Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk
Arbitration policy (CU/OS)
Guide to arbitration
Noticeboard + Talk
Archived proceedings
Ban appeals Talk
Open proceedings
All open requests
Case requests
Clarification and Amendment requests
Arbitrator motion requests
Enforcement requests
Active sanctions
Discretionary sanctions (Log)
General sanctions
Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Discuss +
Contact
Members
Procedures
Elections Talk
History
Clerks + Talk
Clerk procedures
Audit
Talk
Statistics Talk
Reports (pre-2016)
Shortcuts:

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:
Arbitration Committee Proceedings
[edit] Case Requests
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
[edit] Open Cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
War of the Pacific (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 17 Jan 2017 31 Jan 2017
Magioladitis (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 17 Jan 2017 07 Feb 2017
[edit] Recently Closed Cases (Past Cases)
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
[edit] Clarification and Amendment Requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Race and intelligence none (orig. case) 1 Jan 2017
[edit] Arbitrator Motions
No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Contents


Requests for arbitration

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have names as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission, you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are one of them. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts: WP:ARCA • WP:ARA • WP:A/R/C&A • WP:A/R/CL • WP:A/R/A • WP:A/R/CA • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Requests for clarification and amendment


Amendment request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Mathsci at 06:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Modified_by_motion_(April_2016)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • No other parties are involved.
Information about amendment request
That the topic ban imposed in April 2016 be replaced by the voluntary topic ban adopted in August/December 2010:

Statement by Mathsci

During my appeal last year, Doug Weller corresponded with me about my voluntary topic ban from this area. It had been in force since August 2010 and has been adhered to. All restrictions were removed in December 2010, on the initiative of Newyorkbrad, but my voluntary ban stayed in force. I have not edited in this area since July 2010. Since then, encouraged by the arbitration committee, I have helped administrators and checkusers on and off wiki with sockpuppetry in this topic area. That is still happening.

I would prefer to return to the position adopted in December 2010 if possible. The topic ban, which I was first asked about in an email from Courcelles, might give administrators the wrong impression about my editing history, i.e. that I have edited wikipedia with ideological prejudices. That seems to have happened once already.

I would therefore like the phrase "This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban" to be struck from the motion, thus returning to the status quo of my voluntary topic ban.

I am completely happy with the rest of the current phrasing, which was modified from the original email proposal. This request is independent of and does not concern any interaction bans. Mathsci (talk)

@Mkdw:: Thanks for replying. In answer to your query, I would be quite happy for all mention of a topic ban to be removed from the motion. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The arbitration committee formulated the original version of the "topic ban by mutual consent" in August 2010 (the original case). In November 2010 Newyorkbrad suggested here that my editing restrictions be lifted [1]. I immediately replied:[2] "Even if my name at any stage were formally removed from the list of those topic banned on this, I should make it clear that for my own sanity I would continue not to edit articles or their talk pages in this area." That is what I have informally called a "voluntary topic ban". Nobody asked me to do it. The "topic ban by mutual consent" was lifted on 17 December 2010.[3] As Kirill Lokshin correctly points out, the "topic ban by mutual consent" was enforceable during the period 24 August—17 December 2010 when it was in effect. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

I'm quite confused about this distinction between a voluntary topic ban and a "standard" topic ban. One may voluntarily agree to an unblock condition, but once the unblock is made, that condition is no longer voluntary. This restriction should either remain unchanged or be lifted entirely. If this editor has been as helpful as he says he has been for this many years without issue, I'm inclined to support lifting the restriction entirely. ~ Rob13Talk 08:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Modified_by_motion_(December_2010) reads: "Remedy 6 ("Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent") of the Race and Intelligence case is terminated, effective immediately." So if above Mathsci requests "That the topic ban imposed in April 2016 be replaced by the voluntary topic ban adopted in August/December 2010" (emphasis added) I'm not sure whether they intend to observe a (binding/voluntary) avoidance of the topic, or the December 2010 termination decision (which holds no commitment whatsoever to avoid the topic).

Mathsci's commitment to indefinite voluntary topic bans can be illustrated as follows: in August 2016 Mathsci committed to "As I also wrote in the request [i.e.: "At ANI I also voluntarily committed myself to ceasing editing 2016 Nice attack or its talk page indefinitely"], I will not edit the 2016 Nice attack article and its talk page". Mathsci resumed editing the 2016 Nice attack page and its talk page in November ([4], [5]). Their edits to the mainspace article and its talk page in November-December are entirely constructive and unproblematic afaics – only illustrating the "indefinite" timeframe being translated to less than four months (also without prejudice where and when Mathsci may have obtained permission to shorten the "indefinite" part of their voluntary avoidance of the topic).

The discussion of Mathsci's amendment request appears largely semantic thus far, if you ask me: translating it into a proposal free of such side-tracking semantics:

Rescind the

The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban.
part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Modified_by_motion_(April_2016)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Username

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Mathsci: Is there any particular reason why you're asking for it to be changed to a "voluntary" topic ban as opposed to it having the ban lifted in its entirety? It seems counter-intuitive to me for the ban remain in place but changed to voluntary if you believe it's still required. Mkdw talk 06:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Echoing Mkdw's question above. What is the point of maintaining a voluntary topic ban when it cannot be enforced? I would think we would either leave the topic ban as is, or remove it entirely. If removed, you would naturally be free to avoid that area if you wished. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The original 2010 decision does not use the term "voluntary"; rather, the remedy we adopted was that "Mathsci has consented to a binding topic ban from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" (emphasis mine). There's no reason why version of the topic ban would not have been fully enforceable under the standard enforcement provisions adopted in the case. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • While it hasn't been perfectly smooth sailing since Mathsci was unbanned, none of the issues that have arisen had anything to do with this topic ban, so I'd just as soon get rid of it. Of course Mathsci can continue to ignore this topic to his heart's content afterwards. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Motions

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210


This box:


Volunteer Marek

Closed with no action. User:EtienneDolet has undertaken to voluntarily abstain from participation at WP:AE for six months, except for responding to any filings where he's a named party. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBEE (WP:GS/SCW)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

VM is pushing a strong anti-Russian/anti-Syrian government POV articles related to the Syrian Civil War, especially at Battle of Aleppo (2012-2016), and other articles as well for some time. His behavior has become particularly disruptive since the capture of Aleppo by the Syrian government in recent days.

Edit warring/Gaming 1RR

Has been steadily reverting once every 24 hours at the 1RR Battle of Aleppo (2012-2016) article for the last week or so (aside from a pause around Christmas). Note that there's a clear consensus at the TP to NOT include the alleged massacres in the lede. The consensus was pretty clear by 19 December (though that didn't stop him). It is now at 14-2; the 2 being himself and My very best wishes.

There are other troubling incidents: when VM got reverted and did not get his way with his version of the lead, he went a couple hours later to the similar Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) article (which is so identical that it probably needs to get merged) and inserted the same material about the alleged civilian massacres to the lead of that article, then doubles down to maintain his insertion.

More 1RR gaming

Meanwhile, when VM did not get the consensus he wanted at the TP, he employed the "same-wine-different-bottle-to-get-around-1RR" tactic. The material is similar to material that VM previously edit-warred over, but since he used up his 1R for the day, he inserts something slightly different, so that the gist is the same but without it being a revert. Examples include:

  • 12:16 22 December - His addition is reverted
  • 18:23 22 December - Adds a statement by Merkel and Kerry over the same massacres of civilians. Meanwhile, what's more troubling is that VM doubles down the next day and not only restores his addition about the alleged massacre, but also Kerry and Merkel's comments.

But when that gets reverted altogether, VM does the following:

  • 23:15 23 December - Adds another statement, this time by Samantha Power, over the same allegations of massacre.
Dishonesty
  • 19 December - While reverting the removal of material he wants included, he ALSO removes sourced material without any explanation either in the edit summary or the TP (under the guise of "reorder text for better flow.") He also removed "To prevent civilian casualties, the Russian and Syrian governments…", which fits into his POV of portraying said governments in as negative light as possible.
  • 22 December - Same deal here. No explanation given for this edit.
  • 23 December - Mischaracterizing other’s edits to make them seem unreasonable. No he's not trying to delete anything, the RfC is whether the "Aleppo massacre" stuff belongs in the lede of Battle of Aleppo, nothing more. VM’s allegations of "trying to bypass AfD" are gross mischaracterizations.
  • 26 December - Edit-warring over RfC closure, falsely claiming only an admin can close it. He then doubles down even when told that wasn't the case.
  • 27 December - Claims there's no discussion over the reliability of the source. When there is, and he participated in it.
POV-pushing
  • 15 October - Comparing the Russian and Syrian governments to the Nazis. While VM is entitled to his views, this diff shows just how "extreme" these views are.
  • 20 December - He removes the sourced denial of the atrocities by the Syrian government, and restores POV wording (e.g. “catastrophic”), without ANY explanation. He finds ONE source that uses a particular wording he likes, and then insists on using that wording verbatim because “reliable sources” says so, never mind the fact that it is just a single source, and we are bound by NPOV while sources are not.
  • 23 December - "Syria's Kurds also protested against the Syrian Army's disregard for civilians in its attack on the city." The article shows all of 10-15 people "demonstrating" – in Iraqi Kurdistan, not Syria. Yet VM sees no problem writing "Syria's Kurds protested..." in Wikipedia’s voice, thereby clearly attempting to create a false impression for our readers.
  • 26 December - This looks like an attempt at poisoning the well. There is a separate section for government atrocities. Doubles down when challenged.
TP disruption (i.e. incivility/trying to get under his opponent’s skin/TP edit-warring)
  • 23 December - VM seems to enjoy attempts at mocking and humiliating those he disagrees with. Note how he included my name in the header, a major WP:TALK no-no. His post is redolent with sarcasm and mockery. He continues the discussion lashing out on my editing pattern which under WP:NPA guidelines (comment on content, not editor), would be considered nothing short of a personal attack. The whole discussion is an attempt to humiliate and to top it all off says he's "helping me become a better editor." Grant it, he did concede to change the section title when I told him so. But the discussion, which is the most disruptive part, remains. When I tried hatting the discussion, he then reverted that too. I find such behavior extremely counterproductive towards consensus building: A user that is mocked and humiliated in this fashion is far less likely to be willing to compromise (he's done this before too). This is clearly not the behavior of someone 1) interested in maintain a collegial editing environment and 2) worried about sanctions. Because he gets away with it.
  • 26 December - Edit-warring over the closure of an RfC, when the results of the RfC are overwhelmingly in his disfavor (13-2). Doubles down.
  • 28 December - "But this is not fucking dishonesty you little ..." When I removed it per RPA, the response I get is "how about you leave my comments alone?" This is not good-natured conduct, much less someone who finds it appropriate to engage in WP:CIVIL dialogue.
  • 28 December - "Showing up to AE with a bullshit report, accusing someone of "dishonesty" then lying your ass off about what the diffs you include as "evidence" contain." Same idea.
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 1 March 2016. Made comment that specified warning was for Syria here.
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions by Erlbaeko
  • Filed a report requesting WP:ARBEE sanction.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Frankly, I've interacted with Volunteer Marek for quite some time now, and I must say that this is the most disruptive I've seen him thus far. The diffs (with the exception of a couple) are all from the past 10 days. I must say, however, that the underlying POV push here is anti-Russian, and whoever is on good terms with Russia (i.e. Assad, Trump, Assange) pays a hefty price.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[6]

