Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 111

Amendment request: DS Awareness and alerts (July 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Atsme at 19:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Motion - The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure was modified.
 * Motion - The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure was modified.


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Basic DS template respective to the particular sanction, be it AP2, Pseudoscience, BLP, etc.


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * Basic DS template respective to the particular sanction, be it AP2, Pseudoscience, BLP, etc.
 * See User talk:Atsme top of the page - custom DS Notice

Statement by Atsme
Topics subject to DS require that we alert users of same.

Reasoning: some established editors have been the recipients of multiple DS alerts which may be viewed as harassment or abuse of the process. Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time. It typically occurs when a disagreement arises in a conflicted area and a DS notice suddenly appears on an editor's TP. Some editors, intentionally or otherwise, will add a DS template on the TP of an opponent without first checking to see if that editor is already aware, the latter of which is a difficult task in itself, but it can be easily remedied. While DS alerts are included on the conflicted article's TP, and typically in an edit view banner for the article itself, such notices apparently aren't enough.


 * Adding current special rules:09:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC) My bold


 * "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."
 * Template:Ds/alert: When you attempt to save the alert on a user talk page: "Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months. Please now check that this editor has not already been alerted to this area of conflict in the last twelve months: [links to logs and stuff here]".

My proposal is an effort to help limit DS alert template overuse/abuse (perceived or otherwise) by allowing editors, who are already aware of DS in specific topic areas, to include a permanent notice (customized or standardized) at the top of their user TP stating they are aware of specific areas subject to DS. In order for it to work, ArbCom needs to modify the DS Awareness section to include some form of mandatory check for said TP DS notices before an editor adds the respective DS alert template. I have a customized DS Notice at the top of my user page which I customized for aesthetics, but until ArbCom formally includes/accepts such notices as an acceptable notice of awareness and makes checking for same a mandatory procedure, the harassment issue will probably continue. It is actually an easy and efficient way for editors to make sure they are not overusing the DS alert template, or inadvertently finding themselves in a dispute over it.


 * - notice of sanctions for abusing the alert process are already in place - it's not something I added. The problem is knowing where to go to find the info - the notice at the top of one's TP is to help editors, not impede them. As indicated above, my wording is simply an example. I am not asking that a permanent TP notice be mandatory - it's simply an option. What I'm requesting is for ArbCom to recognize the optional TP notices as an editor's statement that they are aware of DS in the named topic areas. It's a convenience for others and saves them the trouble of having to search for prior alerts, or possibly be sanctioned for abusing the alert process. 10:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , perhaps I've misundertsood your response but it does not address what I've proposed. I'm simply asking for ArbCom to include in their list of AWARENESS the recognition of an optional (custom or standard) Alert Notice on the top of a user TP as satisfying the alert requirement - that's all - very simple. Go to a TP of an editor who gets a lot of traffic and tell me if you can easily find if that editor has received an alert in the past 12 mos. Notices are difficult to find, especially for TP that get a lot of traffic. ArbCom made the special rule that an editor can be sanctioned for abuse of the DS alert - particularly because adding it after an editor is already aware of sanctions could be considered harassment by one's opponent - and that is why I proposed the above - to avoid potential harassment and potential sanctioning as a result. Atsme Talk 📧 11:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob, Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions leads with (my bold underline) No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:. The latter tells us an editor can be made aware by various methods, but then we're advised these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently Ds/alert – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted.  Then we have: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year.  Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.  Jiminy Cricket. In retrospect, I probably should have asked ArbCom to simply recognize a customized DS awareness alert at the top of one's user page as formal notification, which makes things less complicated, spares editors potential sanctioning who are not aware of the TP search capability you were kind enough to bring to my attention. Apparently, quite a few editors aren't aware of that feature because in 2017, I received 3 DS alerts (2 in the same month, 1 the next month) despite my being fully aware of the DS topic area(s) via other means listed in the green box. At the time, it sure felt like harrassment. In 2019, I received yet another alert despite the notice at the top of my page and my being fully aware of DS in the topic area. I believe there are quite a few others who can relate. I just hope ArbCom will consider simply recognizing as formal notification (1) a customized DS alert awareness notice at the top of a user's TP and will (2) modify the following statement if the standard template message – currently Ds/alert – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted to accommodate it.  Apologies for any confusion I may have caused for not being more clear in my initial statement. Atsme  Talk 📧 14:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually tried to avoid bringing into this discussion because as you can see from some of the responses here, people don't always AGF and for some reason, they become defensive over something as harmless as this request. I'm not the one who decided there has been abuse of the DS/Alert template - ArbCom made that decision, and that is probably where Bishonen can get answers - but for now, I'll just add that what triggered my request was this discussion wherein Doug very undeservedly was taken to task over the template, and I felt bad for him. I mentioned my idea to him, and that discussion is what brought me here, so all the wild guesses over why I've made this proposal can now be put to rest. I have seen admins taken to task by angry editors for no good reason, and I have seen editors harassed over the templates so I simply sought a remedy I thought might help eliminate or at least reduce the issues. I've seen it quite a few times but my purpose here is not to get anyone in trouble, including myself, because chances are, my detractors will somehow spin things around to make it all my fault, and that's what I consider a sad state of affairs. Atsme  Talk 📧 12:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , had I known you would have been offended by this, I would have approached it much differently. It was not my intention to purposely offend or hurt anyone's feelings - I was in defense mode - and I certainly hope you can understand why I was feeling piled-on after what I had just been through in January. Over time, such things tend to make an editor defensive, and that is what I'm trying to avoid happening to others by proposing something as simple as a custom DS alert notice that ArbCom will acknowledge. No harm - no foul. When other editors know the targeted editor is aware, why add that ugly template to their TP? Mandruss, you obviously have an advanced understanding of the technical intricacies of filters and how to find things some of us spend hours trying to find or never find. I'll be first to admit that I've had no professional/academic training in code much less CSS. Everything I know was self-taught and my introduction began back in the day when all we had was C> which later became C:\>. When Steven Jobs brought us the first Mac, I was elated!! Long story short - I hope some day you will stop seeing me as someone who is trying to complicate things when my goal is quite the opposite. My perspective branches out to newbies, to busy editors who simply aren't aware of all the perks and shortcuts, and/or to those of us who have trouble remembering all the acronyms, code and shortcuts. WP deals with all age groups and all levels of computer knowledge, and I believe it's worth the time to explore the full potential of our volunteers, and help them find a niche where they'll be happiest and can do the most good for the project. And Mandruss, you are welcome to comment on my TP anytime - I apologize for my lack of patience that day and for deleting your comment, and I hope you understand why I acted in that manner. I will try to do better. 🕊  Atsme  Talk 📧 00:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - I disagree with most of what you've said, including your comments to GRuban, me, and overall in your statement. <---constructive criticism. I see it more as squelching a much simpler process in support of a more complicated one. I don't see how my proposal makes things more complicated. Yes, it adds a tiny bit of work for ArbCom to make a few minor adjustments to their already complicated requirements - so sit on a whoopee cushion and we'll all have a good laugh. All one has to do is read and try to understand what ArbCom intended and why they chose the route they did - but first, install a fan, blow away all the smoke, and then tell me what you see. I'm of the mind that you'll find editors making excuses that they weren't aware the article was under DS in an attempt to get out of a t-ban or block which is what led to the "remedy" we have in place now - basically ignorance of the law - it has worked in some instances, and probably should have, so now what we have created is growing bureaucracy that requires alerts every year, leaving the ambiguity over what is or isn't harassment in place which further leaves opposing POVs vulnerable and subject to biases - and that is what you consider a simplified process? If so, I don't agree, which is why I made this request to simply things. If this discussion closes with nothing more than editors thinking about the things I've pointed out, I see it as progress; albeit at a slow crawl. Atsme Talk 📧 20:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - thank you for making that connection about the bot/auto notices. I think it serves indirectly to support this request and allowing custom DS Alert awareness notices at the top of a user page. Maybe it will help lighten things up on the requirements necessary for establishing a user's awareness. Most new editors are simply not going to be aware of DS issues when they first show-up at an article - how could they be? Eventually, they learn but that's also when these other irritiating issues begin to rear their ugly little heads - including DS Alerts. It's easy for veteran editors to say how easy it is to look for prior notices using scripts, search options, etc. because they are familiar with the community and the processes - but we also have to take into consideration the thousands of editors, both old and new, who are not aware of all the options available, much less code or the many acronyms. So what is wrong with simplifying the process so that it doesn't require a wikilawyer, a great deal of effort or experience - just add a DS alert awareness notice at the top of your TP, and be done with it - you reduce all the guessing and leg work? KISS 💋 Atsme  Talk 📧 20:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - please briefly explain what part of this proposal you find annoying? Are you referring to the simple addition of text to ArbCom's alert requirement and/or what is considered a formal notice? Atsme  Talk 📧 17:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarifying the following response is with reference to the proposed custom/standard TP notice at the top of user TP.  Atsme|undefined Talk 📧 16:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC) No, that is not the purpose or intent. There is obviously a misunderstanding. The notice is simply acknowledgement that the user is AWARE of DS in a given topic area. Its purpose is to save editors the trouble of searching for the bureaucratic "formal DS alert" or worse, saves them from adding a 2nd or possibly 3rd DS alert on that user's TP.  With the notice at the top of a user page, editors can quickly see if the user is aware and move on or go through the extra efforts required to post ArbCom's DS alert. It is ArbCom bureaucracy that forces the extra work and complicates things by insisting there is only one formal notice that is acceptable, so we have to jump through hoops in lieu of having a simple acknowledgement at the top of our TP. It actually eliminates the annoyance you believe it creates. Atsme  Talk 📧 18:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - it appears you may be conflating the current abuse of DS alerts as something I've proposed when it is already part of the DS alert process by ArbCom. I support its removal. The current process is confusing and highly bureaucratic. I support ArbCom removing the misuse sanction currently in place. The crux of my proposal is quite simply for ArbCom to formally recognize a declaration of awareness at the top of a UTP as meeting the requirements for editor awareness of DS sanctions for the following reasons:
 * It's a simple DS alert notice at the top of one's UTP declaring awareness of DS in named topic areas - it remains as part of one's UTP and can be customized for aesthetics;
 * When you go to a UTP, the first place you land is at the top of the page so it's hard to miss the alert;
 * You don't have to hunt for anything as we do now because it lists all topic areas a user is aware;
 * It saves editors time researching, and potential sanctioning for abuse of the DS alert process;
 * It is optional, but will serve no purpose unless ArbCom formally recognizes it as a declaration of an editor's awareness.
 * Some of the comments below support it as an option while some suggest either (a) maintaining status quo, or (b) removing the abuse sanction from ArbCom's current policy, or (c) automating the process using a bot. My proposal simply streamlines the entire process, so if more users will opt in, the easier and less complicated it will be. Atsme Talk 📧 14:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , this proposal does not stop editors from getting a DS Alert unless they acknowledge at the top of their UTP that they are aware of DS in specific topic areas. If they don't use such a DS alert notice, then the normal procedure applies. Perhaps it would help if you re-read the proposal or maybe ask questions if you're not quite certain what is being proposed here. I will gladly oblige, preferrably on my TP so as not to break anything here. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 00:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple - see Galobtter's statement below. In summary, I have an aesthetic "I am DS aware" notice at the top of my TP. Either, or  (or all 3) have volunteered to write an ?embedded? or ?hidden? code we can simply add to our TP that triggers an already aware notice whenever someone attempts to add another DS notice - see Galobtter's example. I'm thinking most editors will see the custom DS-aware notice at the top of a user's TP and won't bother trying to post another one. But...if they don't see it, and attempt to post another DS notice, doing so will auto trigger an "already aware notice" and prevent it from being added. It's a wonderful thing - no aggravation - no extra work - everybody's happy. My apologies for not explaining it that simply from the get-go. Atsme Talk 📧 02:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer

 * Atsme is correct that tracking down whether an editor has received a DS notice can be difficult and a waste of time. It would really help the process, and be a help to editors who have received DS alerts and DS sanctions (as well as other editors), if DS alerts AND sanctions were logged so they could be seen in the same way and place as when one looks at an editor's block log. Please make this happen. Otherwise, I have no current opinion on Atsme's request, although I reserve the right to return. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this boils down to the need for everyone to grow thicker skin and just AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I like the idea of an opt-in "I'm aware of discretionary sanctions in , " notice, and I'm fine with discouraging editors from adding another notice for any of the listed areas. However I think the proposal to make leaving another notice a sanctionable offence is going too far - e.g. alerting to major changes should be allowed (the recent merging of the Balkans sanctions into the Eastern European sanctions comes to mind as a major change that users professing awareness of one or the other should still be able to be formally made aware of). If someone is being disruptive or harassing another editor by use of the notices then that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis without most editors being dragged to AE for mistakes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of the arguments against this - the added complexity of needing to check the talk page and the filter history - could be avoided if placing a notice about your own awareness triggered the edit filter in the same way that someone else leaving a DS notice did. This would presumably require the notice to be in a standard format, but to be effective it would anyway. It would require updating each year, but one edit a year is not a burden and you can set yourself a reminder using whatever method you normally use to give yourself reminders about tasks that need doing. Thryduulf (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
Isn't the solution to getting a redundant DS notice to just remove it with the edit summary "Thanks, I already knew that"? The DS process is already complicated, why make it more complicated? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss
I'll strongly oppose this, FWIW. It would be an added complication to something that is already unnecessarily complicated, without sufficient benefit to justify that added complication. I'd love to see some proposals to simplify.

BTW, editors who don't like receiving routine non-critical DS alerts can issue them to themselves, which creates the normal page history entries. I pointed this out to Atsme before she opened this item. It takes a minute or two per year, not an unreasonable burden in my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsme's argument appears to rest on the false premise that it's too difficult to check the UTP history. Notices are difficult to find, especially for TP that get a lot of traffic. That is simply not true, and it's clear that Atsme wasn't aware of the easy way to do this when she opened this item. If Atsme's experience with duplicate alerts was due to good-faith lack of editor awareness (1) she is just as capable of pointing editors to the instructions as anyone else, and (2) doesn't her proposal presume and require editor awareness? If it was harassment (certainly possible, although Atsme has shown a marked tendency to perceive harassment where it doesn't exist), the solution is sanctions, not an added complication to the system that wouldn't prevent harassment anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages? And surely there is one, as explained in my first comment above. Are you really supporting this added complication to the rules to save a few editors that one or two minutes per year? Are you saying editors shouldn't be subjected to boilerplate notices from themselves? Is it just me, or does this approach the comical? Seriously, molehill→mountain. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban, you're certainly not the first to fail to weigh the upside of a proposal against its downside with equal clarity and focus on both. That complexity is an ongoing cost is a fact that is very widely supported by expertsvirtually indisputableand yet almost completely ignored in countless decisions like this one throughout Wikipedia's history. That's why we have an editing environment that is maddeningly complex, and unnecessarily so. I will continue to fight that from time to time, as my time and motivation level permit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand your reasoning, and in my view you're missing the following. You propose to make things easier on editors in one way, without showing how many editors need things made easier in that way. At the same time, your proposal would make things harder on editors in a different way, a way that would affect every editor without question (that is, every editor who uses DS alerts). Currently, editors must check the page history. If your proposal were implemented, editors would have to check the top of the UTP, and then check the page history if they don't see the message. That's clearly a little more difficult; worse in my view, it's incrementally more complicated, i.e. more difficult to understand and remember. It's just a small increase in complexity, but the monumental mess we call Wikipedia editing is the sum of thousands of small increases in complexity just like this one.Thus your argument hinges on widespread use of your proposed messagethe more widespread, the betterand you ask us to take that widespread use on faith. I wouldn't use it.had I known you would have been offended by this, I would have approached it much differently. - Helpful hint for future reference: Editors will somewhat predictably be offended when you call their constructive criticism "harassment", which is a sanctionable offense. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO - This discussion is not about me or my comment on Atsme's UTP, and it's ridiculous to respond to a brief parenthetical aside with a 300-word off-topic essay. I seriously considered ignoring your comments entirely, but I assume most present will appreciate my not following you down that bottomless rabbit hole. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see the drawback of letting someone essentially opt in to knowing about DS. Let them spend one to two minutes per year showing that they know about DS, with no change required to the existing system. Or, let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman. Homo sapiens is the most adaptable species on the planet, and it's a fool's errand to continually complicate the system to save a few vocal editors from having to make a small adjustment for the greater good. That only invites more of the sameliterally without end. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

- I really don't see it as a complication - It unquestionably adds a degree of complexity, slightly lengthening the learning curve for every editor introduced to DS alerts, for as long as DS alerts exist, as explained above. It will add to existing documentation and probably add one or more new software elements like templates. The return on that investment: (1) Some undetermined number of editors, only a handful that we actually know of, are saved the one or two minutes a year required to issue DS alerts to themselves, and (2) some undetermined fraction of editors who issue DS alertsthat fraction depending on how widely the new notice is used, a total unknownare saved the small effort of checking the UTP history using the filter (note that there is no requirement for any single editor to issue DS alerts, and every editor is free to leave that to others if they find that checking too difficult). I'm sorry if folks can't see that that's a bad trade-off, and I guess I've outlived any usefulness I've had in this discussion. Good luck. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork - We are here to serve the project, not have the project serve us. - Exactly. Thank you! Somebody please enlarge that, frame it, and hang it on the wall. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GRuban
Support basically per Thryduulf. We're allegedly not a bureaucracy, we don't have rules for the sake of having rules, Atsme maintains a prominent notice on her talk page that she is aware of these sanctions, and finds getting them annoying. Surely there should be some way to opt-out. Just saying "well she shouldn't find them annoying" as some here seem to be saying does not answer that. We're allowed to ask specific people not to come to our talk pages, surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages? --GRuban (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mandruss: Atsme wants to be able to put up a straightforward "no soliciting" sign once, and leave it up, rather than have to post messages on her own talk page at regular intervals. Even if that weren't a rather non-obvious way to go about things (I have to notify myself? Repeatedly?) there is a difference between being able to opt out once, and many times. Though as Thryduulf writes, I admit asking for sanctions for well intentioned missing of the notice seem to be a bit far; if someone is intentionally using whatever for harassment, we don't need to itemize all the possible ways. --GRuban (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000
Just 2.1 weeks back, ATSME complained about a DS warning on her page attacking two editors for actionable harassment, one correctly following procedure and one (me) defending the editor after the attack.. There was no DS alert in the previous 12 months. Somehow the editor leaving the alert was supposed to know there was a recent appeal by ATSME. I then received an odd (but polite) notice on my TP that I was incorrect in defending the editor for following procedure. 

I leave a fair number of DS alerts. I search history (which can be very long) and the 602 log. Am I now supposed to also search the editor TP to see if they demand that I don’t leave a DS alert? (ATSME’s TP is now 35,377 bytes.) Further, if a DS alert isn't left annually, how is the next person to know not to leave another without an entry in the log?

