Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)
Jump to: navigation, search

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:

Contents


Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment


Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2)

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Statement by BU Rob13

See the conversation surrounding Regularization Bill here. Multiple administrators have interpreted the most recent change to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 to mean that extended confirmed protection should only be used on articles in the topic area if edits by new editors or IPs come from multiple sources, are frequent, and are sustained (as we would do for normal disruption). Having been around for the last ARCA, this was plainly not the intent. As Guerillero said last time around "The ban is not optional." Please clarify that the first method of enforcement should be ECP, with other alternatives more suitable to instances where an editor is editing across many articles or where ECP is otherwise not effective or sufficient. ~ Rob13Talk 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just noting the last (and most recent) discussion posted below by NeilN closed with consensus to protect pages as soon as the restriction is violated, but not before. That's all I'm asking for clarification in favor here - that the pages should be protected if the restriction is violated. ~ Rob13Talk 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: The wording states that those secondary options are to be used when ECP is not feasible, not when the secondary options are feasible. Could you clarify why ECP wouldn't have prevented the disruption/wasn't feasible? ~ Rob13Talk 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree, Kevin. There's a sharp difference between declining to action something and declining a request so that no other admin actions it, though. ~ Rob13Talk 07:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kirill Lokshin: Can you clarify whether the restriction is mandatory or not? If it is, can you clarify what valid edit is omitted by ECP protecting an article? I really struggle to understand the logic in blocking an editor when protection would suffice and the protection has zero false positives by construction. ARBPIA#500/30 places ECP protection in the form of a behavioral restriction (rather than a technical restriction) on all ARBPIA articles. Regardless of intent, failing to protect an article in response to disruption weakens the restriction and allows editors not allowed to edit in the topic area to edit that article in the future. Again, no-one is saying we hold a gun to an admin's head and force them to protect. We're just saying they shouldn't take an admin action and actually decline protection when it would act as a simple enforcement of the ArbCom remedy. ~ Rob13Talk 22:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The effect of this decision is that ARBPIA3#500/30 is fully optional and up to admin discretion. The typical protection policy already allows that. If a decision will not be enforced, you should rescind it. ~ Rob13Talk 13:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: But this remedy doesn't say protect articles to prevent disruption (which is covered by the protection policy) or jump up some levels via discretion (which is covered by active discretionary sanctions). It's a prohibition, full stop. Zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors are allowed in this topic area. If we really just intend to allow discretion, which I'm not against, then drop this remedy and rely on DS. We shouldn't have an unenforced prohibition on the books, though. Its confusing. ~ Rob13Talk 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It just falls back on admin discretion, which is covered by DS. I agree limiting disruption is the goal, but if we want to back away from the heavy-handed prohibition to allow discretion, we should rescind the prohibition and make that clear. Saying "We're prohibiting this but not really" isn't good policy writing. ~ Rob13Talk 16:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Can any arbitrator explain to me how "We have a prohibition, but admins don't have to enforce it and can actively decline requests to enforce it." is any different than "We have discretionary sanctions, which allow discretionary ECP protection, and admins are encouraged to make liberal use of it."? The latter is certainly more clear. ~ Rob13Talk 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate for editors in the ARBPIA area to make their requests for page protection at AE instead of RFPP? One of the issues here, as I see it, is admins applying the typical "protection policy" mentality to this remedy, whereas this remedy is wholly distinct from our protection policy. Perhaps moving such requests to AE would be wise. ~ Rob13Talk 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: Whether or not it's noted as a change to remedy, the mentality toward ARBPIA3#500/30 shown here is a change. The restriction has worked because it's been enforced whenever an IP editor/new editor has edited an article within the topic area with indefinite ECP. That has been the practice from Day 1 that ECP was implemented until now, and I believe there's been subtantially less disruption in the topic area since the advent of ECP than under the restriction before that, which is quite a good differential to see what effect indefinite ECP has had. This new interpretation of the remedy is the change you seek to avoid making in the absence of a rationale for doing so. This is the first time ever that I've seen an administrator decline this type of protection, and if other admins follow suit in enforcing the remedy only in cases of sustained and severe disruption, we can expect the "minor" disruption to get through. If we're already changing the interpretation of the remedy and how its enforced, we might as well change the wording as well to make things clear. ~ Rob13Talk 23:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, as an excellent illustration of what happens when we don't extended confirmed protect articles in this topic area, Regulation Law (the article whose protection request started this) was edited by a block evading editor. I've now enforced the restriction with indefinite ECP. ~ Rob13Talk 00:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy

The current wording of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is

Neither this wording nor the two previous ones (which explicitly used "may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters") contains a rule that ECP has to be used to enforce the prohibition, just that it's preferred. In this case there was only one editor who could have been dealt with individually, without the need to lock down the page.

That said, I have no particular opinion on the topic itself and I'd be fine if WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was clarified to read "has to be enforced". Regards SoWhy 18:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @BU Rob13: The current consensus (cf. the links NeilN provided and also at the recent AN/I thread) seems to be that ECP should be used "liberally but not automatically" (to borrow Airplaneman's phrase) when it comes to this particular topic ban, i. e. iff there has been a disruption. At the time of the protection request, the article in question was newly created by a relatively new user and then stubyfied without a disruption in sight. The new user in this case didn't know about the ArbCom ruling and edited in good faith as far I can tell, so it was not a violation and thus no need to apply ECP. If the Committee believes this particular motion should apply to all articles, even before disruption happened, then yes, clarification is required since the current wording allows the interpretation we have seen become consensus (and which I based my decision on). And if your strict interpretation is to be the correct one, ArbCom should just protect all such pages preemptively and be done with it. But since they haven't done so in the past, it was a reasonable assumption by myself (and many others) that ArbCom didn't want to demolish the third pillar before disruption actually occurs. Regards SoWhy 21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kevin: So basically what you are saying is "admins are not robots but in such cases they have to behave like robots"? So why not make it easier? Let's just create a subpage that anyone with extendedconfirmed userrights can edit and where people can list articles that should be protected and an adminbot will just apply EC protection to all entries on that list. Regards SoWhy 18:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As for the comments that there is a difference between declining and not doing something, please keep in mind that any admin patrolling WP:RFPP only decides based on the page as it presents itself at this time. It's not wheel-warring if another admin protects a page later on when later edits justify it. Thus declining to take action when a single good-faith editor without knowledge of the restrictions creates an article does not mean that the page cannot be protected later on if disruption occurs.
    That said, I personally think the Committee should reconsider the prohibition altogether and I agree with DeltaQuad that it would work much better as a discretionary sanction. I understand the need to limit participation from certain high-conflict articles but the blanket ban currently in effect violates our fundamental principles, i. e. that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that any restrictions should only be enforced if no alternative represents itself. Plus, as DQ points out, a DS would be more useful in keeping track of the disruptive patterns. Regards SoWhy 07:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis: I disagree that the discussion about the validity of this restriction should need a new ARCA request. DeltaQuad has already pointed out, quite eloquently, that there have already been far too many ARCAs concerning this topic, so why force a new discussion? Evidently the current restriction is problematic and de facto unnecessary since an extended DS would serve the same purpose with the additional benefit, as DQ points out, of changing the venue to WP:AE which is where such requests actually should be decided anyway. Even if the Committee declines to take such action at this time, it should at least consider the last point, i.e. changing the venue to WP:AE for all such requests since WP:RFPP does not log actions and the log at WP:AN is only showing the newest protections (and not just those relating to this restriction). Regards SoWhy 13:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I can only agree with MusikAnimal's comments. I think when the restriction was created and reworded, the fundamental principle of "anyone can edit" was essentially abandoned by those who interpret it quite literally. Kirill Lokshin wrote in his comment that "the committee's position is that, in general, enhanced protection should be the first line of defense" in these cases. I think it's important to emphasize the "defense" part. Yes, 30/500 can be used to defend an article against those who wish to corrupt it with their POV-pushing, vandalism or other discouraged behavior. But it should not be used preemptively when nothing has actually happened and especially not to punish those new or seldom editing users who follow all the rules.
I myself have deleted over 8000 pages and protected nearly 800 (probably handling thrice as many requests at RFPP), so I'm certainly not someone who believes that "anyone can edit" means "do what you want". But it does look like this restriction has been misused as a tool by some established editors to lock down as many articles as possible so that new editors can't edit them. And since only very few will take the time to become extended confirmed after the treatment MusikAnimal describes, it means that the pool of editors working on those articles will shrink constantly, thus hurting the whole project. Regards SoWhy 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