@Seraphimblade:, @Black Kite:, @Bishonen: Though I disagree with your assessments of the report, I can agree to voluntarily not file reports for the time being. Frankly, many of the admins commenting on this case know my past history with the reports I've filed on this board, and most of these reports did indeed succeed. The concerns I've raised in the previous two reports were in the good faith understanding that this board will handle such patterns of disruption in a more formal and analytical process. If I have failed to provide the basis for that very process, then it's on me. I understand where you admins are coming from. As for how long I'm willing to not file reports, I'm willing to roll with your suggestions. But I'm thinking if 6 months is appropriate. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I'll accept any result from the case. But I don't get why my offer above of good-will is being overlooked. To repeat: I'm voluntarily not going to file reports. The time period could be decided by you guys. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: I knew what? I still believe that it appears that there's an underlying anti-Russian POV problem concerning VM's anti-Assad positions. If the admins beg to differ, then that's their opinion and their opinion only. If the case gets rejected on these technical grounds, then that's not something I'm going to complain about either. I don't question their judgement in that regard. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: No, that's not what I'm telling you. These diffs involve the Syrian Civil War, but VM's anti-Assad stance in these articles stem from an overall anti-Russian pattern of editing. And yes, I know about the community sanctions and I also know they're not AE sanctions, hence why I placed WP:GS/SCW in parenthesis. But to the left of that is WP:ARBEE and it's without a parenthesis. That's the case I believe should be enforced. If admins beg to differ on that, then I won't stand in the way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: let me clarify for Fitzcarmalan, if I may. The issue isn’t whether the sources are reliable or not. No one in the talk page is arguing that. The argument on the talk page was that the initial claims made for these massacres were made from unverified and unknown sources, therefore it’s undue. With that said, the consensus was to remove any mention of these allegations from the lead. But VM kept reinserting them into the lead in several different ways and forms. First, it was with the UN High Commissioner’s statement. Gets reverted. Then it was with Merkel’s and Kerry’s statements. Gets reverted. The he adds both the UN High Commissioner's and Merkel's and Kerry's statement. Gets reverted. And finally, it was with Samantha Power’s statement. Then that too gets reverted. And if that wasn't enough, in the meantime Marek went along and added the same contentious material to the similar Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) article not once, but twice. All of this occurred in a little more than 24 hours. And to reiterate, all of these statements from this or that politician were over the same allegations of massacre which consensus considered (by December 19) not worthy enough to be in the lead. This is serious gaming of the 1RR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I raised this issue to a board that I thought would implement its own regulatory measures (i.e. demand shorter comments, civility, no PAs, and etc.). But all I hear are admins complaining about reading huge walls of text. True, it's a lot of stuff to read, which was never my fault to begin with. I myself don't have the will to read it, let alone have the time and energy to refute each one of VM's rebuttals. But it's a Catch-22 with you guys. Refute his arguments and hear admins complain about how this report is getting longer and longer. Or just let it slide and listen to admins say that this report is frivolous or whatever. Either way, I don't think the problem lies with the report but whether this board is capable of adhering to its own principals and regulations. If it did do that, it would have made it easier for us all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: You can ask the following users about that: C1cada, Maurice07, Jaqeli, Konullu, Dragontiger23, Cavann, Ithinkicahn, Kafkasmurat, and others. These are the ones I can name off the top of my head. Unsuccessful reports...maybe like 3? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: What I see Marek adding in subsequent edits is reliable sources, in what appears to be an attempt to address that issue. - Now here's where I think you're really underestimating the gaming that's going on here. No one is arguing whether the sources VM is (re)inserting into the article are reliable or not. After all, just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it gets a free pass into the lead, let alone the article. It's the material itself that's contentious. Of course VM is going to argue that the RfC is different from Merkel's and Kerry's statements. Which is what he did (and so does Mvbw). In fact, Mvbw slips up here and says: "Yes, it is related. So what? I think this RfC was (mis)used to exclude from intro any sourced information about killing civilians by military forces of certain countries." That's the goal. Yeah, "So what?" Screw the RfC, we need to have the stuff about the massacres into the lead at all costs. So VM went along and added statements from all these high ranking diplomats and politicians who are condemning the allegations of the same massacre. Even after this was pointed out to him, he finds another diplomat (this time Power) and adds it back in there. And then goes to similar articles and adds them there. This was a way to circumvent the RFC and the 1RR both at the same time.
Mind you, while all this is going on there is no definitive answer to the RfC (there still isn't) - RfC's stand for: Request for Comment. I don't see it as a basketball match to see who scores the most points by the end of the 4th quarter. Its main goal is to build consensus. With that said, if there's material that is overwhelmingly being contested at the talk page with the help of the RfC, then it should be removed per consensus. By December 19, there was nobody on the talk page, except for Marek, that was in favor of adding the allegations of massacre to the lead. Meanwhile, the way VM (and Mvbw) treated the RfC was as if it didn't even exist. Going so far as to misrepresent RfC policy along the way. Besides, when you say there still isn't a definitive answer at the RfC, please tell that to the 14 users that spoke against the inclusions of massacre allegations. If you think half those accounts are fake or socks or whatever, you'll have 7 strong comments that are against the inclusion. That still overwhelmingly tilts to the discussion to one side. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Darouet: Incredible? Maybe. Surprising? Not so much. The growing disparity between the comments of average editors and that of the administrators on this report and in AE in general is astounding. This is happening with almost every report coming in here. We are effectively seeing administrators not tending to the concerns of the average user and in fact, blatantly disregarding them. Is this an elitist approach? I don't know. Though there's certainly some signs of it. After all, admins are just spectators and are ultimately not the ones having to deal with such concerns. But it may be worth looking into since such a result won't help the topic area and the project at large. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Yes, that's fine. I'll voluntarily abstain from participation at WP:AE except to respond to a filing where I'm a named party. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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

Statement by Volunteer Marek

(Note: yes, I know this is long. That's cuz there's a buttload of accusations in this battleground report. So please don't tell me to "keep it under 500 words". You know that can't be done)


First, even EtienneDolet's own diffs clearly show that it's simply false that "(Volunteer Marek) Has been steadily reverting once every 24 hours at the 1RR". There's 11 edits there (not all of them reverts) which span Dec 13 to Dec 27, which is two weeks. So that's not even one "revert" per day. It's just normal editing of the article.

Specifically, the edits on the 13th and the 14th, restored a long standing version of the article which was altered by several brand new accounts. In particular, This is NOT a revert of this.

The edit on the 15th is a revert but it's part of BRD - especially since the info was removed per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The subsequent edits, in the cases where they are reverts concern different aspects of the article. For example this edit and this edit are about unrelated content.

So you can't claim "consensus on talk page" when you're talking about completely different issues. At best, consensus was only for ONE issue, which is not to have the number of killed civilians in the lede. And even that's debatable as several other users supported inclusion of the text. I have no idea what "same-wine-different-bottle-to-get-around-1RR" is suppose to mean. It sounds like EtienneDolet is just offended that I've been able to edit the article at all. This is his usual (and he has done this several times in the past) "oh noes! Volunteer Marek won't let me push my POV in peace! Please ban him!". This is exactly what EtienneDolet does - he and his buddies go in, revert blindly and then when their edits are challenged they run off to drama boards to try and get those who disagree with them banned. EtienneDolet has in fact been warned and threatened with sanctions for exactly this kind of behavior previously. See previous AE reports (I'll dig it out later).

Ok, now the "Dishonesty" charge. That's pretty damn serious. So he better have something here or I'm gonna be pissed. And I want a freakin' BOOMERANG.

  • This edit. EtienneDolet says ""Stop it, it’s sourced", but he is actually removing sourced material in the process."

First note I'm reverting to a version by admin User:Drmies. This is restoring the words "pro-Assad", "catastrophic" and "thousands", all of which, are indeed sourced. I am removing the word "alleged" because "alleged" is not in the source and the user inserted it because he claimed the text wasn't supported by sources (false). There does appear to be a sentence there sourced to Daily Beast (not a reliable source) which got caught up in the restoration of Drmies' version. But this is not fucking dishonesty ... it's just something getting caught up in restoring a version.

  • This edit. EtienneDolet says " While reverting the removal of material he wants included, he ALSO removes sourced material without any explanation either in the edit summary or the TP"

Bullshit. This is restoring a previous version. The rationale for removing this "sourced material" was ALREADY PROVIDED here.

  • This edit. EtienneDoelt says: "Same deal here. No explanation given for this edit."

Bullshit. There's the freakin' edit summary right there which explains it, which says "restore well sourced material. Apparently a few buses being burned is more important for the lede than a massacre of civilians".

And at this point. Let's pause and think about what is going on here. EtienneDolet and a couple of his buddies are busy trying to remove any mention of murdered civilians from the lede of the article. Because, they say, it's "UNDUE". At the same time, he is trying to add information about some buses being freakin' burnt to the lede. That's right. EtienneDolet thinks that a massacre of civilians is "UNDUE" but buses being burned is crucial info for the lede. That kind of mentality speaks for itself.

