Initiated by Doncram at 01:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Doncram arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. May 2016 motion that Doncram "is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed."

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• May 2016 motion

• Request rescindment of the restriction.

I request complete release of a very old restriction on my creating new articles in mainspace. Specifically, remedy 2.3 of the Doncram arbitration case, passed 12 March 2013, restricted me from creating new pages in article space, and allowed for appeal after one year. I waited to appeal until April 2016, and this Arbitration committee voted in May to partially release the restriction. (Technically, the committee rescinded the entire new article restriction and simultaneously imposed a new one for NRHP articles alone: motion passed in May 2016 (version just before archived), i.e. the 'Motion, that "The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed".) However it is framed, I have abided by a restriction not to create new NRHP articles directly in mainspace for 3.5 years, while still contributing actively. I request this restriction be dropped.

During March 2013 to April 2016, as I noted in April, I created 800 new articles, mostly new NRHP place articles. [All those NRHP articles were created in the first six months, up to when an NRHP topic ban was imposed in September 2013, all by using the AFC process. The first was this, created 2013-03-12, #15 on this reverse chronological list of all 9,400 articles ever created by me; the last was this created 2013-09-16, #774 on the reverse chronological list. Consistent with Tazerdadog's comment below, there were just one or two cases where AFC editors questioned notability or otherwise balked. All 750 or so promoted articles used at least two references and evidently met AFC editors' concerns about article adequacy. I then took a 2.5 year break from the NRHP area, during which I created only about 50 non-NRHP articles. In April 2016, I requested removal of all restrictions. There was discussion of frustrating situation for me in which I had said something unnecessary, which I regretted, and that was talked out. I shared that "I consider the 3 years since the arbitration to be more than a pause in contention. The time allowed me to disconnect from the area...", and more. This sitting arbitration committee, in this amendment rescinded the topic ban, rescinded general probation, and partway rescinded the article creation restriction. Since May, I have been free to edit in NRHP area and to create new articles, with just the edit restriction (not a topic ban) that in practical terms meant I needed to use AFC to get new NRHP articles into mainspace. I have mostly chosen not to create new articles, and instead mostly edited NRHP articles created in 2012 and before. --doncram 05:26, 12 October 2016] Since the amendment in May 2016, I have created 51 new articles: 12 new NRHP place articles, 8 new architect articles, 14 disambiguation pages, and 16 are other non-NRHP articles. The new NRHP place articles were promoted by the Articles-For-Creation process or by other editors. I'm not sure what the continued restriction for new NRHP articles is intended to accomplish, exactly, but, if there's concern about my new articles, it is most relevant for arbitrators to browse some or all of the most recent NRHP articles; these are listed here.

Since opening the April-May amendment request, approaching 6 months ago, I believe there have been no serious problems and any other general concerns should be lessened.

• I have proceeded to edit NRHP articles, mainly by my developing about 200 NRHP place articles tagged "NRIS-only" with additional sources to remove them permanently from that category. Specifically I have worked steadily on this worklist of about 750 NRIS-onlies originally created by me. I have worked alone and with collaboration of other editors (including Farragutful on this batch of all Iowa NRIS-only articles and Bubba73 on this batch of Georgia articles). I have received positive "thanks" for expanding some of these.
• I have participated some at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and elsewhere without conflict.
• I've done the "heavy lifting" needed to fix up List of courthouses in the United States, an NRHP-related list-article whose problems were discussed at the April-May amendment request.
• Unrelated to NRHP, I have continued participating constructively IMO in AFDs and in other areas. For example, I am participating in consensus-building processes in ongoing proposals / RFC discussions that I opened in two non-NRHP areas, here and here. It may be that neither directly produces any great change, but I think constructive discussion going on is sorting out some advances that will perhaps achieve consensus in future followups.