A rare extra DS alert, which are now politely stated, is nothing compared to the SPAM I receive every day (hour). Just say thanks or remove it. The notice at the top of ATSME’s page telling editors not to post DS alerts is inappropriate. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – It’s much easier to search the 602 log (one click from the warning when you post an alert) than the UTP, and the log should always work if a previous alert was properly issued. And if it wasn’t properly issued, another should probably be issued anywho. I’d suggest removing the requirement to search the UTP history before posting an alert. O3000 (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. Most of the alerts I post are for newcomers to the ugly areas when it looks as though they are likely to violate, as a prophylactic. The alerts exist for a reason; and that reason is not to set some sort of trap. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with adding a DS aware notice on a UTP is instruction creep. There are users that don’t want other things posted on their UTPs, like humor, images, birthday notices. It’s fine to have options to control some bots. But, let’s not end up with a set of custom rules by UTP that an editor must read before posting. O3000 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not conflating anything. I’m OK with the current process. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I am not sure what we are doing here. NO ONE needs more bureaucracy in this area. A DS template is just that--a notification. If someone wants to see that as a slap on the wrist, I suppose that's up to them, but we shouldn't discourage notifying editors who might get in trouble. If I have to search by way of filters or what not before I can drop a DS template (usually, in my case, I think they're BLP templates), that's just yet another little hoop. I am sorry if Atsme got hurt in January (?), or if a DS template is triggering, but all this is already complicated enough. And wile we are on the topic, I am having a hard time figuring this out because I'm also hearing that someone got upset at an edit summary last week, and that people were elated when Bill Gates delivered a computer to their place of work, or something like that. Which reminds me that Atsme's topic ban (former topic ban?) was issued in part because of that kind of chatter on talk pages, was it not? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment to BU Rob13 by Bishonen
I don't know about the "fact" that admins have been taken to task for leaving a DS notice, since you're worried about that. It's only a fact that Atsme has stated that "Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time". Please supply diffs, Atsme. "Taken to task" sounds like something imposed from above, i. e. taken to task by arbcom. Really? Bishonen &#124; talk 09:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC).

Comment from SN
I don't think this has been mentioned yet (?), but using User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb—link—to place DS alerts searches for a previous alert within the first year automatically, so you don't have to do it yourself (the script is able to automate the procedure for checking that a user has previously been notified of sanctions. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you can; to err, after all, is human. In other words, you are. Cheers! ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
Seems like a solution in search of a problem. I, for one, check the EF hits (that can be easily accessed from the banner that automatically pops up, once you try to save the page for the first time with the template) to detect whether the user has been served with the same DS notice in the last year and accordingly proceed with issuing the notice. Also, in case of redundant issuings of notices, we need to assume good faith. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
1. IIRC, ARBCOM recently ruled that you can't use that anymore, but I can be mistaken.

2. I'm not exactly sure what the issue is. As it's written now, if you give yourself an alert every twelve months, you are covered by this:
 * In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or and when someone tries to give you a DS notice, the edit filter will catch it. All you have to do is just renew that every twelve months on your own talk page. I don't think we should add another rule or layer of bureaucracy. If you want to add something to the top of your talk page, then do so,and add a notify alert to yourself to renew the alert within twelve months so you can renew the alert. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
I generally agree that having to deal with repeated notices can be a pain, but also just wanted to add that we have many bots that frequently drop user-talk messages and which recognize opt-out messages linked on the user's talk page. We treat those opt-outs that the user is well aware that any result from not recieving new notices is wholly their responsibility (eg image deletion).

If we were to have "DS message bot", in which DSes can only be placed by the bot by a request of an admin, that bot can check for such opt-outs. But how often does this situation come up? I'm just brainstomring here in case the community goes in that direction. --M asem (t) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO
I wonder how many people who have issued DS "reminders" can honestly state that each and every time they have done this was just to provide a "friendly reminder". As part of AE enforcements one of the first steps to get a sanction placed against a editing foe is to make sure they first get a DS "friendly reminder".--MONGO (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss above alludes that his comment at Atsme talkpage was "constructive criticism" and I assume he meant this criticism (and almost immediately removed here) that I personally would label as harassment and bullying, particularly in the specific timeframe Mandruss posted it. I personally do not find the following passage to be "constructive criticism: "''I forget whether I'm welcome here or not. After this comment, probably not, as there is a high correlation between support and welcome on this page. According to the page history, the previous AP2 DS alert expired in July 2018. There is no requirement to be aware of, let alone observe, a notice at the top of the UTP. That notice is not a substitute for the page history entries that editors are instructed to check before issuing an alert. I issued my currently-active AP2 DS alert to myself, just to save others the trouble. If you don't like receiving them from others, Atsme, you might consider doing the same in the future.''" I mean, if one isn't clear if they are even welcome at a talkpage, why badger that person at all? Yes, as Mandruss admits himself the last DS warning in that topic area was indeed less than a year ago and for petes sake, Atsme was sanctioned since then so I mean, it's obvious they are aware of the DS on that topic you think? The last sentence Mandruss offers makes a little sense, maybe, but why the hell are we going to place DS tags on our own pages just to avoid someone else doing it for us? For the record, my placement of a DS "friendly reminder" on my own talkpage was directly due to demonstrating the folly of such a notion.--MONGO (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
The whole process of alerted editors to DS is overly bureaucratic for the sake of bureaucracy, especially because there's more ways than just the talk page notice to show editors are aware. Take this one, for example - "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement." Now back in February 2019, both myself and commented in an AE case in the AmPol topic area. But you may notice on my talk page that O3000 gave me the annual refresher 2 months later in April 2019. I'm technically also permanently aware, as I've been sanctioned (but since successfully appealed) in that topic area before. Is it reasonable to expect editors to check AE comment histories or logs to confirm that editors are aware? I don't think so, but it did annoy me somewhat to be given another notice, especially since I'd have a very similar discussion (see here) still visible on my talk page. I'm not sure what to do about it, if Arbcom insists that all the awareness criteria should remain. These talk page notices should really only be given to new or inexperienced editors. Everyone else is surely aware that misbehavior (real or perceived) gets you in trouble. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley
A suggestion for something that (I think) would be pretty straightforward to implement.

We currently have Special:AbuseFilter/602 that detects if somebody is trying to add DS/Alert to a page and gives them the following warning: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS

It shouldn't be too difficult to modify that edit filter to also detect a self-awareness template or category on the same user talk page.


 * Steps needed to make this happen:
 * 1) Somebody create DS/Aware that editors can put at the top of their talk page to indicate that they are aware of sanctions. The syntax should include a field for the topic area, and maybe an option to hide the template. Example:  The template could also place hidden categories on the talk page like.
 * 2) Modify Special:AbuseFilter/602 MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS to detect if the awareness template appears on the page, and if it does display a message that the user is already aware of the sanctions. have the edit filter prevent the addition of DS/Alert. Also have the edit filter create log entries for when users add or remove DS/Aware from their talk pages.
 * 3) Arbcom adds "* The editor has placed a DS/Aware template for the area of conflict on their own talk page, or has removed the template within the last 12 months" to the list of items under "An editor is considered aware if:"
 * 4) Forget the garbage proposal about punishing editors who leave DS Alerts for editors who are self-aware (moot anyway if the edit filter blocks the edit).

I imagine this would take a couple of hours for somebody with the technical know-how, and I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of people opt in. The current system of manual annual alerts for each topic area is annoying.

~Awilley (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging Arbs who have already commented:
 * I suspect you haven't yet taken the time to have not yet read deep enough into the "Statements" to see my alternate proposal above. I don't blame you...you have a lot of reading to do, and I commented after some of you had already written your statements.
 * Reading what you have written I would summarize your current position as "Yeah, DS Alerts are mildly annoying, but the proposed solution makes things as annoying or more annoying by adding more hassle for people doing the perfectly acceptable work of placing alert templates. I'm open to other solutions that are less annoying and that don't create more work." I believe my proposal is just that. It's less annoying for the people who don't like getting templated every year (they no longer receive templates) and it's less annoying for the people placing the templates (they no longer have to search through the edit filter logs to try and determine whether the user is aware, since the automatic warning template would now explicitly say "This user is aware of the sanctions for the following topic areas: foo bar baz")
 * User:Galobtter has been kind enough to demonstrate that this will indeed work. You can check yourself: Navigate to User:Galobtter/sandbox3, edit the page, add the words "Testing of Ds/aware abusefilter", then hit "save".
 * In conclusion, the only thing you (Arbs) need to do is #3. Others (see also JFG below) are already willing to do the rest of the work required to implement this. ~Awilley (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "complicating the issuance of DS alerts in any way would be the step backwards." I agree. I think my proposal is a step in the direction of simplifying things. See the following table


 * In summary, it doesn't make things any more complicated for templating users who have not opted out, and it makes things much more simple for users who have. ~Awilley (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the follow up. I personally haven't done anything on this since May. I figured we were waiting for a go-ahead from you before modifying any templates. I'm currently on vacation with limited time, but between me, User:JFG, and User:Galobtter I'm probably the least essential. In any case I think a mockup shouldn't be too difficult to produce now that Galobtter has shown that it is technically possible. ~Awilley (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by QEDK
The current system is just fine, instead of making a DS notice to be a big deal, we just need to destigmatize the notice. I oppose any proposal of pressing a button to inform an editor, it should be compulsory for an editor to do their due diligence. If it's absolutely necessary, we might as well shift the responsibility to bots, to inform editors whose edits meet a certain condition (bytes/number of edits) and log DS notices and get it off our hands entirely, instead of a half-hearted attempt to automate part of the process, then this finger-pointing with notices can finally stop. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 15:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JFG
As a "regular" in the AP2 DS domain, I have had my fair share of giving and receiving DS alerts. In several instances when I received one, I got the uneasy feeling that "somebody wants to stir drama now". Sometimes I ask for clarification from the alert dispenser, to check whether any recent editing of mine prompted their action. I consider myself as having a pretty thick skin, and yet I sometimes feel attacked, so I understand that or other editors may feel threatened by such alerts, especially when it's obvious that they are editing regularly in a DS area, and they would be aware of the process. The feeling may be even stronger after an editor recently went through an AE case, irrespective of the outcome. I have unfortunately seen alerts being handed out as an intimidation tactic, despite the best efforts of alert drafters in making them less threatening now than they originally sounded. In the spirit of WP:DTR, I think that editors should be able to opt out of receiving such alerts, being understood that they cannot then defend themselves in an AE case by claiming ignorance.

As a practical step, I fully support 's proposal of a standard DS/Aware message that could be placed on one's user talk page, and would be checked by relevant bots and edit filters. People trying to place an alert would be themselves notified that "this user already knows about DS in this area", thus saving both editors some time and mental effort. Should the Committee support this change, I would volunteer to help craft and test the appropriate technicalities.

Finally, I join other commenters in rejecting any automatic boomerang effect on editors who place DS notices despite an "I'm aware" message. Such behaviour, if deemed objectionable, would be assessed in the normal course of an AE proceeding. — JFG talk 06:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion by below.  Would that work well? Contrary to Fæ, I'd still support making the DS/Aware template visible. Telling people "I'm already aware" is a simplifying step. — JFG talk 07:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with some other posters: we don't need a long protracted discussion here. Can Arbcom just decide in principle whether users can opt out of DS alerts in topic areas of their choosing? Then these users cannot mount an "I wasn't aware" defense at AE. There is demonstrated demand for this simplification, and it is likely to reduce drama whenever alerts are perceived as threats (irrespective of whether such perceptions are justified). The community will sort out the technicalities. — JFG talk 06:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm largely off-wiki this week. Would be happy to work further on the draft technical solution and template wording if that's what you feel the committee needs in order to reach a decision. I feel the committee could usefully rule on principle only, but that's just me. — JFG talk 06:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for completing the technical part of the job. The amendment is ready to pass now. — JFG talk 12:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Goldenshimmer
Just dropping in to say... I've studiously avoided learning about the various topic-area editing restrictions so far. So, I would appreciate getting a notice on my talk telling me I need to start thinking about them so I can adjust my behavior accordingly, if anyone thinks I do (rather than getting whacked with a sanction without warning). (I mostly do smallish, infrequent edits, and I guess no one's felt they needed to give me a notice so far.) So, please don't replace it with "you're expected to read the talk page before any edit to see if there's a sanction notice" or similar pitfalls for the unwary. All that said, a way for people to opt out if they don't want the messages doesn't sound like a bad idea. Thanks! (I hope I commented here correctly, and am supposed to; feel free to move/delete this if you want.) —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 18:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and harassment is totally unacceptable, of course, whatever medium is used for it, although hopefully this doesn't need mentioning... —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 18:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify the purpose of the above: My comment was mostly intended as something for future authors/implementers of alternate proposals to bear in mind, such as in the actioning of the suggestion to "open up a community call for ideas" (—, WP:ARCA); as well as just to share my appreciation for the positive aspects of the current system, which didn't seem to have been voiced elsewhere. I was aware that this proposal as written would be dependent on a talk page header, and have no issue with it; I wasn't trying to argue against what was being proposed. Sorry this wasn't clearer! —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 00:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
I don't have a strong opinion about this specific proposal, but I do about the bigger picture. ArbCom introduced discretionary sanctions in 2007 as a way of dealing with ongoing problems in our most contentious articles and topic-areas. Because the editing rules for pages covered by DS may be very different from the usual rules, and violations may be sanctioned more quickly or more severely, since the inception of DS there has been a requirement that editors be warned that the rules exist before they can be sanctioned under them. This is matter of basic fairness, to ensure that editors are not sanctioned for breaking a rule that they didn't know existed, and would have complied with had they known.

From this common-sense origin of the "warn before sanctioning" requirement, over the past 12 years there has developed an increasingly complicated and arcane set of procedural rules for DS warnings and notifications. This accompanies the increasing complexity of the actual discretionary sanctions themselves in the various topic-areas (including but not limited to the uniquely complicated rules for the Israel-Palestine and American politics areas). Each incremental step along this path has been well-intentioned, but the cumulative effect is that we may have created a morass of complexity that is increasingly difficult to understand. I myself don't understand all the rules at this point; and if I don't, given that I've spent more of my wikilife on the arbitration pages than any other editor, I'm not sure what chance anyone else has.

I don't have any specific changes to propose, and my intention is to finish stepping away from the arbitration pages (a process which this posting suggests I'm not all that good at), but in the interim I would urge caution before taking any step that might make matters even more complicated than they already are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ
Rather than a big visible notice that would itself be annoying for users who find DS alerts annoying, it would be entirely possible to use an invisible process to achieve the same result.

The current system relies on edit filter 602 picking up an attempted edit matching the alert template text. Technically there is nothing to stop extending that filter to pick up on matches to an otherwise invisible template being added to the users talk page by themselves. This can then create a log entry showing that the user has elected to log that they are aware of DS applying to any topic(s) they are interested in.

Under current procedures for DS alerts, this then avoids any further notices for the next 12 months for that topic.

--Fæ (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

makes sensible remarks with respect to implementation, however I believe it wise for Arbcom to make a decision on the principle alone, without resolving specifics about what is technically reasonable, best or possible. For example, rather than discussing a clarification about notice templates and the edit filter, the clarification here should be focused on whether a user should be able to flag themselves as being aware of DS on given topics, and then be considered opted out of alerts. However that is then technically implemented is downstream, whether by self-added templates, self alerting, a request page/list or something else, and does not need to be resolved here through Arbcom motions, as usability and practicality is better done via community consensus. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter
Users can already alert themselves with Ds/alert, and has suggested doing that above. The presumable benefit to a change here is having a notice that works permanently, i.e without notifications every 12 months for multiple topic areas. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything technical has been done. See Template:Ds/aware for the mockup (which calls Module:Ds/aware).

So the remaining steps are
 * 1) Arbcom passes a motion to add "The editor has placed the Ds/aware template for the area of conflict on their own talk page, or has removed the template within the last 12 months", per Awilley's wording, to WP:AC/DS
 * 2) Modify MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS to add , which will show a message if a person has Ds/aware on their talk page, along with the topic areas they have indicated awareness of

And then people will be able to use Ds/aware.

As a sidenote, in the interests of not ever-increasing the complexities of WP:AC/DS, I personally would suggest axing the "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement" criterion. That one is almost never applicable in my experience, because anyone active enough to participate in ARCAs and AEs has very likely been active enough in the topic area to have received an alert - that criterion just adds complexity, and is an absolute pain to search for. Although that could probably be a separate ARCA. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Od Mishehu
Since a number of users are suggesting that we use the edit filter to disallow DS warnings under certain conditions, I think I should clarify on some technical issues:


 * 1) The filter can only check the wikitext of the one page, not the UP of the UTP's owner, not an edit notice, not a transcluded "header" page.
 * 2) The filter can only access the current version of the page.
 * 3) As far as I know, there is no way to get the flag from the current DS warning and use this flag to check other text on the page. It is possible to explicitly write a test for each existing DS, but maintaining this would require new manual work on the filter each time a new DS is imposed.
 * 4) If a user is aware of multiple DS topics, he should be able to handle this with multiple parameters to a single template instance. The edit filter could be given an appropriate regular expression for each DS, but maintaining the filter would become extremely difficult.

