Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 22 March 2011

• WP:AE

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer Marek

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

banned for six months from editing articles to change, remove or add names (including translations) in a Eastern European language with respect to a subject that the same article already designates with a name in another Eastern European language. This includes names in other pages that are displayed as part of the article, such as categories, images or templates, and it also forbids moving articles that have a name in a Eastern European language to a name in another language. For the purpose of this ban, "Eastern European language" includes German

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This is an appeal of a sanction resulting from this enforcement request: . The sanction regarding myself was enacted based on Sandstein's assessment that: Volunteer Marek has made individual reverts in support of and in conjunction with Jacurek's nationalist edit-warring about names.. The original AE request involved five articles on Polish-Lithuanian topics. These were:

1. St. Anne's Church, Vilnius
2. Cathedral Square, Vilnius
3. Suvalkija
4. Vilnius University
5. Bernardine Cemetery

• I have never edited St. Anne's Church, Vilnius and Cathedral Square, Vilnius. So obviously I did not "edit war" on these articles.

• I made one edit to Suvalkija six months ago (August 16, 2010), so obviously I did not "edit war" on that article, nor can I be held responsible for the edit war among different users that took place six months later.

• That leaves Vilnius University and Bernardine Cemetery where I made a single edit on each of the articles recently.

On Vilnius University, after observing edits by User:Lokyz and User:Jacurek I posted to the talk page on March 5th, hoping to initiate discussion. My post went unanswered for four days, hence, on March 9th, I made an edit in accordance with my talk page comment. I was almost immediately reverted by User:Lokyz , even though he had not bothered to respond to my talk page comment in the preceding four days. At that point I did not make any further edits to the article and requested a third opinon , as is recommended by WP:DR (Misplaced Pages:Dispute Resolution). Subsequently, the issue was resolved. There is no way that making a single edit, and requesting other editors' assistance through WP:3O can be considered "edit warring".

Bernardine Cemetery is an article I expanded significantly in November of 2010 (and subsequent). On March 4th, 2011, User:Jacurek added the Polish name of the place to the article and he was reverted by User:Lokyz on March 7th, 2011 with the edit summary per talk. Since in my understanding the talk page discussion that took place in December did not support Lokyz's removal, I brought the matter up on the talk page , per WP:DR, and made a single revert of Lokyz here . Note that Lokyz had not participated in any talk page discussion for the previous three months when he made his revert. Still, he immediately reverted me, literally within minutes . At that point, again, I ceased editing the article and, per WP:DR focused on discussing the issue on talk.

Neither of these two edits - one on Vilnius University and one on Bernardine Cemetery - can be construed to constitute edit warring. They were made in good faith, along with discussion on talk page, and well in full accordance - in fact they were inspired by - WP:BRD, WP:DR, and WP:EW. Specifically:

• WP:BRDsays: BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. - I did not revert anyone more than once.
• WP:DR says: Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time. - I gave plenty of time for other users to respond on talk and only made my single edit when a response did not formalize. WP:DR says: If you need neutral outside opinions in a dispute involving only two editors, turn to Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. - this is exactly what I did.
• WP:EW says: Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. - this is what I did at Vilnius University (note that the name I added was not the name that was the subject of the edit war)). WP:EW says: Additional restrictions on reverting are sometimes imposed on particular editors and/or particular pages - but if there was a 0RR restriction on either of these two articles I was not aware of its existence.

As far as I know, making single edits on two different articles has never been considered "edit warring" on Misplaced Pages, especially when these edits were accompanied by discussion on talk, and followed by requests for third opinion. As an editor with whom I frequently disagree with put it on my talk page afterward "this (sanction) puts arbitrary in arbitration". If single edits can really be considered "edit warring" this needs to be made explicit over at WP:EW and other relevant policy pages (see also discussion here: ) since otherwise people are going to violate these newly invented rules unknowingly (like I did). This kind of sanction also represent a tremendous extension of power held by admins who apply "discretionary sanctions" - under this interpretation pretty much any kind of single edit anywhere at anytime, no matter how policy-based-and-backed, is subject to sanctions on a whim of some administrator.