And yes, I did start a talk page discussion about it [7]

  • This edit. EtienneDolet says: "Mischaracterizing other’s edits to make them seem unreasonable. ...VM’s allegations of "trying to bypass AfD" are gross mischaracterizations."

The person being dishonest here is ED. ANOTHER USER (see comment right above mine in the diff) used the word "bizarrely". I agreed with them. Because the situation on the talk page was indeed bizarre. I'm not mischaracterizing anything. The same editors who were voting to "merge" this material from the article Aleppo Massacre to Battle of Aleppo where busy trying to REMOVE it from the Battle of Aleppo one. How does that work? How can you "merge" something when you are actually removing it? The answer is, it doesn't. It's just a trick (it's actually a very old old trick on Wikipedia). You say "merge" and then remove it from the target and that way you get to delete it without actually doing AfD. Because you know that if you took the actual article to AfD, the vote would be keep.

Man, I'm tired of this crap already. It's obvious EtienneDolet has been working on this for the past few days, probably with some help - especially given Athenean's comments in the RfC where he keeps threatening that he'll go to AE.

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is suppose to be wrong with that comment??? What exactly is the problem? How is this dishonest? Where does EtienneDolet get off accusing me of lying? I am making a relevant goddamn analogy.

EtiennDolet is basically just taking every single one of my edits to this article and my comments on the talk page and pretending really really hard that there's something "bad" about them. There's not. He's full of it. He's the one that's lying and being dishonest. His description of every single one of those diffs is a big stinking lie.

More quickly - nothing wrong with this comment, if you're doing original research, then yeah you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Nothing wrong with this comment, it address content, specifically sources.

Oh, this one's funny - [8]. EtienneDolet quotes me as saying: ""If you're not gonna be willing to follow reliable sources then you're WP:NOTHERE for the purposes of building an encyclopedia. Are you? *cricket noises*""

First, if you refuse to follow reliable sources, then yeah, Wikipedia isn't for you. I guess it's the "cricket noises" that are the issue, huh? That's like, uncivil or something, to say "cricket noises" to someone? Right? Oh but wait, wait, what is this comment responding to? Just look right above it to EtienneDolet's comment:

" The underlining question here is most important: were/are there independent observers in Eastern Aleppo? *cricket noises*".

And see the part which he left out: "Um, the way it usually works is that after you ask a question you give a chance to respond, THEN you start in with the "cricket noises". Not "howabouthequestioCRICKETNOISES!". And anyway, that's not the question. The question is what reliable sources say" (that's me, in case you're losing track)

This edit. EtienneDolet quotes me as saying "go edit some other place on internet." What he leaves out is the first part of that sentence "If you don't care to follow Wikipedia policy on reliable sources". Which is about right. IF you're not gonna follow one of our five pillars then other internet forums are a better match for you.

This one I believe was already brought up by ED's tag-team buddy Athenean on User:Drmies talk page right here. Please read Drmies response.

This one. EtienneDolet says: "The user never said the "bus burnings" belonged in the lead or that SOHR is reliable." Yeah and I never said that "the user" (that would be Athenean) said that. This was a general comment on the discussion in the section. So it's really ED who is "grossly mischarecterizing" my comments.

The closure of the RfC. Yes, a non-admin tried to close the RfC after just a couple of days. I reverted it because it's the holiday season and we should give more time for editors who are busy with holiday stuff. That user then actually said they were fine with the closure being undone. What's more, another, actually uninvolved User:Lemongirl942, also asked the user to hold off on closing RfCs. Then yet another User:Iryna Harpy undid another attempt at closure by another involved user, 92slim (recently blocked for incivility for this comment, also a buddy of ED)

So all you got here is just EtienneDolet presenting a bunch of diffs and then appending his own FALSE little description of what they SUPPOSEDLY contain. He's hoping that admins, understandably since it's time consuming, check the actual context and verify all of his claim. This is just the standard WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic of diff-padding.

Ok I'm gonna make a break here.

Because then we come to the real reason why EtienneDolet is filing this AE report, This diff from Dec 23.

First, just to get something straight, as soon as ED asked me to remove his name from the sub-sub-section heading, I was happy to do so [9] (he actually didn't bring it up for awhile)

Now, is this a "personal attack" meant to "humiliate" EtienneDolet? No. It's not. But it does make him look really bad, which is why he's pissed enough to file this baseless WP:AE report. But the reason it makes him look bad, is because he behaved badly.

Here is the diff again [10]. Read it. Then read the discussion it is referring to here.

The situation outlined in those two diffs vividly illustrates just what a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor EtienneDolet is, and how completely unconcerned with Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV and WP:RS he is in pursuit of his BATTLEGROUND. And it does this with his own words. It's not a personal attack because it really just quotes him.

To recap. Back in April, on the page Russian military intervention in Syria, EtienneDolet insisted that SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights) was NOT a reliable source. He was adamant about it. He was inflexible about it. Uncompromising. He called it a "total joke". A "tool of Western propaganda", And worse. He wasted a shit load of my time arguing that it wasn't reliable. Even that discussion by itself was really problematic. First, he misrepresented what users at WP:RSN said (this RfC was actually an instance of FORUM shopping but nevermind), until one of them showed up and corrected him. Then he claimed that there were "academic sources" that proved SOHR wasn't reliable (April 1 10:16). When I asked him to provide these "academic sources" he evaded and kept repeating the claim without actually presenting them. Finally, when pressed he linked to... a conspiracy website, and a far-right online fake-"magazine" that publishes anti-Semitic drivel. When the nature of these links was pointed out to him, he kept on freakin' insisting that these were, honest to god, "academic sources".

Those are the quotes from him I provided in the diff he brings up (here it is again [11])

Yeah, he looks bad in those, but that's all on him.

So why is this relevant to the Battle of Aleppo article? I mean aside from the fact that "Russian military intervention in Syria" and "Battle of Aleppo" are related. Well.... because now EtienneDolet decided he wanted to USE the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights as a source himself. Nothing changed in the meantime. It's still the same outfit. There's been no new info about it. In fact, ED didn't even say he changed his mind. The only difference was that in April, SOHR was being used to source something which was "anti-Assad", but in December he wanted to use it to source something which was "pro-Assad".

So all of sudden, this source that he spend pages and pages arguing was unreliable, "a total joke", a "tool of Western propaganda", all of sudden, now, it was perfectly fine to use. Because HEJUSTLIKEDIT.

Seriously. Read this discussion first. Look at this edit. Keep in mind that he restored this source several times. Then read my comment (here it is again) and tell me that there isn't something seriously wrong with EtienneDolet's approach to editing Wikipedia.

I've been here since 2005. I've seen TONS of TENDENTIOUS editors. But this is pretty much top of the list. Definitely top three. To be so totally brazen in one's disregard for Wikipedia policies and goals in pursuit of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, as EtienneDolet is, even I'm surprised, and I've seen a lot of shenanigans here over the years.

And I haven't even brought up the strange phenomenon in the Aleppo RfC, where six editors, none of whom have ever edited the article before, but all of whom are EtienneDolet's buddies from the whole Armenia vs. Turkey and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan topic area/battleground, somehow all showed up to vote in his (well, Athenean's, little difference) RfC in quick succession, all in the same way, with exactly the same "rationale".

This is a load of crap and I'm tired. I guess now is when all the grudge holders, haters and opportunistic battleground warriors show up and turn this into a circus... Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, please give me some time to dig out old WP:AE reports, including the failed ones that ED already tried to file against me, and some WP:ANI reports (also failed) in which he was warned about using WP:AE and WP:ANI to pursue WP:BATTLEGROUND fights. They're there if you look and I'll get them soon enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoe, you're confusing me with someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@TTAAC, that info had been in the article for several days and nobody objected. So actually, it was your removal of it which was a violation of discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Re ED's [12] - you know what's "not good-natured conduct"? Showing up to AE with a bullshit report, accusing someone of "dishonesty" then lying your ass off about what the diffs you include as "evidence" contain. THAT IS what is not "conducive to civil conduct". Oh, and messing with the comments made by your intended victim. Which appears to be just an attempt to provoke and humiliate them ("I can edit your comments cuz you're such a bad person!"). The fact that ED immediately edited this page again to include my reverting of his changes to my comment is just more illustration that this is nothing but WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior on their part, combined with a bunch of WP:POINTY attempts to provoke someone so that he can have "diffs" to add to his report. Like I said, I have not seen many users on Wikipedia that were this cynical and backhanded in their editing and pursuit of grudges.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:Bishonen, think about it this way - at least you're an outside observer and you only have to or choose to observe this. You're not actually being attacked and slandered and have your character and good intentions constantly called into question and have every single person you've ever pissed off on Wikipedia cuz you didn't let them add some nonsense to some article you can't even remember show up and pontificate about all the horrible things you are and have done and muse out loud about what kind of nasty things should be done to you. So as much I sympathize - and I do, really really do - you're being cast in the easier role in this theatrical production.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Tiptoe, you are *still* confusing me with another user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

One user says: "The event isn't notable enough to have its own article, yet alone being called a "massacre", thats just the viewpoint of highly pro-salafi jihadist news outlets such as reuters, al-Jazeera,telegraph or CNN, therefore I believe the very existence of such a separate article calling it a "massacre" is a breach fo wikipedia's NPOV"

Yeah, that's right, this user just called CNN, The Telegraph, Reuters and al-Jazeera "highly pro-salafi jihadist news outlets". You better believe I'm gonna say something.

Another user says: "Mainstream Media cried foul during the military activities without having any credible source on the ground" and goes on to say that CNN and NYT are just as biased as RT or Sputnik.

Yup, this is more of that same "false neutrality" nonsense (here's actually a great article on the subject [13], thanks to User:Elinruby). My "attack" was just to point out that "Mainstream Media" is exactly what we use as reliable sources on Wikipedia.

Another user complains that "the sources are doing original research" - well, duh, that's what secondary sources do. The user appears to be confused about who gets to do original research (sources) and who does not (us).