About my future intentions:

• To reiterate from the amendment request, I have no intention to antagonize editors focused upon stub articles in the NRHP area. I do not intend to create what any NRHP editor would call "context-free" stubs. I hope this addresses an arbitrator's concern below that I address issues that led to this NRHP article creation ban; I certainly do not wish to have concern about my NRHP articles be an issue again. (To be clear, I am not subject to any topic ban; the only restriction is a process one.)
• About title-warring as a concern expressed in the April-May amendment request, let me say or reiterate that I fully expect to continue to use the proper wp:RM process for any potentially contested moves and to participate constructively in sorting out best names to use (as I believe I pretty much always have). Since May, I only recall one substantive name change I requested or participated in: this RM that I opened, which closed without consensus to make the move I wished, and that took care of that.
• In general I do accept that consensus can go against a view that I have, and I do not insist that my opinions are always right, and I make concessions and do apologize as a matter of practice. This is an example of where an editor disagreed with me in the WikiProject NRHP forum and I responded with concession.

At this point I see no purpose served by the restriction, and I wish to be released from it so that:

• this particular cloud over my editorship may be removed (the restriction was in fact cited negatively one or more times, for example within this long ANI statement [not NRHP-related, and which was soon closed])
• I might participate in AFC in reviewing and promoting others' articles in the NRHP area, rather than being a burden on AFC's editors who must review my own new NRHP articles;
• the arbitration case may be considered finished, and I might just get on with things, and also so that no future arbitration committee needs to review the 2013 arbitration case. This is the last substantial restriction remaining that I expect to appeal. (The only other remaining restriction is an interaction ban which may remain in place permanently.) I could have waited until six full months had passed, but I hope evidence available now suffices and that the committee would also like to have this wrapped up. --doncram 00:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC). Revised, 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Notice of this amendment request given by me to NRHP wikiproject, on 1 October. --doncram 18:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. To clarify, I am not now under probation, but was from 2013 to May 2016, and I would prefer for it not to be restored, as that would defeat the purpose of this request. --doncram 20:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon, IMO. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed likely hundreds of Doncram's AFC submissions on NRHP topics a couple of years ago, and found exactly one to be objectionable. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• Decline I don't see an acceptance here of the issues that lead to this topic ban and a willingness not to repeat them. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doncram has addressed my issues since I voted to decline. A probation of sorts would be ok with me. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Doncram doesn't seem to have addressed how he would avoid the issues which lead to the topic ban in the first place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doncram has now addressed my concerns. I'd be happy with suspending the sanction (probation). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not see, at first or second glance, a reason to turn this down immediately. I cannot, from my ivory tower, easily see where Doncram might have had problems recently and there's not much feedback yet. I'd love to hear from some of the old hands, such as Newyorkbrad or Risker, maybe. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Drmies. This is a substantive request with quite a bit of detail presented to document a recent history of unproblematic editing, and to my knowledge no one has objected to Doncram's editing since the May motion, so I don't see why we'd be so quick to dismiss this request out of hand. I'd be inclined to grant this, or if that's not palatable for the rest of the committee, consider a probation instead. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless someone new comes up with compelling arguments against granting this, I'm fine with it. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 16 October 2016
• This seems fine to me also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Elizium23 at 16:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Christianity and Sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Remedies

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bmclaughlin9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chicbyaccident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jujutsuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Remedies

• I request that discretionary sanctions be imposed on articles in the topic area representing the intersection of Christianity (Or Catholicism) and Sexuality, narrowly construed, for example, a 1RR limit.

Based on the activity over 14 months on Robert Sarah as well as low-grade activity on the flagship Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, the parties named have been unable to profit from the investigation, findings, admonishments and editor restrictions imposed by the aforementioned ArbCom case. It is therefore suggested that the case be revisited and appropriate discretionary sanctions be imposed that will give the appropriate tools to admins against chronic disruptive editing patterns.