Statement by MJL
I disagree. I've not once received an alert (nor would I particularly like to tbh) and have participated in the areas of AE and ARCA. I'd prefer we keep that bit in there or at least have a separate discussion about it another time. Either way, it looks like User talk:MJL/Editnotice will need an update... &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

DS Awareness and alerts: Clerk notes

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



DS Awareness and alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * One already can see if someone has received a recent DS alert by searching edits on the user talk page for the "discretionary sanctions alert" tag, so the technical recommendation to somehow add a log is not needed. (Tags would be the only way of doing this sort of thing, given the realities of the MediaWiki software.) I'm not super hot on this idea because I worry that it will only encourage the view that leaving a DS notice is a negative thing. It is not. If you've been contributing positively in a contentious area and I noticed you haven't gotten a DS notice, I would still leave one, since it would be helpful for positive editors to be aware of the sanctions so they can go to AE and seek sanctions against others if needed. The fact that admins have been "taken to task" for leaving a DS notice for an editor is the real problem here, in my opinion, not the leaving of the notices. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "View history" --> "Filter revisions" --> type in "discretionary sanctions alert" to the tag filter. You get this. This is the same filter you're linked to by an edit-filter-generated warning when you try to place a discretionary sanction alert, so it isn't hard to find. I don't see any danger of editors not being able to find if someone has been made aware in the last year. Your proposal originally sounded like it was more targeted at getting rid of the awareness requirement for editors who don't want to receive DS notices every year on certain topics. That is why I responded basically saying I think that attitude – that DS notices should be avoided, and editors who give them out to good-faith contributors reprimanded – is the real problem. Is that not what you were saying? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have diffs or remember details, but I've personally seen this a couple times where people get upset about getting a DS notice and then the community makes comments about how the person who gave it did so in a POINTy fashion or should be trouted. Nothing serious, "taken to task" is maybe a bit strong, but I do get the gist of what Atsme is saying based on past experiences. I can't for the life of me remember the editors involved, so I have no way to really find diffs of it myself, unfortunately. Perhaps Atsme has a better memory or more recent example. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 11:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What Floq said. Yes, the DS notices are mildly annoying. So are long coffee shop lines, red lights, late trains, weeds in the garden, cats who always choose to play with the only toy that makes any noise (gee, thanks, sis, what a nice gift that was...), meetings that could have been emails, slow internet connections, balky printers.... normal life just unavoidably involves some mildly annoying things. "Normal life" in an online community is going to involve a little bit of annoying social friction. Remove the notice, give the cat a quieter toy, and don't waste any more mental energy on it. I'm getting my sister's cat a toy that makes noise and has flashy lights. Note: this strategy not recommended for DS notices. . Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of those things where I'm tempted to overgeneralize - it wouldn't annoy me, so why should it annoy someone else? On the other hand, I got Awilley's ping and the phrase "you haven't yet taken the time..." gave me an instinctive "harrumph!" reaction for no particular reason except maybe that someone annoying I used to know liked to say "please take the time to [do annoying thing]" - so fine, annoyance can be irrational and subjective :) I have no objection to a technical solution if someone wants to, ahem, take the time to do that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I didn't mean you should have to edit! You were right, I hadn't read it :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If something is annoying, and there is a reasonably easy way to stop the annoyance then I'm in favour of stopping the annoyance. To take OR's point about the everyday annoyances - yes, give the cat a quieter toy, introduce fast growing ground cover to prevent weeds appearing, brew coffee at home and take it in a flask or insulated drinking cup - you'll save time and money (and have a much wider choice of coffee beans). As for this particular solution - well, it seems to involve someone else doing something that could be equally as or maybe even more annoying. So I take the point that being DS spammed is annoying, but the proposed solution appears to be equally annoying. If there is a workable solution, such as a bot that automatically removes DS notices from pages which have a no-DS notices template, then I would support that. SilkTork (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - having to read the notices at the top of someone's talkpage to see if they object to having a DS notice could be annoying. SilkTork (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If User:Awilley's proposal could be worked such that it required no further bureaucracy (ie, no changing of existing ArbCom wording or procedures) then I would have no objection to see it further discussed. My personal preference in this is that users in good standing who are clearly experienced and have made positive contributions to an article under DS, shouldn't get templated. But if that is the price to pay to keep contentious articles stable, then so be it. We are here to serve the project, not have the project serve us. SilkTork (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion has stalled, but I don't think it should be closed until we've had a chance to look more closely at Awilley's proposal. User:Awilley - what progress has been made on your idea? Are we at the stage where the Committee can look at it and vote on it, or does it require more work? What I think we'd like to see is a working template with the appropriate wording so we can vote and sign off on it if appropriate, rather than sign off on the idea of it, and then have to look at it again when it has been completed and re-vote. SilkTork (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Awilley - ping me when you have it done. SilkTork (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:JFG - yes, the Committee could, but there may be unforeseen issues with the finished template which might create concern and a new clarification request raised which then sits here for a month or more. Better to have any potential concerns addressed here and now. Thanks for agreeing to do this. SilkTork (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of this ARCA, I am totally open to a less annoying solution. It does not seem like we have a consensus on what that might be, so perhaps the next best step would be to close this ARCA and open up a community call for ideas. Should one or a few idea emerge with a lot of support, then it could be brought back here for a review and implementation discussion. Any editor who uses DS notices to harass another editor could be sanctioned already under our harassment policies. I do not see us needing to codify that further into the DS policy. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As a community, we're prone to making changes that narrowly make sense but broadly are a step backwards. I get the thinking: why not let one opt out of the protections at WP:ACDS?  Nevertheless, complicating the issuance of DS alerts in any way would be the step backwards.  We should think of DS alerts like traffic signs: advertising a change in 'rules of the road' and putting everyone on an equal footing.  I think we are asking for more wikilawyering and harm if we change DS alerts – issuing one and receiving one – into anything more.  By introducing the possibility of talk page notices (that one is "perpetually in receipt of alerts"), we give everyone involved a further factor to weigh up.  Their focus should really be "is Wikipedia is putting up a good article?"  We ought to remember that DS is a system for rescuing disorderly articles from calamity.  Anything that frustrates that objective should be avoided wherever possible; I think the language that already governs alerts strikes the right balance.  Close without action.   AGK  &#9632;  21:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The logic of "DS alerts" is to ensure that people are aware they could be sanctioned for editing in certain areas, because it would be unfair to sanction someone who doesn't know that DS exists in the area they're editing in. Ok, that's a reasonable courtesy. But what started as a courtesy has evolved into a bureaucratic system requiring a yearly re-issuing of the alert, even for editors consistently active in those areas, just in case they get amnesia after knowing about the DS scheme for 365 days. They're no longer (if they were ever) seen as a courtesy, they're seen as a warning. Nobody likes getting them no matter how we re-word them, and they prompt frequent accusations of harassment or retaliatory alert-placing.Given all that, if we let people declare they're aware, I think it has the potential to save a lot of drama and bureaucracy. Once someone opts-in, nobody needs to place an alert at them, they no longer need to get alerts they're well aware of, and nobody needs to argue over alerts being placed. I really don't see the drawback of letting someone essentially opt in to knowing about DS. After all, declaring awareness means opting in to potentially being sanctioned; it's not like there's a strategic upside. I'm personally all for it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I really don't see it as a complication. How is it extra complicated to let someone "opt in" or "declare awareness" or whatever you want to call it, as long as it prompts the same kind of edit notice or error message that trying to re-template someone does now? Saves the effort of making sure they're DS alerted and lets you move right on to taking them to AE, if that's what you're after (and let's be real here, I really don't think anyone is out here issuing DS alerts as a friendly reminder between pals, no matter how often we try to pretend otherwise). You say let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman, but it feels like we could ask the same of you here. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to a user being able to mark themselves as "alerted" in a specific topic area. My only concern would be if this would require people to expend significantly more effort to determine if that user is alerted in that topic area (for example, if they had to dig through talk page history to find it). However, based on Galobtter's comment it seems that this could fairly easily be added to the Abusefilter-warning-DS warning, so that satisfies my concern. As for sanctioning editors who place a DS alert on an already-alerted editor's page, I would oppose that. If a user is hounding other editors by placing repeated alerts, that can be addressed without any modification of existing policy. I would rather default to assuming good faith, that the editor simply missed that an alert was made, rather than default to believing a user was intentionally re-alerting someone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions: Awareness and alerts: Motion
The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Enacted - GoldenRing (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Hopefully I was clear above when this request was first filed with the committee.  Any expanding of The Rules should be reluctant, careful, and slow.  Giving people an opt-out seems unnecessary and I think it may open up more edge cases at AE.  However, I also recognise that if editors want to dispense with the entire Awareness thing – as that both favours and disadvantages them – then they should be entitled to easily do so.  I do need to say this: each year, ArbCom gets bolder in its willingness to expand (and complicate) the terms of DS.  This is not helpful.  Looking at the DS document, it is increasingly plain that the thing was written by committee.  The more that happens, the less – I believe that the system does its core job of protecting the encyclopedia when editors fail to toe the line.  Alerted should look at the system's terms and quickly grasp that "Okay, if I am not careful, I will be booted out.  Got it."  Can anyone honestly say the motion above will make our articles more stable and better in quality?  I am OK with this change but it needs to be the last one.  AGK  &#9632;  13:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure, for reasons I outlined above. If we're going to have a bureaucratic requirement that someone must be "aware" in a formal sense before it's possible to sanction them, there is no downside to letting people cut through and choose to be formally aware. Like AGK, I don't love the sprawling bureaucratic complexity of the DS system, but I'm going to be optimistic and imagine this change will indirectly help make articles more stable by reducing the amount of time spent determining awareness and warning people about systems they've known about for years. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) This seems reasonable, iff it can be added to the list of things that make a user show up as "alerted" in the automated checks provided by the warning notice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Courcelles (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with AGK about the expanding bureaucracy to fulfill the needs of the bureaucracy. But for the time being, this works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Inactive


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * Example of the template in use: User_talk:SilkTork/Editnotice. SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (August 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Nyttend at 01:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Ymblanter
 * Galobtter

Statement by Nyttend
This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope.

Airbnb is a US-based company that acts as a broker for people who have spare rooms in their homes and people who want to rent those rooms. Apparently there was some controversy related to Israel-Palestine and this company, so the article has a section on this issue. Ymblanter recently protected the article under ARBPIA following some disruptive editing to this section. I questioned this action, saying basically "did you accidentally protect the wrong article", and Ymblanter responded basically "I protected it intentionally, because the disruptive editing was related to Israel-Palestine". His response mentions some consultation with Galobtter regarding the duration.

So the question...are this decision's stipulations on page protection meant to apply to all articles that have bits related to Israel-Palestine, or is it only intended for pages to which Israel-Palestine is an integral component? This article is definitely the first — one can understand the company quite well without a tiny Israel-Palestine section sourced only to news reports and an advocacy organization. By the latter, I'm talking about Israeli politicians, places in the West Bank, events in the history of Gaza, etc. The situation here reminds me of the "weather" situation at WP:TBAN — if we had similar sanctions on the topic of weather, I suppose we'd not consider all articles with "climate" sections liable to ARBWEATHER protection.

If we assume either Ymblanter's perspective or mine, there's no room for dispute over whether this is an appropriate protection; if Arbcom meant to include all pages with Israel-Palestine sections, of course this is an appropriate protection, and if you didn't mean to include pages like this, obviously this should be treated like any other victim of disruptive editing rather than an Israel-Palestine issue. So once again, no hard feelings exist yet, and I don't envision them arising in the future; I just want the scope to be clear.


 * if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me says Ymblanter. I agree — if the committee intends ARBPIA to apply to articles in an Airbnb-type situation, that's fine with me.  Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way, at User talk:Ymblanter, Ymblanter said I am not sure I can now so easily remove or lower the protection. I do not think we have a mechanism of lowering ARBPIA protections. If an admin levies an ARBPIA sanction and then changes his mind, is there something preventing the admin from self-reverting? If this is indeed the case, and it's specific to ARBPIA (I don't know; I don't do WP:AE), it would be helpful if you implemented a mechanism for lowering ARBPIA protections or allowing other self-reverting.  Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter
The consultation with Galobtter which Nyttend mentions is at my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter. Concerning the issue itself, I indeed interpret the decision such that if an article contains a significant part (in the case of Airbnb, this is a dedicated section) the discretionary sanctions apply. However, I do not hold strong opinions here, if the result of this clarification request is that only dedicated articles can be extended-confirmed protected (or anything else) this is perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Without giving my opinion of the motion you mention, if someone compiles a list of articles where the notice must be placed I volunteer, after a reasonable check, place the notice to all these articles (which obviously is going to take time but it is still better than nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is time to conduct review of all remedies. We are slowly moving towards professionalizing of AE in general and PI in particular, when one first needs to study for five years and then run an internship in order to be able to act there responsively. This is not really good.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller
It looks as though this problem is going to continue. It's been discussed for over a week at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests which I urge everyone to read (and User:Huldra has found a slew of articles that need templating and edit notices given the current sanctions). Towards the bottom of the thread I've tried to outline how I understand ARBPIA sanctions are meant to work. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's also virtually the same issue as I raised a few weeks ago which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, isn't it? Doug Weller  talk 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that my understanding as outlined at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests is in line with yours, if not please tell me where I have it wrong. What's needed now to clarify "reasonably"? I presume a motion, right? Doug Weller  talk 14:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a discussion of your suggestion to remove the "blanket 500/30 of "reasonably construed" pages in favor of discretionary but liberal use of 500/30 to combat abuse across all "broadly construed" pages." In the last two days I've had to disappoint an Admin (User:El C and an experienced editor(User:Nableezy) who thought IPs couldn't edit anything to do with the conflict. I also like rewording somne DS alerts to mention 1RR.  Doug Weller  talk 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
This is not related to the issue about parts/whole of the article being under ARBPIA, but it relates to the imbecile motion added |14 March this year. Yes: imbecile!

After that motion, no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. Since there are thousands of articles, and only a few hundred of them have edit notice, the result is that clear cut violations of the rules goes unpunished; see this example.

So while "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted" are placed under "discretionary sanctions", the 1 RR rule has become unenforceable on most article.

This is a totally untenable situation, I hope that arb.com either:
 * 1. Undo their March 2019 motion, or
 * 2. Start templating the thousands of articles which need to be templated. (In addition to the ones I have already mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, we can add all the ‎Israel settlements on the West Bank and the Golan Heights, all the kibbutz, etc built on the 48 villages land (they will be found in the "current localities" in the infobox, see eg Suruh.....you would be amazed as to how often that information "disappears"...)

I would prefer that you chose option 1, that's because admins are not the best persons to see what is under ARBPIA, or not. Case in point: Solomon's Pools, where both, say, Icewhiz and I agree that it comes under ARBPIA, but "outside"  admins have a difficulty in seeing that. (For those of you who don't know us: Icewhiz and I disagree about just about everything regarding the I/P area...) Huldra (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter: All articles mentioned in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (and the Israeli localities on their land), all Palestinian localities on the West Bank; listed under Template:Governorates of the Palestinian Authority. I would also say all localities listed in , and all localities in the Golan Heights: Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab–Israeli conflict, and the places mentioned in it and Template:Golan Regional Council. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That old expression: "Don't fix it if it isn't broken" should also be the guiding words for arb.com. This 14 March 2019 change basically changed a structure which was working..sort of..to one with lots of complications. I cannot recall any editor wanting to edit ARBPIA articles, achieving 30/500 status, and not knowing about  ARBPIA sanctions. What normally happen, is that they wander into   ARBPIA territory before they reach  30/500, they are promptly reverted, most with a note on their talk page. Then, if they are mature enough, they stay away until they have reached  30/500, and then they return.User:SilkTork: yes, the  14 March 2019 added "This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the  edit notice." I just became aware of that, as I reported an obvious offence, but the editor walked scot free, thanks to this. See here.
 * User:AGK yes, it is a patchwork, and I would love to see one standard. Especially what "broadly constructed" and what is not. (I think User:BU Rob13 is the only one who understands it!) 1RR  is one of the best things there are  in the  ARBPIA area, alas, the 14 March 2019 change was horrible: it made 1RR unenforceable on most ARBPIA articles. Why have rules if there is absolutely no punishment for breaking them? Huldra (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, User:SilkTork, I hadn't seen the January 2018 note: .(I don't follow the "Discretionary sanctions" page), that makes me more understand the 14 March 2019 changes. We have two set of rules for ARBPIA, and I have given up hope of ever understanding those rules....
 * Also, according to these idiots, I have a IQ of about half a zillion, I don't know if I would trust them, but I tend to understand things that have a logic to them. And as a corollary to that: when I don't understand a thing, it is usually because there is no logic to it. I would love to see some logic to the rules in the IP area...Huldra (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I went to Requests for permissions/Template editor, and got pagemover rights. So now I see a "Page notice"  on my editing screen, where I can put. I will advice everyone (who is not admins) to apply for this, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
I think you missed the point when you wrote "If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template." No they can't; only administrators and template editors can add the editnotice that arbcom decided is needed for enforcement. Zerotalk 10:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Before 500/30, IPs and new socks would cause disruption because they don't care about rules while the good editors trying to preserve article integrity were constrained by 1RR from reverting the disruption. The combination of 1RR and 500/30 has proved very beneficial to the area and I don't understand why you think removing 500/30 would be an improvement. Zerotalk 07:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I think that articles that are not broadly about the conflict should not be locked down under ECP, they can be locked down temporarily, they can be IP protected, etc and then when the vandalism passes, it's good to go. We should not have many articles under a patchwork of horrible ARBCOM rulings that are terribly confusing to enforce and understand. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Davidbena
I think that it is wise and pertinent that no-one can be sanctioned for 1RR unless an admin has placed an edit notice on the article in question. If the 1RR edit-notice were to apply to all articles in the I/P area, and if ordinary editors could add such notices, who would prevent them from adding these notices to every town and city in Israel (Palestine), irregardless of whether or not the town had been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle? Editors would still find a way to include it, since both sides vie for the control of the same country. This would greatly impede progress and make the simple task of editing much more difficult, just as we found in the article Solomon's Pools, which to my dismay came to be associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although it has absolutely nothing to do with that conflict other than the fact that the pools lie within territory controlled by joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority officials. In my humble opinion, we should avoid making the task of editing bogged-down in red-tape and litigation, whenever possible, and only in those articles where by their nature they spark heated debate or POV views should these 1RR edit warnings be added.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
I have long argued that discretionary sanctions should be applied not only to articles within the topic area, broadly interpreted, but to edits clearly related to the topic area in question, regardless of whether the article topic itself is related. This is because the topic area to which discretionary sanctions apply can be referenced peripherally in almost any article (falafel, anyone?) If somebody is making edits somewhere, anywhere, that can be reasonably construed as pertaining to the topic area, then surely all the usual discretionary sanctions should be applied to those edits regardless of which article they were made in. It seems to me that if this approach were to be adopted, the regular tiresome debates about whether or not a given article belongs in the topic area could be avoided altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should add, with regard to extended-confirmed protection, which is a special case because it works to automatically block anyone who doesn't meet the editing criteria on a given page, that an alternative approach might be to manually enforce extended-confirmed on articles which only peripherally relate to the sanctioned topic area (such as Airbnb in this case), in order to avoid penalizing the vast majority of users who are not making edits that pertain to the sanctioned area. Or alternatively, to use the automated protection only for limited periods, until the related dispute cools down. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
In response to your question: yes, ArbCom rules in the I/P area are too complicated, to the point where I'm reluctant to help enforce them because of the likelihood that I'll do something wrong and/or need to spend too much time reading up on the rules. I agree that the relevant decisions should be reviewed. Off the cuff, it might be worth it to consider reverting to basic discretionary sanctions. That's because drive-by disrupters using new accounts can be easily dealt with without the need for complicated rules, and AE regulars who are playing long-term games with the I/P content are quite capable of gaming complicated rules to their advantage. I could be wrong, though, and maybe the rules are actually helpful. Hence the need for a review.  Sandstein  09:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
WP:NOTBURO. Yall have made this more complicated on each iteration. You have made it so what was intended to be a way of limiting edit-wars for the topic and limiting the sockpuppetry into one that on too many pages is unenforceable due to a technicality or not applicable because of this reasonably or broadly dispute. To me the answer here is obvious, divorce where extended-confirmed is applied (reasonably construed), but apply the rest of the prohibition to the larger set (broadly construed, with only the sections about the topic area covered). And remove the edit-notice requirement. What is important is that a person know that the edit is covered by the 1RR. Having the banner on the talk page and having been notified of the sanctions is enough of a notification, and requiring the edit-notice is allowing for some of the sillier games to be played without a hint of shame. Besides, I have yet to see an example where an editor was not asked to self-revert prior to being reported. By the time a report is made they are effectively notified and their refusal to self-revert should be enough to consider sanctions. This was supposed to be simple, and for years it was successful. The last several "clarifications" have undone a decent chunk of that success. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Or at least make me a template-editor so I can add the edit-notices myself. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 09:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
Rob's suggestion to make 500/30 conditional on ECP being applied to the page makes sense. I would suggest making this a "package deal" with 1RR (so if ECP is applied - 1RR is always applied as well). If these are handed out on an article level on a very liberal basis (e.g. mere relation of a page to the conflict - assuming requests at RfPP will be handled quickly and promptly - even without evidence of disruption for "reasonably construed" (for "broadly construed" - one should have evidence of disruption)) - then the amount of disruption should be fairly low (and if a new editor hops around many unprotected pages doing un-constructive editing - regular DS would still apply). For new articles, all one has to do is ask at RfPP (e.g. diff for a new current event conflict article).

