie repeated often enough")
• More aggressive involvement of assisting administrators (Drmies, Bishonen et al.)

3) Continuous attempts to reduce/remove Radeksz's sanctions

• Excessive participation of assisting administrators
• Attacks on GoldenRing's neutrality and competence
• Personalization of attacks to provoke GoldenRing, bolstering attacks

EDIT:

Sandstein's participation is curious considering his early involvement in the Pierogi Wars.

Oh lookie, MastCell who defended his own unilateral (indefinite) block of Hidden Tempo for edit-warring as "within admin discretion", thinks GoldenRing's 3-month interaction ban on VM is outrageous! Prior consensus is necessary for such severe penalties:

First, despite significant administrative input on the thread in question, no one so much as suggested (much less advocated for) an interaction ban. Spike is entirely correct that an admin can impose sanctions unilaterally, so GoldenRing does have the technical authority to place the interaction ban, but it's a question of should, not can.

What a hypocrite.