And then there's the claim by EtienneDolet in that RfC, a rather absurd claim, that the text in the article is "not verifiable". My response was simply to point out that there's thirteen (!) reliable sources which back up the text. What ED simply means though is "I don't believe the sources". But that's his problem.

Most of my other comments in that RfC was to the note that the criteria for merging an article are NOT "neutrality" (most of these !votes were just straight up WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT votes) but "notability". I.e. Whether we merge or not depends on whether the event was notable, not whether it is being portrayed neutrally.

And seriously I could've criticized these !votes much more. Like the user who complains that the reports of the massacre are based on "biased sources" (i.e. Reuters, CNN, NYT and other "highly pr-salafi jihadist news outlets") and then quotes approvingly the ... Daily Freakin' Mail.

The actual question with that RfC is the arrival of a large number of sketchy SPA accounts, as well as a cohesive group of editors who haven't edited Syria related articles at all, but who have all edited, and tag-teamed together in the past on.... Armenia vs. Turkey, and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan related articles. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is EtienneDolet's usual stomping ground. How did this group of editors arrive on this and the Battle of Aleppo RfC, in such quick succession, all voting same way and all offering the same rationale? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @Volunteer Marek: Casting !votes under any discussion is open to any WP editor, however they stumble upon it. (Most perhaps do through their watchlists, like me). Your argument about SPAs does not really hold, not sure why you make it at all - from among ~35 editors who expressed their views there, precisely TWO might be SPAs. See, people here are fully within rights to name certain media reports as unreliable, especially when they all say the same thing based on a single statement from one UN office (not in the Aleppo region on top of that) on some "reports" from unnamed informants. See, Wikipedia does not blindly republish what BBC or CNN ever prints; it's not Wikipedia's role. See WP:NOTNEWS. Many editors take pains to crosscheck information with other sources, especially with sources more reliable and trusted than mass media (internationally mandated high-profile investigations come to mind). You need to respect that people have a right to call certain mass media reports as unreliable, just as you seem to enjoy calling anything coming from RT as biased. Reacting the way you keep doing fails to leave an impression that you WP:RESPECT fellow editors. — kashmiri TALK 11:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@News and Events Guy - I haven't harassed anyone. Get a grip.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@ED in regard to this comment - I'm sorry, but who went and made you "the average user", whose concerns are so woefully being neglected by the admins? In fact, the disparity between the comments in AE reports and the admins conclusions (which has ALWAYS existed, from the day this board was started) is simply due to the fact that the people who CHOOSE to comment here are a non-random, self-selected group - those with the biggest axes to grind. They are anything but "average". I'd be more worried if the admins DID pay more attention to the peanut galleries that always pop up at these things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

Is there any point in this? VM has always been a full-time pov editor, ceaseless and tireless if not always effective. Everyone knows this, countless cases over the years have revealed it, but nothing is done. Only the now greatly increased subject range of articles affected may change that. What started as eastern European post-Cold-War related articles has expanded into any subject that VM believes contains some hidden Russian manipulations or hidden pro-Russia end goal, so it is now just about anything to do with the middle east and anything to do with domestic or foreign policy American politics. VM surely genuinely believes he is trying to save saving the world from a tidal wave of Russian malevolence. However, when VM arrives at an article, everyone just groans, knowing they are going to be faced with his ceaseless persistence that his position must be followed and everyone else is wrong regardless of arguments presented or consensus. The Battle of Aleppo RfC [14] is typical - he just goes on and on and on, his tenacity is awesome. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek writes "I've been here since 2005. I've seen TONS of TENDENTIOUS editors. But this is pretty much top of the list. Definitely top three. To be so totally brazen in one's disregard for Wikipedia policies and goals in pursuit of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, as EtienneDolet is, even I'm surprised, and I've seen a lot of shenanigans here over the years". Volunteer Marek has actually been here since 2004 [15], and if VM is going to have the brazen audacity to accuse ED of being in the top three ranking of Wikipedia's most tendentious editors, he should acknowledge his own editing history makes him the likely number one. Or he should stop making such clearly over-the-top accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

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

I am not sure this should be considered on WP:AE because all most recent diffs are related to the Syrian war, which is covered by community sanctions. This is yet another attempt by ED and supporters to sanction VM, or at least to make his life on WP unbearable. What ED and some others actually do? They collect a large number of completely legitimate edits by VM and bring them here as a proof of something. However, all or most of these edits actually improve the content or represent legitimate discussions. That's why all their previous attempts on this noticeboard did not succeed. But they continue doing the same in this request. I think this should stop by banning ED and Tiptoe from bringing new complaints on AE, unless admins want the same to continue to infinity. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy. I agree that diffs show unfriendly discussions on talk page pages of several articles, although one must look at the entire diffs, rather than on the excerpts taken by ED out of context, and the responses by VM are actually reasonable and sufficiently civil by WP standards. But the real question is: who created an unfriendly atmosphere on these pages? As someone who participated in some of these discussions, I must tell: it was created not by VM, but by three specific users (ED, Tiptoe and Athenean) to whom he responds in these diffs and who brought this and several other complaints on AE and elsewhere. This could be shown with diffs (unless it is already obvious from all diffs in this request), but no one wants to waste his time. VM edited very same pages long time before, and it usually did not cause objections from other long term contributors who edited these pages with him. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy. No, I do not think that any edit by VM was sanctionable or even problematic. Yes, one should look at the context to make a more qualified judgment, and VM provides this context in his statement. You tell: "The arbs declared principles and VM clearly broke 'em". Where, exactly? I do not see it, especially after looking at the context. Yes, he does a significant number of reverts, however one should look at each revert on the case to case basis. If that's the problem, please report it to 3RRNB. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fitzcarmalan. As your comment clearly shows, this is all about Syrian war, not Eastern Europe, and therefore not covered by AE sanctions. I knew it (see beginning of my comment) and ED knew it, even before the comment by Sandstein below. But he still brought this complaint here to get his "content opponent". That is actually the problem to be addressed by admins, I think. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@ED. Are you telling you did not know about community sanctions with regard to Syrian war? Are you telling that most of the recent diffs in your request were not about Syrian war? In addition, you were warned just a few days ago on AE about bringing battleground complaints (here). My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@ED. Thank you for clarifying that you knew it. Now, you tell that "most" your reports "did indeed succeed". Could you please clarify how many reports did you already file, including those directly to Arbcom and on ANI, and how many of them "succeed"? My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@ED. No response about it? Now, speaking about your latest comment [16], some removals of the content included by VM (such as that one) are actually troubling because they remove well sourced information and made by people who usually edit not Syrian, but Armenian subjects, just like you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@ED. Thank you for clarifications. I do not know what admins are going to decide, but even if you are banned from commenting on AE, nothing prevents you from bringing your concerns about other contributors to attention of individual admins active on AE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is clearly a WP:BATTLE request by ED because

  1. Syrian war is not really covered by DS
  2. ED needed a lot of diffs to prove the "guilt" by another party, but none of the individual diffs was particularly convincing, especially after looking at the context provided in reply by VM
  3. ED reports someone with whom he is in content disputes. The disputes started when ED followed edits by VM on pages he did not edit before.
  4. ED unsuccessfully tried to have VM sanctioned before
  5. ED was warned just a few days ago on AE against such behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lipsquid

Here we are again, every AE or ANI about VM has a magically appearing MVBW in support of VM. Amazing coincidence how often these two cross paths. Lipsquid (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Respectfully, accusation after accusation are made that VM and MVBW are tag teaming edits. The accusations are made by editors who don't even know each other and over an extender period of time and yet regardless of the evidence, it never gets reviewed. On the contrary, the filers and negative commentators are threatened as they were here and the evidence is never reviewed as it wasn't here. Add to that VM and MVBW's history, which I did not know until *after* I started to look into them organizing edit control over articles, and there is something very rotten going on here. You find my comment useless, I understand. I find you refusal to review the accusation and instead complain about having to do your job as a way to not review what was brought before this board asking for relief to be useless. If it is a waste of your time, pick another area of WP to serve and let someone who still cares about this board make actual reviews of the actions requested for relief. What is going on is not good for WP. Lipsquid (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Iryna Harpy

Firstly, let me qualify why I am here: I've actually been pinged in by VM both here and in the above case involving INeverCry, and am not one of the 'I hate VM, and Mvbw is a sock/meat/cabal-member/jocks and a pair of pantyhose' groupies who have to get their 2¢ worth in every time a thread is opened involving VM anywhere on wp. Currently, the latest infection being spread is the significance of EEML. It's become so ludicrous that Tiptoethrutheminefield has apparently already written his own op-ed/WP:OR history of Wikipedia in which grubbing through the mud is justified because he, himself, is not one of the harshest and hard headed editors around (erhem!... and please read through the entire thread on Thucydides411's talk page as it's good for a depressing laff). As an aside, I've worked with Tiptoethrutheminefield collaboratively despite what other editors may think of him, or his editing history. If I were to keep dredging up past indiscretions and editing by the GRUDGE credo, there'd barely be an editor I would trust isn't communicating with other active and blocked editors off-wiki. Why should I? AGF? Pshaw! As you've intimated, Bishonen, the underlying problem is how tedious this board has become. Editors are so consumed by everything other than the calibre of the content, and flexing their Alpha male muscles that no one with a jot of sense would do anything but lurk around the articles (or put 'em their watchlist as I have). In conclusion, I thoroughly endorse your recommendation.