Past admin discussions:

--NeilN talk to me 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to use their best judgement when enforcing various policies, guidelines, and rulings and I don't see why this should be an exception. 500/30 is a means to an end, and not the actual goal. Repeating the wording here, "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." So let's say we have a BLP of an author who, along with other works, has written a controversial book on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Every so often IP editors come in and disrupt the section of the BLP that covers the book and its reception. Can the page be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Yes. But why should we immediately use the sledgehammer of 500/30 when semi or PC could suffice, allowing new/IP editors to constructively update the BLP? --NeilN talk to me 20:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To address the concerns above perhaps change

  • This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

to

  • This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not optimal, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

Generally, admins are supposed to use the least-restrictive form of protection feasible to start with. 500/30 allows us to skip a few levels in certain topic areas. For example, if Palestine Liberation Organization was unprotected we can immediately apply 500/30, skipping over PC and semi, as that's the optimal solution. For other pages, 500/30 may not be optimal. Admins can apply it without enduring a barrage of criticism but can choose a lesser form of protection if that will stop current and anticipated future disruption just as well. --NeilN talk to me 15:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors in this topic area is not the goal; it is the preferred method to stop the disruption in this topic area (which is the actual goal). The current (or my proposed) wording makes it clear that 500/30 (i.e., zero edits by non extendedconfirmed editors) is the preferred method to use to achieve that goal. --NeilN talk to me 15:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by L235

Admins ≠ page protection robots. The restriction is mandatory to follow, and anyone may enforce it, but no one is required to – in the same way that, for example, WP:V is policy and mandatory, but no individual editor is required to enforce it by finding sources for any article they happen to notice bad sourcing on. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

A decline per ARBPIA3 makes no sense there. If yall want to say that this is like WP:V in which it is mandatory but nobody is required to enforce it then fine, but then dont also specifically get in the way of somebody else enforcing it. A good faith page protection request should be enough to trigger the protection. It means that the sanction has been violated on that specific page and that ECP would prevent further violations. Declining it on the basis of a decision that says it is the preferable method to deal with violations makes zero sense. If an admin would rather not protect the page then fine, dont, but dont also decline the request, just ignore it and allow somebody willing to deal with it to do so. nableezy - 04:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

If the whole article can be reasonably construed to be under ARBPIA, then ECP should be applied when asked. After all, ECP protection would only mean that those who can't edit, won't edit. If the article is not under ARBPIA and only sections of it are, then that is where the individual edit can be reverted, etc. I don't get the declining protection on a page when the page is clearly part of ARBPIA and ECP blocked people can't edit regardless. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

I seem to have been pinged about this. I don't have any strong feeling about this rememdy except for some remorse for being the open who opened Pandora's Box. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MusikAnimal

I have very strong feelings about this, so let me first apologize for my tone. My sentiments are not targeted at any admins or the Arbitration Committee. We all want what's best for the project, so let me share what I think is best.

It is in my opinion preposterous and irresponsible to preemptively protect articles that have experienced little or no disruption, in direct conflict with the protection policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be open. Sure we get vandalism and POV pushers, but that's a natural consequence of a wiki and we can deal with it on a case by case basis. Any sort of blanket editing "prohibition" is contrary to the entire point of Wikipedia. What's worse about ARBPIA is we protect indefinitely. The idea is to use the shortest effective duration and lowest effective protection level, yet we for some reason are ignoring that philosophy entirely. I'm sorry but this infuriates me.

