Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 93

Amendment request: Race and intelligence (September 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin at 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Terms under which my ban was suspended


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Terms under which my ban was suspended
 * I request that point #2 (the "editing restriction") be lifted.

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
I’d like to request an amendment to #2 of my set of restrictions laid out by the Arbitration Committee in March of 2014. These terms were deemed necessary in order to lift my site ban, which was enacted in May 2012. I agreed to these terms and my site ban was lifted around 2.5 years ago.

Point 2 in this set of restrictions prohibits me from editing outside the narrow range of topics defined as being “about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs and editing any talk or process pages reasonably and directly associated with improving the quality of those articles.” I request that this prohibition be lifted and allow me to return editing a normal range of Wikipedia articles. Note that I am not asking to have any of my other restrictions lifted at this time, neither the others included in the appeal restrictions nor my 2010 topic ban.

During the time since my appeal, I have made numerous contributions to paleontology articles and have not been involved in any disputes or conflicts. Just recently I finished the Specimens of Archaeopteryx article, and hope to bring it up to GA status in due time. I’ve added numerous artworks and photographs to Commons. However, my range of interests and abilities far exceeds paleontology and has expanded especially since my site ban over 4 years ago. I am now entering a PhD program in psychology this fall, I have started doing professional bird photography, and have published numerous writings on things like genetics, radiometric dating, and religion. My current restrictions prevent me from editing in any of these areas, even from adding my bird photographs to articles on modern birds. Further into the future I hope to finish the Mental chronometry article, which has remained half-finished since I was working on it six years ago (and is a topic I have now done actual research in).

I can say with confidence that allowing me to make content edits to Wikipedia writ large will not lead to any misbehavior and will only benefit the topics I know best. Note that my original site ban was enacted over WP:SHARE, but I have not shared an IP address with another editor since well before my ban was lifted.

Lastly, I request that user:Doug_Weller recuse from matters relating to the race and intelligence arbitration case, because of his involvement in disputes covered by that case before he became an arbitrator. Here are some examples of him participating in content disputes on the Race and intelligence article:    I can provide more examples upon request.
 * Re: &  My site ban was an amendment to the R&I arbitration case, and I understand the suspension of the ban (and accompanying restrictions) to be amendments to the same case. So I was under the impression that what I’m asking Arbcom to modify is an aspect of the R&I case, even though it doesn't relate to the topic area itself. Regarding the recusal question, there is a more significant example I haven't mentioned here because it's best to not discuss it in public. May I raise the additional example on the Arbcom mailing list? Please bear in mind that I'm about to move, so I may not be able to contact the list for another few days. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
I haven't seen any issues regarding this editor, and from the brief check I gave they seem to be abiding by the restriction and editing in accordance with policies and guidelines. There is also the fact that this area is under Discretionary Sanctions, so loosening the ban is fairly low risk. In fact, it might even be a rare example of an Arbcom-banned editor returning to good standing (which we presumably want to happen more often). Given all of this, I see no reason to decline the amendment request. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston (re Ferahgo)
This request is asking for Ferahgo's narrow topic restriction (to paleontology) be lifted but is not asking that her ban from race and intelligence be modified. The R&I ban seems to have been imposed under discretionary sanctions by User:NuclearWarfare in 2010. The committee's 2014 set of restrictions also wanted Ferahgo to refrain from initiating dispute resolution unless the committee's permission was obtained first. That provision must still be in effect. I recommend that a clerk review all the restrictions at the bottom of WP:ARBR&I and be sure that any obsolete provisions are struck out (regardless of what happens in the current request). For example, at the bottom of the case page, Ferahgo's site ban is still shown as being in effect. Whoever fixes the case page might also update Ferahgo's entry in WP:EDR as required. At this time I would not advise lifting Ferahgo's topic ban from race and intelligence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare
I agree with EdJohnston in thinking that there is no reason to lift the Race and Intelligence topic ban. WP:SHARE was the listed justification for the topic ban, but there were certainly other problems with her editing at the time. As to whether the editing restriction should be removed, I would say go for it.  NW  ( Talk ) 18:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
A topical restriction one particular topic, rather than  one is rather aberrant and seems detrimental and poorly conceived. It may well be that an editor does not do well in a particular area and should be fenced off from it and anything related to it, but the fact that an editor does particularly well in one area does not logically mean they can only do well in that area, when there are literally millions of topics available to work on, and the editor's only been a problem (quite a long time ago) in one of them that has little intersection with many of them. I agree with EdJohnston's more detailed notes. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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



Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Assuming Ferahgo has abided by their restrictions and not caused additional disruption since the ban was lifted, I'm inclined to grant this. I'll wait a bit to allow the opportunity for other editors to comment before solidifying that vote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't see any reason why we can't wait a few days to hear from you, especially given that you are the one affected by and appealing the unban conditions. Best of luck with your move! GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with GW, and want to see other editors' input. I also want to note that I see no reason for Doug Weller to recuse themselves based on those diffs. Participating in content discussion (two or three years ago) doesn't automatically make one involved, but it's up to Doug. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for more comments. I'm not recusing and I don't understand why it's even been mentioned by someone who isn't asking for anything related to R&I to be changed.  Doug Weller  talk 18:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinions on this matter -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that those old diffs don't rise to the level of recusal IMO, but if you believe you have relevant private evidence,, yes, please send it to or use Special:Emailuser/Arbitration Committee. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to grant the request (i.e. broaden the allowed topics to everything but R&I rather than paleontology only) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Ferahgo the Assassin editing restrictions modified

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) worth a try --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  13:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) kelapstick(bainuu) 20:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain/recuse


 * Discussion
 * Note that the committee received by email a request that recuse from this matter. By unopposed majority vote, this request is declined. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Falun Gong. (September 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by PCPP at 05:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * WP:FLG-A.


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011
 * 2) Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011
 * I request the sanction be lifted


 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
 * State the desired modification

Statement by PCPP
I was previously topic banned in 2011 from editing the Falun Gong articles wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011#Falun_Gong for at least one year, after which I could appeal. Currently I have no further desire to edit the FLG articles, however, since it is mentioned in many of the China related articles, I wish to have the freedom to edit the articles without triggering a violation.

Furthermore, I would have to have the rights to file cases against users who I find might violate the FLG arbitration case. Last month, I filed a case incorrectly without appealing my own topic ban, which resulted in a temporary block.

Statement by Hijiri88
I find it suspicious that PCPP has two TBAN-violation blocks in his log but has only made only 246 mainspace edits since the ban was imposed. Additionally, it would seem that a number of edits that went unnoticed (did not result in blocks) were also violations, as they edited articles with "Falun Gong" in the titles 20 times between February 2011 and October 2011 but were not blocked until January. There was apparently a hubbub following these violations that resulted in several other editors being TBANned, but I have not figured out how PCPP avoided getting blocked.

Typically, the way one goes about appealing a TBAN is to demonstrate one is capable of working on building an encyclopedia in a constructive manner without violating the ban, but in this case it appears PCPP continued editing as though nothing had happened, then once they were finally blocked continued making piecemeal edits for a couple of months before essentially dropping out of the project for four years and coming back to get blocked for violating the TBAN and immediately appealing it.

Can you explain why you think your TBAN was put in place in the first place and why you have barely edited Wikipedia since your TBAN was enforced?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Looks to me like a clear-cut case of biding time until allowed back into the same fray. If the editor was not interested in getting back into Falun Gong editing, they wouldn't be trying to pursue Falun Gong-related grievances, and would have done something constructive on the encyclopedia in the intervening time. Looks like a WP:NOTHERE / WP:5THWHEEL matter to me. I'm not unsympathetic to feeling one has been wrongly accused and taking a long break, having been in that boat once myself, but the editor isn't even making that case. Just vanished for years and is now back arguing about FG again while disavowing an intent to get into FG matters. Seems just like yelling "I am not yelling!", which is funny in a comedy but not in real life. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Falun Gong.: Clerk notes

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



Falun Gong.: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * OK, not a lot of community comment here, but that's understandable given the activity levels involved., it appears that you haven't made a mainspace edit since December 2013, and your only recent activity consists of attempting to file a complaint in violation of your topic ban. Given that you say one of the reasons you want your sanction lifted is so you can file complaints, I'm not inclined to grant this request. I suggest reacquainting yourself with the encyclopedia after your time away by doing some editing in mainspace in an unrelated topic area and filing a new appeal after six months of productive contributions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Opabinia, lifting a topic ban so that someone can file complaints is not to anyone's benefit. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline per my colleagues above. Doug Weller  talk 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline as above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline from me too. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (October 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Epson Salts at 15:03, 25 September 2016 (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


 * diff of notification Joe Roe
 * diff of notification Martyn.Preller

Statement by Epson Salts
WP:ARBPIA3 states that " All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. ". Such an editor (account with < 500 edits) recently created a couple of new articles clearly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which are now up for deletion. (see Articles for deletion/Yinon Plan). An editor (Joe Roe) has stated that the aforementioned restriction does not apply to creation of new articles, so I would like clarification of that.


 * Given the clear statements by the arbiters below, can such an article be Speedily deleted under G5? Epson Salts (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Joe Roe

 * I didn't state that the restriction doesn't apply to creation of new articles, I suggested that the enforcement of that restriction might not extend to automatically deleting articles created by new users, rather than say, asking them to cease editing it further. This all seems rather over the top... Joe Roe (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Martyn.Preller
I was not aware of the rules about the Israel-Palestine conflict and created this article in good faith as it was a notable article missing from Wikipedia a notion supported by 2 other editors.

I will of course observe this restriction placed on me until I meet the criteria of over 30 days and 500 edits.

I think it would be a shame to delete the article and I'm happy for others to edit as they see fit to improve it.

Martyn.Preller (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Wehwalt
It is our policy to encourage good faith article creation. Purposeless to deter the love of writing on an article that is otherwise acceptable. Maybe keep it in mainspace. If it's abused, you can reconsider. And if the article is crap or propaganda, the road to AfD is especially clearly marked around here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2016 (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).



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The restriction applies to all edits, whether to new or existing articles. Obviously, there may be some differences in how the restriction is enforced on a technical level—as far as I know, the new protection level doesn't really work for not-yet-created articles—but the underlying rules are in effect regardless. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't create an article without editing. Doug Weller  talk 16:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It applies to new articles, though we need to figure out howto apply it automatically. In the meantime I suggest moving to userspace.  DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt there is a technical way to prevent it, however DGG's userspace suggestion makes sense. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Infoboxes (October 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Dane2007 at 06:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes


 * 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


 * Cassianto
 * FourViolas
 * Laser brain
 * We hope
 * SchroCat
 * clpo13


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * I am requesting a modification to include a restriction on any bludgeoning type behavior on all types of Infobox discussions.


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * General sanction for entire community on Infobox related RfC discussions with a limit of two posts including initial post. Any expansion beyond a minor expansion or clarification of an existing statement would be considered a second post.

Statement by Dane2007
There have been several AN/I requests regarding Infoboxes with limited administrator involvement due to unclear expectations of what is or is not enforceable. This is the most recent AN/I that was opened regarding the conduct of users participating in Infobox discussions/RfCs. This AN/I request was closed suggesting a filing to ArbCom requesting Discretionary Sanctions. This AN/I case was never officially closed but also included heated debate over Infoboxes which sparked a further AN/I discussion. The "infobox wars" as they have been referred to are causing discontent within the community and further restrictions are necessary to prevent these continued issues from repeating as they did in the example above. Involved users on all sides of the debate are guilty of the behaviors in which amendments are being requested. I am requesting that discretionary sanctions be authorized for Infoboxes.