@NewsAndEventsGuy: For someone who has no opinion, you've certainly WP:SHOUTed your lack of opinion very loudly. Of course 'clean hands' matters, which is why it has been observed that it is the same editors who keep traipsing around every venue one or the other of them have opened a thread to bandy around the same accusations are covered in mud and the very faecal matter they've generated themselves. This noticeboard is being used over and over in an attempt to reduce it into an energy sinkhole for admins with a view to WP:BLUDGEON them end into blocking VM. These 'complaints' have long since become completely ingenuous WP:GAMING. How many times this year have exactly the same complaints been lodged? Who spoke up at these? What did they say? Dante's circles indeed... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet: I'm wondering at why you've proposed a time period rather than a 'who' (or some other form of prohibition) abstinence. As you are, essentially, a productive and prolific editor, a time period would penalise both yourself and the community should you encounter another editor who should be brought here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

It may be worth noting that both @Volunteer Marek: and @BullRangifer: appear to have flagrantly violated the American Politics discretionary sanctions pertaining to the restoration of contentious material just a few days ago at 2016 United States election interference by Russia: [17], [18], [19], [20].TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer

I got pinged and see that I apparently did violate the sanction. I can assure you that it was an accident and won't occur again. I just dropped by and saw what appeared to be a ridiculous deletion of properly sourced content (which I usually consider to be a form of vandalism), not realizing it was being contested on the talk page. I hadn't checked the history of that content. My bad. Very sorry for any consternation my restoration caused. I now see it was corrected later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

  • I have no opinion if this case is properly before AE under some ARB ruling. If it is, then in my view, one who reads the complaint section titled "TP disruption (i.e. incivility/trying to get under his opponent’s skin/TP edit-warring)" can not fail to see there is abundant evidence of VM creating a hostile environment. Now let's assume that VM is 100% correct regarding the content dispute and the other side is 100% wrong. If this place is going to function, it requires integrity and so being in the right on content is no friggin' excuse for toxifying the culture. This is precisely the sort of thing I thought ARB and AE was originally intended to clean up. And to forestall any criticism of my remarks, I don't care if the other party was even nastier in their comments. If you lack clean hands don't bitch about the other ed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In this comment (earlier in the thread), MVBW attempts to define the question thus "the real question is: who created such unfriendly atmosphere on these pages?" Ugh - toxification alert Why the F does that matter? Assuming this really does fall under the claimed ARB ruling...
  1. The arbs declared principles and VM clearly broke 'em. ANSWER - sanction to prevent continuation.
  2. If someone else also broke 'em, we can talk about that too.
  3. Both questions are important to the FUN FACTOR we need to rebuild here at Wikipedia.
  4. Neither qusetion has anything at all to do with deciding how to prevent the individual eds from making future disruptions
  5. ANYONE and I mean ANYONE who tries to excuse ed A because ed B was worse deserves 2x the sanction either A or B end up receiving because that is the 2nd-worst toxio disruption of all (a half step behind outting), since our project sinks or swims on mutual respect and accountability
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In reply to MVBW who asked where did VM violate an arb ruling, assuming the locus is under WP:ARBEE, one of the principles listed reads
"Wikipedia is not a battleground - 1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive." and
"Courtesy - 2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable."

Even if the filing party was a horrible jerk and/or if VM 100% correct in the content dispute (I have no opinion on either one at this time), nonetheless there is ample evidence of harassing and uncourteous hostility in the diffs listed in the complaint, under the heading "TP disruption (i.e. incivility/trying to get under his opponent’s skin/TP edit-warring)". Yes, I know people speak heatedly all the time but our past failures to demand courtesy and mutual respect do not excuse more of the same. It may be that the filing party also behaved badly, and that's a separate question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Just noting I've read Iryna Harpy's comment directed at me and can not find any signal in the noise requiring further comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks like this will be closed soon, but just to clarify in Re VM's comment here, looks like frequent behavioral commentary at article talk, despite WP:FOC and that's a form of harrassment as surely as hounding. I'm not here to jump on you personally. You just happened to be here when I got interested in asking admins and arbs to renew AE in general as a tool for combatting un-fun-ness. I hope we can keep rubbing brain cells together at the talk page about possible AE reforms, even if we disagree here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Scope of ARB ruling In the original complaint, ED confusingly cites WP:ARBEE which by its explicit terms is about the Russia-Estonian conflict (see motions section and the motion about the scope). However, the disambig hatnote contains another case name and since (right now) there's no apparent shortcut, that case name is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. This ARB ruling does not declare its scope. I've seen several times that specific edits might fall under the ARB rulings on US politics, Tea Party, or climate change even though the article overall does not. I don't know if that's the situation with the contested edits here, but if "scope of rulings" is an issue for deciding sanctions it should be be analyzed rather than shot from the hip. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen and EtienneDolet: suggest the closing statement explicitly state whether ED's voluntary AE absence will allow or probhibit participation in discussions about AE, e.g., what works, doesn't work, and potential reforms. For example, in the talk thread From_the_hammer_to_the_flower. I have no idea if ED wishes to participate, but a bit of up front clarity would reduce risk of future drama. For the record, this not a canvassing solicitation because I would love to hear from everyone who has ever been here (especially admins and retirees). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I frequently quote CREEP myself however you and I are just as susceptible to interpretation under Confirmation bias as people who want to make trouble. You know what you mean, and ED knows what ED means, but silence about talk pages invites troublemakers to claim ambiguity to make a mess and we already know that this area attracts troublemakers. CREEP is more applicable to crazy maybe future possibilities, but the context here (to me at least) seems like frequent troublemakers looking to make trouble. We could clean it up the troublemakers mess, sure. IMO, it is zero-cost and super-simple to just keep the house clean in the first place... all in the name of PREVENTION, which is what we're supposedly doing here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Marteau

We have with Marek a demonstrable pattern of tendentious editing and battleground mentality. It was with interest that I noticed him being hauled into Wikicourt yet again and, I could only hope, finally have him be issued yet another sanction to add to his already formidable block log, hopefully this time something with some teeth in it to hopefully, for once, affect a change in his attitude and his toxic behavior. Unfortunately, this does have all the makings of the "circus" Marek predicted, with Bishonen appearing not with his mop but only to take the opportunity to piss and moan about the process itself. I share Lipsquid's exasperation at this behavior, and am unsure why Bishonen chooses to invest his time in a forum he has such evident contempt for. Perhaps an administrator will accept this case and give it the attention it deserves rather than use it as an opportunity to display his overarching wisdom, wit, and taste in apropos sidebar graphics. Marteau (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Govindaharihari

The administrative comments and the lack of any control over this issue is like banning the user. It will only encourage them to continue, his conduct at multiple arbitration controlled articles is beyond belief, his has multiple reverts at multiple arbitration articles - only a 3rr report and this report have stalled him, if not curtailed he will continue and the outcome will be more severe. Ok, why is this being failed to resolve, is it that, anti Russia is a pro USA position and the admins here are mostly from the USA, but we are looking for neutrality preserved. The user is all over the place, angrily revert warring at multiple arbitration controlled articles. I don't see any reason for this enforcement page if it fails to take action in this case. This User Marek is without doubt the primary disruptive antagonist at multiple arbcom controlled and many closely related articles and biographies, WP:BLP a wiki priority that is clearly not being protected - Assange had around 20 same same reverts over a few days without any admin concern or raising of protection. He has allies as have the opposition, although all sides are editing poorly in regards to wp:policy and guidelines, the lack of administration is the real shame here. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fitzcarmalan

If some of the admins are (clearly) too tired to look into this, then I suggest they officially recuse themselves and spare us the "it's Christmas so let's get along" kind of nonsense before it starts, especially when one of them shows clear resentment toward this board.

And Mvbw should, by all means, take those diffs "into context" himself (no one's stopping you), instead of making baseless accusations and wasting people's time.

But now is when I address the ones who are willing to take this seriously:
My first major interaction with Volunteer Marek was on the article Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently earlier this year. The whole thing began when he added the following text to the article: RBSS also relayed reports from the ground that the Russian military was using illegal White phosphorus munitions in its airstrikes.

This source supposedly backed his edit. And, as you can see, it was clearly misrepresented because nothing in it even suggests that RBSS is accusing Russia of being behind the incident(s). I undid his revision over a week later the moment I noticed it, explaining in my edit summary that not only was this undue, but it also wasn't backed by the source. Hours later he reverts (see here) and adds another "source" (same; doesn't mention RBSS). And after a third round of reverts, I initiated a discussion here (I urge everyone to take a close look) explaining to him how the sources were clearly misrepresented.

Then came my latest content-related interaction with him on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16), just a few days ago. I left off at the point where he wrote this. These are reliable sources is what he kept repeating over and over again, as if it would magically silence his opponents, while at the same time insinuating that others, including me, are fabricating original research (which is kind of hypocritical, given the disturbingly hilarious WP:OR suggestion he himself made on the RBSS talk page linked above). The same behavior could be seen on WP:BLP/N#Julian_Assange where two experienced editors told him the exact same thing I did about evaluating sources.

And he shouldn't be surprised when accused of dishonesty, given this edit on the Aleppo article. It appears that his excuse, in case you missed it in his quite lengthy response on this very same thread, is the following:

"The rationale for removing this "sourced material" was ALREADY PROVIDED here."

Upon closer examination, however, you'll notice that it was hardly a justification to remove the material from the article itself. All he said was: "now THIS really is undue for the lede, but if you're going to include it, at least provide the full details". Not an explanation to delete it from the article, which is what you'll see in the diff provided. In fact, such an explanation was never made (not on the talk page, nor anywhere else). At best, it could have been moved to the body of the article. And the reason why he didn't delete that bit of information from the lead in his initial "rationale" edit was because he ran out of reverts for the day (with this). So he waited 24 hours before he could remove it from the article altogether, while restoring contentious material which by that time consensus had thoroughly rejected. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean... the gaming is quite obvious, really. So VM gets reverted after adding the stuff about massacres. Then repackages it, and inserts it back into the article. Then that gets reverted, he repackages it again and inserts it back into the article. On my count, VM's tactic allowed him to insert the stuff about the massacres at least 3 times within 24 hours in a 1RR article. Never mind the fact that while this was going on, he went along and inserted the contentious material in Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) not once, but twice. This is the epitome of tendentious editing. But more importantly, this is WP:GAME, or to be more specific: WP:SANCTIONGAME. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Black Kite, Peacemaker67, Drmies, and Laser brain: - Just answer this one question: Why haven't you proposed an AE ban on VM as well? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
(And nice job ignoring the 1RR gaming) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet

I wanted to stay far away from this, because VM and I never see eye to eye, but sanctioning ED would be an incredible result. @Black Kite, Peacemaker67, Drmies, and Laser brain: ED provided a great deal of evidence, and similar diffs can be found at literally every topic where VM edits, using the same tactics and ideological outlook. Not one of you has seriously responded to the evidence provided, and the assertion that Russian policy is unrelated to EE grossly mischaracterizes the largest EE dynamic, which is tension between Russia, smaller EE nationalities, and the US. The impression that remains, therefore, is that evidence of disruption has no bearing on results here, and complaints against disruption - when Russia is involved - will get you banned. (Note: I'm not arguing that all content VM added was bad: for instance I've appreciated that VM has sought to include information of white phosphorus munitions use in Syria, even if it's possible some text wording should have been altered.) Given total disinterest in the evidence provided, there is zero reason for an editor to believe Arbitration enforcement can prevent disruption. -Darouet (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kashmiri

I crossed paths with VM on a few occasions in the past but it was mostly painless. However, what brought me here today are his edits on Talk:Aleppo massacre. It left bad taste to see how VM cosistently attacked those who !voted in support of the merger, picking up an argument wherever possible. In fact, he was the only one to have challenged those who decided to cast their !votes there, which looked quite intimidating and, who knows, might have prevented others to contribute to the discussion. VM even (wrongly) challenged the very fact that the merger was proposed on that Talk page. (I apologise for not offering diffs at this time but the discussion there is fairly easy to follow - I doubt using diffs would be of much help.)