Therefore I request that this sanction be stricken or at the very least, foregoing my insistence on the principle (and the principalities involved) here, shortened and transformed into something more reasonable and directly applicable (say a ban on removing or adding names from the lede of the articles, since it is extremely difficult to make edits to article text without sometimes removing or adding place names, especially in historical contexts).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, the EW policy does indeed state that edit warring takes place "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. " - but in my case there was no "repeatedly" and I did try to resolve disagreement by discussion. Furthermore, I can't be held responsible for the fact that other editors started to edit war after my two separate edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that while another admin agreed with Sandstein at the AE request (which isn't surprising), pretty much every other editor who commented, something like seven or eight of them, generally disagreed with the sanction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, Sandstein's comment may give someone the misleading impression that I'm also involved in some edit war on the Władysław Syrokomla article. I'm not. I have never made an edit to that article either and the edit war there involves other users.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sandstein, you keep saying "edit warring on four articles". I'm not sure why you say "four articles". As pointed out above, my single edit to Suvalkija was made six months ago, while the edit war occurred recently. Likewise there simply was no edit war at Gdansk (as evidence for example by the fact that User:HerkusMonte was not part of the AE report). It was just some folks interpreting naming policy differently and having a disagreement, which was then taken to WP:Naming conventions] - again, precisely per WP:DR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Volunteer Marek correctly states that he was sanctioned for four reverts on four articles, as detailed here. However, these reverts were part of nationalist edit wars about names of places in Eastern Europe, in which names were repeatedly added and removed, often over a period of years. Such conduct is a chronic evil in Eastern Europe-related articles, where much more editing energy is often expended to edit-war about which nation gets to claim a particular place or person than for improving the article (see, for instance, the history of Władysław Syrokomla, most of which is reverts about whether he was Polish or Lithuanian)

In this case, as an example, Volunteer Marek's edit to Vilnius University, , was part and parcel of an edit war conducted at the same time by another editor, Jacurek, who made the same or similar edits multiple times (, , , ). As a further aggravating circumstance, Volunteer Marek, then editing as Radeksz, has previously been sanctioned by the Committee for covertly coordinating edits with Jacurek for the purpose of team-based nationalist edit-warring (WP:EEML#Radeksz). He should therefore have known that anything that gives even the impression of continuing such conduct would be viewed dimly.

I consider WP:EW to be aimed at seeking to prevent the phenomenon of edit-wars (chains of repeated reverts) as such, rather than repeated reverts by any individual editor. This is supported by the text of the policy: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. ... Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." This is why I believe that in this case, even four single reverts can be grounds for an edit-warring sanction, because these four single reverts continued four edit wars begun by others, often years ago. The proposed sanctions in this case were open for discussion in the admin section of the WP:AE page for two and a half days, in which no administrator opposed them and one supported them.

For these reasons, I recommend that the appeal be declined, but I am open to lifting the sanctions on request after a month or two if Volunteer Marek commits not to engage in nationalist edit wars any more, and if his conduct in the interim is unobjectionable (in particular, if he does not engage in nationalist tendentious editing).  Sandstein  07:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Malik Shabazz

I believe you are mistaken when you say that "After Marek made a single edit—an edit that was different from the one Jacurek had been making—he stopped editing the article. Jacurek started warring to keep Marek's change in the article." This does not seem to be the case, as this chronological sequence of edit shows: Jacurek, Jacurek, Volunteer Marek.

Also, in the text from WP:EW, I read "repeatedly override each other's contributions" so that the "repeatedly" refers to the edits of all editors taken together. That is, if A, B, C and D all revert each other once in sequence, C and D are repeating the reverts of A and B, and are therefore "repeatedly reverting". This reading makes sense because it is the edit war as such that disrupts consensus-finding, not simply the reverts of any one editor.  Sandstein  20:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to HJ Mitchell

It is not definitively established that Volunteer Marek was tag-teaming to continue an edit war, but both the chronology of the edits and his previous offwiki-coordinated tag-teaming with Jacurek, as established at WP:EEML#Radeksz, make it a distinct possibility. The reason for his sanction, though, was continuing a nationalist edit-war on four articles, irrespective of whether he was indeed tag-teaming in this case.  Sandstein  20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG

I strongly support this appeal. The wording of the policy can be interpreted in a number of ways, but no reasonable person should consider a single edit to be edit warring. - BorisG (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

Support per BorisG and editors commenting on the original case--including ones I don't always editorially agree with. If we've determined that EE is a bed of "chronic evil" per Sandstein, where exactly is the WP:AGF in that? (Although in fairness I have to also say that WP:AGF has been gamed in the past in EE.) In this particular case, with regard to editors most likely to be engaged in the Polish/Lithuanian etc. naming wars, Volunteer Marek is far from the first to come to mind. Again, I have good relations with a number of the editors involved (across party lines) and am glad to assist.

Also, to Sandstein regarding EEML and citing thereof, in my case (and I suspect others), timings of "canvassing" are circumstantial as I explained (and was ignored without even the decency of an acknowledgement) regarding my personally checking Email at times only once a week or less--long after participating wherever I was accused and declared guilty of collusion. Please keep EEML closed and done. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

Long story short, making a single edit should not be punishable (unless it is a part of coordinated edit warring or other gaming the system, which this obviously wasn't). In fact, following 1RR and WP:BRD seems to be recommended by our policies and thus is commendable, not warnable. Further, as Sandstein notes, EW referrs to editors who make repetetive edits (the "repeatedly override" part) - which VM, making 1 edit to those article, obviously wasn't. There also seems to be a consensus at talk EW that making one edit should not be treated as an edit war, thus confirming that Sandstein's interpretation of EW was quite a way off. I will note that this appeal should be seen not so much about allowing VM to go back to reverting (which he has not done much in the first place), but about correcting the error in judgment which resulted in punishing an innocent user. I strongly support lifting the restriction from VM, and I suggest everyone thinks about the implications of the remedy in the first place - least they want to find themselves warned, restricted or topic banned for making some random, single revert in the future... PS. Per Peters, I'd appreciate if references to EEML would be kept away. They do nothing but batter AGF and poison the well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein:

You write "It is not definitively established" - how about less legalize, and just saying "There is no proof"?