An amendment and/or clarification would allow for enforcement and provide two paths for infobox related discussions:
 * Path 1: General discussion on talk page with no restrictions on post limits or replies. This would be discussions as they are typically carried out today.
 * Path 2: Move to RfC venue for outside eyes and community input. General sanction would apply and no more than two posts would be made.  This would allow community input on specific articles and prevent disruptive behavior from parties on both sides of the issue. (Replaced with request for Discretionary Sanctions)

It is my hope that with this amendment request we as a community can move towards a productive resolution on this issue. The parties listed above as involved have been part of one or more of the AN/I's above.


 * It's been a bit since I originally filed this request and there's been plenty of comments. I'd like to address some things that have been brought up in regards to this request.
 * The request was not intended to be aimed specifically at addressing but rather behavior by multiple editors.  I used the AN/I's as a mechanism of stating that Administrators seem to be unclear as to handle the behavior of requests with anything to do with Infoboxes, and as stated already, cited that the next step in handling this should be a request for amendment.  While I disagree with many of Cassiantos behavioral actions and decisions related to the Infobox discussions, he is a valuable editor and one that we should support and try to retain.
 * As a longtime editor here on and off, I chose to become particularly active and invested in the project this summer. As someone who edited on and off but not consistently and didn't necessarily know all of the ins and outs, the behavior demonstrated at me as an outside party for trying to reach a final resolution for a particular article like at Talk:Noël Coward was off putting and could potentially dissuade newer editors who could perceive the bludgeoning as an attack.  As  pointed out, the entire situation is still bizarre to me in the way that random infobox discussions are like setting gas on fire.
 * Discretionary Sanctions appear to be the best way to move forward so that problems can be addressed with AE when a pattern of problematic behavior continues. A clear authorization in this area will eliminate the inaction we are currently seeing when this issue boils over to AN/I.  As  pointed out, there are groups of editors who specifically appear on these discussions around infoboxes every time which demonstrates the problem is deep with in the community.
 * The notion that these specific discretionary sanctions would apply to 90% of the community is simply wrong: as stated by, it would really only impact discussions around infoboxes.
 * When this initial request was filed, I invited to notify more parties. My permission is not needed for that - it was simply a reminder since concerns were expressed that this ARCA was one sided which was not my intent.  My intent was to involve the most active users in the recent AN/I's.  I will restate for the record: I believe that both sides involved in the "Infobox wars" are at fault for the disruption to the community.
 * This issue should not be personalized in regards to who is leaving or remaining in the community. I think all editors, regardless of their feelings on this issue, are valued contributors and we should not allow our discussion or outcome to be affected by actions of departure.
 * While I respect all of the comments here against discretionary sanctions, I think we need to recognize that peaceful discussions wouldn't be impacted by those sanctions if developed correctly. The problem of the incivility and hot discussions, however, would be much easier to solve.  I would rather see a temporary topic ban or a solution other than blocking with blocking being a last resort for non-compliance.
 * A community wide RfC is needed to establish whether or not Infoboxes are a style or a content issue.
 * I have amended my requested action in this ARCA to be discretionary sanctions as this is a far better approach and thank for recognizing my good faith attempt at finding a solution.  I don't think the project will gain anything if we simply brush this problem aside again and take no action. -- Dane 2007  talk  03:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I urge you to re-evaluate your positions....I think it's important to remember that this isn't the first time that Infoboxes have been a problem and retirement does not prevent users from returning. While three of the parties in this case have declared retirement, one did a final revert after declaration and one has stated their retirement is because of inaction by ArbCom on this case.  Hearing the case and making further determinations would not harm the community, in fact, if any of the users decide to return, it'll be helpful to have the case already having been heard.  As I stated above, "This issue should not be personalized in regards to who is leaving or remaining in the community. I think all editors, regardless of their feelings on this issue, are valued contributors and we should not allow our discussion or outcome to be affected by actions of departure.", which is precisely what we are doing if we continue to ignore the problem and not take the case. -- Dane 2007  talk  23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by FourViolas
I have no emotional investment in the "infobox wars", but I was recently so dismayed at the incivility of one user in an IB-related dispute that I filed one of my first AN/I reports. I thought it would be a clear-cut case, but many experienced editors commented that action against this user was inappropriate because I was overlooking a long history of bitterness on both sides. If the situation is so bad that an editor can admit to being disruptive (by being uncivil enough to discourage third parties from commenting; ) and escape sanction because this is apparently not out of the ordinary for this issue, ArbCom clearly needs to intervene.

chose two remedies which gained some support in the discussions, and I wouldn't oppose them; however, I think a simpler and more effective amendment would be simply to make Infoboxes#Decorum enforceable by discretionary sanctions. WP:Bludgeoning (an essay) is already forbidden under Infoboxes#Decorum (disruptive point-making, harassment, NPA), but is not being enforced; and AN/I participants have expressed concern that the two-post restriction could be gamed.

I'm sorry to hear you're considering leaving the project. The filer invited you to add parties if you feel other editors need to be involved. FourViolas (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain
I appreciate the filer's attempt to address the ongoing infobox problems by filing an amendment request. However, the request is misguided and targets one of the symptoms (endless discussion) without addressing the problem. Limiting people to two comments might quiet the noise, but certainly doesn't solve the issue. The only responsible remedy is to authorize discretionary sanctions for the infobox domain. If someone is being disruptive, an AE request can be filed and it can be handled by uninvolved admins. We need an end to the never-ending disruptions on article Talk pages and AN/I, right now. -- Laser brain  (talk)  10:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The MoS is under DS. So technically the entirety of article space is under DS if you want to look at it that way. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How did it come to this? We're not dealing with individual editors. We're dealing with groups who have entrenched and whose frustration (on both sides) has manifested in behavior problems and battleground mentality. Every time a thread appears on a noticeboard about infoboxes, everyone grabs their pitchforks and runs into battle, and nothing gets solved. ArbCom has already tried to deal with this and it's still going. So you're comfortable punting this back to the community? -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's been well-documented in this request that most of us are asking for DS. Many of the commenting Arbs seem OK with setting aside what the filer is asking for, which is in good faith but misguided (see my initial comment here), and listening to the community instead of creating more bureaucracy by asking for yet another request be filed. You seem to be focusing on the detail of how many admins deal with a situation on AN/I versus AE, but that doesn't reflect the reality of what occurs in each venue. In any but the most open-and-shut cases at AN/I, mob mentality and groupthink rule and nothing gets resolved. There have been many threads opened and closed about behavior around infoboxes without satisfactory resolution. At AE, the discussion is focused and requires evidence. Normally several admins comment and come to a consensus about the correct action before something is closed. I think DS is a reasonable intermediate step before another full Arb case is needed. You asserted that DS are purely punitive, but don't forget their deterrent effect. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But there are groups, and pretending something doesn't exist doesn't help solve problems. I can write down a list of names who show up with eye-rolling predictability every time infoboxes are being discussed, and the fact that I can do that is at the heart of the problem. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by We hope
Like Gavin, I wasn't going to make a statement as I was close to being out the door when this was filed. Made one at requests which I think covers it all from my standpoint and felt no possible help in the matter would be forthcoming when this was tabled. It's almost impossible to concentrate on text content work when the noise from the infobox issues is at high pitch.

The discussions don't remain at the respective talk page or at Arbitration Requests, but follow you to your talk page; see the link above for 2 instances where it happened to me. The committee should also be aware of a page which is listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Please view the page at the link as it is a previous version of the page, which has been considerably edited since being listed at MfD. The edit summary comment regarding the Coward article ""‎let's see how many times back and forth, actually quite amusing" is no longer on the page. We hope (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the statement of User:Yngvadottir and wonder if the admonitions and bans / restrictions lifted in March 2015 should be re-examined. The stability of some FAs may be at stake since the present infobox issue has been "amusing" to one of the involved editors. We hope (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
I wasn't going to bother with a statement (particularly given the rather odd selection of 'cast list'—all from one 'side' of the debate, which speaks volumes about wishing to punish, rather than bringing the situation to a constructive close). But after what appears to be an organised push on a series of articles (both without IBs and on other matters) by a small number of tendentious tag-teamers highly active in the IB fields or as the self-appointed Guardians of the MoS, I have been winding down recently (just getting the inestimable Josephine Butler through FAC first, if anyone is interested in reading about a proper struggle) prior to leaving.

My decision to leave WP has been accelerated because an admin (a fucking admin, for crying out loud) questions my mental health because I am not in favour IBs; I know it's time to move on when such shoddy and despicable accusations are made by someone who is "expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others".

I'm out of here either when my role as an FLC delegate finishes in a couple of months, or when my two FLCs and one FAC have come to an end, and the final article on which I am working has gone through FAC. You all have fun without me when I'm gone, but while the tendentious MoS wall-of-text merchants continue to wear down opposition with their relentless grind, this and related matters where the MoS is out of step with good practice (like quote boxes – a future battleground for the MoS Warriors) small MoS-driven outbreaks of aggression and disruption will continue to act like a cancer in isolated pockets. Pip pip – Gavin (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@FourViolas: I've already advised the filer to do it properly: if they want to leave it malformed and so obviously biased, there is less chance anything will happen. – Gavin (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by clpo13
Clearly, ArbCom needs to do something about infoboxes. The current situation is untenable and will only lead to more of these disputes. I agree with those who have suggested that discretionary sanctions should be authorized to enforce decorum and prevent bludgeoning of good faith participants in infobox discussions (whether to add or remove them). I don't know why the issue is so contentious, but it is, and ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. clpo13(talk) 16:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Further: I don't know if anything can be done to prevent infobox disputes entirely (short of mandating/banning infoboxes or, preferably, going the CITEVAR/ENGVAR road), but we can at least make them less likely to drive people away from the project entirely. I can understand the frustration that long-time editors can feel when the issue keeps getting brought up time and again, but editors who may happen along an article without an infobox can't be expected to know the entire history of the infobox wars and shouldn't be bitten for trying to add one or asking why there isn't one, especially if there is no previous discussion about it on the talk page. The use of hidden text can help with that so long as such text points to a pre-existing consensus. clpo13(talk) 21:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Support first proposed remedy (no WP:BLUDGEONing, a form of WP:DE), oppose the second (2-post rule). Stifling discussion generally is not the answer. The habit of certain editors of bludgeoning to death various infobox discussions can be dealt with at ANI. The discussions themselves often necessitate a fair amount of pro and con about what an infobox might bring to an article or how it might be superfluous, so "muzzle everyone" is not an appropriate direction to take. The first of two principal problems in these discussions is not the length of the thread, but the repetitive badgering behavior. Regardless, this aspect of the matter is not really an ArbCom issue.