Yes, the topics can be emotionally charged - it was about an alleged mass killing - but letting other editors express their opinion freely, without intimidation, is the least the WP community expects from everyone, that including VM.

I am not in support of a ban; a simple warning might hopefully be sufficient. But such editing pattern on the part of VM has to stop at one point. — kashmiri TALK 23:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Xx236

What if VM is a Cassandra? Cassandra was sent to the Elysian Fields after her death, as her soul was judged worthy because of her dedication to the gods and her religious nature during her life. Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

The Fifth Circle of Hell (Wrath)
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Looking at this request and the one above, how about we close down the AE board and mark it as historical? The discretionary sanctions system is supposed to make admins' and constructive users' lives better, not worse. We probably need a board for appeals against AE sanctions, but for requesting admin action, AE seems to have outlived its usefulness. I would guess the ArbCom that invented ds envisaged that single admin discretion would be applied most of the time, rather than the fifth circle of hell that the barren and wearisome debates on this page have become. Whether the committee did or not, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a single admin sanctioning a properly alerted user per their own admin discretion. How would that work, then? Well, frustrated users can request sanctions by turning to single admins, and admins for their part can keep an eye on contentious talkpages and on ANI complaints involving ds areas, and sometimes decide to act on them with a topic ban. As regards the Volunteer Marek — INeverCry — EtienneDolet snafu, I haven't formed an opinion yet, with Christmas etc, but User:Laser brain's suggestion above regarding the first request, "I'm of a mind to just close this", certainly sounds attractive. For both requests. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC).
  • @Lipsquid: your so-called statement above is the shortest in this discussion, and yet it's the least respectable. I'm going to start looking at banning people from this board (since I have little hope of actually getting it shut down) and if you make another personalising worse-than-useless comment like that, I'll start with you. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
  • Banning EtienneDolet from filing cases here might be a start to making everyone else's Wiki-lives better. Yet again, we have a wall of text with accusations that at best are flimsy, and in many cases don't hold up at all. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I entirely agree with Bishonen's suggestion of starting to impose bans of disruptive editors from this board. Enough is, at some point, enough. If you're going to file frivolous complaints, throw in unhelpful comments or attacks on other editors, or come here every time you think you can play a bit of gotcha with someone, you're wasting our time. This board is meant to use to bring attention to serious disruption in areas subject to discretionary sanctions, not to throw things at the wall and hope one sticks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Passerby admin comment: I would decline to consider the request simply because I don't see how this relates to Eastern Europe. These diffs are about the Syrian civil war, which does involve Russia as an Eastern European country, but the war as such is mainly about geopolitical and Middle Eastern regional issues that have nothing to do with Eastern Europe. Any community sanctions that are about the Syrian civil war are not a matter for enforcement through the AE process. – I have not read anything but the request and therefore have no opinion about whether any sanctions against the complainant or other participants in this thread might be appropriate.  Sandstein  00:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Like the one above, this should be knocked on the head. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll go further, ED should be banned from AE (reports and commenting) for six months. There is a lot of noise and light here, and plenty of pilng on, but little substance. And this doesn't fall under EE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well. Accusations of tag-team editing are easily made and go both ways; I note that Marek's detractors show up quickly but most of them add nothing to the discussion (like the contributions by Marteau and Govindaharihari--we should seriously consider banning the "I also feel editor X is a ****" kind of comments). On the bright side, Fitzcarmalan's comment seems to add something of substance, with diffs--and then it turns out that their accusation of Marek's repackaged edit warring is without base: the "repackaging" involves the addition of more references, no? Bishonen, I trust you saw Lipsquid's retort; it was much longer, but Lipsquid, it was still useless: ragging on the admins who feel compelled by duty to read these reports is very unproductive. As for the main charge--I like ED as much as the next guy, but this is getting tiresome. Marek was chastised I think for the few cases he brought here recently, but at least they didn't take up as much time as this one, and this one is getting quite personal. ED, I'm sorry, but this does not reflect well on you. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Etienne, I appreciate the further explanation, but I still don't accept it. Two of the reverts you mention were made by editors with a 271 article edits between them. One of those made this comment on the talk page just before reverting, a comment so blatantly incorrect and ridiculous that competency is an issue--and they backtrack immediately after being (properly) criticized by Marek, but in their backtracking reveal that they simply don't understand the business about reliable sources. Honestly, these and a few others appear to be drive-by accounts, and so the charges of tag-team editing (I don't know who said that here about Marek and...who was it, My Very Best Wishes? God I wish we had old-fashioned here, haha, like yours and mine.) sound a bit hollow. Mind you, while all this is going on there is no definitive answer to the RfC (there still isn't), and the discussion revolves around the question of, roughly speaking, what to do if reliable sources report likely violations of etc. The erroneous idea that reliable sources which report likely violations means nothing at all ("unverified propaganda...editorialized") is already uttered by the very first person to respond to Marek in that discussion, conflating two issues--reliable sources, and facts on the ground that are difficult to verify--into propaganda. What I see Marek adding in subsequent edits is reliable sources, in what appears to be an attempt to address that issue. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Close with no action and ban ED from participation at WP:AE except to respond to a filing where they are a named party. --Laser brain (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ED has offered to voluntarily abstain from filing reports at this board for six months, so we shouldn't need to formally ban him from it. Less wrath is better. @EtienneDolet: I suggest you broaden your offer into "I'll voluntarily abstain from participation at WP:AE except to respond to a filing where I'm a named party". If you'd like to do that, I then suggest we accept that offer and close with no action. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC).
  • @NewsAndEventsGuy: The undertaking by ED as I have suggested it, or however ED may want to word it, would include what it says, neither more nor less, certainly not staying away from any talkpages or other discussions elsewhere. I don't myself see that it needs any explicit clarification. Please compare WP:CREEP. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC).
  • Pinging @Seraphimblade, Sandstein, Peacemaker67, Drmies, and Laser brain: no admins seem inclined to sanction Volunteer Marek, and ED has offered to voluntarily abstain from participation at WP:AE for six months except to respond to a filing where he's a named party. I propose we close this thread with no action and a note about ED's undertaking. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I'll close like that. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC).

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Junosoon

Junosoon's appeal of his six-month ban from the Indian economy is declined. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Appealing user 
Junosoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – Junosoon (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Junosoon (talk · contribs) is topic banned for six months from content related to the economy of India, including taxation, currency and associated policy/practice. —SpacemanSpiff 00:02, 31 December 2016 ,[21]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
Notification to the administrator [22] of the notification.

Statement by Junosoon

The biggest concern with which , i appeal for this imposed ban is, what was my behaviour after the final warning, due to which , ban imposing action was taken?. An important part of this appeal is to also bring forth the problems encountered, by me during various discussions, which I feel quite discouraging as a contributor to Wikipedia, This appeal is not aimed to point others mistakes or create a war like situation.With due respect to all participants I raise my concerns below,

  • Appeal
  • I would request the specific reason of imposing the ban, as ban was imposed without any citation of my actions as disruption after the final warning[23]. Kindly cite the distruptive action/ any misconduct in terms of diffs after final warning.
  • The ban imposed on me should be lifted, as all edits have been made in good faith by me, with due consideration of wikipedia policies, and any if violated in ignorance, were corrected, immediately. I even encouraged other editors cooperation during discussions[24] with addressing of concerns[25]. The ban was imposed after this final warning, [26], there is no specific reason of claim of disruption by me, nor any citing evidence of imposing the ban by nominator, other than , creation of article Specified Bank Notes in good faith as it was an important part of [27] article [28] which was being addressed with inline citation, as per proposed deletion , request to improve. Following which the next edit was by nominator of ban [29],[30], it is highly discouraging as far the contributions to Wikipedia are concerned.
  • As far as my knowledge, though it may be limited, as my account is new, if a violation of final warning has been done, providing with a link to violation after the warning, a ban is executed. It is serious issue, that a ban has been imposed, on my account, without any citation of disruption after the warning. If there has been no disruption after the warnings it only shows, that all previous warning instructions were taken care of and complete abiding to Wikipedia policies was enacted by me. Thanks.Junosoon (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As far the complain of spin off articles, an article authored by me, was self blanked and self speedy deleted in good faith as concern by proposed nomination [31].Junosoon (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding concerns of copy right violations, I had got two articles, Self created and self speedy deletion, with concerns of Wikipedia copyright policy[32].Junosoon (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding the ANI issue raised [33], the issue was raised there, which involved an incident, where I had requested an admin intervention, against the disruptive behaviour, in merge action, the claim raised by me was closure of a discussion, by an involved editor in the discussion, not giving time to improve the article, which was recognized as disruptive there. As an editor it was my responsibility to bring in notice of that incident to ANI.Junosoon (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Kindly note, I cannot ascertain and comment exactly what role User:Winged Blades of Godric is playing as a contributor to Wikipedia policies, that is for other editors to look.