The advantage to moving to a more normal (in relation to other topic areas) DS regime is that the current regime in ARBPIA is a rather severe roadblock for new editors, who can accrue sanctions at an alarming rate due to a mere misunderstanding of 500/30 and 1RR (which are even confusing to regulars (some long term editors diverge from AE norms in the parsing of "what is a revert") - let alone new comers). New Israeli or Palestinian editors invariably edit many pages that are "reasonably construed" (e.g. geographic locations, the country articles, all sorts of organizations) - even if their particular edits are not particularly conflict related (e.g. updating the head of the local council in a West Bank settlement after local elections) - the "survival rate" of such new editors on Wikipedia (without getting TBANNED from the topic area - and potential TBAN violations subsequently leading to blocks) is pretty low under the current sanctions regime - as they are able to edit non-ECP articles (running foul of 500/30 and often violating 1RR).Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
The rules should apply where they apply naturally or rather the use of common sense is necessary. Every article need not be given a templet or protected simply because it dips it's toes in areas that are under sanctions. However when editors import the conflict into these articles due consideration should be given on a case by case basis for the appropriate action. An editor topic banned from ARBPIA related topics should be able to edit AIRBNB but they shouldn't be allowed to edit the portions of the article related to ARBPIA. Uninvolved admins also need the ability to take some appropriate form of action when the general disruption associated with articles under sanction is exported to articles that merely get their toes wet on the subject. I'd have to endorse a rewrite of these sanctions or any others that simplify them but they do need to have teeth.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia
I would like to check whether my understanding of the situation is correct and to clarify how the remedies would effect interaction with editors on pages which could not be reasonably construed as relating to the AI conflict.

Two sets of sanctions affect the ARBPIA area, the general remedies (1RR and 500/30) and discretionary sanctions.

The general remedies appy on pages which could be 'reasonably construed' as relating to the conflict. For them to apply, the ArbCom Arab-Israeli edit notice must be placed on affected 'pages'.

Discretionary sanctions apply, more broadly, on pages which may be 'broadly construed' as relating to the conflict. The ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement notice may be placed on the talkpages of affected articles, but such a placement is not necessary for discretionary sanctions to apply. However, discretionary sanctions may not be applied unless editors are aware that discretionary sanctions are in place.

The Airbnb article as a whole cannot be 'reasonably construed' as relating to the conflict and therefore the general sanctions do not apply to it, though part of it does and editing of that part may be subject to discretionary sanctions.

If an editor who doesn't meet the 500/30 standard edits the part of the article which is conflict related or leaves conflict-related comments on the talkpage, how should (or may) another editor handle it if he or she thinks that those edits or comments are problematic? Similarly, how may it be handled if an editor makes more than one revert to the conflict-related material within a 24-hour period? Is all that can be legitimately done to give a warning that enforcement under discretionary sanctions may be sought (though, if enforcement was sought, there would be no bright lines and it would be up to individual admins to decide whether to apply 500/30 and 1RR)?

<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  15:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Retro
Since there's a motion to open ARBPIA4, it seems appropriate to mention a discussion I was involved in just today related to another aspect of the previous decision.

There seems be some ambiguity regarding whether 500/30 should be preemptively applied to pages clearly entirely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Local practice at RfPP has generally been to avoid preemptively protecting, following a 2017 discussion. This local practice seems to contradict the General Prohibition, which states: [Non-EC editors] are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. 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. Some administrators have mentioned they avoid reverting non-EC editors who aren't disruptive on these pages, despite the General Prohibition.

The state of current practice suggests a clarification regarding this prohibition's interaction with WP:PREEMPTIVE is needed at the very least. If the committee is considering a new case, this is probably an opportunity to review how practical these measures are for administrators to implement and how easy they are to understand (echoing concerns expressed above).

Doug Weller also mentioned related concerns in their 12 May 2019 comment above. Retro ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Maile66
Whatever you decide, please put it in a table format, easily accessible to any and all. As is, this policy is explained differently in separate places. It's been open to individual interpretation by whomever applies it, and, therefore, challenged by non-admin users who feel it is applied unnecessarily. We need something concise, easy to read, and very clear about what the policy is. The current policy is rather ambiguous. — Maile (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Question from User:MJL
While the motion below is still on track to be passed, I would like to ask how this would affect the decision of Antisemitism in Poland as it still awaits a proposed decision? I know during the workshop period, suggested a broader remedy be applied to the topic of Antisemitism. Is this related? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:27, 22 July 2019 (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).


 * Hello everyone, I know this has been a bit quieter lately. I wanted to provide an update on case management for the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case, which has been the subject of active deliberation. The specifics are being worked out, but when we open the case, it's likely to be suspended for a period of time before we start the evidence phase. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Sometimes we can bogged down with the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The intention of DS is to prevent disruption; if there is material on Wikipedia which is likely to lead to disruption, then it is appropriate for us to monitor that material. If the DS wording inhibits us from appropriately preventing disruption then we may look to change the wording rather than allow the disruption to take place due to unclear wording. The material in this case, Airbnb, does fall under the Palestine-Israel tension. It is currently neutral and factual, and we would want to keep it that way, so applying DS to that material is appropriate. (For me the greater debate is should that information be in the article on Airbnb, or in the article on Israeli settlement. But that's an editorial decision, not an ArbCom one.)
 * I think I'm comfortable with the template wording as is so we don't need to be fiddling with "page/article/section/material". If someone feels that there is significant enough content which falls under a DS topic on a particular page/article then they can place a DS template. If another person doesn't agree, the matter can be taken to AE for discussion and consensus. While the template is in place, any inappropriate edit to any part of the page would be liable for sanction - that would be to prevent, for example in this case, anyone deliberately vandalising Airbnb to reflect badly on the company in retaliation for their actions on the West Bank.
 * In short, I think we're fine as we are, and nothing needs to be done. Disagreements about siting of templates can be taken to AE. SilkTork (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Zero0000. My understanding is that a DS notice goes on the talkpage to let people know that the article comes under DS, and if someone edits that article, and it appears they are not aware that DS applies to the article, they need to be informed on their talkpage before sanctions can be applied against them. I understand that an editnotice can also be added, but does that mean a talkpage notice cannot be placed, and a user cannot be informed? Has there been a rule change which says that we are no longer using talkpage notices, and no longer informing users? I wouldn't have thought an talkpage notice editnotice is sufficient notice alone before sanctioning someone because, lets be honest, most people don't read talkpage notices editnotices. But they do read notices left on their talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, I see what you are saying. Though the rule regarding editnotices has been in place since January 2018: . I think the intention was to ensure that users get warned by having editnotices placed on appropriate articles. But it has created a limbo loop hasn't it? The rule to place editnotices should be separate from the general rule on warning. That is, an editor who meets the general criteria for being warned, should not be able to escape sanction by wiki-lawyering that there was no editnotice in place. It looks like Rob intended or hoped that a bot would be created that allowed editnotices to be created if there was an appropriate talkpage notice in place. I think AGK is right - it would be helpful to conduct a review of the remedies. SilkTork (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra - Hah, yes, I was a member of Mensa in the Seventies, yet my mind glazes over when faced with some ARBPIA stuff. But, truth be told, IQ tests only test how good someone is at solving IQ tests, they don't measure the ability to handle arcane Wikipedia bureaucracy created by an ever changing committee. SilkTork (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Arbitration remedies applying to the Arab–Israeli conflict seem to have grown confusing and patchworked. Is it time to conduct a review of all remedies? I'd like to hear from editors and enforcing administrators who are active in this topic area.  Among other questions for a review, we should look at whether 1RR is effective – both in general and under the current rules of notification.   AGK  &#9632;  10:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: We are trying to reach a consensus, so placing comments by a retired arbitrator into Hidden. AGK &#9632;  11:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Airbnb is rather obviously not "reasonably construed" to be within the topic area of an international conflict, though it is "broadly construed" to be. That would mean discretionary sanctions are in force, but 1RR and the general prohibition do not apply. As for calls to review the entire topic area's sanction regime, I consider that unhelpful. There are some editors, admins even, who seem like they just simply won't understand anything we throw their way in this topic area. Further tweaking is highly unlikely to change that, because we've tweaked these sanctions about a dozen times already to try to solve such issues, and the repeated changes have never helped. If anything, they've made things more confused because we aren't just settling on one set of sanctions and sticking with it. What we have now is discretionary sanctions on articles "broadly construed" - meaning any article that's even tangentially related to the topic area. Additionally, we have 500/30 and 1RR on articles "reasonably construed" - meaning any article where one could not talk about the article subject at the top level without delving into the topic area. That really isn't that complicated or confused. The one positive clarification we could make here is to set forth a formal definition of "reasonably construed". I would suggest what I wrote above. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My thinking on this has changed rather sharply after the recent Huldra/Sir Joseph kerfuffle, especially the admin response at AE. It has become clear that the current sanction regime, in total, is not working. I think we need another ABRPIA case to review the entire situation. As a potential road map, I'd like to consider a removal of blanket 500/30 in favor of implementing 500/30 where disruption occurs as a discretionary sanction, with a remedy explicitly noting that the Committee would like it to be used liberally but not unreasonably. Blanket 500/30 is a relic of a bygone era when 500/30 could not be applied by technical means in case-by-case scenarios. Existing protections could be automatically converted to discretionary sanctions appealable at AE like any other sanction, so no "mass-unprotecting" during a switch. I also think we need to rethink the awareness requirements of 1RR and its applicability. In particular, we could change the DS notice to include mention of 1RR and then allow a consensus of administrators at AE to enforce 1RR in cases where a reasonable editor who had received the notice would be aware the article was covered in addition to being able to enforce it where edit notices exist. In other words, edit notices would only be truly needed to enforce the requirement on articles that are difficult to tell are reasonably construed to be within the topic area, but not on those articles that are obviously related. Plus I think a look at the long-term contributors in this area would be useful to determine where there are issues that have not been solvable by the community. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Read carefully what I have written. I have not proposed removing 500/30. I have proposed removing blanket 500/30 of "reasonably construed" pages in favor of discretionary but liberal use of 500/30 to combat abuse across all "broadly construed" pages. I have proposed zero removals of existing protections, stating all existing protections should remain if we were to make such a switch. In fact, such a proposal may increase some protections by eliminating from our vernacular this "reasonably construed" language that is proving hard for admins to parse. The current rule is clearly causing some issues, given the protection of Airbnb, which I believe is rather plainly not intended by our sanctions, and I no longer think the benefits outweigh the harms of removing administrator discretion from the equation in this remedy. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 08:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * PIA ARCAs make me want to hide under the blankets, and it seems I'm not the only one. Frankly I'd love to see this topic area get a rules overhaul, but I don't have the time to do it. A number of these repetitive requests on PIA issues have centered on this point about "what if it's just a small section in a larger and mostly-unrelated article" and I've generally held the view that such things should not be included in all the warning/templating/etc infrastructure. I don't see any reason this should be an exception to that general view. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's more to be said here - but I've been lax at ARCA, so I thought I'd pitch in. In my opinion - the discretionary sanctions can be applied where the disruption occurs - hence the broadly construed nature of that. I would hope that the sanction would be as light as possible in areas that are more tangential to the case, be it through time limitation of the sanction or through a tailored sanction which hits as small an area as possible. I like the idea of re-doing ARBPIA, similar to OR, I'd want to hide under the blanket! <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Arab–Israel conflict


Proposed:


 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Proposed. We don't have a lot of bandwidth right now, but we seem to agree that it is time to formally review these decisions and look into why participating editors and uninvolved administrators alike seem to be discontented.  This motion proposes a low-fuss path towards conducting such a review, and hopefully matches with what colleagues were thinking.   AGK  &#9632;  11:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to, because these discussions are sprawling and polarising. I don't know how we are going to fit it in, with our other workload. However, I do agree that this is probably the right time to do this, it needs tidying up. What's more, if the committee itself can let this stall so long, it appears that we don't have a clear way forward and that's what we're here to try to sort out. I do like the proposed scope, making this a bit more meta and might make things a bit more manageable, good job AGK. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been meaning to do a motion on this for a little while now, but never got round to it, so thanks to AGK for taking the initiative, and for giving thoughtful shape to the proposed proceedings. SilkTork (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this in principle, and agree with the above, thanks AGK for tackling this. But I don't know that we have the bandwidth for this right now. One possibility would be to schedule the opening for a specific time in the future after we've moved through some of the current business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's daunting to think about redoing ARBPIA, but it looks like there is fairly widespread agreement among editors in that topic area and administrators trying to enforce remedies in that topic area that the restrictions there are in bad shape. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With the caveat that we get the big thing on our plate out of the way first. Katietalk 16:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per everybody else - inescapably necessary, but let's deal with our other priorities first. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly necessary. Courcelles (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain/recuse


 * Comments

Clarification request: GamerGate (September 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Fæ at 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Fæ
The GamerGate case superseded, and by my understanding of procedure, took on the covers the original motions and amendments of Sexology. In particular "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues ...". This request is a clarification to Arbcom to confirm the interpretation of "transgender issues", along with the practical expectations of how implementation can be possible in cases where the requestor is concerned about the likely hostile experience of taking any gender, and especially transgender, related case to a public English Wikipedia forum like ANI in order to request enforcement, based on past cases.

I am requesting that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" type conspiracy theory, shall be considered a breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics.

This request is that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics. Anti-trans language includes the use of TIM (trans identified male) to refer to trans women, TIF (trans identified female) to refer to trans men and other deliberate use of misgendering terminology that may be established through case precedent, such as deliberately referring to a known trans woman as a man or a 'biological male' during Wikipedia discussion when trans woman is correct and accurate.

This request is that Arbcom lay out how individuals may best raise an enforcement request, without being first required to exhaust dispute resolution processes just because they are observing the incident. Given the topic, and the likely practical experience that LGBT+ contributors have when "fronting" initial complaints and later requests, it is unrealistic to expect requesters to be so expert in process and dispute resolution methods that their complaint about, say, the inappropriate use of transphobic language, that they will ever want to go through the hostile opposition research and open trolling and pillorying that is the recognized norm for gender and LGBT+ related disputes. It is also unlikely that any LGBT+ identified editor wants to seek out confronting someone who is deliberately misusing Wikipedia to be offensive about trans people; our experience is that doing so is likely to lead to being accused of causing a two-party dispute and be the subject of immediate hostile counter-allegations. A failure of cases to make it to a discretionary sanction stage, is not evidence of Wikipedia's policy implementation working.

My expectation is that given Arbcom's confirmation, it will become far easier to gain a consensus for the creation and improvement of guidelines that relate to civil discussion on Wikipedia for LGBT+ topics and issues, especially if external best practices such as GLAAD are used to inform and educate contributors to LGBT+ related topics.

Though I am raising this request based on my related experiences in the past two years editing trans-related biographies and topics, I have named no other parties. This is a technical request, not one relating to an active dispute. I am confident Arbcom members are aware of relevant examples without having to call people out in this clarification.