Authorize discretionary sanctions. The second and more serious problem, as I pointed out at ARCA only about two weeks ago, is definitely an ArbCom issue, and it is the increasing and seemingly unstoppable artillery barrage of incivility in these discussions, which has nothing to do with post length or frequency. This smear-all-who-disagree-with-my-faction behavior is not being brought by any parties to the original WP:ARBINFOBOX. It's "Infobox Wars: The Next Generation". We don't need a new generation of disruption, and the only reason we have one is because WP:ARBINFIBOX is basically toothless without WP:AC/DS in play. DS is enabled for "style" issues generally (the WP:ARBATC case), but this dispute isn't a style one; it's a content arrangement and presentation dispute. The difference is distinguishable enough that AE will not act on such a dispute under ARBATC, but it's so nearly the same in motivation, tenor, and WP:LAMEness that ArbCom has good reason to apply the same remedy. As I noted at ARCA last time, if DS isn't going to be made available, then a WP:ARBINFOBOX2 is the only likely outcome (a case I've already prepared, other than there's about 5x more evidence than is actually permitted to be included, so I'd have to trim it [update: and two obvious parties have suddenly said they're leaving WP].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Updated:  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Curiously, despite disagreeing with Thryduulf's skepticism of broad usefulness of i-boxes (I use mobile devices frequently as a reader rather than editor, and the i-boxes are very useful on them, if they are not full of trivia), I still agree with that editor said below. The dispute doesn't really seem to be a pro-infobox versus anti-infobox thing in most cases, but rather an "I can edit any article I want, dammit" versus "don't mess with my FA"/"don't challenge this wikiproject's scope authority" matter. It's not limited to infoboxes at all, but affects all sorts of things, including decorative quotation templates, "in popular culture" material, external links, citation formatting, etc. It's just mostly a civility nightmare when it comes to infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Concur with with Jytdog that SV's proposal to extend the Sortan remedy to include infoboxes would be ArbCom making policy; that decision is citing existing WP:fooVAR guidelines, not making up new ones. And CITEVAR should not be a model for anything, given how many lame disputes it causes rather than prevents. The problem with applying such an approach to i-boxes: all those fooVAR and barRET[AIN] guidelines are about changing from one style to another for no real reason; this is about adding or deleting material for real reasons, so the comparison is twice-faulty.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

MoS could address infoboxes better: Many editors on all sides of this (there aren't just two) believe MoS should have a section on why/when to [not] include an infobox, and what to [not] put in it (since WP:INFOBOX seems to have no buy-in or effect). This would be challenging to develop, but it would surely be helpful, in the way that guidelines about navboxes have been. Technical solutions that could reduce certain clusters of dispute: A) hidden-text infoboxes, not too unlike the old PersonData, that emit the metadata without visually changing the article. B) Wide landscape images could be handled by a y that put the image above the infobox frame (or kept it in place, but expanded the frame only around the image – harder to code) and otherwise kept the i-box the same width. Just thinking along the lines of what MoS's lead says about writing around disputes to moot them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Opabinia regalis's suggestion to punt any action on this out of deference to the parties who say they're quitting over the matter sends the wrong message, but I'll take that up in detail in user talk. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I think the Committee has the following choices:
 * 1) Authorise discretionary sanctions for Infoboxes per the repeated requests, accepting that the original case and the review have failed to solve the problems.
 * 2) Accept another infoboxes case, accepting that both the original case and the review have failed to solve the problems.
 * 3) Watch the disruption to the project continue.
 * 4) Bury your heads in the sand and pretend there is no continuing disruption to the project.

The current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests should be added to your required reading lists before choosing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not yet seen an argument that convinces me that the vast majority of article types are suitable for an infobox, and can't think of an argument that would convince me otherwise. To me arguments about aesthetics are all about what the content of the infobox should be - what fields it should have, what (if any) image it should have and where images not suitable for the infobox but desirable to have in the article are located relative to it. The latter questions are ones that are only suitable for discussion on an article-by-article basis as they depend on the nature and dimensions of images, the length and organisation of the prose and what is notable about the individual subject (e.g. what is trivial information about one person is key to the notability of another - that Tony Blair plays the guitar is not really relevant to his infobox but it absolutely is for Eric Clapton). The issue comes from my approach of "let's discuss what the infobox on this article should contain and how it should be formatted" clashing with "I do not want to have an infobox on this (class/type of) article" - sometimes (but alas not always) the latter comes with reasoning that can be discussed. That reasoning usually boils down to either "an infobox that is poorly formatted/overly long/contains misleading or inaccurate information would degrade the quality of the prose therefore there should not be an infobox" (I agree with the first part of the argument but strongly disagree that the conclusion follows the premise) or "all the information is in the prose therefore there is no need for an infobox" (which misses that a Wikipedia article serves many different audiences seeking different things in different ways and omits completely the value of metadata). Sometimes unfortunately the arguments still just boil down to "I don't like infoboxes (on my article)".
 * In addition to RexxS' response to you, part of the problem is with differing approaches to Wikipedia - some people invest a lot of time and energy into getting a relatively few articles to GA and FA status and maintaining them at that level; other people invest equal time and energy into the project but distributed over getting and maintaining many more articles to a lower standard, sometimes by focussing on one or a few specific aspects. There is sometimes the feeling that the efforts of the latter group are less appreciated generally and/or by those of the first group and their views are not given equal weight when there is a divergence of opinion (whether this is true or not, it is the perception). Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * in my experience, when there is agreement to have an infobox (either after discussion or because it's uncontroversial) and the subject is not opera or classical music, the discussion about what the infobox should include is almost never uncivil and almost always very productive even if there are significant disagreements (i.e. it's like the significant majority of other aspects of Wikipedia).If the subject is opera or classical music* then the likelihood of a civil, productive discussion drops very significantly. It is normally discussions of whether to have an infobox in the first place that are the really problematic ones, and in the opera and classical music fields* these discussions are even more likely to be contentious and poorly conducted than those elsewhere.
 * * in my experience these are the significantly most problematic areas, but my experience is not necessarily representative of the whole totality of the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * fixing ping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If approved, DS would not apply to 90% of Wikipedia, it would (or at least should) apply only to:
 * the addition or removal of an infobox
 * making major changes to an infobox (presentation or content)
 * discussions about infoboxes.
 * Infoboxes do appear on a sizeable percentage of articles, but only in an extremely small proportion of cases are they at all controversial, so I really do not see this as a relevant issue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If arbcom does nothing now then the only question is how soon before another request comes your way - doing nothing has not worked on every other occasion arbcom has tried it, why is this time any different? Cassianto is simply the most recent user to have lost their decorum - there is an entire history of that is not explicitly mentioned here because (a) editors are (rightly) required to be succinct, and (b) everybody assumes that arbitrators are either already familiar with the history of case requests and ARCA filings or capable of becoming so when it is obviously required. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm less certain now than I was above that discretionary sanctions will solve the problems, but nothing else that has been tried so far has done either. The benefits of AE over AN(I) are that it is a structured space where comments without evidence don't hold weight and being a prolific contributor is not regarded as an excuse for incivility, etc. Speaking personally at least, I do not want to "get rid of (editors like) Cassianto" - I want discussions about infoboxes to be civil, productive and based on reasoned arguments without encouraging or even rewarding ownership of articles. If the committee feels that discretionary sanctions will not achieve this then it needs to take some other action, and I'm not seeing anything other than "the community can handle it" - the evidence of years is that that no, the community cannot handle this. Simply saying "reform ANI", while certainly highly desirable, is not going to resolve this dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
The entire dispute is bizarre, since both sides in each successive fight are usually long-term Wikipedians with large numbers of edits making substantial improvements to articles - but I guess that applied all along to the infobox wars.

Circular argument, ownership and assumptions of bad faith are currently much in evidence, and it's pretty clear that some (most, by my quick overview, but that could be sampling error) of the repeat combatants have fixed positions and do not decide on an article-by-article basis.

I endorse the proposal to invoke discretionary sanctions, the two-post proposal is novel but I can think of a number of potential pitfalls and ways of gaming it, and doing nothing is not good for anyone other than whoever sells us disks for the servers. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I entirely endorse the request to add discretionary sanctions to this area. Blocks are a blunt tool unlikely to do anything but inflame the dispute. The more nuanced enforcement offered by discretionary sanctions might be able to cut back the nastiness and vitriol, and failing that can remove the worst actors from the topic. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin
Please authorize discretionary sanctions. In the meantime, I wonder whether the MoS DS could be used (authorized in 2012 in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation), given that infoboxes are a style issue; see MOS:INFOBOX and this subsection for advice about including them. SarahSV (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * To pick up on 's point and my earlier post on another page, it would help if (in addition to authorizing DS; those are needed more than anything) the ArbCom would simply add "and infoboxes" to the first sentence of Requests for arbitration/Sortan (2006):


 * "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike."


 * That decision dealt very effectively with the edit warring over several style issues. The same approach is needed for infoboxes, and while it's clear that the Sortan decision can be applied, adding "and infoboxes" would make it explicit.


 * Having done that, the ArbCom could (as Jytdog suggests) ask the community to organize an RfC to determine whether the community does want to "mandate a specific style" when it comes to infoboxes. SarahSV (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

, an INFOBOXVAR would have to say a good deal more than that; and I do agree that that should be developed by the community. Adding "and infoboxes" to that decision would simply make explicit what is already there, namely that infoboxes are a style issue covered by the MoS, and that the MoS regards them as optional. Note (bold added): "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) ...". The principle is that editors should not be edit-warring over optional styles.

But I wouldn't want to suggest anything that might complicate and delay the authorization of discretionary sanctions. SarahSV (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog
I entirely agree with SlimVirgin above - this is a style matter and please do authorize DS. I do not think it is within Arbcom's scope to resolve the deeper question of project-wide guidance on infoboxes, as the 2013 Arbcom recognized in this remedy: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. I suggest that the remedy be re-iterated and amended to more tightly focus the discussion - namely, recommend that the community hold an RfC to determine whether infoboxes should be treated per article like CITEVAR or whether they should be treated as a "mandated" style element, project-wide, that cannot be idiosyncratically opposed on a per article basis. I lay this out in more detail here. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC) (amend... don't mean to be so draconian... Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC))
 * User:RexxS the importance of recognizing this as a style issue (especially in the eyes of the infobox opponents, who, as far as I can tell, see them as hideous), is to understand that the dispute is not amenable to reason; matters of style are not rational. Have people discuss it over a drink and you are more likely to get fistfights than reasoned discussion.   It is not a content thing - it is a matter of how content already in the article is presented, which is ...style. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with User:SlimVirgin's additional comment above, that it is within Arbcom's scope to apply the CITEVAR option to infoboxes. That moves into policy-making, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Ealdgyth I did not say that infoboxes should be mandated; do not attribute that position to me. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I disagree entirely with Jytdog and Sarah above. ArbCom has repeatedly taken the position that infoboxes are part of the content of an article, not a mere style decision, as I've explained in a post elsewhere. Infoboxes contain a structured collection of key facts relevant to an article, and "key facts" are indisputably content.

Having said that, I would like to see an end to the clashes between the two sides on the infobox wars. What I would like to know is how does anybody think that discretionary sanctions are going to work in this case? [ Clerk removed personal attack – Kevin (alt of L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC). You'll just have to imagine a vivid description of the Wild-West antics of some admins resulting in us losing good editors ] Or are we going to see good content editors being topic banned from the topics they spend so much time stewarding? Without some direction as to the outcomes we want, it's equivalent to giving the prefects bigger straps to hit the juniors with.

What we need is behaviour modification. That takes two elements: the carrot and the stick; what Jerry in Zoo Story calls "the teaching emotion". The sanctions used so far ("stick only") have merely served to entrench the two camps. Not only that but we now have SMcCandlish's "The Next Generation" - a new swathe of editors taking up the pre-defined positions in the current round of disputes. The only way forward I can see is if we can build on whatever common ground we can, rather than dig it away to form the ranks of battle. That's when it starts to get personalised. If I could just get all the disputants together, face-to-face over a drink of their choice, we could go a very long way to taking the sting out of the incivility we currently see. But that's not going to happen - although the offer is always open - so are there any other possibilities?