This is a spurious arbitration request. There has been little or no disruptive editing to the articles cited from what I can see. Things have been much better. The need for a 1RR seems to be a way to enforce a particular point of view without permitting disagreement. I've seen very little from Elizium that suggests constructive engagement with other editors on specific issues of concern. Editors trying to frame articles based on a faith position need to realize this is a secular encyclopedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: This is exactly my feeling. A storm in a tea-cup.Contaldo80 (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally in favor of more scrutiny in this topic area precisely because of the unencyclopedic edits of users who claim that describing homosexuality as a Nazi-like apocalyptic beast which should be criminally punished is just "advocating the traditional definition of marriage." However, I can also see the fruit-of-the-poison-tree argument that even if discretionary sanctions should have been in the case from the beginning, this instance is not suitable as a basis for imposing them now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" It is therefore suggested that the case be revisited and appropriate discretionary sanctions be imposed that will give the appropriate tools to admins against chronic disruptive editing patterns." A quick perusal of the edit history of Robert Sarah and the talk page will suggest that the one editing disruptively against consensus is, er, Elizium23. Regardless, this is a minor content dispute. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Callanecc: Unfortunately I am involved on this article. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• Whaddayaknow--I weighed in on that talk page, a couple of months ago, though it didn't involve Elizium23 directly, as far as I know. Anyway, the recent history of the article, and the talk page discussion, lend credibility to the suggestion that Elizium is indeed the one disruptor. I find this edit particularly troubling: if I understand it correctly Elizium's argument is that because the --- no I don't understand the argument. The subject is opposed to LGBT rights, and the RfC points to consensus on that; changing that subtitle to "Views" as if somehow the subject speaks for the entire Church is simply wrong. I also see charges on the talk page that the NYT is "twisting quotes and misrepresenting Catholic doctrines and practices." Granted, that's from last year, but still, that spirit seems to inform Elizium's editing practice. I haven't looked at the other article, the "flagship article", but I see enough here already to suggest that a topic ban for this and perhaps other articles might be helpful. I see no reason whatsoever to impose DS; a stricture for this and maybe one other editor is more appropriate. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see a need to impose discretionary sanctions here. I'd suggest ANI could probably solve this, unless Black Kite would like to take a look and see if he can sort it out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I also see no need for discretionary sanctions. ANI should be able to deal with this. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep. No need for DS, nothing for us to do here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There are definitely issues with this article—primarily that slow-moving edit war over the section title—but not to the point where I think the Arbitration Committee needs to impose DS or other sanctions. I think ANI can handle this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Elvey at 03:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Elvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

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

• Amend the case to define, directly, or by reference, what the "standard discretionary sanctions" that it imposes are.

Neither the case, nor Wikipedia:AC/DS, to which "standard discretionary sanctions" ("SDS") is sometimes linked, defines what SDS are. (This is particularly important given that, apparently, they change over time.)

If it means this, it needs to say so:

Before you edit this page: This page relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Your behavior on this page is subject to special rules. You must follow: the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behaviour, and Wikipedia policies and editorial norms. If you do not follow those rules then you may be banned from editing on the topic or blocked from editing entirely. This restriction is authorised by the Arbitration Committee. Before making edits in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the contentious topics policy.

(And if so, a standard template (that can be edited when the definition of SDS changes) would be a good idea, say, Template:DS/SDS-editnotice, rather than bespoke ones, which should be deprecated.)

---

Doug & User:Guerillero: obviously, I'm aware of the Wikipedia:AC/DS page, as I linked to it in my comment above. You say standard discretionary sanctions refers to Wikipedia:AC/DS but, again :the case doesn't say that, or link there from Wikipedia:ARBAPDS. And the page doesn't have a section that defines what standard discretionary sanctions is/are either. I've since reread the page and do find that I can suss out multiple possible meaning, but I have to read and combine disparate parts of the page thousands of words apart to even get that far! There's no single section of the page that defines what standard discretionary sanctions is/are; if there is one, I challenge anyone to quote it to us here and to link WP:standard discretionary sanctions to point to that section! (Then, the case could be amended to make "standard discretionary sanctions" link there from Wikipedia:ARBAPDS, thereby resolving this request.)

It's particularly confusing that "standard discretionary sanctions" are a misnomer; they aren't standard; they vary!