My request is based on reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=812091637#Sexology:_Motion_2 and the prior motion on the same page. I doubt that the original GG parties are directly relevant to this specific amendment, even if they might wish to make a helpful comment. I may be missing the point but naming them here seems overly wikilawyerish, probably.
 * With regard to the later points, sure, you are making Arbcom related procedural points that can be clarified. However the DS exist, and are supposed to apply to "transgender issues" today (see Template:MOS-TW for example). The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Struck part of the opening statement, thanks to the clarification by clerk that GG is considered to include but not technically have superseded the Sexology "transgender issues". This case request for GG is correct in this sense. --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sexology was specifically amended to apply to "all pages", not just articles, for the reasons you put forward. The focus here based on experience is more about article related POV comments that you infer, for example stating that a trans ideology exists during discussions, appears and can deliberately demean Wikipedia contributors, if not strictly stated in the context of directly quoting a source for an article about this topic rather than an editor making this statement in their "own voice". Even then, abusive quotes can be used abusively, so editors on these topics benefit from very clear Arbcom level directives about how DS can and should be interpreted (c.f. Arbcom Fram case, where use of the n-word should never happen casually in discussion space).
 * WRT "I have several RSes here that identify ...", is fine. There's no attempt here to stop discussion of sources, as my words "not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion" are intended to make clear. If you can think of a different way of framing an Arbcom motion that better addresses your potential censorship concern, while making it easier to ensure that DS are applied for clearly inappropriate or uncivil transphobic language, please post it. Again, compare with the n-word being used as a rhetorical trick, sanctioning against casual racist abuse can be done without hampering the valid discussion of historical racism. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to create a trans ideology article, based on the anti-trans myths found in various anti-LGBT+ publications, that great, it benefits the encyclopaedia.
 * What is a problem is a statement that a BLP subject notable for their anti-trans hate speech is not "trans-exclusionary" if all they are doing is fighting the "trans ideology", because that rationale is the same thing as using Wikipedia talk pages to promote and validate the existence of a "trans ideology". That ANI is not a workable venue for raising a Discretionary Sanction request about this (for most people) complex issue of transphobic language, is raised in this request. The alternative, as I have been advised several times off-wiki in the past, is to report all such cases to WMF T&S, which is part of why I would like Arbcom members to suggest better on-wiki processes. Note that you were not named as a party to this case, as we have no ongoing dispute and this request was procedural in nature. --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If your intention is to restrict GG Discretionary Sanctions to article space and talk directly about articles, then this withdraws the motions agreed by Arbcom in Sexology which were amended to apply to all pages. For this to be true and enforced in this way (as currently it is not the community's interpretation of the existing DS as they apply to transgender related or any BLP page discussions), then Arbcom should consider a motion to make this explicit. Specifically this appears to mean that the Arbcom clerk's advice that the withdrawn Sexology motions are covered by GG is not the case. Obvious consequences of your statement, should Arbcom agree this as fact, is that enforcement requests based on Arbcom DS provide no protection from casual use of transphobic language, such as calling an openly trans woman Wikipedian a trans identified male, rather than a woman, or casually or repeatedly using Wikipedia discussions to promote the view that a gay agenda or a trans agenda exists, because anti-LGBT+ publications say so. For many Wikipedians, this is not a question of accepting free speech, but accepting casual transphobic language as the potential norm in Wikipedia discussions in a way that would never be acceptable with casual racist language or casual misogynist language.
 * (Responding 'to the room') As for the advice that people observing or being targets of this language should go to ANI, sorry, that's a joke. Nobody on the target end of this wants to be pilloried at ANI for having a thin skin, being a "gender warrior" (as one current Arbcom member neatly puts it), told they lack a sense of humour or repeatedly threatened with a topic ban for being "disruptive". Case histories already available, new ones not needed, as you are aware. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion that I am failing to go to dispute resolution seems to ignore the fact that I am not in any current dispute needing dispute resolution. There are plenty of past cases I can point to of previous LGBT+ related cases where I have taken up dispute resolution, making your statement false whichever way it is read. Please focus on the case request, not hypothetical tangents. Your "7 million edits across all foundation projects" comment is unhelpful and appears to be an attempt to dismiss this request on the basis of my number of edits, which I fail to understand. --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC) This is a Clarification request, not a case request. This has never been a requirement for Arbcom to only accept clarifications if there is an active dispute. I know, having posted past clarification requests where there was no active dispute. --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Your advice would be the equivalent of telling newbie LGBT+ contributors to "grow a thicker skin". It does not work, unchallenged bullies become bolder. Unless we choose to improve the hostile environment that exists today, Wikipedia will continue indefinitely as a publisher of lockerroom type transphobic and homophobic language which is protected as "humour" or "free speech". --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Being a trans person is not equivalent to being a Republican. A Republican being lobbied to change parties, is not equivalent to a trans person having to debate whether they have a right to exist, or being accused of being part of a "transgender ideology", just because they are alive. --Fæ (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Your views come very close to a rationale to automatically topic ban all openly trans Wikipedians from gender related topics, that way we instantly solve the problem of all those automatically biased "trans people" causing problems. Alternatively nobody ever, ever gets presumed to have bias because of who they are, does that sound like a good interpretation of WP:5P4, and an interpretation that I should not have to ask that you apply to me? --Fæ (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Your question was answered already, it is perfectly legitimate to expect those making statements in a clarification request have read the requestors section before repeatedly asking the same duplicated questions. Cut & paste from 4 paragraphs above: Your assertion that I am failing to go to dispute resolution seems to ignore the fact that I am not in any current dispute needing dispute resolution. If your question was hypothetical for future events, sure I may try it, if I want to be the target of hostile opposition research, yet again, but so far the opinions from the one Arbcom member are not encouraging that DS would be enacted rather than AE devolve into debate. As we have shifted to hypotheticals: given the choice for a trans woman observer, would you expect her to enter into an adversarial debate by reporting transphobic language on AE or ANI and risk becoming a target, or would she be better off writing secretly to WMF T&S? --Fæ (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

With regard to your opinions, how would that stop an editor dismissing and deriding another as a "gender terrorist warrior ". Asking because of course you set a precedent that this is acceptable for Arbcom members to use, when the editor has not identified as any such thing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Corrected, sorry for the accidental misquoted example. --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As past Arbcom member contacted me by email this morning in an official capacity about an unrelated issue, and has chosen to spend time researching me today, I shall continue to defer any reply until Risker confirms to me that they have stopped what they are doing, or gives an explanation of how these events are connected when they certainly should not be. --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have perfectly good reason to be cautious as has been explained. Asking for clarification from either you or Risker about your off-wiki correspondence or coincidental actions, (i.e. on a related page with no edits in 2 years, then edited within hours of off-wiki correspondence is hard to presume in good faith is entirely improbable coincidence), so that I might contribute freely to an open request is not an attack against you or Arbcom. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, the quote should have been "diversity terrorist" which is more extreme language than I recalled.diff The reasoning that "gender warrior" might be a good thing, is virtually impossible to apply to calling someone any sort of terrorist, nor is "martyr" helpful. As a thought experiment, consider the repercussions if you were to argumentatively make the same allegations like this about an Arbcom member during a case. --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please check your email to me in 2016, and the correspondence that you may have lost and have not mentioned here. Recall that you wrote to me, not the other way around. Your final email in 2016 was conciliatory, and gave me the very reasonable expectation that I would not be forced to enter into off-wiki correspondence with you again. I can provide a copy if you have deleted it. --Fæ (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please revisit your statement it makes demonstrably false claims about my motivation. This clarification is unrelated to the BC tribunal case, this was never in my mind as the BC tribunal case is completely unrelated to the issues of the use of transphobic language on Wikipedia by Wikipedians. Further this clarification request was created by me on 2 August 2019, while the article you link to was created by an indefinitely blocked user using a sockpuppet account on 3 August 2019, a day later. Further you are linking to sources which contain blatantly transphobic abuse and your remarks about these sources have been exhaustively addressed in detail as failing to meet the reliable source requirements of WP:BLP, with one of the sources you are defending containing hearsay which is under discussion at BLPN, a request that was posted over an hour before you chose to post to this Arbcom case. The Fiona Robertson twitter quote tangentially mentioned in an article not about the BC tribunal case is unrelated to the problematic hearsay allegations, Roberton was commenting on the BC tribunal case itself, nothing else, this is not evidence to support the inclusion of any other material other than Robertson's opinion about the BC tribunal case (which is remarkably tangential even for that). Your unnecessarily repeating the full legal name of a non-notable trans woman in the BC tribunal case, is "unhelpful" for Wikipedia and continuing repost these links to damaging hearsay in multiple forums is a matter of serious concern against WP:BLP which applies to this page as much as anywhere else. In no way does this censor factual and encyclopaedic material to understand the BC tribunal case, such as including the plaintiff's use of racist language reported in the press and raised as part of the case. In no way is this a threat, these are facts of policy. --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It has been stated clearly, repeatedly, unambiguously and accurately that "This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics." Your statement is false and states that it does the precise opposite of these words. Please revisit your statement.

You have made a personal allegation against me that there is a "trans ideology" that you espouse. I do no such thing and a "trans ideology" does not exist, neither does a "gay agenda". Please strike this unsourced and dangerously misleading personal attack. Wikipedia discussions are not a platform to promote harmful personal views about minority groups, or to promote myths about minority groups outside of the context of an academic discussion to improve Wikipedia articles that includes these topics.

It is not a transgender "ideology", for any Wikipedian to pursue the enforcement of Wikipedia policies, nor is it an "ideology" for any Wikipedian to make statements of verifiable fact and logic. In Wikipedia's voice, trans women are women. A transgender ideology is not a verifiable fact, it is a populist myth promoted by anti-trans lobbyists. A Wikipedian using Wikipedia to promote or air their personal anti-trans views, rather than presenting verifiable evidence for article improvement, is misusing Wikipedia, breaking consensus agreed policies and breaching the website terms of use. It is not a personal attack, an ideology or a blockable offence to state these facts about Wikipedia.

It is a verifiable fact, that the current Wikipedia editing environment is hostile to any Wikipedian seeking to enforce policies in the area of respectful treatment of transgender Wikipedians and transgender people generally. As an illustration, see this "joke" made today diff, this is normal for Wikipedia and any objections to it will be a cause for derision and an excuse to pile on abuse. On this topic, Wikipedians can and do suffer personal abuse, attacks, misgendering, misrepresentation, extensive opposition research and are consistently the target of off-wiki canvassing and harassment intended to shut them up and force them to go away. This is happening right now for this Arbcom Clarification request. Should Arbcom wish to consider an alternative clarification and want to discuss evidence, they should consider how that can be done without those supplying evidence becoming targets of coordinated off-wiki abusive campaigns clearly intended to silence minority voices. It is a fallacy to believe that requests like this are open to all members of the community. --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I am unclear why you want to double down. There is no argument here, there is no requirement for anyone to argue with you on Wikipedia to change your personal beliefs that a "trans ideology" exists, when it is simply an offensive anti-trans myth. You are consistently using Wikipedia to promote and air personal anti-trans views, rather than presenting verifiable evidence for article improvement. You are misusing Wikipedia, breaking consensus agreed policies and breaching the website terms of use. I am uninterested in what transphobic rubbish you want publish off-wiki, so long as you are not targeting and harassing Wikipedians, but none of what you have espoused in your Arbcom statement can possibly improve Wikipedia, it can only distress and drive away our tiny percentage of Wikipedia contributors who are openly identified transgender people. With anti-trans jokes, views and hounding being "normal for Wikipedia", and none of that highly visible anti-trans abuse in forums like ANI ever being the cause of sanctions or warnings because "free speech", then we may as well honestly explain to new editors that if they are transgender, the only safe way to contribute to this project is to go back in the closet, because they are not welcome here and the Usual Suspects (many of them being here for more than a decade) will happily be allowed to drive them off this project. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv (GamerGate)
First a technical point: Given this is a request to clarify or amend the GamerGate case, I think it is necessary that the parties to that case be notified.

Second: I don't believe this is a mere technical clarification, but may be a significant expansion of scope. The GamerGate case itself, after all, was explicitly scoped to the article Gamergate controversy and related articles including biographies (see WP:ARBGG FoF #1). I don't think Fae's point that the GG arbitration case superseded or "took over" the Sexology case is correct. I certainly don't find any indication of this in the casepage of either WP:ARBGG or WP:ARBSEX, but I admit I could be wrong and thus think some further explanation of this would be appropriate. I'll also note that the DS regime from the sexology case was rescinded in 2017. The clarifying note in ARBSEX that "Discretionary sanctions authorized in the GamerGate arbitration case, which may apply to this topic area, remain available." does not strike me as extending the GG DS regime to everything that the sexology case covered, but merely pointing out that articles previously covered by the sexology case which also fall under the GG arbitration case could still have discretionary sanctions applied under the GG case.

I think the proper vehicle for this idea is not an ARCA-based motion, but a general sanctions regime as ratified by the community, or (failing that) a new arbitration case on LGBT+ issues. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that actually clears it up a lot for me. I think there are two parts to this: First, what the motion actually says (the DS regime is rescinded), and second, that there are some additional comments by the arbs indicating that the GG DS regime may be useful for the topic area. That certainly wasn't an extension or expansion of the GG case to cover all LGBT+ issues. If it was, why wasn't it reflected in the motion? And why wasn't it raised as an ARCA of the GG case rather than of the Sexology case? Similarly, even if it was intended to transfer "ownership" of the problem to the GG case, I think it raises almost exactly the same problem that led to the ARCA that spawned that motion: Just as it being inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to paraphilias, it strikes me as inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to Gamergate. While I have no doubt that some rulemaking, particularly related to misgendering and civility in discussions, would be a great idea, I don't think this is an appropriate use of the Committee's discretionary sanctions power. The Community should be given an opportunity to work together and scope this properly, rather than leaving it to "legislation by ArbCom". —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. I think that would be evidence to present either here or in a new case filing, and why I think it would be better to open a new case if general sanctions don't happen. This is a different set of issues than covered by the GamerGate case (as the findings of fact in that case make abundantly clear) and it is frankly an improper use of the arbitration mechanism to do things this way. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. I think this is a very unfair statement both to the Committee and to the administrators who are involved in enforcing discretionary sanctions regimes. The fact that the Committee shouldn't be legislating has nothing to do with the individual arbitrators' belief that LGBT+ issues are important. This is clearly a matter for a new case, and not for expansion of DS regimes—which are supposed to be the exception, not the rule—to cover more and more areas of Wikipedia. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The expansion and consolidation of DS regimes revealed by MJL is shocking. This is not an appropriate use of the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to end discrete disputes; it is retrospective in nature, and to an extent discretionary sanctions merely existed to provide a uniform means of ongoing control over areas of dispute while those disputes were ongoing. What is being contemplated here, and where discretionary sanctions are being used, is very prospective. What’s even stranger, is that these regimes are being consolidated into a case that made no evidentiary findings of fact related to sitewide discussion of gender. If you want to roll these things under the Gamergate arbitration case, the amendment must include new findings of fact. Otherwise this is policymaking, pure and simple. I have no doubt that the community will agree that issues of gender need to be handled in an appropriate way throughout the site. That is the community’s role in the absence of a discrete controversy with a finite scope. This is not the role of the Committee and is expressly prohibited by the arbitration policy. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What's important here is that the Committee's role is in dispute resolution: There must be a dispute, and it must be properly before the Committee. This is the case because the Committee adjudicates disputes, and adjudication is by definition a retrospective and remedial action. Rulemaking or legislation, on the other hand, is prospective and deals with factual issues either not yet developed or not particularized to the individual level. This is a problem commonly found in administrative areas, the distinction between adjudication and rulemaking, so it is not surprising that the Committee has run into this same problem. But let there be no mistake: When the Committee seeks to regulate all pages, all persons, or all future events, it is engaged in rulemaking. What Fæ proposes is rulemaking, and it is improper within the arbitration policy, which I suggest you all read along with my comments: First, the scope of arbitration is clear that it is "To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". While other tasks and purposes are mentioned, these are all adjudicative in nature. This is coupled with the clear statement in the section on policy and precedent, which states, "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced." These are not vehicles for creating new substantive rules, which is clearly the aim of this request. Regardless of intent—and I'm sure both Fæ and the members of the Committee have only the best intentions aimed at resolving what is clearly an important area—this Committee is not a rulemaking body. The community is the relevant rulemaker. I additionally object to the change of scope of the GamerGate case, which does not include generalized issues relating to LGBT+ rights either in article or talk space as Fæ wishes to expand it. Not one single finding of fact in that case dealt with gender generally. Therefore, I submit that the issue of gender is not and was never properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case, and it would be manifestly improper as a matter of procedure and of practice to implement new discretionary sanctions to cover them. The fact that they are important issues and that there is active disruption is not relevant to this Committee's jurisdiction. The relative simplicity of the construction requested change—that things like misgendering be prohibited everywhere—is an even greater reason to deny this through ARCA: Why should the community be unable to handle it if it's properly requested to handle it? This is why these matters must be properly before the Committee before a decision is rendered: There must be evidence of failed resolution through other channels and that arbitration will end the dispute. I therefore move that this ARCA request be denied, and Fæ be encouraged either (1) to start a RfC requesting general sanctions in the area of LGBT+ rights, or (2) to file a request for arbitration requesting the Committee to decide on these issues. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Having read what you just linked, I agree that this is the most likely event to precipitate this request. On the basis that this has no relationship to Gamergate whatsoever, I renew my request that the Committee summarily deny the clarification petition and direct Fae to pursue other dispute resolution, and failing that, file a request for arbitration. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding Fae’s indication of an unwillingness to seek lesser dispute resolution, I think this provides sufficient evidence of a failure to seek lesser dispute resolution. As others have indicated, the scope of the GamerGate case is not infinite, and so the scope of the discretionary sanctions, even as broadly construed as they typically are, is not infinite. If the problem Fae has personally encountered is indeed personally troubling, then Fae surely must have sought lesser dispute resolution somewhere, anywhere—even if not ANI then someplace else. The failure or refusal to do so terminates this Committee’s jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, the Committee must deny this request. You cannot IAR your way around the arbitration policy—for if you can, it would be an utter slap in the face to everyone who has had a case request denied under it. All this says is that if you accumulate over 7 million edits across all foundation projects, you get special handling. Please don’t send that message. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In light of Fae’s statement that there is no current dispute requiring dispute resolution, and that this request is merely to deal with what is presented as a general problem, I renew my request that the Committee deny Fae’s petition here as inconsistent with the Arbitration Policy, which has always required a live dispute. If there is no live dispute, and Fae is requesting general changes to policy (or discretionary sanctions, however you wish to describe it) then all the more reason this petition should be denied and Fae directed to start an RfC, or a more preliminary discussion at one of the village pump pages. Furthermore, in light of Fae’s assertion that there is no active dispute requiring intervention, I withdraw my suggestion that the Committee direct Fae to file a request for arbitration: Fae’s own assertion that there is no live dispute would mandate the Committee’s denial of such a case request. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, Fae has raised a great deal of issues that should be substantiated by fact evidence in order to properly counsel the form of Committee action. I believe AGK tees up this very issue. Indeed, if the Committee is not required to collect fact evidence and make findings of fact before taking actions, how is it different than a policymaker by fiat? Certainly, there are cases where "interpretation" (i.e., providing binding or nonbinding guidance in the event of disagreements in application of past decisions in active disputes) and "amendment" (i.e., providing binding changes to previous cases in light of changed circumstances or errors) might be appropriate, but where the request seeks a complete change of the scope of those past cases, such requests must be denied as an improper use of Committee processes. I urge the Committee to respect the community's autonomy and first give it the opportunity to answer Fae's call for equity before concluding that it is utterly impotent to handle these serious issues. This community is not so bigoted as to be utterly unable to thoughtfully and reasonably handle such a request for general action. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * An excellent analysis, and in my view the one that must carry. Fae is asking for something imminently unreasonable from the Committee; it is the equivalent of insisting that a round peg (LGBT+ issues) be forced through a square hole (Gamergate controversy issues). Even within the Committee's (over)use of the phrase "broadly construed", this is a step (or two or three) too far. The vast majority of the universe of issues subsumed under "LGBT+ issues" were not properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case (nor in Sexology, nor in Manning, nor in GGTF). The intentions here and in previous ARCAs are certainly noble, but those noble intentions must be enacted through the proper channels. And in light of Fae's confirmation that there is no live dispute here, that must be through community rulemaking processes.