I'd like to see each side be able to find some "carrot" in any proposed solution. How about we get rid of hidden comments forbidding infoboxes ("carrot" for the pro-boxers)? but in return, wherever there's an amicable discussion of whether or not to have an infobox, the decision becomes binding and unchallengeable for a period of six months, or a year, or whatever, ("carrot" for the anti-boxers)? If you don't build in something that rewards civil debate, I'm willing to bet that you'll make incivil debate the more likely outcome. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There are a lot more reasons than aesthetics for some of our very best editors to oppose an infobox in certain articles. One perennial problem is that fine editors like SchroCat and Cassianto, who do their best to steward articles that they have nurtured through the FA process, find that their decision not to include an infobox on a particular article is repeatedly challenged by other editors, fresh to the article, who don't share their reasons, or perhaps don't have insight into them. They find that wearing and I'm not surprised. I'd like to find some way of lessening that burden without throwing away the principle that "anybody can edit".
 * As for fisticuffs, my experience in meeting other Wikimedians (and I've met a lot of them) is this. Given the choice between: (1) letting me buy them a beer while listening to me apologise for losing my cool and being rude to them; and (2) starting a fistfight (given I'm 6 ft tall, 230 pounds, and grew up in a tough neighbourhood); everybody so far has picked (1). It must be the healing power of good beer. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're asking the question in exactly the wrong place. The only people (hopefully) who are watching this section are the ones who are invested in the infobox debate and are unlikely to change their minds for the following reasons. The decision on whether an infobox represents an improvement or not depends on a much larger range of factors than almost any other I'm aware of on the encyclopedia, including: aesthetics; the emission of microformats; the problems of trivia being stuffed into infoboxes; the value of an at-a-glance summary of key facts; huge infoboxes dominating a tiny article; avoiding searches for a single piece of key information that's not in the lead; the inability to have a big landscape lead image without making the infobox unreasonably wide; and many more. Each editor will give a different weight to each factor, so there is no argument that all of the regular participants have not seen and already weighed up as important or not.
 * The situation is made worse by an imbalance in the two camps: there are a couple of relatively small groups of editors who have spent much of their time on Wikipedia improving articles to FA standard. They share a common dislike of infoboxes in certain disciplines, notably theatrical biographies and classical music, principally (I believe) for aesthetic reasons. They tend not to be concerned with the technical aspects of infoboxes in providing metadata and re-use by third parties. That is a perfectly reasonable stance. There is another group of technically-minded editors who give less emphasis to aesthetics and much more to the technical advantages. That is also a tenable stance, but neither side is likely to convince the other to change their mind. The asymmetry occurs because the former group have invested a lot of time and effort in improving a particular article and try to act as stewards for those articles. The current round of disputes have flared up because uninvolved editors sometimes see an article, often an FA, that has no infobox and either add one or request one on the talk page. This causes a burden for the stewards of the article who feel they have to explain their nuanced decision not to have an infobox time-and-again. Unfortunately this sometimes leads to a failure in civility, and quite often draws in more editors from the two camps, not only arguing about the infobox decision, but also whether editors who have never edited the article before should be allowed to raise such a sensitive issue. Many of the latter camp will conclude that in those cases the stewardship has crossed the line into ownership. My own recent involvement has been in supporting an uninvolved editor who challenged the presence of hidden text which prohibited the addition of an infobox to several articles. That's the way in which this poisonous dispute is able to spread from the original locus. We're going to need some means of accommodating both camps, so that each feels they have something to gain, bearing in mind there's no compromise available in a binary decision like having an infobox or not having one. --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why must "all material in an infobox ... be duplicating content already in the article"? Why is it a problem "If there is material in the infobox that is not part of the article"? Infobox medical condition contains information found nowhere else in the article such as ICD-10, etc.; Infobox drug is mainly made up of information and images which do not appear elsewhere; most infoboxes present an image, a caption and alternate text that is not already in the article. What's the problem with those and how would it improve the encyclopedia to either remove those pieces of information from the infobox or duplicate them in the rest of the article? The selection of what goes into the infobox, especially when not duplicated in the remainder of the article, is a content decision, not a style decision, as much as any other decision to include or exclude content is. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why must "all material in an infobox ... be duplicating content already in the article"? Why is it a problem "If there is material in the infobox that is not part of the article"? Infobox medical condition contains information found nowhere else in the article such as ICD-10, etc.; Infobox drug is mainly made up of information and images which do not appear elsewhere; most infoboxes present an image, a caption and alternate text that is not already in the article. What's the problem with those and how would it improve the encyclopedia to either remove those pieces of information from the infobox or duplicate them in the rest of the article? The selection of what goes into the infobox, especially when not duplicated in the remainder of the article, is a content decision, not a style decision, as much as any other decision to include or exclude content is. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why must "all material in an infobox ... be duplicating content already in the article"? Why is it a problem "If there is material in the infobox that is not part of the article"? Infobox medical condition contains information found nowhere else in the article such as ICD-10, etc.; Infobox drug is mainly made up of information and images which do not appear elsewhere; most infoboxes present an image, a caption and alternate text that is not already in the article. What's the problem with those and how would it improve the encyclopedia to either remove those pieces of information from the infobox or duplicate them in the rest of the article? The selection of what goes into the infobox, especially when not duplicated in the remainder of the article, is a content decision, not a style decision, as much as any other decision to include or exclude content is. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker Statement
I have not been really involved in all this (except on your talk page, interestingly enough), but I have not seen any current consensus on whether Infoboxes are style or substance or both (see also, WP:CONTENT), so that may be an open question. But can't you strongly encourage whomever to go to mediation to construct RfC's for the community to adopt, perhaps modest default rules guidelines or something like that? (You've done that before on contentious issues). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth
I take Rexx's statement as somewhat spot on, but I'm with Sarah and Laser Brain. I, however, disagree with the idea by Jytdog, that infoboxes should be mandated. I'm generally slightly pro-infobox - most articles I start have them - but there are a few articles I've worked on that they won't work on, in my opinion. (See Middle Ages, Jersey Act, Carucage, or Gregorian mission). Many above are correct that there is too much personalization... but I'm not sure an RfC is going to be any more productive. I don't think DS can hurt IF they are used for the personalizations and extreme-battleground behavior that exists. Certainly something has to give. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mike Christie
Opabinia Regalis is right to say that there is no consensus that infoboxes are a style issue, but I think this is a symptom, rather than a cause, of the different views, and I don't think those underlying views can be brought to a consensus. The two sides' preferred solutions flow from that point: if it's stylistic, it's up to the discretion of the first significant contributor; if it's content, no editor should be allowed to arbitrarily exclude it. If Arbcom can find a workable solution that bypasses settling that point, they're worth their pay, or would be, if they were paid.

Below are some requirements I feel any solution has to have. I posted a version of these at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests and have trimmed them a bit. I tried to make these neutral with the hope that at least both sides might agree on the requirements, if not the solution itself.
 * 1) Fairness.  It has to apply equally to the addition and removal of infoboxes.
 * 2) Permanence. It has to make clear how permanent a decision is, in order to prevent a recurrence of the discussion wasting more time.  When and how can an infobox decision for an article be revisited?
 * 3) Article quality.  Any solution has to acknowledge that there's a difference between adding or removing an infobox to a stub, and doing the same to an article that has had a lot of work and thought put into it, particularly if that article has been through a review process.  This would be true for any edit; it's not more true for infoboxes, but it is true, and has to be remembered.
 * 4) Participation.  It has to address the concern that "uninvolved" editors will show up to add their opinions to any discussion.  And when I say "address", I don't mean "disallow" or "allow"; I just mean the solution has to clearly say whether this is OK, and if not, how it will be stopped or remedied.

Montanabw made some comments in response to these points at the WT:A/R thread that are worth reading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Opabinia regalis: you asked what would make an editor change their mind about infoboxes on an article. I don't think there are any participants in this discussion who think every article should have an infobox, nor any who think no articles should have one. (For that reason I'd like to find better terms than "pro-infobox" and "anti-infobox".) Hence it's not about infoboxes per se, it's about the context. For myself, if I think the information is not misleading (usually by inaccurate summarization) and is important (date of birth is clearly important, for example) I'm OK with including one, though if those restrictions limit the box only to information easy visible in the first one or two sentences I would usually opt not to have one. Two examples, both of which I nominated at FAC: Offa of Mercia has an infobox which is clearly beneficial; Amazing Stories does not and should not.

With regard to a solution, I am certain that discretionary sanctions will not work, if by "work" we mean that editors on both sides will be more productive as a result. Until we get a ruling (via Arbcom or via a community RfC) that settles, not the behaviour issue, but the underlying question of what rules apply to discussions about whether to add or remove an infobox, this will not be resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328
I support the request to add discretionary sanctions to the infobox controversy. Whether or not infoboxes are a style issue or a content issue strikes me as unimportant and secondary to the need to stop the ongoing, persistent disruption which includes incivility. Any such effort will be successful only if enforcement is thoughtful, fair, restrained and even-handed. Sadly, otherwise highly productive editors who are both "pro" and "anti" infoboxes have been drawn into these protracted, repetitive, lengthy and disruptive disputes. Giving uninvolved administrators the power to topic ban editors who repeatedly persist in disruptive, uncivil behavior regarding infoboxes would be a useful tool, as I see it. To be clear, the topic ban I propose would apply only to infoboxes, not to the articles as a whole. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by LaughingVulcan
I have refrained from commenting so far, as I feel too close to some of the heat in one of the germinating articles - both giving and receiving. However, in going through the history of this I noted that there was a recommendation from Arbcom in the original case that there should be, "...a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article." I managed to miss the infobox wars case during a long period of wikibreak/IP editing. Thank God. Was that discussion ever held to anyone's knowledge? I think I see and agree that it is not up to Arbcom to hold such discussion, but did any neutral party actually do that? And also I am not positive that any amount of discussion may bring peace in our time. Yet that too could be tried if it hasn't happened. If no, how could one go about starting that? Last, if discussions were held, what conclusions were reached and would some sort of banner link to them in any IB local article dispute help? None of this is meant to be a yes/no opinion on discretionary sanctions. Maybe any such community discussion should be preemptively placed on DS if held, though. Laughing Vulcan 14:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis, point three I still consider myself an outsider, this have been my first experience on Infobox discussion. But a good survey of the readership, or an RfC or vote of the editorship (as in Infoboxes Remedy 4.3.7 or similar,) or an office action would be objectively empirical evidence for me. In the matter of Infoboxes, anecdotes or lone opinions generally won't change minds IMVHO, nor will article stewards' opinions if one differs with them. At least the ones I saw didn't persuade me to difference in the case at hand, even though many were well written and I reread the RfC and article this morning. Which leaves nose counting, no consensuses, and deferment to status quo ante. Speculation: Maybe if the RfCs were restructured to have "yes/no/comment" subsections collective opinions of either side might be more persuasive.