Since User:Winged Blades of Godric has expressed the justification of ban, i am citing few dif to look at role, the user as a fully involved, non admin, editor is taking part [34] has been participating , in these discussions here [35] with an appreciation of few good articles , is simultaneously is on dubious role now, in nominations of articles for deletion authored by me( I have no ownership of content, by using word me), as per my talk page message,[36].Junosoon (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:, Just a small correction in your statement, this appeal is for ban and not the block was imposed, kindly correct, least it will cast wrong discussion. Junosoon (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: You seem, to be panic state, as you failing to understand before considering what the content or text implies, it reflects to your behaviour , and actions , which you are continuously justifying your own actions.The point to note, is that you have come up with an Afd nomination of an article , which was stated as a reason of explation in appeal statement soon after it was stated in explanation in appeal [39] and [40] explaining why the article Specified Bank Notes was created, following which the ban was imposed.It is sincere request don't attempt to cast an impression by such actions, that statements written in appeal are unjustified or were unimportant. Junosoon (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric:, Kindly understand, that Wikipedia articles, are not owned by any one , they belong to Wikipedia community, so please calm your self, and don't use sarcastic language deletion of such gems, (if that was you actually meant by gems).Junosoon (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric:, Another humble request to you is, if you wish to comment in your statements here , please avoid using disrespect language reinforce your blatant lack of knowledge about the policies. If you have your concerns feel free to comment, if possible with cititaion of diffs, instead of embarrassing me here.Junosoon (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: It was quite obvious for you to comment, as you have been observering in admin capacity, and making right decision, I wonder what you call misunderstanding[41], was an Rfc opened for a purpose an uninvolved comment, which was closed by User:Winged Blades of Godric, [42], without even letting it run for adequate period, in your, capacity of knowledge and competence, you could have bothered about , User:Winged Blades of Godric ignorance as you have been guiding in good faith [43], if you have a concern for Wikipedia policies. I would also like to point out what consensus, means to User:Winged Blades of Godric, who has been an active participant in discussions and closures with the set criteria, a ratio of 5:1As a side note I generally take a ratio of 5:1 vote ratio for deciding the closure of the consensus, a link to that page is here[44]is that the definition of Wikipedia consensus, I hope you were busy, and could guide what consensus, meant to User:Winged Blades of Godric,who was involved in such multiple closures, and and not to mention that you were not aware of it. So as you are an admin, and must be aware of all the Wikipedia guidelines, and also involved in such discussions, did you bother to correct, what wrong was going on Wikipedia, especially when you were there?.

Wikipedia is a serious place and kindly mark your accusation of words gaming the system, which don't sound good.! Are you are making an attack on me, of me gaming Wikipedia?.Junosoon (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Regarding raising issues raised by me on noticeboard, which you say are frivolous, were quite similar if not same as this particular concern of closure of discussions and consensus problems at ANI [45], citing link [46], where the closure and consensus during discussions needed to be addressed.Junosoon (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:, This is nothing less than a personal attack on my conduct,plot to remove certain portions of data of Wikipedia in a more cunning and clever way esp. [47], if you have a diffs , what plot you are talking about,? cite it , but please donot make any embarrassing language on a discussion level.Junosoon (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SpacemanSpiff

  • I should note that there's another appeal at AN also where a couple of other admins have participated.Should anyone want more clarity than what I've already written there, I'll answer those questions. —SpacemanSpiff 12:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

Junsoon also opened a thread at AN/I. Given the existence of this appeal and the one at AN, I NAC'd that thread. I then NAC'd the thread at AN when Junosoon indicated that they wished this appeal to take precedence, and I've copied the comments by admins from that thread to here. Any admin who sees these actions as an unwarranted intrusion into the process is welcome to undo them with no complaint from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Junosoon: There are two venues for appealling AE actions, at AE itself or at AN. You did both. At AE, anyone may comment on the appeal, but only uninvolved admins can !vote on whether to grant the appeal. On AN, any editor may comment on the appeal, and the consensus is then determined by an uninvolved admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric

Frankly, he had been already given enough warnings before the block topic ban was imposed.Clearly, his disregard for the request by non-admins and admins alike to avoid creating needless spinoff articles and abstain from other disruptive activities have not appealed to him even faintly.Resorting to WP:ANI repetitively for frivolous reasons, deeming every comment made to him which goes against his edit/behaviour as sorts of harassment and a very slow learning curve- all points to the very correctness of the ban.And inspite of the few good articles he had created, the banes outweigh the benefits.Light❯❯❯ Saber 19:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Light❯❯❯ Saber 09:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Junosoon:--Just to reinforce your blatant lack of knowledge about the policies followed here, it is for your kind information that generally when an article is discussed at AFD, the nominator has a responsibility to inform the article creator about the process. Specifically in your case it is esp. necessary so that you can not later start a thread against the nominator at WP:ANI bellowing your heart out over how I did not inform you about the discussion of deletion of such gems.Seriously, there are genuine WP:CIR issues.Light❯❯❯ Saber 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
And I won't mind an infinite extension of the ban either.Light❯❯❯ Saber 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Junosoon: I really had a tough time understanding what you really meant by your last major statement.I would be happy if you could kindly write in a more simple and legible tone and manner. Also, I would not mind adding my name once more to the long list of editors who in the course of various (seemingly futile) discussions or exchanges with you have repetitively told or reminded you that your's understanding of the policies followed here is too low (And I would add that you would be better off without teaching other users about the policies followed here.)Also please take a kind look through dropping the stick .Thanks! Light❯❯❯ Saber 09:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Light❯❯❯ Saber 15:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Junosoon: :What Vanamonde meant by misunderstanding was that you lacked knowledge on how an appropriate name of any article is put forward which was probably based on all the brilliant arguments and options you put forward in the RFC. Light❯❯❯ Saber 08:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Well there is a policy called WP:BOOMERANG. But somehow I feel your's using it here is a mere ploy to deflect attention from your utter incompetency. Light❯❯❯ Saber 08:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I too support the concern of gaming the system. Moving off partial contents to another article and then tagging out for self deletion could well be taken as a plot to remove certain portions of data of Wikipedia in a more cunning and clever way esp. when you are involved on disruptive activities on so many fronts. Light❯❯❯ Saber 08:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And what will probably be my last statement in this discussion, I have one advice for Junosoon--

    A mess created in good faith is still a mess.

Light❯❯❯ Saber 08:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93

Note: I'm involved here, having been party to disputes with Junosoon: so I am not speaking in an administrator capacity. I would strongly recommend that this appeal be denied. Junosoon's editing in this topic has been highly disruptive, and has indicated a severe lack of competence, despite multiple warnings and explanations. The issues include, but are not limited to, misunderstanding our guidelines about article titles, and continuing a long-winded argument based on this misunderstanding; creating too many spinoff articles from 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation (or otherwise removing content to other articles) without consensus [48], [49], and more that I cannot be bothered to link; subsequently nominating one of these for deletion under CSD#G7, which is either gaming the system to get unwanted content deleted, or just competence issues, again; and the opening of numerous frivolous threads at various noticeboards. This appeal does not demonstrate any awareness that any of these actions were a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Junosoon

Result of the appeal by Junosoon

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Note: Copied from AN
  • Looks justified to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
End copied material
  • Assuming the user intends this as an appeal of their WP:ARBIPA topic ban from the Indian economy, I would decline it. The issues with this editor's work have been previously discussed at ANI. That ANI discussion provides links to the issues. The user seems unaware of the problems they have been causing and is unable to present their own thinking in a clear manner. A six-month AE ban from the Indian economy was a suitable admin response by User:SpacemanSpiff. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline the appeal, especially per Vanamonde93's persuasive post above. I would also support extending the six-month ban to indefinite, as suggested by Winged Blades of Godric. Bishonen | talk 15:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC).
  • Decline the user clearly doesn't get what is wrong with their editing, and per Vanamonde93. It also doesn't help that they are unable to explain themselves clearly in English, which doesn't bode well re: CIR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason to believe that this sanction was inappropriate or excessive. Decline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Closing. Several admins commented and none of them favors granting this appeal, so it is declined. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

‎Marlo Jonesa

Removed "extended confirmed" per consensus in the thread.

Opinions were divided on whether the user was acting in good faith in making their 500 edits. Regardless, the intention of extended confirmed is to ensure some minimum experience with Wikipedia editing and policy; 500 trivial sandbox edits are not in the spirit of the restriction. Marlo Jonesa is welcome to reapply for extended confirmed at WP:PERM/EC, ideally after amassing around 500 substantive edits elsewhere in en-WP. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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

Request concerning ‎Marlo Jonesa

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
‎Marlo Jonesa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [50] User contributions.
  2. [51] They last post shows what the intention of the user.
  3. [52] edit regarding conflict using extended confirming right


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

The user try to WP:GAME the arbitration restriction So they probably aware of it.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The user has registered in 2013 and was dormant till recently in the last 7 days made about 556 edits all of they edits are either minor or to the sandbox.It seems he made his edits to WP:GAME the extended confirmed requirement to edit the I/P conflict articles.Also its pretty clear that this is user is not new. @Drmies.It seems that his edit in the article space its not too controversial though his statement in talk [53] has some smack of POV on it.But what really puzzles how did they miss suggestion to discuss his edits when he tried to edit the article?What more puzzles me that he did indeed used talk page but only after he made 500 edits to the sandbox .08:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if we WP:AGF on initial restriction right now it should be clear for the user right now that he shouldn't edit the articles about the conflict and abuse the extended confirmed right but he still do [54] Shrike (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Sandstein Wiki is not WP:BURO but I provided you the diff.- Shrike (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I fine with what most of the admins suggest i.e TBAN until he will reach 500 edits outside of the conflict area.-- Shrike (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[55]