 * I concur with Vanamonde's point: Fae has failed to provide evidence that the administrators at AE are failing to enforce the interpretation of the GG DS regime being asserted here. Fae's further claim that seeking lesser dispute resolution is either futile or impossible, is both unsupported by evidence and, frankly, self-defeating: If seeking lesser dispute resolution is futile or impossible in the way Fae claims, then no interpretation this Committee could provide would change that. Trans individuals would still be unable to seek lesser dispute resolution. Therefore, Fae's request should be dismissed as self-mooting. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In light of how off-topic this request has devolved, I renew my suggestion that this discussion be closed as rejected. I am not sure what Fae is trying to do here, but I doubt it will end well if this discussion continues as it is going. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My main problem with this is that the Footnoted Quotes/Editing of BLPs case actually made findings of fact relevant to the general area of BLPs, and it was clear from the outset to all involved that the case was intended to deal with all BLPs. GamerGate, despite the tucking of "gender" into a particular remedy, made a contrary finding of fact: Namely, the locus of the dispute was confined to the Gamergate controversy and related biographies. The outrageously broad construction anticipated by this request would not be made acceptable by changing the name of the case. Issues with the breadth that Fae imagines are not and were never properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case, and are not properly incorporated into the GamerGate decision. This is an issue that requires one of two things: (1) a new case request, or (2) a reopening of the evidentiary record that results in new findings of fact to support this new interpretation of the remedy. I believe that if the Committee even takes on this problem, #1 is the best way to do it, and #2 still has some air of legitimacy. Doing it any other way, such as by pure motion or interpretive statement here, would be entirely illegitimate policymaking by the Committee and a violation of the Arbitration Policy's prohibition thereupon. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I stated to NYB above, the problem with this idea is that the entire GG case was scoped to the Gamergate controversy, and there were no findings of fact related to gender issues in general. Using something so simple as a case rename to dramatically and unreasonably expand the scope of a single case, years after it was decided, with absolutely no discussion or findings on the record that the expansion in scope is necessary or prudent, is nothing but policymaking by fiat. It is illegitimate and it undermines the credibility of everything this Committee does. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have two points on that: First, I need to reiterate that there are no findings of fact or principles in the final decision or even in the proposed decision upon which the DS regime could possibly extend to all corners of the encyclopedia as regards gender. Reading the DS regime that way would render it illegitimate policymaking by fiat. This Committee cannot simply pronounce discretionary sanctions regimes without justification, and that justification must be part of the case. To do otherwise is, again, pure policymaking. Second: The existing findings of fact expressly and explicitly confine the scope of the controversy to the Gamergate controversy and related biographies. Reading the DS regime as escaping that scope would render it illegitimate policymaking in a content area that was not properly before the Committee. Simply calling it "uncontroversial" is not reasonable; there was no time for controversy to build as, from the look of things, this very aspect of the final decision was introduced in the 11th hour of the case and was never subject to serious discussion or debate among the parties or participants. Looking at gender on a sitewide basis was, as far as I can tell, never part of the evidentiary or workshop scope, and consequently was never briefed in any way for the Committee. This Committee cannot, consistent with the arbitration policy, simply tack on the equivalent of a legislative rider to a tangentially related case and then co-opt governance of such a wide area of Wikipedia. It is policymaking, pure and simple, to do that sort of thing with no mandate from the Community, no relevant case request, no evidence, no workshopping, and no discussion on point of that specific issue, where the final decision expressly and explicitly excludes a sitewide and topic-agnostic scope. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime insofar as it deals with gender, must be limited to the Gamergate controversy. A contrary reading is contrary to the arbitration policy and unsupported by the history of the case and a rational understanding of the purposes of arbitration as an adjudicative rather than rulemaking process. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As to the dismissive suggestion that a separate ARCA be opened, I see no need to do so. I don't seek an amendment of the GamerGate case in the first place. The fact is that the interpretation being put forth by Fae, NYB, and yourself are contrary to the arbitration policy and therefore illegitimate. This Committee cannot simply ignore the arbitration policy when it's inconvenient. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no, that would not be a legitimate scope for the GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime. As I've said repeatedly, the scope of the dispute within the very first FoF of that case was explicitly the Gamergate controversy. The Committee does not have the authority to enact discretionary sanctions regimes of limitless scope or on matters tangentially related to the dispute, that were never subject to findings of fact, never workshopped, and never really discussed with stakeholders. This is why the arbitration process exists and what separates arbitration from policymaking by fiat.
 * The remedy cannot have a scope that extends beyond the case in which it was enacted. That is fundamental to the concept of arbitration. Read the arbitration policy. The "scope and responsibilities" section is crystal clear on when the Committee is authorized to act, and that is not and has never been in any area at any time. There must be a dispute that the Community has been unable to resolve, and that (arguably) was the Gamergate controversy. The Committee limited the scope of the arbitration in the very first finding of fact in that case. The GamerGate remedies regime as written can be read as authorizing discretionary sanctions in all areas dealing with gender, but that would be outside the scope of the first finding of fact, and moreover outside the scope of the dispute for which arbitration was authorized. The sanction you are reading is either an invalid abuse of power or must be limited to the Gamergate controversy. The reading you are choosing is the invalid abuse of power. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the arbitrators commenting here have made multiple conflicting interpretations of policy, I am requesting a formal ruling on the following questions: Thank you. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime apply to pages not within the scope of any evidence or findings of fact in the GamerGate case?
 * 2) Can the Arbitration Committee, consistent with the arbitration policy, enact discretionary sanctions regimes affecting pages that are tangentially related or unrelated to the case or dispute for which the regime is enacted?

In connection with the promised talk I'm going to have with WTT following the Ritchie debacle, which I anticipate will of necessity also talk about the matters I have brought up here, I am hopeful that some significant changes will be coming to how the Committee does business. This is just one of many cases where acting professionally requires some more form than we're accustomed to using. As an aside, I would oppose opening a case for "gender-related disputes" with MJL as a fictional party. There must be a live dispute for the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction to attach. You might as well name completely fictional parties like "Fairfax's Devisee" or "Hunter's Lessee" at that point. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You list three FoFs dealing with three individuals. Those are not sufficient to support a DS regime of such broad reach. There must be a rational, logical, explained, and documented connection between findings of disruption and the need for sitewide, indiscriminate sanctions against nonparties. You also point to the Manning dispute case as establishing the paradoxical claim that individual editors' pronoun choices are sacrosanct and must be respected lest the banhammer should fall. Not only is this a dramatic overextension of the Manning case, it would constitute an improper use of the arbitration committee as a policymaking organ, for reasons that I have stated repeatedly above. The arbitration policy expressly prohibits such policymaking. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the Committee doesn't show its work when it changes things, and instead just makes a motion: Things just get made up or done because they seem needful without regard to their propriety. There needs to be an explanation on the record of why the Committee finds the particular action comports with not only the arbitration policy but whichever policy the Committee is purporting to interpret (which is, by the way, the limit of the Committee's jurisdiction).


 * The problem with the Committee creating a new generic framework of sanctions that aren't under the umbrella of a particular case is that doing so would be policymaking. The Committee is not authorized to make policy, it is authorized to adjudicate disputes. Without findings of fact, without parties making arguments, without the full framework of a case, Committee action here would blatantly be policymaking in violation of the arbitration policy. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Masem (Gamergate)
Fæ's concern is 100% valid. I was originally going to say though that trans-gendered issues didn't really apply to GG, but reading the discretionary sanctions about it:, the concerns of ridiculing transgendered individuals seem to fall within b and c of this. So if an editor is going about clearly mocking a known transgender individual (including on-wiki editors), that should be stopped immediately.

I question though if this really is appropriate for GG, because it is dealing with behavior that was not explored during GG. GG was more about disruptions on mainspace pages in the GG area, and extending to some gender-related disputes (individuals at the center of it). There were some behavior problems that were explored, but it was not for insulting other editors in the manner Fæ brings up (irrespective of the trans angle).

Adding what Fæ has asked as an GG extension feels wrong. Even going back to the Sexology case, that was more about POV conflicts than editors demeaning other editors or people. So if the Sexology DS was still active, it would be wrong to add it there too. So I really feel this is a worthwhile statement that should be made to address this type of behavior, but not as part of the GG DS. I don't want to discourage Fæ from pursuring this type of principle elsewhere on en.wiki, just that I don't think adding it to a DS that is in the same ballpark is necessary the best way to do that. --M asem (t) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fæ, going off Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, I'm not seeing any of the statements or FOF that point out the ridiculing of transgenders as part of the issue, though that may have been part of the off-site behavior. I do see mention about unprofessional behavior, so I can fully understand why its DS was moved from "articles" to "pages", but that doesn't still seem to suggest that it was due to ridiculing editors on trans-related issues. I can speak as a key party on GG that that case also wasn't about similar ridicule, but did involve similar unprofessional approaches several editors did on talk pages, leading to the DS to cover "pages" and not just "articles" (but that also was because we were being brigaded by IP, and thus bore the 500/30 rule).
 * But that said, is concerning. We clearly want to stop targeted insults from WP editors, obviously, but we also want to make sure talk pages are open enough to properly discuss an article, and we have to be able to separate these. I should not be wary of being hit with DS if I went to trans woman and said "I have several RSes here that identify (insulting term) as a negative slang for trans women, should we add it appropriately?" (which I can see some editors feel as if that is possibly insulting but clearly meant to improve the article), whereas if I went "Why not just call them (insulting term)?" I would fully expect some type of warning or action. Making sure when it is proper to apply a DS here would require more effort than what went into the GG or Sexology case, and hence why I think slapping an addendum onto the current GG is not a good approach. --M asem  (t) 16:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is not with the intent, as I said, we should have some language - strong policy and/or immediate administrative actions like a GS or DS - to stop the disruption. It's more that GG, while it meets the topic area of gender-related disputes, didn't really have to do with editors using demeaning language. It's a convenient spot to put it in, but if a future editor came to review the DS, there's nothing in the case to support it being there. A community-agreed GS separate from any Arbcom case (but clearly allowing that GS to stand atop results of GG, Sexology, and GGTF) would be the more proper solution, to me. --M asem (t) 16:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MJL: with GGTF, thought, there is at least clear review of an editor demeaning other people including other editors, and the language of its passed motions make that a reasonably strong point. GG didn't really have that. --M asem (t) 16:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mendaliv states my concern is much more policy/procedures-based argument. --M asem (t) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The point that Johnuniq brings up (which just came up at BLP/N) is exactly the concern I expressed above. To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq is troubling because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss. These issues are waaaaay beyond the scope of what the FOF of GG resulted in, so again, I don't think this should be just amended onto GG. --M asem  (t) 17:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I would assume that "gender warrior" is a similar slang as social justice warrior, which is generally derogatory. But it does depend on context as your example suggests a positive approach. --M asem (t) 13:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the larger problem here is how DS are meant to be used. I always took DS to apply to the set of article/other spaces that are defined by the DS, with respect to the problems identified in the FOF and other remedies from the associated ArbCom case. So, GG being principally issues with edit warring and POV pushing, would mean that edit warring and POV pushing on "gender-related pages" is covered by it, but not other types of behavior problems (of which standard community actions should be sought). The way some here are suggesting, these DS would be for any perceived infraction on those pages. Otherwise, we start getting into the realm that multiple DS can apply to a single page (eg Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could potentially fall under both AP2 and GG due to her political support of LBGTQ). --M asem (t) 14:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MJL
The request would no doubt fall under Gamergate. This was the premise for the request I made earlier this year which resulted in this motion. It brought Manning (which dealt with issues related to transgender identity) unequivocally within the scope of Gamergate. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * GGTF also was amended in the same motion. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

At the time, I suggested that GamerGate be renamed. However, had an even better idea to open up a case titled Gender-related disputes for the purpose of collating and renaming the existing sanctions. That'd be my preference now because we already have Findings of Fact from Manning and GGTF to justify DS. It's just a question of where to log it. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am incredibly confused as to what I stumbled upon here. Though I was a fresh editor, the whole purpose of my original request was to avoid this one. Manning covered conduct as it related to gender identity. For the same reasons for Eastern Europe being amended did this occur. Arbcom has a clear interested in ensuring there are as few overlapping DS as possible.

I sometimes feel like there is this magical aura that follows longtime established users around. I just quite don't get it. I'll say something and am lucky if one or two people respond to me. Fæ posts here and suddenly this DS regime is a BIG DEAL. Nearly five times the amount of people have responded to this request compared to my own. Am I doing something wrong here? What did I miss?
 * Further comments

Here are the things I've said a few months ago:


 * January 2019: I start editing Wikipedia more and more regularly. I clearly fall in love with the project side of Wikipedia.
 * 13 February 2019: My first post ever related to Arbcom. After thorough research to the current DS/regime and ongoing participation in this RFC started by WanderingWanda, I made a formal ARCA request that Manning be amended to clarify Gamergate which included the following reasoning:
 * ...[M]y proposal is that the remedies [of Manning] continue forward with only a slight amendment to show that the case now serves as a clarification of Gamergate. This field of debate still has much activity, so in my view having this exact case to fall back on would be preferable. Gamergate did not once reference LGBT+ issues specifically, so I do not see the problem of having this (sic) Manning serve to supplement it.


 * 21 February 2019: The motion to amend Manning is passed.
 * 28 February 2019: Anyone here remember the Humour article fiasco? Well, I was there. More than that, I tried to get it switched out before it was published to avoid such a controversy (archive)
 * 2 March 2019: Fæ gets a DS alert in relation to it. I simply think to myself, well at least people can't say this pronoun business doesn't fit under Gamergate now.''
 * 4 March 2019‎: My rename finally took effect.
 * 5 March 2019: I suggest maybe we have used that moment to take consideration of the broader issues at play:Special:Permalink/886796817 (because it seemed like the community wasn't really quite grasping it).
 * I'm blanking on the last time we had a gender related controversy that touched arbcom. I've pretty much consistently referenced the motion I made because it has been (and still remains) the only significant thing I have ever done related to arbitration.

Okay, now that it is understood what my involvement has been in this area; let me explain what should happen: Please everyone just read Manning.
 * Do you want FoF? Here you go.
 * Do you want it made clear that pronoun usage is under DS/regime? Well here it is. In no uncertain terms the remedy reads: For the avoidance of doubt, [GG's sanctions] apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender... If someone reads that and questions whether pronoun usage falls under GG's DS, have them read it again until they get it right.

That now being said...
 * @ and the committee: I am very sorry to take up your time, but I beg you not to just rename GamerGate here and move on. Give yourselves a break for now, but set a deadline. Then, this December; open up a fresh case page (if you need a party for sake of form, I'm more than happy to volunteer myself) .  Call it Gender-related disputes, skip the preliminary statements and evidence periods but just go straight to the workshop. Only using evidence from past cases, let the community help you remix the best parts of GGTF, Manning, and Gamergate to just create a neutrally worded case and discretionary sanction regime. Everyone will stop being confused about why we issue Gamergate related sanctions for transgender pronoun disputes, and we can all just move on. *sighs*

Thank you all. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, you'll notice that there are more than three FoF for that case. One of such had to do with community conduct. What is your preferred solution? Have three cases with three different sanctions again? Why?? Finally, point me to the section of WP:ARBPOL that specifically says a dispute has to be ongoing in the present moment a request is filed. If the community cannot handle Disputes A, B, nor C; then they fall under Arbcom's remit. Once Arbcom makes a decision it is both binding and final. Then the following applies: The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. It can and should open up a fresh case page to revisit Disputes A, B, and C to finally make them comport with one another. You should want this ideally. Arbcom could theoretically just throw out the DS/regime all together once it's back on the table in the proceedings I described. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When did I say individual editors' pronoun choices are sacrosanct and must be respected lest the banhammer should fall? My interpretation of Manning is that any discussion about pronouns is under the sanction regime and only provides the method for editor conduct in this area to be more carefully scrutinized. Misgendering someone on purpose is likely to be interpreted as a personal attack just as much as calling someone is a bigot for a clear accidental slip up.

Statement by Sitush

 * People misgender on this project all the time. Almost always, in my experience, it is unintentional, although sometimes people get very upset about it. I only edit LGBT stuff occasionally and usually when it intersects with something that I more regularly edit. I get confused with the politics of it all, I sometimes tranpose the letters in various acronyms, I understand that some groups want to remove the "L" from LGBT, others want to add "Q" and/or "I", others use "+", and so on. Then there is the TERF stuff that boggles my mind, and now Fae is mentioning a couple of other terms I've never seen before. It is a minefield for anyone who is not right on the ball (a recent cartoon in Private Eye showed a teacher in a sex ed class writing "LGBT+" on a blackboard and one kid saying to another, "Since when did sex ed involve algebra?" Or something similar). I'm not entirely sure what Fae's intentions are here, nor even if they are correct in their interpretation of what is or is not a misgendering (which seems to be a very politicised subject), but it does concern me that inadvertent use of a word or acronym might lead to summary sanctions. I don't think we can compare this complex, oft-changing scenario with a multitude of neologisms etc with, say, use of the n-word. The latter is, I think, pretty well established territory but I suspect that the former is not. Am I misunderstanding something? Do I now have to first read several articles discussing the various terms before I write anything on the subject? - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing what appears to be the context. In light of that, I wonder why Fae didn't use TERF as an example in the request. Even I know it is a political hot potato, even if I don't necessarily fully understand it. I'm not convinced that weaponising a DS regime by amendment to resolve a current dispute is a good thing, if that is what is going on. Sort out the dispute and then ask for amendment etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * An excellent set of comments from . I think they're the way forward, both in terms of this request and any future developments/strategy. - Sitush (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am wondering whether mis-spoke when they mentioned "gender warrior" above. I recall their upset about  referring to "diversity terrorist" here and later clarifying it here. IIRC, Fæ continued to raise the issue in that case and elsewhere but I've not seen a mention of "gender warrior". - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
I wondered what the background for this was. It appears to be Meghan Murphy where there are disputes over the degree to which the person or her blog should be described as trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF. The talk page shows the dispute including Pyxis Solitary saying "she's against trans ideology" which caused Fæ to respond with diff saying "trans ideology" was an attack on all trans people which, if continued, would warrant sanctions under WP:ARBGG. The issue of whether mentioning a "trans ideology" among off-wiki activists is a sanctionable attack should not be decided in a clarification request. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir
I support this motion. The "Manning naming dispute" case made it clear long ago that transgender topics are an area with disruption. The GG case included issues of gender identity as well (see histories of discussions related to Quinn and Wu). Discussing that GG covers gender, cisgender and transgender, would be useful.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pyxis Solitary
This comment addresses the mention of my name in the Statement by Johnuniq  regarding the Meghan Murphy BLP talk page discussion: First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist.

Allow me to shed all the light from/to  Pyxis Solitary: In reponse to the Murphy topic I said: "her history regarding transgender issues is that she is not against trans people, she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation. It's a fine line, but an important distinction". To which the other editor mentioned (Fæ) replied: "By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology". If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics that you were alerted to in May this year". That last bit refers to this notice she/he left on my talk page about a candidate for deletion. Then this editor continued to pile it on with this and this. To which I responded here. The editor continued with this. And I replied. Followed by said editor continuing the inquisition. Again, I replied. Editor continued with the same line of accusation. I responded. Editor continued. I again replied. It's shameful how ArbCom has made it possible for the Discretionary Sanctions policy to be weaponized as a threat used by editors with axes to grind. <br/ >

By the way, the same IP editor that personally attacked me in the article, and accused me of being a "TERF" in the talk page, attacked me again with a bogus statement attributed to me with a fake signature — which was deleted by editor Fæ before I returned to the discussion. And of course, IP editor left another accusation in my talk page. Pyxis Solitary  yak  06:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC); (edited) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC); (edited: emphasis mine) 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: After reading the comments here about Gamer Gate, I just want to say that I did not know about "Gamer Gate" until a d/s alert was posted on my talk page (the template was added to the talk page of the candidate for deletion after discussions were well underway). I'm not into video games and I don't do Twitter and Reddit, or whatever other vomitatus platforms were involved. There are billions of people on this planet ... but there aren't billions of gamers and people who waste their time as an Internet chatty-Cathy -- and many of them are Wikipedia editors. Do those of you who created the Gamer Gate d/s really think that every editor who edits the subjects that were added under it knows what GG is? Pyxis Solitary   yak  08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re: GamerGate)
That MJL I do still think that it would be a good idea to have a new case, Gender-related disputes covering
 * Disputes and controversies related to gender, gender identity and gender expression (including pronouns)
 * Disputes and controversies related to gender gaps (i.e. editors and content) and actions/projects/etc related to these
 * A review of what existing sanctions exist, how they are being used, and how well they are or are not working
 * What, if any, areas that are covered need not be covered any longer
 * What, if any, additional areas should be covered
 * Whether collating all the existing and new sanctions into one set would be desirable (and if so, do so).