Since opening this request for amendment, I've realised three things:

1.: that the sanctions vary; sometimes they mean a)what the above notice says, sometimes they mean what b)WP:AC/DS#guide.expect says, sometimes they mean c) TBD, and sometimes they mean d)what the below notice says :

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

2.: The lack of clarity such notices creates, and what SDS are has already been discussed here and there's no consensus that such such notices provide adequate notice of the threatened sanctions they purport to impose, though that's a separate issue, and ArbCom's already decided they provide adequate notice.

3.: In areas under standard discretionary sanctions, admins can not only decide on their own to enforce the rules, admins decide on their own to define what the rules are, on a per-article basis, for particular politicians of their choice (according to one definition of SDS, anyway)! These rule variations leave some articles far more vulnerable to censorship and others far more vulnerable to unsubstantiated smears. There's no neutrality; some are more equal than others. And the mechanism that perpetuates the bias is not in plain sight. I wonder if ArbCom's wants to un-make what's called there a "minefield".

Case cloased, eh?

I take it from Guerillero's edit, which is appreciated, that this only applies to some articles under SDS in American politics:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)!

On other articles under SDS in American politics, one can reinstate edits that have been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining consensus on the talk page. At least WP:3RR applies, presumably.

I'm surprised that's ArbCom considers some presidential candidates more equal than others, but so be it. The ArbCom position remains unclear and very fragmented. I guess I'll have to seek clarity elsewhere; as this page - ARCA - seems NOT to be the place to obtain clarification.  :-( Maybe I'm just not wanting to see a position that doesn't makes sense to me as nonetheless being the position.

---

Any user can put a {{2016 US Election AE}} tag on the talk page of an article in AP2. - per Courcelles

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.

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

• Standard discretionary sanctions refers to Wikipedia:AC/DS --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is linked in the template. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote this thing with User:Courcelles. "standard discretionary sanctions" means Wikipedia:AC/DS. I added a link as a clerical change. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Guerillero, now that it's linked (which is obviously what it is referring to) this request can be closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks and we can close. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. Looks like we're done here. Courcelles (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Rhoark at 14:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

GamerGate arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. [7]"The Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page are not editable by accounts with fewer than 500 edits and age less than 30 days, pursuant to this WP:AE request. Zad68 14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification (Zad68 has been apparently inactive since May Rhoark (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Information about amendment request

• [8]"The Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page are not editable by accounts with fewer than 500 edits and age less than 30 days, pursuant to this WP:AE request. Zad68 14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

• The 500/30 restriction should be removed from the talk page and replaced with standard semi-protection.

The 500/30 restriction on Gamergate controversy and its talk page came at a time of much higher press attention on the topic. While unregistered contributions were disruptive more by their quantity than content, the restriction was helpful in tamping down the recycled arguments repeatedly brought by people unfamiliar with the already extensive talk page archives. The situation today is quite different. The discussion, which has been described as "stalled" and "moribund", is more impeded by a lack of participation than an excess of it. Several experienced but particularly disruptive editors have also been banned from the topic since then, smoothing talk page interactions considerably. Being as this is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", no form of page protection should persist beyond the circumstance it was intended to address. The recent related request for comment demonstrated no need for any kind of page protection, as the few IP editors contributed nothing worse than snark. There is every reason to believe the Gamergate talk page could remain civil and productive while merely semi-protected. Rhoark (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't deny that circumstances have changed a great deal since the restriction was introduced, though I confess I am still wary. I think the suggestion of removing the restriction from the talk page is worth trying, at the very least. I am hopeful it won't be a problem, but I won't be terribly surprised if it quickly turns in to an imbroglio. Here's to positive thinking! Dumuzid (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on removing the 500/30 restriction on the talk page only, but if the talk page turns out again to suffer from offsite brigading or contining hostility from IP/SPAs, a reasonable consensus determination of administrators should be sufficient to re-engage that protection (rather than having to re-engage arbcom/AE). --MASEM (t) 16:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is no secret that I strongly dislike the use of 500/30 outside of the article namespace, as it is used here to censor feedback and discussions from new editors and our readers, the very people we write this encyclopedia for. The Gamergate controversy seems to have mostly died out on Wikipedia, likely as a result of removing problem editors through blocks and topic bans. I think it is a good idea to downgrade to semiprotection on the Talkpage (but not the article itself), as it is unclear that the heightened level is still needed. If disruption resumes and semiprotection is unable to eliminate it, I would be willing to swiftly reapply the protection as a Discretionary Sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it makes a lot of sense to me. When this was first applied I went digging to see if there had been a problem with editors who would have fallen under the restriction, and couldn't find any. Semi seemed to be doing the job, and the occasional not-particularly-useful comment was being handled by standard editing practices. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case now - GamerGate is still active, even though it is pretty much a shadow of its past, but any problems are likely to still be stopped by semi-protection, and if anything more happens we have the eyes to handle it. I'd like to leave the restriction on the article proper, though - I'm more concerned about locking people out of a discussion than I am with direct editing of the article. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal. I feel that the talk page of the Gamergate controversy should not be extended confirmed protected, but should still be semi-protected, like how the article on Anita Sarkeesian is extended confirmed protected and the talk page of that article is semi-protected. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support removing 300/50 from the GGC talk page. And if it becomes a problem, it can be put back easily. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have always felt that this went a little to far. It would be good to see it removed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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.