Laughing Vulcan 01:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies While I’m convinced that my problems were with one editor and thus might agree that DS should thus not be authorized, I’m also extremely concerned at this point that some Arbs may feel like double jeopardy is now attached to his conduct outside this amendment request. (i.e. this Amendment closes with no action, bringing a request about an individual here named would now considered double jeopardy / hounding. ??? ) Or are you suggesting the scope of this amendment be narrowed down to that user's conduct? (And potentially those he's interacted with - quite frankly part of the reason I'm still involved with this and elsewhere trying to solve IB problems is because I'm well aware that I had my own faults with him in that thread and elsewhere... while believing that his problems and mine are of different orders of magnitude. And that he will not change, where I will.  I like bio IBs, but not this much.)  Sorry for changed sig... Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 12:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies (again) Thanks for the explanation. The way I’d see it, the project has not enforced decorum through normal means, multiple times, instead being told time and time again that it’s a matter of Infobox Controversy. 1 (never closed, archived when RfC started.) 2 3  4brought us here-now, I believe

Face it: If Arbcom can’t do anything further about this (either about specific editors or infoboxes, whichever is the cause or both,) no one else will, either.  About the individual(s) or the subject. Because y’all will hast then spoken in the negative, and in the future the Admins and users elsewhere will think or say, "Well, Arbcom didn't act on it then-there, so why should we?" And while it may earn me yet more trouble I really don’t want: At least the subject of the Noel RfC has apparently nobody left with anything to say ATM. Last word (so far) is interesting. It won’t be the end of the trouble with certain individuals, though. Bet you ten quatloos on it.
 * Finally, I’d disagree and dare to venture that most of us who never come before Arbcom love y’all: Because you’re all too often the last line of defense.  Help us, Arbi-Wan, you’re our only hope!ok not, but hope that one gets a laugh, at least...  Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 01:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guerillero Is 90% of WP being put under DS with this? Potentially if 90% of articles have IBs or will have the proposed, though I'd bet over time you're closer to 99% then. But could the question here be to have DS for when there is discussion to include or delete an IB - that discussion is what is under DS? I think that comes to a lower number. Maybe. Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 12:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Smeat75
I just want to point out that, , and  have all retired or announced their intention to end their involvement with WP over this issue in the last few days. These are all highly excellent content creators, driven away from the project by incessant demands from editors otherwise uninvolved with the articles they have worked on to have infoboxes added to the articles. Very sad, a failure on a systemic level to help and value core content creators.Smeat75 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to Opabinia regalis - I think RexxS above, in his reply to you, has done a very fair and balanced job of evaluating the current situation. Things have moved on a little from the time when there were two opposing "camps" of regular editors, one pro, one anti-info-boxes who would slug it out repeatedly. The present, very horrible, conflict is, as he says, centred on FA which come to the attention of the "community" which unfortunately often means editors who neither know nor care anything whatsoever about the subject of the article but just think every article should have an infobox, because that is the cool modern thing to do. The what I might call hard core old school pro-infobox regulars have become a little more willing to compromise and extend understanding to the editors who have taken "their" articles to FA and do not feel infoboxes on them are appropriate, but not the "wider community" summoned by RfC's and so forth, which has been instrumental in the four highly excellent editors I mention above announcing they are quitting WP. Tim Riley is the one whose work I am most familiar with, it is a terrible, terrible loss. This is one of the reasons why I am not interested in trying to take the articles I have created or expanded to "Good" or "Featured" status, then you will have "the community" insisting on infoboxes, I would rather try to please the real "outsiders" who are not WP editors, but readers/users who turn to this website, now (unfortunately, I often think) the most frequently used resource for information on the internet, for accurate, well-sourced, hopefully interesting information.
 * Opabinia regalis asks what would change my mind. I have included infoboxes on articles I have created about books and also about various saints, but in the area of classical music/opera that I work in a lot I feel that infoboxes are not suitable at all for many of the articles I work on and experience someone trying to add one as sabotage of what I have tried to accomplish. I would change my mind if I could see that there is a consensus, not of the wider "community", but of the other editors working in the area of classical music/opera, that infoboxes should be included in articles.Smeat75 (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies says "If infoboxes are the problem, deal with infoboxes." Good idea. How?Smeat75 (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
Arbcom should go ahead and authorize DS for this topic area, but it won't adress the root cause of the issue. I agree with User:Jytdog that infoboxes are a style issue and the community should author a policy to end this dispute once and for all. Sure, one side is going to be upset, but they'll just have to accept it and get over it. This drama mongering and incivility by some editors is simply ridiculous, and far past the point of enough. If DS is the only thing done, we'll end up with a large amount of editors who are eventually blocked, banned off, or simply quit on their own. There will always be a new editor who comes along wants to add or remove an infobox on an article due to the nature of Wikipedia, and without a style guide to look to the main article contributors feel like their article quality is reduced by such changes and react. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
Someone can correct me if I wrong, but following the discussion at it seems entirely a matter of preference whether or not to include or exclude an infobox. If this is the case then any consensus, regardless of quality argumentation, is based of either "I just like that" or "I just don't like that". In the short term Discretionary sanctions are a good idea. For the longer term though some other action needs to be taken. Again my understanding is the inclusion and exclusion of inboxes is a matter of preference, and if the inclusion or the exclusion of an infobox was less arbitrary it stands to reason that there would be less disruption. I assume that the creation of the appropriate policy or guideline is a matter for the community and not ARBCOM directly unless done as a matter of discretionary sanctions. That's a line I question if members of ARBCOM would be comfortable crossing though. Perhaps there i some means that ARBCOM could help in presenting this to the community? If my assumptions about the arbitrary nature of infoboxes is incorrect my apologies and thanks for your time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

TLDR D/S stand to stop the disruption but it avoids addressing the root cause of the disruption. The root cause does seem to be addressable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It can't be ARBCOM who answers the question but can it be ARBCOM that frames the question? Speaking solely of dealing with the infoboxes of course. What is the general problem that comes up that makes people get into a discussion about whether an article should have a infobox? What is the most cited logic for exclusion or for inclusion? Should this logic be standardized in some way?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld
Everybody knows what my opinion is of this situation, and I'm not going to throw around accusations as we know who'll turn up asking for them to be struck down and censored. But I will say that there urgently needs to be a mechanism in place to stop arguments over infoboxes escalating into uncivil, time wasting discussions which last weeks. I'm with Laser brain and Mr. Ernie on this in particular, the blocking editors/topic bans will not address the root of the problem and only turn editors away, as there will always be more editors who will come along and try to add infoboxes and then people will be powerless to defend them.

What we badly need here is to recognize that a] Infoboxes are not compulsory. They are a stylistic preference which should not be enforced on others with a different view, and are at best a minor part of the wikipedia intrastructure at least in arts biographies where their actual informational value is generally less than it may be in articles on sportspeople, aircraft, skyscrapers etc b] Recognize that infobox enforcement is not a problem across the entire site, most articles go by without warring. Recognize that it is often the same names involved in the disputes and articles by the same authors often at the centre of disputes. It is Featured Article sin particular which are often at the centre of disputes, I think something needs to protect those articles in particular from warring after an article passes FA and there is a formal consensus on infobox or no infobox. c] Ultimately recognize that Featured and Good Article writers are extremely valuable to the project and that uncivil discussion over infoboxes increase the risk of people leaving. Acknowledge that FA/GA contributors spend dozens of hours improving articles which nobody else can be bothered to improve, so should have more leeway in stylistic preference as they do in making any other editorial decision to omit/include certian material, ref style and layout in writing the full article. This includes articles which may have previously had an infobox but were undeveloped and poorly written (as infobox protectionism is also a major part of disputes) I think it's those FAs and GAs which have had extreme hard work put into them and careful decision making which needs to be respected above all and people be assured that they can promote an article without later having to fight people from adding an infobox.


 * @, sorry I disagree that infobox discussion is ever likely to be civil. Your comment seems to demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding of a situation which is virtually always contentious. Yes, it might be possible to discuss it civilly, but in practice that far from happens, and you need to recognize that. In fact it's been one of the most bitter areas of confrontation on the site in recent years.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @ In most cases adding an infobox isn't contentious, and people do it and don't have to start a discussion. But in my experience when an editor comes along and says "why doesn't this have an infobox?" on a featured or good article and then starts a new thread to add one it tends to become a long discussion, usually with personal attacks involved. I agree that it shouldn't get uncivil but I'm yet to see an infobox discussion which isn't heated in some way myself.♦  Dr. Blofeld  10:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

 * AE is not a solution. AE would be a punitive bandaid on the encyclopedia that is not punitive. AE is broken. One admin carries both the responsibility and pressure of deciding on a fair result, a situation that opens the door to both abuses of the system and undo pressure on one human being.  Like other forums on Wikipedia AE can result in multiple and long comments, nothing different than an Arb clarification except that decisions are reached by one person instead of many. How can AE result in a better outcome than here?
 * Info boxes are in my mind not strictly format issues. They are an alternative format for carrying content that can be read quickly. It can be frustrating to have created a long and well written article and to know a reader may choose to read only the most basic facts. However, very early and preliminary studies seem to indicate readers reading on a screen retain less information than if they experience the tactile, paper version of the information, remember less, and tend to scan (the left side of the screen) rather than read carefully. An info box then becomes a landing platform for the screen reader where he will see what he needs quickly per her tendency to scan and if the information is interesting enough may read the whole article. This has to be about the reader. We can't change how the screen is read, we can't change how human beings have come to read a screen, but we can be some of the first to understand and cater to the reader and perhaps lure them into reading more extensive knowledge.
 * We have to deal with this issue with a deeper understanding and willingness to adjust per what works for our readers; we have to be in the forefront of understanding how readers read online. That has to be the discussion, a discussion which includes multiple inputs and opinions and the forging of something groundbreaking. We have to think outside the box here, and stop being stuck on what was, and we need the experienced editors to do the thinking and the collaborating rather than leaving the encyclopedia. We're here because what was didn't work for everyone. We need a larger solution which may put a stop to this kind of protracted and in the end usually unproductive discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC))
 * On rereading some cmts: My cmts are not meant to address anyone in particular but are just opinions based on my own experience rather than replies to anyone.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Rschen7754
While I can see the rationale behind DS, I worry that the warning templates will be used as a weapon in areas that have used infoboxes for years with few issues. I also am concerned that we are moving closer to putting the whole site under DS. --Rschen7754 03:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jo-Jo Eumerus
Breaking a little convention of mine, I'd like to suggest that any DS imposed in this topic area be preferably enforced by ways that don't involve Special:Block as the very first tool of enforcement, e.g by reverting or revdeleting violating edits or by edit filters. My impression is that we are not dealing with problems caused by SPAs or disruption-only accounts but with issue perpetrated by editors with mostly good contributions to the project, and the blocking tool (both as a first sanction or as a response to a ban violation) is poorly designed for such issues - for example it cannot be applied on a per group-of-pages or namespace specific basis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda
I agree with Opabinia regalis. I question Dr. Blofeld's "I disagree that infobox discussion is ever likely to be civil", - as much as I have enjoyed collaboration over many years. These discussions are no curse, they are as we make them. We could still start today:
 * to not think of people who don't agree with us as a group, giving them group names, but as human beings
 * to voice our opinion in small doses
 * to accept preferences
 * to not get more excited over infoboxes than other article features such as images and tables.

For a sample of pleasant conversations with a user who doesn't agree with me, see here.

For a recent example of a civil infobox discussion see here.

I have more than enough of the topic which I archived when the year began. If you see me on any article talk regarding the issue, remind me of this pledge. I invite you to my latest PR, part of Max Reger, my topic of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Opabinia regalis: what could change my mind? I prefer this, concise information about the pictured person at a glance, to the plain picture. My mind was changed in 2012 when I found that redundant. Such a thing has been called "sabotage of what I have tried to accomplish" on this very page, and many other niceties in the article talk.


 * @Laser brain: Would you please consider to stop using group names, and "pitch forks"? I gave some samples of peaceful infobox discussion, and could supply more. The "hot" discussions to which you seem to refer when you say "every time" are a minority. Why they get so much attention, I don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again: are there groups? Yes, I am a member of several projects that "like" infoboxes (Infobox, Opera, Quality Article Improvement, etc), these projects also have other members, - in that respect you have groups. Black and white is too simple. I have enjoyed the collaboration of people you might see "on the other side": Dr. Blofeld and Tim riley, among others. When I write an article such as Requiem with Tim, I don't even bring up the question of an infobox, for respect. In The Company of Heaven, a collaboration of Tim, Nikkimaria and myself, we settled for a miniature infobox. There are many good options besides sanctions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Yngvadottir: I agree with your voice for fighting "always" and "never". I disagree with your interpretation of the QAI list: While project members generally prefer articles with infoboxes we do not monitor a list "that keeps count of infobox additions and removals for the purpose of encouraging their addition as a general principle". The counting is (only) for three infoboxes created with the help of project members, and a list remembers articles where an infobox was reverted. The project knows nothing of infoboxes as a "general principle", but as a simple tool of accessibility. - Regarding GA and FA: it is not without irony that the article Noël Coward was TFA with an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Today, reading Victoria's comment, I added Ezra Pound to my watch list and read the "less pleasant" (why?) 2012 discussion with interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jcc
Any hope of civility without sanctions in the topic of infoboxes is simply wishful, naive thinking. One only needs to read Talk:Noel Coward to see the level of entrenchment between the two sides- and DS is needed, otherwise it will just be repeat of that every single time the topic is brought up. One editor has had 4 ANI threads by four different editors on ANI about their conduct in that thread, all of which have been closed, because what's really needed is DS. Sure, it won't solve the root cause, but it acts as an encouragement for editors to moderate their behaviour, and it'll help until we come up with a policy on infoboxes. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
I would strongly encourage the Committee to require the community to come to some MOS or the infobox equivalent of DATERET on how to determine when infoboxes should be include and how to appropriate breach the subject of how to seek a change (removal of a long-standing infobox, and/or addition of an infobox to an article that has lacked it). The one thing that I have found when reading through discussions on the infoboxes is very much an WP:OWNership aspect by those that have decided they didn't want an infobox on the articles they brought to GA/FA, and a view imcompatible with WP:CCC. The lack of a DATERET-type approach to avoid all these arguments on the process is what makes these discussions highly argumentive.