This would be quite a large case, which the Committee probably has not got capacity for while Fram is ongoing and Palestine-Israel 4 is pending so I suggest adding it to the queue rather than opening immediately. In the mean time, I would strongly encourage Fæ and everyone else to try and resolve any disputes using the current available methods (AN/I, AE, etc) so that there is good, recent evidence to feed into the review. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde (GamerGate)

 * I confess I am not as familiar with the GamerGate dustups as some, but this request, and the responses to it, baffle me. I cannot see how disputes related to transgender rights and transgender activism do not fall under "any gender-related dispute or controversy [broadly construed]". If the Meghan Murphy dispute were under discussion at AE, I for one would consider it within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. I see no purpose being served by addressing a hypothetical statement about a gay agenda. The very reason discretionary sanctions exist is that it is sometimes difficult to determine in advance what disruptive behavior will look like; DS regimes allow administrators to make decisions on a case by case basis, and with a few exceptions that don't apply here, we are generally quite good at sanctioning disruption when it is brought to our attention., if editors are being disruptive in the way you describe, and you believe their edits to be sanctionable under GG discretionary sanctions, why are you here, rather than at AE? Do you have any evidence that admins are unwilling to apply these sanctions in this situation? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , You have not answered my fairly straightforward question. If you are seeing conduct that you believe to be sanctionable under the GamerGate DS regime, why are you not seeking sanctions at WP:AE? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I did read your statement. I wouldn't have posted mine otherwise. You state that "The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't"; but you have no evidence for that assertion. How do you expect admins to enforce discretionary sanctions when no requests for enforcement have been made? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In case this wasn't clear already; I, personally, would be quite willing to sanction editors making unsupported allegations under the current discretionary sanctions regime. I'm sure other administrators would be, too. But our willingness and ability to implement such sanctions stems not from specific behaviors being declared verboten by ARBCOM; it comes from being able to detect disruption when we see it. As such, I see no purpose in ARBCOM spending time and effort on this (unless you're looking at a new locus of disruption that isn't explicitly covered by the DS regime, of which no evidence has been provided), and I think that editors concerned by such disruption need to use the primary mechanism for ending it before anything else. There are situations where AE has not done a very good job (the case above this one is an excellent example) but absent evidence of AE failing at its job, I don't see why we're here at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything more to do here; surely this can be closed? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Judging by comments elsewhere and recent edit history, this is not a good faith request for clarification, it is an attempt to use arbitration sanctions to enforce Fae's views of how a subject should be covered, in a context where numerous attempts to do this via normal Wikipedia processes are failing. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What said, absolutely. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem (GamerGate)
Addendum: Guy has commented at my user talk page, which has led me to reflect on my words and to add a clarification. The term "safe space" has different meanings in different contexts. I believe in a WP that is free from homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, racism, anti-semitism, and prejudices in general when it comes to interactions between editors, and I heartily endorse Guy's term "respectful space." We need to be able to cover difficult subjects in a policy-compliant way, however, and that means discussions of topics and considering views that will sometimes cause a degree of discomfort. I don't mean a safe space in the sense that views that will cause disagreement should not be expressed, even though there are safe spaces in which such rules may be appropriate. WP is not a therapy or support space and should not impose standards that are more appropriate to such spaces, but it is also not a place where deliberate deadnaming, crass generalisations or outright bigotry are tolerable. Consequently, I state for the sake of clarity that "respectful space" is closer to the mark on what I meant as a norm for on-wiki communications than are some connotations of "safe space." I would also like to clarify that, in referring to my own experiences, I was not thinking solely of on-wiki experiences, or even only online experiences. The first time I had homophobic abuse screamed at me was shocking and a little frightening – and would have been more so had I been alone or in vulnerable circumstances – but I quickly decide that ignoring the event was the wisest course of action. It was illegal, no doubt, but pursuing it was not worth my time, nor was given this individual the satisfaction of having provoked a response. I would encourage to consider whether there are times when silence is the most eloquent response, where providing a response is not worth the time or effort involved, and whether dismissing something as not worth pursuing is actually a more dignified and effective way to communicate that it isn't worth supplying oxygen to, either by replying or by seeking redress. EdChem (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the quote from, it seems to me that there is a lack of clarity here about the coverage of some gender issues under the DS regime.
 * The fact that there is a lack of clarity does not mean that the suggestion by is the way to resolve the problem, nor does it mean that Guy's observations of attempts to weaponise DS regimes is necessarily incorrect.
 * Please, in clarifying, make clear that there are distinctions between misgendering / comments that can give offense that occur as a consequence of mistake or ignorance, those arising from deliberately provocative wordings and made with an intent to cause offense, and situations where an editor might be looking to push an agenda and express outrage. The Manning naming dispute included plenty of examples from the first two categories and a motivation to right great wrongs has led to postings / main space edits that are inconsistent with policy-compliant editing.
 * As a gay man, I've experienced comments and behaviours that I found obnoxious even though they occurred from ignorance, been targeted by deliberate homophobia, and had times where I have had to decide whether to speak up or hold my tongue. I'm all for WP being a safe environment for all members of the broader LGBTQIA+ community but some incidents call for discussion, education, and persuasion and not sanction or threat (which is exactly how DS notices can be perceived, notwithstanding the notion that they are information only, etc).
 * Short version, clarification is appropriate as the Committee's various motions appear inconsistent... but sensible clarification that does not weaponise the DS regime for those who might want to use it to advance a campaign, and that makes it clear to AE admins and others enforcing the regime that it is important to understand the actual issues. Societal understanding of LGBTQIA+ issues and acceptable behavioural standards are changing and will continue to develop, no doubt too slowly for some and too rapidly for others, and also vary from place to place.  I don't envy the Committee or AE admins in trying to balance issues in this area, but I do believe that deliberate provocation and being intentionally offensive calls for a strong response but that this approach is counter-productive for dealing with ignorance or misunderstanding from editors of good will.  EdChem (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to read that you see "consider whether there are times when silence is the most eloquent response, where providing a response is not worth the time or effort involved" as "the equivalent of telling newbie LGBT+ contributors to 'grow a thicker skin'" (after a "trim, minor" that was certainly not minor in the sense a minor edit). If someone throws a homophobic slur at me, choosing to ignore that person or not respond is not me giving in to a bully, it's me exercising my right to choose how to spend my time and comes after I have considered whether putting in the effort to challenge the person is justified. That you might make a different decision were you in my place does not even slightly alter either my right to decide for me nor whether my choice is best for me. I am all in favour of preventing bullying on wiki and find transphobia just as repugnant as homophobia and other prejudices – but I don't believe that means that challenging / confronting a bully is always the wisest course of action. Bile spewed by throwaway accounts can be dealt with via WP:RBI without giving the person behind the account the satisfaction of being discussed on ANI. Arguing about minor incivilities can divert attention from broader issues and risks advocates being painted as reacting to every perceived slight and not directing their energy to the central issues – and worse, it gives opponents a way to distract advocates with a series of small provocations. You want to see Wikipedia's culture to become more inclusive, which is a worthy goal. I also agree that telling editors to "grow a thicker skin" is counter-productive and offensive. Neither of those, however, mean that every single incident must be attacked as if it occurs in isolation. Strategies for seeking change can also be counter-productive. As an example of such an approach, refusing to engage at ANI and instead advocating to lodge frequent complaints with T&S in the hope of a cultural change being imposed from outside will provoke resistance and alienate editors who would be allies. People can share goals but differ on questions of strategy and even about the severity of individual incidents – that doesn't necessarily make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make them enemies who you might tell to "fork off." Frankly, I find your suggestion that my comments were the equivalent of "grow a thicker skin" to be so inaccurate as to be ridiculous, and your implication that I was supporting Wikipedia continuing "indefinitely as a publisher of lockerroom type transphobic and homophobic language which is protected as 'humour' or 'free speech'" to be offensive. All I did was ask that you consider where choosing not to respond can, at times, be a suitable response... and you reacted with an over-the-top post that suggests to me that you have lost perspective. Seriously, stop and reflect, because you are damaging your credibility and that is undermining the pursuit of your goal. EdChem (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I concur with Guy and EdChem, and I thank EdChem for their reasonable and rational statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also thank them both for the "respectful space" concept, which is much more appropriate for Wikipedia than "safe space" is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Greenrd
I have some familiarity with the nature and content of typical political debates between trans-exclusionary radical feminists, trans people and their allies, and people somewhere "in the middle" - and they are very much political debates, let's be clear about that. Regarding process and venue, this proposal, due to its highly contentious nature and tangential relation to the GamerGate case, is an entirely inappropriate use for the clarification process; as others have opined, consensus should be sought in the community or it should be brought to full arbitration, if desired.

As a political activist myself, I perceive this proposal as something that would have the effect of giving one political faction special privileges in terms of advocacy on Wikipedia, even as other factions have their freedoms restricted by this proposal, or indeed already have their freedoms restricted by long-lasting community mores, which I believe would be fundamentally unfair. There are a range of views within the community on using Wikipedia for advocacy or agenda-driven purposes, from strong opposition on the one hand, to a feeling that by e.g. unabashedly promoting the achievements of women and feminists, one is improving Wikipedia, to (e.g. on Israel/Palestine) perhaps a resigned acceptance of the fact that many contributors will have strong views one way or another and the participation of people with multiple perspectives actually helps to create balanced articles. Indeed one can take different views on this sort of agenda-driven work on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the changes and the degree to which they act to introduce imbalance into the encyclopedia, or to correct pre-existing imbalances in the encyclopedia. What we shouldn't have on Wikipedia is any privileging of people belonging to particular political factions based on what political faction they belong to, as opposed to based on the behaviour of individuals within those factions and whether it comports with Wikipedia's mission.

Also, what is really not acceptable in the content of this proposal is that it does, I feel, conflate the identification of political factions, potential sources of bias, and organised activity, with conspiracy theorising (which often brings connotations of insanity, or at least eccentricity). This conflation is rather like if someone were to say that to claim that some Republican supporters might have a bias in relation to articles about Republican politicians, and to make a big deal about the fact that an editor is a Republican political activist and spends a lot of time advocating for Republican political causes, is unacceptable prejudice against Republicans. That would be ridiculous, because the exact same thing could be said about Democrats and articles about Democrat politicians, so it's an instance of a more general point that's not at all specific to any one political party or faction.- greenrd (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, this is about potential biases of sources and editors, and the ability to draw attention to that on Wikipedia discussion pages. Your argument seems to be that your beliefs that are relevant here arise from your identity, and are not ordinary political beliefs that are subject to rational debate and persuasion. That's fine, but that, surely, paints a picture of you being more, not less, biased, than someone who has ordinary political beliefs that are subject to rational debate and persuasion. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either your beliefs do not arise from your identity, but arise from an activist/ideological grouping to which you belong and therefore it is fine to be descriptive about that, or they do arise from your identity, in which case you are definitely biased and therefore it ought to be fine to call attention to that fact, although of course we should try to be civil about doing so on Wikipedia. -greenrd (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to suggest that we should not examine too closely your implication that your beliefs arise from your identity, because that would lead to a slippery slope where trans people would be allegedly banned from Wikipedia by people like me on the grounds of bias. But this is erroneous because, for one thing, I do not believe that your beliefs arise from your identity. In point of fact, not all trans people agree with the "trans ideology" that you espouse, so in my view, your beliefs do not arise from your identity, but from your social or ideological milieu. I know of some people on Twitter who, despite being trans, actually agree with some tenets of "gender-critical"/"terf" ideology. I do not share their views, but they exist. Also, I do not support banning people from Wikipedia on the grounds of political bias alone. But the point is, it is important to be able to point out that people subscribe to belief systems, and to be able to name them. It is not something that I see or participate in very often on Wikipedia. But it is an important element of discussions about biases, or alleged biases, emanating from sources used in articles and editors alike. And banning it - for, and to the benefit of, one ideological grouping only - would be censorship, would harm the workings of the Wikipedia community, and would be grossly unfair to people not in that ideological grouping. -greenrd (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Trans women are women" isn't a magic incantation which instantly and automatically resolves all arguments about trans people in favour of your opinions. But you must be aware of this, because in Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Yaniv_genital_waxing_case, you wrote "once the legal issues are better understood, if any", suggesting that you thought the legal case could go either way. But surely, if Yaniv simply is a woman for all intents and purposes, then it is simply illegal to discriminate against her - no need for further discussion. My view is that trans women are women in most, but not all, contexts (for example, not in sports). I realise that statement of my opinion might offend you, but it is not my intent to offend you. I am merely pointing out that I have one opinion on this question, some other people have another opinion (namely, trans women are women tout court) and yet other people have yet another opinion (namely, trans women are not women at all). And to reiterate, these opinions are not completely determined by identities - as I wrote above, not all trans people subscribe to the same beliefs on these questions. If you want to disagree with that - for example, if you want to argue that the trans people who disagree "aren't really trans people" or something like that - you can, but you have to actually argue for the opposite - you can't just jump forward in time to the hypothetical point in time where you've persuaded me of the opposite, and then accuse me of making false generalisations about all trans people, because I explicitly have said that not all trans people hold these beliefs, and until you persuade me otherwise, that is my position. You can call those beliefs what you like - I am not attached to the term "trans ideology" and would happily substitute any unambiguous alternative that you may have to offer - but please don't try to tell me they don't constitute a belief system, because I don't buy that. -greenrd (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to defend myself at this juncture. I don't think the average person would read this exchange and say my views were anti-trans, and your calling them such is something that I perceive as a personal attack. I did not air my views here for the sake of airing them, but in order to attempt to elucidate my arguments. However, I may have erred on the side of brevity, sacrificing some clarity. My arguments were as follows: (a) Drawing a direct line from your trans identity, through the proposition that "trans women are women", to proposition X, is not a way of proving anything you like relating to trans people, so I personally don't think your argument goes through (and to be clear why this is relevant: why did you mention that trans women are women, if not to use that statement in the service of an argument? And if it is the case that it was not to support your argument, perhaps you are really the one gratuitously "airing your views" in this forum!). (b) There are a range of views about trans people and what legal or social rights they ideally ought to have, including the views of a subgroup within the trans community that I haven't even named yet, because I don't want to risk inflaming this discussion further. So even trans people themselves do not speak with one voice on this question. I didn't even go so far as to outright assert that most trans people subscribe to the dominant orthodox view, because I don't know for sure that that is true, although all the evidence I've seen so far suggests it is. So I reject your accusation that I was somehow irrelevantly airing my opinions. In my view, they were relevant to my argument, which I have labelled (a), that merely reiterating that trans women are women does not establish what you seem to think it establishes. And I would have liked to have quoted someone else there to avoid the impression of soapboxing, but I don't know anyone else who holds the view that I wanted to use to make my argument. Generally speaking, it is usually considered acceptable in arguments relating to political issues for someone to use their own political opinions to give an example of how an apparent sticking point may be resolved. And even if some other people think my views were not relevant, in my view it would be unduly harsh to harshly sanction someone over a legitimate difference of opinion over what was relevant to an argument being made. And if we are not even to be permitted to make certain arguments, such as the ones I have made here, that disagree with you because they will rest on claims that it will be forbidden to even make on Wikipedia, as you have just advocated, then in my view a grave policymaking mistake will have been made. In that scenario, as I see it, any form of perceived offence against trans people in particular and perhaps other groups too, including allegedly offensive points such as even merely acknowledging that other views exist, will have been raised up to the status of an unimpeachable shibboleth, to the detriment of frank and fearless discussion about proposals such as yours, and frank and fearless discussion about the propriety or otherwise of any edits and other actions on Wikipedia along the same lines as what your proposal talks about.-greenrd (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification by Risker
I have not read this request except for the reference to me in the (currently) last paragraph of Fae's statement above, and have no comment on any suggestions being made by any editors about any historical cases, their enforcement, or whether or not anything needs to be clarified about them. Thus, I have retitled this section as a "clarification" since I'm not really making a statement about the matter before the Arbitration Committee.

I did not *directly* contact Fae about anything, via email or otherwise, until after Fae emailed me at my personal email address. Instead, what I did was respond to a suppression request from Fae that was received in the OTRS queue more than 12 hours prior to my reading it, and responded by OTRS email asking for clarification about what edits Fae felt should fall under the suppression policy. Fae then emailed me directly at my personal email address (which is not included in the OTRS emails) accusing me of having a conflict of interest and requesting that I pass the suppression request to another oversighter. Arbitrators who follow the Oversight OTRS queue will be well aware that a ticket that has been untouched for more than 12 hours is extremely rare, particularly when other requests have been addressed in that timeframe. I responded to the personal email from Fae instructing them to respond directly to the ticket and not to email me personally; I copied my response to the Oversight mailing list so that other oversighters would know what was going on, and arbitrators who follow that list can read the discussion there. It is my understanding that another oversighter has "taken over" the ticket, and their first question to Fae was to ask them to clarify what was perceived to be suppressible on the page linked in the request.

To the best of my knowledge, what Fae refers to as a "conflict of interest" is in fact that I was an arbitrator in the 2012 case whose remedies including their being banned from English Wikipedia; I was also one of the arbitrators who supported the motion lifting Fae's ban (with conditions) about nine months later. To the best of my recollection, I don't think I've commented or participated in any other disciplinary activities related to Fae. I have, however, revision-deleted, deleted and suppressed outing and personal attacks directed at Fae on several occasions since that time; and I have, on at least one recent occasion, publicly and directly agreed with Fae's position in a discussion on the Wikimedia-L mailing list. In order to explain to my fellow oversighters why Fae might think I had a conflict of interest, I referred to the 2012 case and 2013 motion; while looking at the decision again to ensure I had my facts and timing right, I noticed there was a link missing to the motion that allowed Fae to return to editing Wikipedia in 2013, and I fixed that.