Let's assume there was no disruption at all on a given article, and in fact constructive editing from new users – do you then actually feel accomplished in applying indefinite protection, limiting editing to experienced editors? Do you really feel like you were doing the right thing by shutting out users who were helping? Are you OK with the idea that those editors may give up on the project? Think about that. Also, what if a new user creates a well-written article that falls under ARBPIA – We're going to immediately protect it? Are we meant to delete it? How do you think the editor feels about that? How would you feel if that happened to you? What if you were someone who simply is a big fan of Israel in general, and you find you can't edit most of the articles you want to edit? What would be your opinion of Wikipedia? Would you still want to be a part of the community?

Of course sometimes 30/500 does make sense, but that doesn't seem to be the case with most ARBPIA requests I see at RFPP. What's wrong with a brief semi if it does the job just as well? Use your judgement, ignore the rules... put the encyclopedia and the free knowledge movement first.

Maybe we should do some analysis and see how many constructive edit requests there are to these preemptively protected pages. It may shed some idea on the collateral damage we are causing. However I'm sure most newbies won't add edit requests, but simply give up.

Overall I'm going to have to be very stubborn about this. If others want to play the blanket "you can't edit this page" game, I'm not going to fight them, and I won't decline any RFPP requests, but I for one refuse to protect pages or rollback constructive edits merely because other related topics had at some point in the past experienced considerable disruption. No thanks, WP:IAR all day long for me. All articles deserve the same fair chance at openness. It's one thing to do the one-revert rule, impose discretionary sanctions, etc., but you should use caution and sane judgement with admin actions that affect innocent editors. The point of protection is to prevent disruption, not prevent progress... MusikAnimal talk 05:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd like to also point out that on these ARBPIA articles that aren't protected, some people are reverting edits by users who are not extended confirmed – even if it was constructive. It is very difficult for me to sit back and watch this, and I can't fathom why you would think this is OK. If you wouldn't normally revert it then please, don't. Just don't. This is arguably worse than preemptive protection. With protection the editor never had a chance to try to edit constructively. Here the editor volunteered their time and effort, and you're knowingly removing their work. Take away the ARBPIA stuff and this can be blockable behaviour. Why is it all of a sudden acceptable? Surely you understand why it is unfair? These are not banned editors... their contributions carry the same weight as the next guy. I'm not necessarily saying the entire ARBPIA 30/500 restriction should be lifted, but if not doing so means we continue to punish innocent editors then yes, it should be lifted. The issue it seems is that people are looking at this ArbCom ruling and taking it literally, reverting any non-ECP editor. How is this is not a problem? My feelings here regarding edits differ from the protection in that I would have to feel inclined to intervene if it makes sense to do so. If I see you've reverted a clear improvement, merely because they don't meet the 30/500 threshold, barring an edit war I will have to kindly restore the content. I don't need policy or ArbCom rulings to tell me not to, and the same goes for page protection. The revision history tells you if protection is needed, just like the diff of an edit tells you whether or not it should be reverted. Right? Again, I apologize for being so stubborn, but surely you see why I would favour WP:5P3, WP:5P4 and especially WP:5P5. We should not be attempting to override or undermine the very fundamental principles that have made Wikipedia a success... MusikAnimal talk 21:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse for this clarification request only. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • No individual administrator is required to enforce a particular arbitration decision, whether or not that decision provides for administrative discretion as regards the specific means of enforcement. In this case, we've deliberately left the choice of how to enforce the 500/30 editing restriction up to the enforcing administrators' discretion; while the committee's position is that, in general, enhanced protection should be the first line of defense here, we're not going to second-guess administrators who choose to utilize one of the other enforcement mechanisms absent some credible evidence that those administrators are doing so to deliberately undermine our decision. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with NeilN and Kirill on this. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Kirill said it well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Kirill Lokshin. Mkdw talk 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Me too. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Can an Arbitrator please clarify to me what the Wikipedia definition of prohibition is? It's not matching the English language definition of the word. I agree with NeilN's view on what the intended effect SHOULD be, but we are purposefully undermining ourselves saying these edits are prohibited, but you don't have to enforce it. What then is a point of a prohibition? We could just take a page out of our history books from Prohibition in the United States#Weak Enforcement.