This should also be alongside a discussion to determine if it is possible from a technical standpoint to allow users to enable or disable infoboxes, as to help find a middle ground between the two stances on infoboxes. There is presently some discussion going on in WP:VPT towards this. --M ASEM (t) 01:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * One comment on the SMC's comment in this diff: - all material in an infobox should be duplicating content already in the article. If there is material in the infobox that is not part of the article, that's a problem. (Alternatively, the infobox should be seen as a way to sustinctly group useful data that are discussed in depth in an article, without having the reader have to read through and seek the data) This is why this should not be seen as a content issue but a style aspect, whether you provide that summary or not. --M ASEM  (t) 23:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @RexxS : This is probably why having ArbCom force the community to sit down to come to an understanding of what purpose infoboxes serve and when or when not to include them and how to address debates on that after the fact, needs to be done. If we have infoboxes that include pertinent information that is not required to be repeated in the prose, then they become somewhat mandated to be included, which I know is an objection by those wanting to avoid their use. Not including some of this information in prose also becomes an accessibility issue. But this page is not the place to hash out the problems, just that I think we need ArbCom to make use stop ignoring the elephant in the room and come to some consensus on these. --M ASEM (t) 16:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Yngvadottir
I strongly encourage the committee to reaffirm its ruling in the original infoboxes case that infoboxes are neither compulsory nor deprecated and should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, and otherwise to refrain from ruling in the matter.

The MOS is commonly used as a bludgeon; some of the wisest rulings on Wikipedia have concerned allowing variant usage to stand in the interests of our mission: to be an encyclopa/edia that anyone can edit: WP:CITEVAR, WP:ENGVAR. On the other hand the ruling on capitalisation of species names lost us an entire cohort of expert editors in the field of ornithology, in the name of a specious consistency.

People will always disagree about the merits of infoboxes, depending on the areas in which they work (they make good sense for athletes, ships, species, and films; they are appallingly reductive for any person with a varied body of work and in many other areas), their visual image of an encyclopedia, the priority they assign to facilitating automated use of our content (to me a negative), their approach to accessibility, their empathy for those trying to load increasingly template-heavy Wikipedia pages, and other variables I probably haven't even thought of. (I was trying not to mention also that the presence of an infobox also entrains many other issues ArbCom has grappled with recently, such as how to and whether to list a person's religion and ethnicity. But damnit, I think it's relevant.) It's an intractable difference of opinion with valid general arguments on both sides that, for me, weigh heavier on one side or the other in specific articles; I applaud Arbcom's wisdom in having ruled out as invalid the argument that there must be an infobox in any specific case, or that there must never be an infobox.

But that has not been enforced. I recently participated in an MfD for a project page that keeps count of infobox additions and removals for the purpose of encouraging their addition as a general principle. Discussions on talk pages present ample examples of generalized pro-infobox argument. And any broad RfC would of necessity boil down to consideration of the generalization, not of specific cases. That's analogous to variation in citation formats. People will always have varying opinions, and making a general rule will just weaken the encyclopedia to no purpose by driving off editors.

In particular, just as the project page I referred to above is under a project named for quality improvement, a number of excellent content producers have focussed increasingly on the GA and FA processes in part because the review of such an article provides a certification that the article was good or excellent without an infobox (or with a collapsed one). That's a valid argument should a challenge arise on the issue, but a sad reason for people to withdraw from creating new articles or improving some of our bad stubs. The underlying reason is not an unwillingness to work collaboratively, it's that what ArbCom once recognized as an area in which editors may legitimately hold differing opinions has not been treated as such as per ArbCom's ruling. Reaffirm that. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Wehwalt
I would not take the case, or amend it, unless arbitrators truly feel they can solve the issue by doing so, not just because nothing so far has worked. So far I see no indication that they so feel. Nor do I see any proposal on this page that I would bet more than ten cents on. Accordingly, I would deny the request.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
I am pretty late to this party (off wiki several days, then ill), but my take is that I don't think that DS will help much. The two-comment rule might work, at least if it is used to bring in new and additional voices instead of all the same people yelling at each other. I favor working on civility and sticking to the topic, not the personalities. I believe that the infobox dispute is, as one editor mentioned, more about emotions than anything else, and if we can firmly keep emotion out of the issue, the rest will eventually fall into place. There are useful compromises that would be reached (collapsed infoboxes being one that has been used, infoboxes that place the image as a free-floating and resizable element above the box is another concept with potential) and there certainly is room to improve upon the layout and content of some infoboxes (the classic case of bloat probably being the one at Serena Williams). But the real problem here is civility. DS is not going to help that, it will just get the most involved people sanctioned without reducing the heat. It is a bludgeon, not a carrot. An infobox-type mechanism for metadata is going to exist, and I do rather favor a "six month rule" or "one year rule" between discussion of an infobox on an article once a consensus has been reached.

Comment by Victoriaearle
I'd strongly urge the committee to impose discretionary sanctions for infobox discussions - discussions that tend to escalate and get out of hand very quickly. Let's use Ezra Pound as a case study (btw - I'm the person who made the editorial judgment not to include the infobox): here's a discussion in 2010; another much longer and less pleasant discussion in 2012; there's this 2016 very unpleasant comment, which also made its way to The Bad Site (and which I read when dealing with an 18mm kidney stone (so you all can collectively say ouch and wonder why the hell I even came back to this place)); and the current discussion that was started the same day I spoke up about infoboxes on my talk page after spending years keeping my mouth shut, hands off keyboard. Let's assume good faith and assume that's a coincidence, and analyze the discussion: in little over 24 hours about 8 editors made about 20 comments. Three of the editors have been involved in writing, reviewing and curating the page (which is a featured article). Godwin's law was invoked fairly early on, regulars were templated, the discussion spread to other pages. Last night I made this comment and the discussion ended (which suggests to me that if we simply use those little DS templates when people start mucking around with infoboxes that it will slow the discussions). I'm expecting to be accused of ownership, but the reality is this: every single time I pressed save for the 1700 plus edits I made I was fully aware I was giving away my work. What can't be taken away, what I do own, is the knowledge in my head about the topic on which I can base a strong non-infobox-rationale (NIBR). Whether or not to add an infobox is an editorial decision and the best way to discuss is for the person requesting an infobox to enter into a rational discussion with the person who made the editorial decision. One party might sway the other, or perhaps not. But goading, baiting, templating, the basic tenor of these discussions is not only unhelpful but corrosive to the project. I shall now go write an NIBR - thanks all. Victoria (tk) 14:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding: I've written a lengthy no infobox rationale (NIBR) and have spent half a day on this. To say I'm fed up would be an understatement. In my view the arbs need to do something to prevent the reversion of the addition of an infobox (complete with non-free image) turning into an RfC and a brawl. There was nothing wrong with the reversion. Victoria (tk) 16:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding more: apparently the Ezra Pound RfC was opened per an OTRS request. Does the committee know how common that is? It might be worth investigating. I'm thinking if it's common, it might not be the best way to start these discussing and perhaps the heat could be lowered a little if people at least know an RfC was initiated in response to an OTRS ticket. I confess to knowing next-to-nothing about OTRS, but it seems a little odd. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Striking my comments. In the end it's only a box with some data and it's not worth losing sleep over, nor is it worth having people (because editors are people) be upset and hurt. I'm happy to cede the field at this point. My largest objection has been the nature of the discussions, their speed, and things that have been said. But in the end, it's really all meaningless. Victoria (tk) 05:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ottr500

 * I would like some clarification on "General sanction for entire community on Infobox related RfC discussions with a limit of two posts including initial post.", and if I am correct how "the courts" will not be effectively making law. This leads to further concerns with the added "Any expansion beyond a minor expansion or clarification of an existing statement would be considered a second post.". I see there are problems, and solutions to correct many of these have been in place a long time, but admins failing to enforce attack, harassment, or civility policies, is what seems to me to be a major problem, because admins not wanting to get "bitten by the system". Our policies are written to generally be interpreted as loosely as possible, and concerning harassment, that inherently would had to have been preceded by an attack, the "rules" are so unclear that an editor would almost have to commit wiki-murder to be sanctioned. An attack of any kind is uncivil, so there are two reasons for sanctions, and a 2nd attack is harassment, so there would be three instances of a breach of policies and guidelines. If there is a second harassment we can throw in about 4 or five more breached policies and guidelines, so an admin would only have to determine the culprit, one or both editors (or more if warranted) successfully dealing with the issue. civility is one of our core "fundamental principles" yet it is skirted around, trampled on, and generally ignored by editors and admins alike, more especially when it leads to dispute resolutions. It really doesn't matter how good an editor is, or how much they contribute to Wikipedia, if they are uncivil, warn them, if they continue, they are not really here to build an encyclopedia but are more likely to just be a bully. If there is a lack of admins willing to enforce policies and guidelines some the ones considering this proposal should become Wikipedia champions and step up to the plate.


 * 1)- A "rule" of two comments only (if that is correct) is totally preposterous. This should be shelved as an attack on Wikipedia in general. "IF" there is a problem then work to correct that not saddle wikipedia, and admins, with future battles and sanctions against good faith editors that will be "caught up in the system". I ended up here because I ran across a featured article German battleship Bismarck that has such a very long junk (trivia) filled infobox that it blew my mind, and was looking to explore these boxes and policies and guidelines. I read pretty far into this before realizing I overlooked ("missed the point") the real purpose of discussing a two edit "rule", if this is correct.
 * 2)- Add to this the vague 2nd part about expansion, how this will remedy anything considering it will just hurt the discussion process, and only allow wikilawyers the ability to shorten future attacks just keeping them "a minor expansion" or "clarification of an existing statement". I can see "Alright just for clarification from the piece of crap editor such and such". Now we are within the proposed limits and yet still have an attack, or a second attack and harassment if an editor made a previous attack in first comments. This proposal is an upside down solution to what could be taken care of with existing policies and guidelines that protect attacking (incivility is an attack) editors from lack of enforcement. Now there is a suggestion to "sanction" editors trying to improve Wikipedia.
 * How in the world is this not "corporal punishment". "We are sorry but it has been determined that your second comment was not actually an expansion of the previous, nor did you wikilaywer "for clarification", so this is your third, go directly to jail.
 * "IF" there is a problem in an area because of attacks, harassment, or incivility from editors involving infoboxes, address that and not attempt a good faith wiki-execution of innocent editors or restrictions on trying to improve Wikipedia, that I can not imagine supporters of this can not see. This committee should not accept this request. Please look at the "Kindly read before editing this page. It states "Discussions at arbitration requests are typically heated", and this is a part of the Wikipedia process, so please don't consider a class warfare, address the real issues of policies and guideline violations that will improve Wikipedia and solve infobox issues as well. Remember, Admins are editor too. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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



Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion
Second, the previous decision that the question is up for discussion at each individual page has not proven satisfactory, or we wouldn't be here; there's no point repeating it. Third, the contents of an infobox is a matter of content--i.e., what fields should be included, how much verification is needed, and so on. The presence of an infobox, is a question of style. Most question of style are satisfactorily handled by the general ...VAR rule of uniformity within an article, but not between articles; the question here is whether this style is so important a feature that uniformity is essential (as it is for some aspects of choice of title) Fourth, it amazes me that anyone would leave WP over this issue, when there's another choice, which is to ignore the matter entirely.  DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm inclined towards imposing DS on the area. I don't see a need for another case. I might be convinced otherwise but I really wouldn't look forward to it. Doug Weller  talk 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Might as well give DS a try. Nothing else has worked so far... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to authorizing discretionary sanctions here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. In the last infobox-related ARCA, I (and others, but I remember my own posts best! :) suggested that someone who wants DS for infoboxes should file a new ARCA request on that point. No one did. Now we have another request about something related, where several people who commented on the previous request stop by to again ask for DS. (OK, I'm not sure what if anything that says, but it somehow seems significant.) I disagree with some of the comments above that this is a "style issue" and can be subsumed into existing mechanisms for handling such things - a look at the thread on the requests page clearly establishes that there is no consensus about whether infoboxes are style or content or something in between. However, I'm concerned that traditional DS applied to the topic of "infoboxes" will end up picking off participants one by one and dragging out the drama. There are also large areas of the project where infoboxes are not controversial. I think we need to be careful of unintended consequences. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think it's uncivil or a personal attack or whatever, I don't see the value in discussing individuals admins here, especially those not currently active at AE. Let's spend our time on more useful discussions.
 * The tone of discussions related to this subject has become excessively personalized. (There's my entry in the understatement of the year competition.) Relatedly, I think we all agree that nobody wants to see editors leaving the project over this, even in part, and I certainly hope those who are frustrated with this debate return after a break.
 * This is a question for people on all sides of the debate: what kind of information would convince you to change your mind? What could you learn about editors or readers that would make you think "OK, at first I thought this article should/shouldn't have an infobox, but now I think the opposite"? Positions on the subject have clearly become entrenched over years of arguing, but what seems to me to be lacking is empirical evidence. If we can at least talk about what kind of evidence people find convincing, maybe we can move forward. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all who answered my question above, and apologies that I haven't had time to read the answers yet - it's a long weekend :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think authorizing discretionary sanctions is an appropriate next step to trying to address this problem. I am not inclined to grant the two amendments requested by the filer. I'm not sure I'd ever support amending a case principle, simply because they're mainly there so that we can agree on background information. Changing it would not have any effect on current practice, since the principles do not authorize any remedies. The two-revert suggestion also seems misguided, as it's entirely possible to have a civil, productive conversation in this topic area while also making more than two posts. I feel like it would simply stymie productive discussion, and encourage repeated RfCs on very similar issues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf perhaps said it better than me in his comment above. There are plenty of discussions involving infoboxes that are perfectly normal; usually on pages where it's already been decided that there should be an infobox. I am not saying that there is no issue involving infoboxes; I've was active on the Infobox case review in 2015 and have also weighed in on various ARCAs regarding the cases, so I'm fully aware that it is an intensely problematic area. I simply want to avoid imposing restrictions that are so broad that a few editors can't even discuss, say, whether a person's previous occupation is relevant to include in an infobox. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am apprehensive about placing close to 90% of the 'pedia under DS -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * the MOS itself is under DS but not pages that use the MOS. The issues never spilled over into individual articles in the same way that infoboxen have. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * and we would be back here again in a month defining what "major changes" are. Anything narrow goes through the merry-go-round and everything broad places more things under DS that ever have before. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DS is punitive, by definition. I echo the sentiment of Rexx and Mike Christie (if not all parts of their statement), and some others, that what is urgently needed is a spirit of cooperation. And beer of course. What led to this? Comments by Cassianto which were deemed uncollegial (ahem) but were not handled/sanctioned at ANI? If we impose DS, don't we just shift that burden (of admonishing longterm content editors who sometimes lose their cool, maybe) to the few poor schmucks who patrol AE? The only "benefit" that can come out of it, and I'm putting that word in quotes since its beneficial nature will be a matter of contention, is not the block (Cassianto, for instance, has been blocked plenty) but a topic ban. Some will find that beneficial, others will not. The thing is (in my opinion) that if Cassianto (and I'm using him as an example because the filer did) somehow deserves a topic ban in this area for continued incivility, you don't need DS for all these articles to do it. Such a drastic measure directed at one editor really should be community imposed, not handed out by one of the aforementioned poor schmucks at AE. And if the community decides that such a measure is not appropriate, well, then the community has spoken--which is better, and will produce less bad blood, than one admin handing out a punishment whose consequences will be far-reaching. I don't think I'm sticking my head in the sand: I am also well aware of the enormous weight placed on infoboxes. But if editor x" is the problem, then deal with editor x. If infoboxes are the problem, deal with infoboxes. I do not believe that this is one of these cases where the problem of problematic editors in a problematic field ( In a nutshell: problematic because it is not a problem that can be solved with RS or NPOV. ) can be dealt with by imposing the kind of discipline that deals with neither an individual editor or the topic as a whole. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , that is not what I see in this case request, which seems to focus on a. the behavior of one contributor and b. the lack of action taken at ANI in regard to that behavior. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I dig where you're coming from but I'm not feeling you completely. Sure, succinct--that's cool, but this is so succinct that I see little more than "we need to find a way to get rid of people like Cassianto". The rest of what I see, besides the call for DS, is the usual elements of any infobox discussion. So I cannot, from this request, infer that we should write up a case to take up again. If y'all want a real case, if you want to renegotiate the old one, then ask for one. (After I retire to Nassau, of course.) But again, I do not see the purpose for DS--and DS is, as one other editor pointed out above, also abused as a tool to chill and intimidate. Again I ask why one would want one admin to impose sanctions (at AE) when a group of admins couldn't (at ANI). I get that ANI is dysfunctional, and maybe AN is better, but if it can't be done there, what would y'all want from that one poor admin at AE? And did you read my objections to this request? You seem to focus only on the "no" part... Drmies (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , sure, frequently there's more than one schmuck at AE, but not always, and I think this is one of those almost intractable cases where DS is just not a good idea, esp. not if we're doing that to make up for a failure at AN. The same admin(s) you want to enforce DS could be shopping around at AN, and they don't need more of a warrant to place a block there then they would at AE. DS, IMO, is much more suitable to topic areas like ARBPIA and BALKAN and whatnot, where you have old axes to grind but especially new and drive-by editors. The threatening language of DS is much more of a deterrent in such areas than it is in this, where the dispute is so old and the parties so entrenched. What kinds of solutions are sought? Blocks (and thus deterrents) for a. editors who breach decorum and b. editors who turn discussions into quagmires. (I don't think I saw much of a consensus on some kind of limit of postings.) Bring a case to AN--hey, editor X is calling us sons of bitches. If it's a real attack or whatever and admins won't block, then we have bigger problems that DS won't fix. This is just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , what I see is a case that started about one editor and calls for very broad measures. I don't know about double jeopardy; I do know that the ANI thread was closed without solution and that we shouldn't block someone now for something that happened weeks or months ago and found no consensus then. I continue to think that we do not need DS to enforce one little thing from an earlier case, decorum, a thing that should be enforceable throughout the project through the normal means. OK, let's say that editor X did that terrible thing and no one blocked them for it because ANI is a groupshithole or something like that. Should ArbCom get involved because 1500 admins and a couple thousand editors can't agree to do something about something basic? We are better off bringing better cases to AN and keeping the discussion in check--and we should let admins do that, and we should allow admins the leeway to keep those discussions in check. I have spoken about that frequently: admins should run AN. They have that leeway already; they should use it. Face it, no one likes ArbCom, no one wants ArbCom involved--if you find better ways to manage the problems you won't need us. At least not for this one. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , "how?", you said. Good question--but it can't be ArbCom that decides on the basic question, infobox yes or no. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't see the point of DS when it is unclear what the DS are supposed to be enforcing. Since a large number of admins and other WPedians disagree about the solution, it amounts to a more rigid application of each individuals variant pov on the matter in a chaotic and contradictory fashion.

Infoboxes: Motion to open a case


The Arbitration Committee has determined that the dispute, as it currently stands, would not be adequately solved through an amendment request to the previous case or review, nor by the imposition of discretionary sanctions. As such, an arbitration case (named Infoboxes 3) is accepted to examine the conduct of various editors involved in the infoboxes dispute.

Statements used on this page will form the preliminary statements for the case. The scope of the case will be to look at the actions of editors who are invested in the dispute with a view to determining those who can be disruptive. The Committee requests input from the community as to who should be parties to this case. Suggestions for parties should be made, with reasons and evidence, on this page. The Committee will consider these suggestions when determining the parties.


 * Support
 * Just noting that statements here will be considered preliminary statements when the case is opened. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Although this would be better left to the community,  there have been previous arb com decisions that did overlap with MOS issues. Since the community has been manifestly unable to solve it and it's gotten to be a continuing source of disruption, I reluctantly conclude it falls to us.  DGG ( talk ) 14:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 05:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I supported this when we were discussing it last week, and would have already voted in favor if I hadn't been so busy in real life all week. This ARCA was opened a month ago, we've tried and tried to develop a discretionary sanctions formulation that would accurately target the problem areas without all kinds of unintended consequences, and no viable solutions have appeared. Moreover, this just isn't a good format for structured presentations that differentiate evidence from opinions, speculation, complaints, and personal disputes. But things do seem to have settled down quite a bit in this area since the original filing. There have also been several recent retirements and it doesn't seem right to hold a case so soon afterwards. I think we should hold off for now but be prepared to accept a new case expeditiously if this resurfaces again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote for pretty much the same reason as OR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of what I am considering is that suggesting a case when some of the main involved editors aren't going to participate is pretty pointless as we won't get their comments. If and when they return to editing a case request can be filed and we'll look at then, likewise if there are continuing problems even though those editors aren't involved then a case request can be filed and we'll look at it. Until then a case likely won't solve the problem anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That formulation of a case sounds an awful lot like the DS we're not accepting here. Our last case amounted (pretty much) to us throwing our hands up in the air and I do not see how we have made progress since then. I think we would need a full case, but since (see Yngvadottir's first comment, above) we can't agree on whether infoboxes are content or not, because most likely they are both content and style, we can't really take such a case--unless we acknowledge beforehand that we will most likely end up throwing our hands up in the air. I also wish to echo DGG's comment: infoboxes aren't worth it. No, at some point you all (the community) need to decide on this. In the meantime, DS having been rejected I think, it is up to individual administrators to judge the behavior of individual editors and sanction them if necessary. Admins, step up to the plate. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea of a case, but this is not the time for it. There is an extreme lack of community comment here, and without the community expressing will to take on a case, I have to oppose proceedings until such time. Honestly though, the next infoboxes mess should go to a case request, not ARCA. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. A case isn't appropriate - at the moment. If serious problems erupt again that can't be resolved by the community then a case request would be the way to go. Doug Weller  talk 07:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Recuse


 * Abstain

Amendment request: GamerGate (October 2016)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "The Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page are not editable by accounts with fewer than 500 edits and age less than 30 days, pursuant to this WP:AE request.  14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)"


 * 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


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * "The Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page are not editable by accounts with fewer than 500 edits and age less than 30 days, pursuant to this WP:AE request.  14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)"
 * The 500/30 restriction should be removed from the talk page and replaced with standard semi-protection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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



GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

GamerGate: Motion regarding Talk:Gamergate controversy

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 00:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Really, all this motion does it allow admins to change the protection level of the talk page without risking desysoping. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I guess we can try this -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) "Sure, I guess" is about where I am on this too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll see how it goes. Doug Weller  talk 09:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) kelapstick(bainuu) 21:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


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


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

Amendment request: American politics 2 (October 2016)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2
 * Amend the case to define, directly, or by reference, what the "standard discretionary sanctions" that it imposes are.