I do not believe that I have any kind of conflict of interest with respect to Fae, although it is possible that Fae has a conflict of interest when it comes to me. It is a little odd for anyone to suggest that conflict of interest on an oversight ticket should be determined by who sent the ticket, rather than what the request actually was. I've recused based on the nature of the request on multiple occasions. It would be bad practice to allow those requesting suppression to pick and choose who deals with their request; if they send it to the list, they're going to get the oversighter who is willing and able to respond. The entire point of oversight is to identify and remove problem content *as quickly as possible*, and that isn't possible when the requestor decides they don't want Oversighter A or B or C to deal with the issue.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the actual clarification request, and is only provided here because there's no other suitable forum for me to point out that, despite Fae's best efforts, I have nothing to do with this matter. Risker (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley
GamerGate was a low point for the Internet, and indeed WP. If anything good did come from it, at least WP took a fairly strong position in opposition to it, as represented by this arbitration.

Clearly the request here is inspired by recent activity around a number of pages involving Jessica Yaniv: Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, the imminent Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Meghan Murphy et al.

The questions are: does the GamerGate arbitration, and should the GamerGate arbitration, extend that far?

My first impression is that Fae is using GamerGate as a BLUDGEON to stifle any discussion about Jessica Yaniv. All the usual tactics are rolled out, the warning boxes on user talk: pages, the repeated stripping of sources and content from an article during an AfD; the denigration of sources used; the description of the Vancouver Sun as a mere 'tabloid' because the word tabloid (used as a contrast) appears in that article's lead; the repeated accusation that other editors have made an allegation which they have never made; the aspersions cast at other editors for being 'uncollegial' and then immediately using 'colleague' instead as an implication of sock- or meatpuppeting; hatting great sections of Talk: debate; riding two horses in claiming that only one narrow waxy issue is relevant within a far broader story, then claiming BLP1E applies; and of course, hiding behind BLP as the unchallengable excuse for any position held. So far, so much as usual.

I don't expect WP to keep this article (at least for the near future). BLP will see to that, and as yet, few of the defensible broadsheet sources have covered it. Although I'll be amazed if there isn't a significantly different situation in a few months. It's a most unusual situation, as it has flipped the usual allegiances and political standpoints end-for-end. Those who have previously advocated for transgender politics are finding themselves torn between the coverage, as highly negative as it is, or deleting it. Jessica Yaniv is, quite literally, the taser-threatening [59:34 in Yaniv's own last night's twitter debate with Blaire] transwoman in the girls' changing room [Yaniv's November 2018 Tweet photos] that the TERFs warned us of. Fae evidently sees no such conflict: in Fae's mind (as expressed here), transphobia is transphobia, and negative coverage of one transwoman is an attack on all of them. Now that's an honourable position and I respect it a great deal, but I do think they're backing the wrong side here. Jessica Yaniv is just not someone who's actions are at all defensible. And yet BLP is still in effect and WP is not a channel of investigative journalism.

So should GamerGate apply? Does GamerGate apply? Well per GamerGate#Remedies "(b) any gender-related dispute or controversy," it would indeed seem so. I was shocked to read this. I've avoided GamerGate so far, as a depressingly negative issue in all areas. But to find that the sanctions do indeed claim to be so far-reaching in their scope? That's a terrible idea. It loses track of the concrete problem at GamerGate, it tries to solve all the world's ills in one line. And today, its main result seems to be giving Fae a BLUDGEON for pushing their PoV into these articles, to suppress coverage of someone, who Fiona Robertson, the SNP's National Women’s and Equalities Convener has described as a "female predator".  I do not believe that the GamerGate sanctions have ever been intended to support the actions and deniability of female predators, and we should not encourage their use for such. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm now considering raising, and maybe others, at ANI. I am very tired of the aspersions being cast by them. My one mention of KiwiFarms was to state that it was clearly unreliable. Yet here, now that the talk: page has been conveniently deleted (in the middle of this, and the ANI TBAN thread!) my condemnation of KiwiFarms is being presented as if I'd added it to the article instead!  That's clearly into "When did you stop beating your wife?" territory. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223
I am not surprised the JY related pages ended up tied into this discussion, though my understanding is that this arbitration request was established because of a separate WP:BLP dispute over how to handle naming of people who have been identified in the media as TERFS. That said, I would strongly support the assertion that the JY related pages fall under the Gamergate discretionary sanctions. I say this because, frankly, with some of the egregious WP:BLP behaviour I've seen in the course of the JY discussion, extra administrator attention and extra strictness about norms would be very helpful. This has included: And so on. Frankly, the fact that we're addressing a POV Fork attack page at AfD rather than speedy deleting it is already a bit galling and suggests enhanced oversight of this article is necessary. As such, I dispute 's assertion that treatment of gender issues outside the bounds of Gamergate is outside the spirit of the previous Arbcom ruling and hope that, if any good can come of this rather convoluted request for clarification, it's additional oversight of the BLP minefield that currently exists here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Speculation about whether a woman has a penis.
 * 2) POV fork created by a subsequently blocked sockpuppet of a user previously indeffed for making transphobic comments which also was created specifically as an WP:ATTACK page.
 * 3) Accusations that a BLP not currently involved in any criminal prosecution was engaged in child molestation. (Also by the subsequently blocked sock who created the attack page.)
 * 4) More speculation about the state of a BLP's genitals masked as a quote from a "RS" (actually a tabloid and not something that should be considered reliable).

Edited to add that I don't disagree at all with and  here about the confusing nature of the nomenclature at play here. My concern is that the tool of arbcom enforced sanctions is necessary in this space; it's not that they need to be tied specifically to GamerGate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
This comment is not about the substance of the request, but concerns the procedural confusion and nomenclature. It is causing confusion, and probably will continue to, if every discussion of allegedly poor editing in this topic area involves a citation to "the GamerGate case" or "GamerGate discretionary sanctions." Many topics relating to sexuality, including references to trans persons, are very remote from the topic of GamerGate. Indeed, some of the editors who edit on those topics may never have even heard of GamerGate. They are going to be unnecessarily confused when they receive a DS alert and, in addition to having to absorb all the other rules and procedures governing discretionary sanctions, they also find themselves puzzling over what "GamerGate" is and why it is coming up in a seemingly unrelated context.

The initial version of what became the discretionary sanctions for BLPs was adopted in an arbitration case called "Footnoted quotes." Needless to say, the overall topic of BLPs had little to do with the dispute over whether long quotations should be included in footnotes or not. People involved in BLP-related editing disputes did not easily understand when the "Footnoted quotes" ArbCom decision was cited to them. Ultimately, the Committee resolved that confusion by renaming the name for the BLP sanctions category to something more comprehensible. It might make sense to do something similar here.

As I finish typing this comment, I realize that it may not be directly related to the clarification request, so if the Committee wishes to treat it as a separate suggestion and discuss it elsewhere, I have no objection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The "GamerGate" discretionary sanctions topic-area already includes, in addition to GamerGate itself, "any gender-related dispute or controversy, [or] people associated with [such a controversy], all broadly construed." To the extent the scope of the "GamerGate sanctions" extends well beyond the specific issue of GamerGate, that was a ruling made (uncontroversially) in the original decision four-and-one-half years ago; it would not be the result of the non-substantive naming clarification that I suggest. Related discretionary sanctions were previously also authorized in the "Sexology" case (originally, authorizing DS for "pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification") and the "Manning naming dispute case" ("For the avoidance of doubt, [the "Sexology"] discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender"), which were later incorporated into the "GamerGate" sanctions. The mere renaming I suggest would not impose DS in any area not already subject to them, and not surveyed in prior, full-fledged prior ArbCom cases and decisions. (Whether the change requested by Fae would do so is a different question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
Agree with Newyorkbrad that it might be best to have a separate case-name for gender-related stuff, but it's worth pointing out that there are a few pages clearly covered by GG general sanctions that wouldn't be obviously covered by gender-related ones, so just renaming wouldn't necessarily work. If possible it might be best to split it into two separate discretionary sanctions with their own notices etc. Definitely using the GG general sanctions notice for gender stuff is going to be confusing to users, though, and will get more confusing going forwards as GG itself fades into the past. --Aquillion (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the issue Guerillero raised before, ArbCom could also authorize new sanctions under a new name, reproducing the Gamergate gender-related ones, and state that such things shouldn't be placed under Gamergate going forward. This might lead to some confusion, but I would argue that it is less than leaving all future gender-related controversies under the Gamergate sanctions forever, which is only going to lead to more confusion as time passes. --Aquillion (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The practical effect would be solely to rename existing sanctions (ones that have uncontroversially existed and been enforced for years now.) I don't think that doing so can reasonably be considered making policy - it was still originally enacted as a result of a case before ArbCom that clearly required it.  While a broader overhaul to the way general sanctions work may one day be necessary, it seems silly to gum up the works, reject a simple solution, and demand that an existing sanction be kept under a confusing name purely out of hope that that vast undertaking will one day occur.  Especially since, of course, there is precedent for renaming sanctions, so there's no particular reason why that shouldn't extend to spinning off an existing sanction under a more comprehensible and appropriate name. --Aquillion (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
Ignoring the merits and just addressing the procedural issues that NYB brings up, I am against renaming cases. The title has meaning when the case is accepted and post hoc renaming breaks that meaning. Unlike Footnoted Quotes which had no active sanctions, Gamergate has plenty of active sanctions that will continue to be enforced for many years. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nblund

 * If editors are following WP:NOTFORUM then I can't really imagine a scenario where the claim that "trans women aren't women" would ever come up in the first place. Pontificating on trans issues adds nothing of value to the project, and we would stand to gain a lot by strongly discouraging those kinds of digressions on article talk pages.


 * I also want to second the points made by EvergreenFir, as well as Simonm223. The Yaniv case is only the latest instance where I've seen Gamergate-ish behavior. The social media communities that are trying to push that particular case in to the spotlight increasingly resemble Gamergate in the sense that they are largely centered around harassing/doxxing/humiliating various semi-public figures who displease them, and they view Wikipedia as another forum to spread that abuse.


 * Editors who come here just to create attack pages are probably easy to catch, but Andy Dingley's comments in this thread illustrate why good faith editors also need more guidance here: he has referenced Kiwi Farms and Miranda Yardley enough to make it fairly clear to me that he's seen the same toxic online communities that I've seen. He clearly recognizes that they aren't reliable sources, but he keeps referencing various versions of "Yaniv is a predator" (which is a rallying cry for those communities) for no apparent purpose (see also:1,2, 3, 4, 5,6). I really don't think he has a malicious intent, but it's still dangerous and irresponsible and off topic, and it resembles some of the behaviors that got people sanctioned around GamerGate. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it illustrates how this kind of material can start to spin out of control in a way that makes Wikipedia complicit in what are effectively mass online bullying campaigns like Gamergate, and I think it calls for more clarity on talk page conduct. Nblund talk 23:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Andy Dingley: I'm not casting aspersions or questioning your motivations. I'm pointing to your repeated references to BLP violations elsewhere as an example of the sort of stuff that needs to be clarified as either acceptable or unacceptable. It adds nothing and I'd prefer you'd stop, but I'm not calling for you to be punished or even arguing that your actions are unique. Nblund talk 10:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JJE
Noting here that Fæ has just been banned by the community from commenting on human sexuality-related topics, so they probably can no longer comment on this clarification request, or at least are unlikely to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck
Harassment is a big problem on Wikipedia and we need to tackle it seriously. However, Fæ's proposal for ArbCom, that any wording that "implies [...] an agenda" or is "anti-trans" should be immediately punished as a DS violation, is unenforceable unless ArbCom is prepared to publish a glossary of banned language. The very fact that this is a contentious area where the use of language is itself contentious means that a non-expert in transgender issues cannot be expected to know the boundaries of civil discourse without stumbling upon someone's sensitivities first.

I echo Sitush's comment about unintentional offence being met with heavy sanctions, and Newyorkbrad's comment about the breadth of this DS area beyond the GamerGate topic causing confusion to uninitiated editors working on articles relating to LGBT+ issues. Deryck C. 19:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If any editor directs trans-phobic language against another editor, that should be treated as a WP:NPA violation with utmost severity, irrespective of the GamerGate / transgender issues DS. Deryck C. 16:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by AReaderOutThataway
I have to concur with Mendaliv that this request would be a prospective, pre-emptive misuse of ArbCom. Worse, the entire notion is subjective. We've seen repeatedly that certain editors (including the filer of this requests, whose topic-ban from human sexuality broadly construed has been reinstated in the interim) have novel and activistic ideas of what might qualify as "transphobic", and even "mis-gendering". E.g., it's been seriously proposed by some of these editors that if Editor A makes up a fake word like "zerm" and declares this to be their pronoun that other editors should be sanctionable if they use singular they or take any other, generally acceptable, approach to gender neutrality or pronoun avoidance. This is not ForcedSpeechPedia, nor FarLeftPostmoderistLanguageReformPedia, nor MakeEveryoneOnMySideFeelBetterThroughPoliticalCorrectionPedia. The only expansion we need to the WP:AC/DS authorized for this entire range of topics is faster topic-banning for abuse of Wikipedia as a soci-political lobbying platform. The modern US politics topic is almost getting that locked-down already, and the encyclopedic result is better, even if some far-to-one-side-or-the-other editors have a sore metaphorical booty about getting muzzled on the topic. —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 00:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by May His Shadow Fall Upon You
I'm very late to the game, but since the request is still open, I thought I'd chime in. It should be denied for the following reasons. (1) As stated above, this is prospective and not remedial, and therefore not something ArbCom should do. (2) It's unclear as to what, exactly, is transphobic speech. There are some examples that are patently obvious but given that language is evolving and what can be considered "transphobic" is often highly debatable, this is basically a minefield. (3) It's unclear what the practical ramifications of "shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction" would be. The key word in discretionary sanctions is "discretionary." So now it would be mandatory sanctions? In short, I don't see how the current DS is inadequate in any way. May His Shadow Fall Upon You    Talk  16:11, 4 September 2019 (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.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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


 * As far as I understand, it is not accurate to say The GamerGate case superseded and ... took on the the original motions and amendments of Sexology. However, discretionary sanctions were rescinded in the Sexology case by the motion Fæ has linked to, and it seems clear from the discussion of the arbs in and around that motion that this was done because the GG sanctions, which cover all "gender-related controversies," already covered the "transgender issues" topic that the ARBSEX sanctions covered.  So I believe ARBGG is the correct case to file this under.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * We usually issue guidance on this page without formal motions. I think this request can be handled well enough by arbitrator comments (or Views and discussion, if you want the jargon).  We have been asked: is use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" an example of conduct enforceable under Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate?  In many cases, the answer will be no.  In my view, such conduct must take place in the context of content relating to gender.  Mentioning gender or transgender questions does not in itself trigger the DS regime.  The GamerGate discretionary sanctions were designed to deal with conduct at Wikipedia articles, and the scope of sanctions does not extend to all corners of Wikipedia.  None of this is to say that Wikipedia does not need, or ought not to develop, a set of rules for enforcement of the issues highlighted by Fae; I make no comment about that here.  The arbitration decision about GamerGate simply does not stretch endlessly beyond edits to the related articles and closely-related discussions (eg talk page or noticeboard threads about conduct on the articles).  Its scope is clear and this request seems to raise new matters that should be addressed separately, probably in a fresh arbitration request.  The prospects of the latter being accepted are poor if there is no prior attempt to develop proposals by community consensus.   AGK  &#9632;  12:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Those protections already exist under GamerGate.  An acceptable reading of the decision is not that the enforcement may happen against any insult, allegation, or slur.  Both the setting and the content of the offending edit need to be correct.  Your proposal removes the first test, and therefore needs a fresh case.   AGK  &#9632;  13:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We have various guidelines and policies on conduct, List_of_policies, which assist us in dealing with unacceptable behaviour in the community, including discrimination and personal attacks. No personal attacks covers the area of concern, particularly where it says that these types of comments are never acceptable: "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors." If existing policies are not felt to be strong enough, then discussion could take place with the community as a whole on the appropriate talkpage of the relevant policies. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling a bit with this request, and I'm not sure if it's my misunderstanding or Fae's. Discretionary sanctions are available for the area of transgender issues - all pages, not just mainspace. That means that in that area, an uninvolved administrator can implement a discretionary sanction - i.e. a restriction, or any sort of block or ban - at their discretion (subject to awareness etc). I think that's clear. Yet, what Fae is asking for is Arbcom confirm by motion that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. Well, I don't know a specific placed sanction that would be breached in those circumstances (has someone placed a sanction that Fae is asking for clarification on?) I guess the answer is "no" because I'm not sure how well all the bumf that goes along with DS simply because mention of gender comes up. That said, I do take Fae's point well, Wikipedia does need some way to manage anti-trans language, and as SilkTork explains, NPA does cover most of areas. Where they are lacking, that is the place to bring up the discussion, not trying to use DS - which needs to be used only in the rare cases that discussion cannot sort things.  Finally,  I see you refer to "gender warrior", a comment made by an arb. I cannot recall said comment, but out of context would consider that a positive comment - of someone who is fighting for equality across the genders. Could you point me to the context? <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , at my talk page, you refuse to answer my question because I warned you for violating unban condition off wiki, under threat of a block, 4 years ago. You're now further refusing to answer questions because a former arbitrator has responded to a request directed to a team she is on - which has apparently nothing to do with this request.  You no longer appear to be seeking clarification from this committee, and I have no positive words to describe your behaviour, which I believe speaks for itself. As far as I am concerned, this request should be closed and archived promptly. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * DS can be placed on articles where this kind of behavior is happening, but I don't think we can (or should) say that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. That is far too black-and-white for what can be a very complex issue. I would probably be considered by many to be on the strict side of enforcing BLP/NPA when it comes to anti-trans language, but even I can easily see cases where such a motion would backfire. Probably the most common would be when people use transphobic language without realizing they are—it's hardly uncommon for people who are editing in good faith to use language that is outdated and/or offensive without realizing it, and this is best addressed by correcting the language and moving on—not slamming them with some sort of arbitration enforcement action. I think that our existing policies allow for adequate handling of anti-trans language, and if the concern is that they are not being enforced properly, I don't think this kind of action is going to help things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fae, I'd recommend dropping the stuff about Risker. It's not relevant to this request, and your attempts to involve her are not reflecting well on you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do like NYB's point about naming. I agree that it's very confusing (and bears with it a fairly negative connotation) to lump topics like transgender issues in with the GamerGate sanctions when there is really no GamerGate connection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * NYB is correct. The GamerGate sanctions were authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. This means they apply to any gender-related dispute or controversy or people associated with any gender-related dispute or controversy, broadly construed, regardless of whether said dispute/controversy/person has anything to do with GamerGate. I take it that you disagree with that, but would ask you to open a separate ARCA if you wish to ask for it to be amended. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you do not wish to have it amended then I suppose we can end this conversation. But that is the scope of the remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)