Right now what I am hearing is that arbitrators do not want full prohibition. Fine, lets not make it that then, but lets make some sense. Without a full prohibition, this is honestly a very strong extended DS. This would work a lot better as an extended DS too as it actually gets logged so we can figure out where the disruption is coming from and better react to requests to change our enforcement methods on this.
Anything short of a change, and administrators are in violation of the remedy by not applying 500/30, especially after an IP has edited a page. To be clear, I wouldn't enact any sanction on such an administrator, but why make it an issue in the first place?
When this remedy was first in place, we did not have the 500/30 protection available to us, and an arbitrator called it something along the lines of an effective semi-protection over the pages. Now that we have 500/30 protection available which can be used as a discretionary sanction, is there a point to even continue having this restriction in place? This still affects a large amount of contributors who have good faith intent in the topic area. We are up to this now being the 11th ARCA on the matter, and 3rd potential motion. We need to fix this to something that makes some sense. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, I see the prohibition in this case as similar to the old practice of criminal outlawry: participation by a non-500/30 editor on the affected topic is effectively deemed "illegal", and anyone may prevent or undo it using any means at their disposal—but, short of actually assisting the editor in evading the restriction (which is prohibited), no individual is required to act against them, or to act against them in any particular way. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a reasonable way of describing it, but I think the point being raised is a little bit different: if declining a public request for ECP is an "admin action", then that's different than simply not taking action because it puts a barrier in the way of other admins who might want to act. To continue the analogy, you can ignore the outlaw, or arrest him, but in this case the action is more like standing in the town square saying "I am not arresting that outlaw". Publicly declining a request for admin action is more-or-less an admin action, under the AE principle, and someone else coming along to take the action that's just been declined puts themselves at risk of wheel-warring accusations. (I'd say speeding is a better analogy, and letting someone off with a warning instead of a ticket doesn't actually mean there's suddenly no speed limits anymore.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Yeah, I don't mean to suggest that decisions made later after a change of circumstances would be "wheel-warring". I don't really even mean to legitimize the possible accusations of it for "overturning" a non-action without any change of circumstances. I'm just trying to describe the pitfalls of responding to this request with "well, nobody's required to act". Proposing that the restriction be lifted should go in a separate request IMO. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This seems like a bit of a "missing the forest for the trees" issue. The purpose of the restriction was to cut down on disruption in this topic area caused by socks, POV-pushers, and good-faith but inexperienced editors who need time to become acquainted with the project before diving into such a difficult subject. As far as I can tell, it's working fairly well for that purpose. At least, we've seen very few issues reach the arbcom level that were actually about disruptive editing. However, we're now seeing many many questions about the logistics of managing the restriction. In this instance, I don't see that the last clarification lacks, um, clarity ;) It's "preferably" enforced by ECP, but different admins may have different preferences in different situations. It is entirely normal that enforcement of a restriction might not be 100% perfectly consistent every time and yet retain its intended effect. I think the best solution is to worry less about the corner cases unless they've clearly caused problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13 and SoWhy: "Why ask for a new discussion" is mostly just organizational, so a consideration of loosening the restriction gets filed under its own header, gets noticed by watchers and attracts comments specifically on that topic, etc. (To be honest I hate the way ARCA is organized and archived, and I find archived ones hard to read when there's a lot of topic drift.) As for the AE thing, I don't really see the advantage - AE is structured to be a slower and more commentary-based venue. Are people looking specifically for a log of PIA-related ECPs?
      As far as I can tell, what we're doing now is working. It's more important that the remedy be effective than that it be perfect. If it works 99% of the time, then cleaning up the edge cases to catch the last 1% isn't really worth the investment. My preference is to do nothing unless there's empirical evidence that changes are needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Motions