Findings about old cases are irrelevant, unless you can prove that the situation is repeating itself. Alleging otherwise is poisoning the well - a logical fallacy which discredits a person being discussed by bringing out unrelated past errors that person made and implying that "because they did something wrong in the past, it is likely they did so again". Obviously, this fallacy is also against AGF (you are assuming VM is doing something wrong, without any proof, where you should be assuming otherwise). Till you can prove there is a relation, please stop making such connections.

"the chronology of the edits" simply means he made one revert to an article that others were reverting, nothing more, nothing less.

So, after deconstructing your argument by stripping down legalize and logical fallacies, we are left with "continuing a nationalist edit-war on four articles". I will paraphrase this as "VM was sanctioned because he made a single revert to an article others were edit warring on, and making one revert to such an article equals full and sanctionable participation in an edit war" (please correct me if you would disagree with this rephrasing of your argument). I will end by saying that this interpretation of EW is controversial, and not supported by editors discussing this issue at talk EW. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to T. Canens:

Sanctioning editors is fine, but only those who make multiple reverts should be sanctioned. A series of single reverts by different editors is unlikely to be disruptive to the article, because such an edit war will peter out after a few edits. Or if it is continued and some editors make multiple reverts, they may be sanctioned - but the sanction should not extend to those who stopped after making a single revert (permissible per BRD, 1RR and such).

Your analysis also ignores the fact that an editor may be participating in a talk discussion, and making a revert after days (or weeks, or months) of no reply there from the "other side". Implying an equality between reverting editors can equate editor Z who made multiple reverts to an article and did not participate on talk with editor Y who made a comment on talk, and after days of no reply made an single revert. :You are right that making a series of single reverts and create an edit war in the article, however unless it can be shown that involved editors making single edits are coordinating their edits, they should not be penalized for edit warring. Only those who make multiple reverts should be warned (and if they persist, sanctioned later).

And if you look at the case here, what you get is several editors who were making multiple edits and were sanctioned (nobody is complaining about that) and an editor who made one revert and was sanctioned alongside with them (and this is what we are complaining about). So this not a case of A, B, C, D, E, F. This a case of A, B, A, B, A, B, C, A, B, A, B - with C being treated just like A and B.

PS. If an article is being targeted by socks, anons or such, there is also protection or semi-protection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

I, too, support this appeal.

I believe the diffs from Vilnius University shown by Sandstein, which seem to indicate that Volunteer Marek has jumped into an edit war alongside Jacurek, tell a different story. After Marek made a single edit—an edit that was different from the one Jacurek had been making—he stopped editing the article. Jacurek started warring to keep Marek's change in the article. Why is Marek being held responsible for Jacurek's actions after Marek walked away from the article? Because two years ago they both were part of the EEML. Will Marek forever carry the mark of Cain for his past mistakes? Is there a point at which an editor's good behavior begins to offset the bad things they have done in the past, or does forgiveness never come?

While Sandstein quotes the text of WP:EW, I believe he has missed part of his quote: ""An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Repeatedly override, rather than discussing. Marek made only a single recent edit to each article, and he began discussions on the articles' Talk pages. According to the language quoted above, Marek appears not to have edit-warred.

Finally, Sandstein notes that the proposed sanction in this case was open for discussion for two-and-a-half days without comment. I regret that I was not aware of them, or I would have made comments similar to those made here. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (another editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Volunteer Marek

Result of the appeal by Volunteer Marek

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

I've yet to form an opinion on this appeal one way or the other, but am I correct in understanding that this sanction resulted from VM allegedly tag-teaming to continue an edit war? If so, then Sandstein, would you mind elaborating on how you came to the conclusion that's what was going on? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea that one edit cannot be edit warring, while perhaps superficiality appealing, does not hold up under scrutiny. Suppose A made an edit to an article, which was reverted by B, who was reverted by C, who was reverted by D, who was reverted by E, who was reverted by F. It is undeniable that there is an edit war - any admin who rejects a protection request on the ground that there's no edit war because it's all different editors would be immediately dragged to ANI and have their decision reversed. Since there is an edit war, who is edit warring? Not A or B, since they are properly engaging in the BRD cycle. The same cannot be said for C, D, E, or F, whose behavior is materially indistinguishable. The only logical answer is that C, D, E and F are all edit warring, even though each only made one revert, since you can't have an edit war without people who are edit warring. I have no opinion on which one of those three (A, B, or C-F) is a best fit for Marek's conduct in this case, and so no opinion on whether this appeal should succeed. T. Canens (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)