Discussion concerning ‎Marlo Jonesa

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

Statement by ‎Marlo Jonesa

  • I'm a new user, I don't understand much about the rules of Wikipedi, so I hope there will not be a strong punishment to me. I just want to participate in the future about the Palestinian people, this is my goal. I'm a new user I hope you understand this.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't play in the system, I have modified my sandbox 500 times in order to get the 'extendedconfirmed' for modification of Palestinians article. That's all.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Shrike: Alright I'm sorry I didn't know that, but if I bother you block me.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jonney2000: Not need to do this, this is the first time. I've just read this Wikipedia:Copyright violations I'll never do it again. You had to take notice of me--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Having looked at the editor's contribution history, and not at the content of any of the edits, it's clear she/he is gaming the system. At minimum, I think a topic ban is necessary; an indefinite block would be appropriate in my view. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

an indefinite block, why all that? I have not committed a crime!.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good suggestion, Drmies. I hadn't thought about the fact that the rule isn't as clear to new editors as it appears to be to experienced editors. Thank you, Masem and Sir Joseph, for pointing that out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric

In my capacity as a completely non involved fly-by editor, I would strongly recommend an indefinite ban on revoking of the extended confirmed rights of the editor. Going by his own confession--making 500 edits in one's own sandbox so as to be an extended confirmed editor and then gorge on the additional editing privileges is precisely generally what gaming the system means/constitutes. Giving him/her a reprieve will mean showing leniency to everybody who games the system in such a pathetic way and in the process makes the protection level along with all those numerous editors who constructively achieve it look like a lame duck.Light❯❯❯ Saber 18:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As to the editor being new in Wikipedia in terms of activity, we will always have this particular problem with new users only!Light❯❯❯ Saber 18:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think you also do not have experience in the beginning, I thought I must do this in order that I edit in Wikipedia.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Going by the recent developments and giving the benefit of doubt to the user, I think the best way out of the situation is to revoke the extended conformed rights of the user temporaly.Once he has made 500 proper mainspace words, let him re-apply for it so that an administrator can look and re-grant him the right. This looks good than a T-ban to me. Light❯❯❯ Saber 05:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

If I may offer my observation, I don't think a block is in order. While the editor claims he wasn't gaming the system, his statement that he was just trying to get to 500 edits might seem to be at odds, but they're not. The rule was 500 edits, he wanted to edit and as a new user what else is he to do? It's not clear at all. What I suggest is a TBAN on ARBPIA until he reaches an additional 500 non-sandbox edits. We should also clarify on the ARBPIA template what a new user is supposed to do. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to expand the Palestinian Hikaye section but I couldn't, then I found this: This page is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it. What can I do?... I didn't know exactly what was meant.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy

If there's no additional evidence to overcome AGF, Sir Joseph (above) has the right idea when he suggested " TBAN on ARBPIA until he reaches an additional 500 non-sandbox edits" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Evidence of bad faith appears to exist after all. I wanted to AGF and DONTBITE the alleged newbie, and I wrote a note at their talk. However, I later realized many of the contribs in the user's sandbox are not "real" edits.... notice the SIZE of these edits, many of which show less than five bits of data. I selected a diff by random, and was astonished to find myself in the midst of a many-contrib series of 1-3 characters at a time, just to refine a single ref. (See Dec 31 5:27-5:28, random example. Congrats to others who wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt, but please LOOK at the character-by-character sandbox history yourself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the "awareness rule" was not satisfied this forum (supposedly) can not impose sanctions under the ARB ruling, I think. I left an explanatory note at the filing party's talk page. If true, you might consider closing, while issuing the DS template to the editor so that the server log has a notation of their awareness, and also issue a warning to not violate the spirit of the arb ruling by relying on trivial sandbox edits NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonney2000

I just removed a major Copyright violation from this editor on Palestinians. Someone should check his edits for copyright issues.Jonney2000 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning ‎Marlo Jonesa

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • You know, it can be hard to figure out when a person is gaming the system or not: not here. A topic ban for three months seems appropriate to me, with a possible exception for maybe the biology of the Negev desert--considering the 489 edits they made to their sandbox, they seem to have a vested interest in that. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, Marlo Jonesa, "I have modified my sandbox 500 times in order to get the 'extendedconfirmed' for modification of Palestinians article"--that's gaming the system. Masem, the requirement is clear, and it should be obvious (per BEANS, for instance--common sense) that making 500 sandbox edits is circumventing the requirement. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Masem, I'm curious to hear what EdJohnston has to say in response to your comment. I'm all about good faith, but find myself on the other side of it this time, and I don't really agree that the text is that unclear--unless you mean by it that an editor may think practicing how to add a comma 500 times in a sandbox is OK. What do you propose? Resetting the clock? Drmies (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Sure, that's something to consider. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
      • regentspark, blocking and then letting them get a new account seems a bit drastic and unnecessary. I'm all for good faith, by the way (and sure, "gaming in good faith" is possible) but I also saw what NewsAndEventsGuy noticed and I don't like that. Shrike, I looked at some of the actual content edits, and I would like to know if they are in any way problematic, which might give us an idea about intent. I mean, if a new user goes around changing "Jewish" to "Zionist" or "Arab" to "Nazi" or something like that it's pretty clear, but here--and I didn't look at many diffs--I don't see if there is a POV purpose. For now, I like Sir Joseph's suggestion--a TBAN until 500 real mainspace edits--but we'll have to keep track, of course. I do agree something has to be done lest 500/30 become meaningless. Masem, EdJohnston, MShabazz, and everyone else, what do you think of that? Maybe we can wrap this up soon. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I recommend an indefinite ban from WP:ARBPIA on all pages of Wikipedia. If we tolerate this kind of behavior we might as well give up on the restriction. Or should we say, if you want to edit I/P topics please edit your sandbox 500 times first? In the past we have sometimes done indef blocks in this kind of case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Marlo Jonesa believes that editing their sandbox 500 times is to get within the 500/30. Based on a similar case (specifically during Gamergate), this is absolutely considered gaming the system. We expect the 500 edits to be more substantial content in mainspace (outside the area that 500/30 applies). Whether this is not communicated well enough or not, though, I'm not sure, and I would take this into account. If anything, they should be alerted that at this point, they haven't started the "500 edit" counter based on their contributions (even the small mainspace ones they did to add commas) so they should not yet be participating as outlined by the sanctions. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Drmies, it may be clear that the edits are meant to be substantial to experienced editors but the exact text "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." is not. It's a thing "we" all know what it means, except the people that it applies most often to. And without evidence the user has had prior experience on WP to know better, we should be taking a bit of presumption of doubt here that they were doing what they thought would get them there. There's not an easy DUCK case here to know if this account is purposely here to be problematic. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
      • The simple fix would be to say "500 non-minor, mainspace edits" rather than "500 edits". --MASEM (t) 19:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
        • EdJohnston, that would be reasonable if there's nothing to demonstrate that the user knew they were gaming the system - that has the same effect as resetting the 500 edit count that I mention above in a more formal manner, allowing them to show they have learned the ropes before re-entering the topic area. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Tricky one. The editor could have been "gaming the system" in "good faith" (I know, oxymoronic!). We could change the text but that still leaves us with the problem of what to do with this particular editor. An ban on Palestine Israel articles is one option as long as we recognize that the editor will return to ask for the ban to be lifted. Alternatively, the editor could get a time bound ban, but then they may just stay away and return after the ban expires. A final option is to indef the account with no constraint against opening a new account and acquiring the minimum edits the normal way. Other things being equal, my inclination is to go with the third option.--regentspark (comment) 21:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Drmies, that sounds good. II was focusing on the administrative easiness of monitoring a new account but, I guess, the indef block would not look good. Support TBAN until the user manages 500 real mainspace edits. --regentspark (comment) 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Drmies, thanks for the ping. I'll probably support whatever you come up with, for example a TBAN until 500 real main-space edits. I'd prefer to see edits showing some level of judgment and ability to negotiate, but 500 non-trivial edits would be the minimum I'd support. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support a TBAN until they have 500 proper mainspace edits under their belt. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This request is not actionable and should be dismissed. Discretionary sanctions (which any TBAN or block imposed here would be) are not possible at this point because the formal notification requirements per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts are not met (or so it seems). This means that we need not determine whether this "gaming of the system" was done in good faith or not, and whether the restriction at WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was even intended to prevent it. The real problem seems to be that the restriction does not make clear whether pro forma edits count or not. But any clarification would require an amendment of the restriction by the Arbitration Committee, which any interested party may request at WP:ARCA. De lege lata, it is not clear to me that Marlo Jonesa has done anything that is forbidden.  Sandstein  15:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Addendum: even if a direct enforcement of the restriction rather than discretionary sanctions is requested, this request is not actionable, because the request comprises no diff of an edit that would violate the restriction.  Sandstein  16:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Shrike, thanks for adding the diff that might infringe on the restriction. This page is in fact more of a bureaucracy than others and you are expected to provide all relevant information. On consideration, I still don't see this as actionable. The restriction reads "accounts with fewer than 500 edits", and it does not specify that these edits must be of any particular nature. There is also nothing in the principles and findings that indicates that the intent of the restriction was to prohibit pro forma edits. The restriction seems to be mainly aimed at sockpuppets, and even making 500 pointless edits might have been considered a sufficient barrier against those. Furthermore, the restriction states that it is to be enforced mainly automatically, and automatic systems can't determine the quality or intent of edits – which is another indication that ArbCom did not intend the restriction to encompass situations such as this one, or did not take the issue into account. I would therefore decline enforcement action. Asking for clarification might still be useful. Revoking the extendedconfirmed right of Marlo Jonesa as a normal admin action should depend on the result of any such clarification.  Sandstein  21:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If we think this was in good faith, I'd suggest revoking the extendedconfirmed group as a normal administrative action. The user can reapply via WP:PERM/EC once they have accumulated 500 real edits. If we don't think it was done in good faith, then an indef would be appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Technical question: would it be regranted automatically by mediawiki on the next edit, if manually removed? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • No. The automatic grant happens only once. T. Canens (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a good idea. Then the user has to request it and any admin can look to see if they have made 500 normal edits. --Laser brain (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support manual removal of ECP user-right, to be re-granted via WP:PERM/EC. The user admit "gaming the system" (in good faith) to gain ECP, thus now that he knows better it seems natural to remove it and allow it to be earned in the way normally intended. I also think this outcome would be in line with the ideas of the other commenters above me who are suggesting "a TBAN until 500 mainspace edits", which is basically the same effect that ECP removal would have. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=647673226"