Requests for enforcement


Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Thucydides411

CatapultTalks

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 CatapultTalks

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 08:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
CatapultTalks (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/American politics 2#Enforcement :WP:ARBAP2:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Starting with most recent

  1. Feb 19 Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [60] (material was added Feb 17 [61])
  2. Feb 17. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [62]. Note that the original text was inserted by CatapultTalks [63] with a misleading summary (WP:AVOIDVICTIM is suppose to protect BLP subjects - it's not an excuse for victimizing them as CT's edit summary implies)
  3. Feb 15. Restoring material which has been challenged via reversion [64]. Note that this is also an attempt to restart a previous edit war [65] after failing to obtain consensus or even discuss on talk.

Previous:

On Immigration policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

  1. [66] Feb 5, 7:59 (arguably not a revert)
  2. [67] Feb 5, 18:06 (revert)
  3. [68] Feb 6, 6:26 (revert)
  4. [69] Feb 7, 19:12 (note misleading edit summary)
  5. [70] Feb 8, 16:24 (revert)

Depending on how you count it that's either three or two 1RR violations.

On Executive Order 13769 - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

  1. [71] Feb 4, 22:38 (revert)
  2. [72] Feb 4, 23:15 (revert)
  3. [73] Feb 5, 8:09 (revert)
  4. [74] Feb 6, 6:13 (substantially changes the meaning of the sentence which makes it a revert)
  5. [75] Feb 6, 20:24 (revert)

This is at least four 1RR violations and pretty close to a straight up 3RR violation

On Social policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware

  1. [76] Feb 1, 22:37 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)
  2. [77] Feb 2, 7:01 (substantially changes the meaning of the text which makes it a revert)

Then

  1. [78] Feb 5, 7:56
  2. [79] Feb 5, 16:44 (resumes previous edit war)
  3. [80] Feb 6, 17:02 (revert)
  4. [81] Feb 6, 17:42 (revert. There is another edit by CatapultTalks in between the 17:02 and 17:42 one which could also be seen as a revert)
  5. [82] Feb 6, 20:02 (if this isn't a revert (it is) then the edit immediately following this one is)
  6. [83] Feb 6: 22:30

So that's a few more 1RR violations and a 3RR violation.

In addition to the persistent edit warring several of these edits violate the discretionary sanction which states: " All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Several of CatapultTalks' edits have been challenged by several users via reversion, yet he persists in restoring his preferred version without much discussion, much less bothering to get consensus.

See this previous 3RR report which was closed with "Report_should_be_made_at_WP:AE.2C_which_is_the_appropriate_forum_for_any_Discretionary_Sanctions_violations" (personally disagree, violating 3RR and 1RR is violating 3RR and 1RR, discretionary sanctions or not, but here it is) [84]

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

I think I really bent over backwards with this user. Here is the first notification. Here is the second notification. Here is the third and formal notification by User:Coffee. Here is the fourth notification. And here is one last ditch attempt to try and get the user to listen and actually make a pretense at observing the discretionary sanctions restrictions: Fifth notification.

Pretty much the response the whole time has been "I'm right, you're wrong, take it to the talk page" (of course CatapultTalks didn't bother taking anything to the talk page themselves)

Note that CatapultTalks' reply here sort of encapsulates the problem - he violates 1RR, 3RR and other discretionary sanctions and when you bring that up to him he tries to argue about how his edits were legit (on his own talk page, rarely on article page) and refuses to stop edit warring. I mean, discussion is good, but if you break the rules that everyone is suppose to abide by, people will get frustrated (especially after he's been notified, what, six times?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Mr.Ernie's comment below itself sanctionable, per WP:ASPERSIONS? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning CatapultTalks

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 CatapultTalks

First, I strongly object to the allegations that I don't bother taking anything to the talk page. Here are examples where I started discussions on talk pages. You would notice that in some instances I agreed based on inputs from other editors that my initial edit could be wrong and we arrived at consensus.

On Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration: [85], [86], [87], [88]

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration: [89], [90], [91]

On Executive Order 13769: [92], [93], [94]

Here's why VolunteerMarek's allegations about my edits are wrong:

Starting with most recent per VolunteerMarek's statement above

  1. VolunteerMarek reverted [95] this well sourced relevant edit of mine, terming it "redundant". Redundant how, why exactly? Previously too, VolunteerMarek reverted [96] a good, non-controversial edit of mine, just because he can. No explanation why.
  2. [97] - The earlier edit was promoting media's narrative of the deported person as "Arizona mother" and this prolong's victimization per [WP:AVOIDVICTIM]. Instead, my edit adds a key sourced detail about the conviction being a felony and that she entered the country illegally which presumably led to her deportation. Those are the facts.
  3. [98] - This was after a discussion regarding this was open on talk page with no comments from other editors

On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration:

  1. VolunteerMarek reverted [99] my well sourced edit adding a key detail because it "confuses everything". Really? How? Again, no explanation
  2. [100] - source cited at the time didn't relate to the text. More sources were provided later to back the claim and I didn't challenge or revert it again
  3. How is this [101] a revert? This is backed by an existing source. It has since not been challenged by anyone.

On Immigration policy of Donald Trump:

  1. [102] - definitely not a revert. perfectly sourced
  2. [103] - not a revert. removed redundant content and was never challenged

On Executive Order 13769:

  1. [104] - this was challenged, discussed on talk page and consensus was to keep it out the article - which is exactly what I did
  2. [105] - why is this considered a revert? I removed some unnecessary background. was never challenged
  3. [106] - I reinstated a key detail because it was ignored during a reword by a different editor. wasn't challenged again
  4. [107] - this was discussed in the talk page and once there were more sources countering the initial source, we made a consensus edit

To me, this looks like VolunteerMarek is reverting my sourced good faith edits just because they don't like the edits or that it wouldn't promote a certain narrative. Please note that none of these edits are vandal attempts or unsourced POVs. So there is no justification in reverting my edits without a good reason - especially given that I'm very open to discussion on talk pages.

CatapultTalks (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up comment:

I request administrators commenting/acting on this to please note that this problem has compounded because of VolunteerMarek's continuous disruptive reverts of my good edits. It is almost like VolunteerMarek is setting me up for failure, by reverting without basis and then asking me to go get consensus. I implore you to relook at the kind of reverts we are talking about. Especially this [108], this [109] and this [110]. Also note that I've had fewer problems with other editors in gaining consensus because they have participated in talk page discussions - something that VolunteerMarek hasn't done. I want to reiterate that I do respect the policies, processes of Wikipedia, but it is the bad discretion displayed by VolunteerMarek in reverting my good edits that I don't respect.CatapultTalks (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

I propose a topic ban on Volunteer Marek from bringing editors who edit with an opposing political viewpoint to this board. It is beyond disruptive, and overall an enormous waste of time. I encourage everyone to look through the archives from the past few weeks and see how many of these VM has opened to silence other editors whose viewpoints don't line up with theirs. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO any reading of this history will reveal that you are wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

Mr Ernie There is absolutely no evidence here to support your assertion that @Volunteer Marek:'s edits are motivated by any "political point of view" and it is unconstructive, to say the least, to present such an undocumented aspersion at AE. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CatapultTalks

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • A troubling pattern of editing is illustrated here, including breaches of 1RR and the requirement for obtaining consensus for challenged material. I think a temporary topic ban from this domain is in order. --Laser brain (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • CatapultTalks has been warned more than enough times... and their pattern of editing at this point shows that they hold the discretionary sanctions system in very little regard. As such, I think a 3-6 month topic ban would be appropriate at this time, since CatapultTalks cannot be trusted to follow the less restrictive page restriction system. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: Because it is contested that some of the edits you reported are reverts, please amend the complaint to include the diffs of the edit that the reported edits reverted. – As to Mr Ernie, I think an AE page ban is in order for casting aspersions.  Sandstein  10:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Block of user:CFCF

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by CFCF

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging

JFG