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

• Personally I've no issue with the discretionary sanction imposing 500/30 on the talk page being removed. Given that Zad68 hasn't editing for 5-ish months I'll propose a motion to remove the discretionary sanction element of the imposition of 500/30 to the talk page, unless there are dissenting opinions from other arbs in the net day or so. From there admins are free to change the protection level per the protection policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems reasonable enough to remove it. If that doesn't work, it can be fixed. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I pressed the button last year, so, I'm obviously out of this one. Courcelles (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Support

1. Really, all this motion does it allow admins to change the protection level of the talk page without risking desysoping. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. I guess we can try this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. "Sure, I guess" is about where I am on this too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ok, we'll see how it goes. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. Still heaven't followed up on the original Gamergate issues. It would be irresponsible for me to try and vote on this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

1. Turns out I didn't press the actual button, just saw my name in the protection log. So, yep, landing here. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by The Wordsmith at 22:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons 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:

• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Motion 6 (WP:NEWBLPBAN) authorized Standard Discretionary Sanctions for BLP content. This precludes WP:INVOLVED admins from acting. The older WP:BLPSE had a similar clause.

However, it seems that this contradicts WP:BLPADMINS, which states that "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved."

In an apparent conflict between policy and Arbcom decision, which prevails? My own opinion is that involved Administrators are able to block, but not log it as a Discretionary Sanction and the block would be subject to the lower standard for reversal that we use for other blocks. There isn't a specific incident I'm thinking of, but I could see it becoming an issue in the future and would like clarification on how that might be handled. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: I'm asking the Committee to clarify both of those things, what options (regular, DS etc) are and are not available to an administrator who is involved. For example, if you added a blatant BLP vio to an article I already participate in, is blocking you allowed? Is blocking you as a Discretionary Sanction allowed? Is a topic ban allowed? I believe the first but not the latter two are correct, but I'd like the Committee to clarify where the line is drawn. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

•  Clerk note: Renamed to "Editing of Biographies of Living Persons".
• @The Wordsmith: This isn't a clerk action, but can I ask you to clarify your request? Are you asking the Committee to clarify whether: (a) Admins may act while involved in accordance with WP:BLP, notwithstanding WP:ACDS#admin.not; (b) Admins may impose discretionary sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN notwithstanding WP:ACDS#admin.not pursuant to WP:BLP? Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 15:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INVOLVED says that admins should not act in disputed cases but can act (use admin tools) in "straightforward cases" when "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". This is entirely consistent with the BLP policy which states that admins when involved may act to "enforce the removal of clear BLP violations", however "in less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator". Involved admins can, therefore, use normal admin tools in clear cases. However, discretionary sanctions grant individual admins much more power and authority (in comparison normal admin tools when involved can be overturned by any other admin) so should only be used when the circumstances are absolutely clear and the admin is neutral. To answer the question more precisely, an admin can block or protect as a normal admin action but not impose a discretionary sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---