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

If it means this, it needs to say so:

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Case cloased, eh?


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


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


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


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

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

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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



American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Standard discretionary sanctions refers to AC/DS --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is linked in the template. Doug Weller  talk 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote this thing with User:Courcelles. "standard discretionary sanctions" means AC/DS. I added a link as a clerical change. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Guerillero, now that it's linked (which is obviously what it is referring to) this request can be closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks and we can close. Doug Weller  talk 16:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, folks. Looks like we're done here. Courcelles (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The original issue has been resolved. We address disruption if and when it comes. If this makes us appear to be showing more equalism (not even sure how to define that), then all of Wikipedia does. We page protect some BLPs, does that mean we are more equal or unfair to them? No. We prevent the disruption and don't take preemptive action just as is outlined in the principle of the block and protection policies. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Christianity and Sexuality (October 2016)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality


 * 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


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Remedies
 * I request that discretionary sanctions be imposed on articles in the topic area representing the intersection of Christianity (Or Catholicism) and Sexuality, narrowly construed, for example, a 1RR limit.

Statement by Elizium23
Based on the activity over 14 months on Robert Sarah as well as low-grade activity on the flagship Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, the parties named have been unable to profit from the investigation, findings, admonishments and editor restrictions imposed by the aforementioned ArbCom case. It is therefore suggested that the case be revisited and appropriate discretionary sanctions be imposed that will give the appropriate tools to admins against chronic disruptive editing patterns.

Statement by Contaldo80
This is a spurious arbitration request. There has been little or no disruptive editing to the articles cited from what I can see. Things have been much better. The need for a 1RR seems to be a way to enforce a particular point of view without permitting disagreement. I've seen very little from Elizium that suggests constructive engagement with other editors on specific issues of concern. Editors trying to frame articles based on a faith position need to realize this is a secular encyclopedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite: This is exactly my feeling. A storm in a tea-cup.Contaldo80 (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement by Black Kite
" It is therefore suggested that the case be revisited and appropriate discretionary sanctions be imposed that will give the appropriate tools to admins against chronic disruptive editing patterns." A quick perusal of the edit history of Robert Sarah and the talk page will suggest that the one editing disruptively against consensus is, er, Elizium23. Regardless, this is a minor content dispute. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am involved on this article. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Christianity and Sexuality: Clerk notes

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



Christianity and Sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Whaddayaknow--I weighed in on that talk page, a couple of months ago, though it didn't involve Elizium23 directly, as far as I know. Anyway, the recent history of the article, and the talk page discussion, lend credibility to the suggestion that Elizium is indeed the one disruptor. I find this edit particularly troubling: if I understand it correctly Elizium's argument is that because the --- no I don't understand the argument. The subject is opposed to LGBT rights, and the RfC points to consensus on that; changing that subtitle to "Views" as if somehow the subject speaks for the entire Church is simply wrong. I also see charges on the talk page that the NYT is "twisting quotes and misrepresenting Catholic doctrines and practices." Granted, that's from last year, but still, that spirit seems to inform Elizium's editing practice. I haven't looked at the other article, the "flagship article", but I see enough here already to suggest that a topic ban for this and perhaps other articles might be helpful. I see no reason whatsoever to impose DS; a stricture for this and maybe one other editor is more appropriate. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need to impose discretionary sanctions here. I'd suggest ANI could probably solve this, unless would like to take a look and see if he can sort it out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also see no need for discretionary sanctions. ANI should be able to deal with this. Doug Weller  talk 16:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. No need for DS, nothing for us to do here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are definitely issues with this article—primarily that slow-moving edit war over the section title—but not to the point where I think the Arbitration Committee needs to impose DS or other sanctions. I think ANI can handle this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I shall pile on that without a presentation of evidence of issues devolving, and with Drmies note, that this is not the time for DS. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Doncram (November 2016)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected


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


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * May 2016 motion
 * Request rescindment of the restriction.

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

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

Since opening the April-May amendment request, approaching 6 months ago, I believe there have been no serious problems and any other general concerns should be lessened.
 * I have proceeded to edit NRHP articles, mainly by my developing about 200 NRHP place articles tagged "NRIS-only" with additional sources to remove them permanently from that category. Specifically I have worked steadily on this worklist of about 750 NRIS-onlies originally created by me.  I have worked alone and with collaboration of other editors (including Farragutful on this batch of all Iowa NRIS-only articles and Bubba73 on this batch of Georgia articles).  I have received positive "thanks" for expanding some of these.
 * I have participated some at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and elsewhere without conflict.
 * I've done the "heavy lifting" needed to fix up List of courthouses in the United States, an NRHP-related list-article whose problems were discussed at the April-May amendment request.
 * Unrelated to NRHP, I have continued participating constructively IMO in AFDs and in other areas. For example, I am participating in consensus-building processes in ongoing proposals / RFC discussions that I opened in two non-NRHP areas, here and here.  It may be that neither directly produces any great change, but I think constructive discussion going on is sorting out some advances that will perhaps achieve consensus in future followups.

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

At this point I see no purpose served by the restriction, and I wish to be released from it so that:
 * this particular cloud over my editorship may be removed (the restriction was in fact cited negatively one or more times, for example within this long ANI statement [not NRHP-related, and which was soon closed])
 * I might participate in AFC in reviewing and promoting others' articles in the NRHP area, rather than being a burden on AFC's editors who must review my own new NRHP articles;
 * the arbitration case may be considered finished, and I might just get on with things, and also so that no future arbitration committee needs to review the 2013 arbitration case. This is the last substantial restriction remaining that I expect to appeal. (The only other remaining restriction is an interaction ban which may remain in place permanently.)  I could have waited until six full months had passed, but I hope evidence available now suffices and that the committee would also like to have this wrapped up.  -- do  ncr  am  00:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC). Revised, 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Notice of this amendment request given by me to NRHP wikiproject, on 1 October. -- do ncr  am  18:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Under the May outcome, I applied myself to removing sources of some others' dissatisfaction, making myself work through tedious worklists of old NRHP articles cheerfully, which I likely would not have done if I were put under NRHP topic probation. To remove the cloud over my editing, I might have simply avoided the area for six months (to let the clock expire, to avoid possibility of any random conflict, or simply out of discouragement). Instead I did not avoid the area, and gave the committee new data: many edits in NRHP area (>200 in List of courthouses in the United States, >200 old NRHP place articles improved, participation in the wt:NRHP forum, creation of new NRHP articles, without serious problems. At this point I don't see why a narrow edit restriction should be replaced by a broad probation;  I have effectively been under a six month probation already and acted constructively. Sincerely, -- do  ncr  am  18:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Opinion by JzG
Too soon, IMO. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Doncram: Clerk notes

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



Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline I don't see an acceptance here of the issues that lead to this topic ban and a willingness not to repeat them. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doncram has addressed my issues since I voted to decline. A probation of sorts would be ok with me. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline Doncram doesn't seem to have addressed how he would avoid the issues which lead to the topic ban in the first place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Doncram has now addressed my concerns. I'd be happy with suspending the sanction (probation). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see, at first or second glance, a reason to turn this down immediately. I cannot, from my ivory tower, easily see where Doncram might have had problems recently and there's not much feedback yet. I'd love to hear from some of the old hands, such as or, maybe. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmies. This is a substantive request with quite a bit of detail presented to document a recent history of unproblematic editing, and to my knowledge no one has objected to Doncram's editing since the May motion, so I don't see why we'd be so quick to dismiss this request out of hand. I'd be inclined to grant this, or if that's not palatable for the rest of the committee, consider a probation instead. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless someone new comes up with compelling arguments against granting this, I'm fine with it. Doug Weller  talk 09:50, 16 October 2016
 * Your comment here seems to conflict with your vote, could you explain what has changed for you? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The creation of the second motion. It's a marginal thing for me (and maybe if there'd been no objection at all I'd probably not have voted for parole). Doug Weller  talk 10:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read Doncram's comments made last night. Because of them I've changed my vote. Doug Weller  talk 10:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems fine to me also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (rescinded)



 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) First choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Second choice given that the other motion at least relaxes the restriction now and hopefully there will be no reinstatement of it.  Doug Weller  talk 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) *First choice now after reading Doncram's comments made last night about the width of the probation. Doug Weller  talk
 * 6) Only choice. There ius no evidence of current problems.  DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) ok with this. could argue either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I'd prefer to first try a parole. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) As I said above I'd prefer a suspended sanction / parole / probation (whatever it's being called now) (something along the lines of this). : I'll propose a suspended version, would you prefer it to be for 6 or 12 months (my preference is 6 months). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer 12, but I am fine with either. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) prefer, below -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Prefer suspension. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Drmies (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) kelapstick(bainuu) 16:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Doncram: Motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (suspended)

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. Given that there is support for rescinding it immediately hopefully this is an acceptable middle ground. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Second choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Only choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) First Second choice.  Doug Weller  talk 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) only choice -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Fine with me. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) ok with this. could argue either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Something we've done many times before. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) kelapstick(bainuu) 16:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) There was no violations, and he's been under semi removal already. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The complete removal of the restriction is my only choice. This is not necessary, because a sanction can be reimposed in any of several ways.  .     DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Amendment request: American politics 2 (November 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by KINGOFTO at 21:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC) WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Bishonen


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KINGOFTO&diff=747365466&oldid=747036782
 * WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by KINGOFTO
WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by L235
I'm uninvolved in this, but as I looked deeper, I felt compelled to recuse and write a statement. You were asked time and time again not to reinstate the tags. In fact, you were explicitly informed that you may not reinstate contested edits and of the contents of the editnotice (which is always visible when editing the page) you claim you didn't see – and responded to that. And then, in yet another violation of the DS-authorized editnotice-displayed page sanction, you made the exact edit you were asked not to and that has absolutely no consensus. Under those circumstances, Bishonen was rather restrained in only banning you from Donald Trump, and this ARCA request was very ill-advised. Respectfully, you'll be lucky to scoot off without more sanctions.

The amendment request should be summarily declined if it isn't withdrawn quickly by KINGOFTO. Respectfully, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
It's pretty clear that KINGOFTO must have seen the edit notice on Donald Trump so can't claim to be unaware of discretionary sanctions. Combine that with the number of times KINGOFTO had been told that the NPOV tag had no consensus - Discretionary sanctions alerts on the user talk page contains a clear example - and the addition of that tag by KINGOFTO couldn't fail to attract a sanction. 'Shonen was quite right to impose an indefinite topic ban from Donald Trump topics, in my humble opinion. As there's no evidence that KINGOFTO has learned anything from the sanction, there really is no argument for removing it.

The other question is whether a user can waste other editors' time at this venue without WP:BOOMERANG applying. I'm generally loathe to see anything that would discourage editors from seeking redress from ArbCom, but in this case I'm willing to make an exception. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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


 * I am retitling this to American politics 2 per convention. In ARCAs and other arbitration proceedings, you are required to notify other parties, including Bishonen; I'm doing so now for you as a courtesy.  Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Having now read the context more, I will recuse as a clerk to give a statement. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Do you want to withdraw this now? I certainly don't see any reason to overturn the sanction or even at this moment to limit it. So a definite decline from me and the hope that you will walk softly in regard to other articles relating to American politics or BLPs any further transgressions there will almost certainly result in an expanded sanction. Good behavior coupled with a considerable reduction in the political tension in America will make it easier to revisit your ban. Doug Weller  talk 13:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What Doug says. I do not see how this should be modified or overturned based on the evidence given. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)