Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality

Statement by Uninvolved User:Robert McClenon
Looking over the history of the disputes about this article, I can see that there have been article talk page discussions that have gone around and around since late 2013 without resolution. There is antagonism between some editors, but they have in general been dancing around the edges of what is clearly blockable, avoiding actual WP:3RR and avoiding clear personal attacks, but also avoiding collaboration. I agree with the comment that neither lightweight mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard or formal mediation are likely to work, and see no point in sending the parties off for failed mediation. At the same time, the conduct issues in this case fall just barely short of the usual threshold for the ArbCom to accept a full case; there haven't been enough WP:ANI threads for the usual acceptance of arbitration. However, the new arbitration committee has introduced a useful approach to persistent conduct disputes that do not rise to the previous threshold for a formal arbitration case: a procedural accept in order to impose arbitration discretionary sanctions. I suggest that the ArbCom implement do a procedural accept in order to impose discretionary sanctions on the topic area of Homosexuality and Catholicism. Any further disruptive editing, such as reversion without discussion, can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would add that, if the ArbCom decides to take a full case with an evidentiary phase, I would ask the ArbCom to impose discretionary sanctions at the start, rather than waiting until the final decision. Discretionary sanctions are a better way of handling edit wars than repeated full protection (which will always necessarily be of what some editor sees as the "wrong" version.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Thryduulf has referred to four types of restrictions. I was proposing (b), a narrow restriction on Homosexuality and Catholicism, either by motion or at the outset of a case.  Whether a broader restriction on the intersection between sexuality and religion is needed can be decided by a full case if a full case is accepted.  I agree that any interaction ban should be dependent on an evidentiary case.  Any topic bans should be either the result of a full evidentiary case or imposed by Arbitration Enforcement.  Since it appears that the ArbCom is likely to accept a full case, I ask them to impose narrow discretionary sanctions at the start of the case, rather than allowing the current slow-motion edit wars to continue and require periodic page protection.  Discretionary sanctions are less troublesome than repeated full protection.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
There do appear to be reasonable issues pertaining to user conduct and/or maybe appropriate use of sources involved here, and the issue of homosexuality and Catholicism, and to a greater or lesser extent other churches as well, is a rather thorny one which has led to multiple rather hot "discussions." Of course, given its size, I think the Roman Catholic church is probably the easiest target, with the most sources of all sorts dealing with it. It makes sense to me to take this case. There do seem to be some issues relating to conduct and interpretation of guidelines involved, and it might also be useful to allow for imposition of discretionary sanctions by motion in the broad topic area as well for almost certain further contentious discussions in this topic area. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @arbs: definitely support a and b as proposed by Thryduulf below. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved Gaijin42
I was brought into this dispute last August via a posting at RS/N. The exact same content dispute has been going on since then, with the page being fully protected multiple times.

I am not sure that behavior at this point has risen to the level that requires the Arbs to directly intercede, but there is definitely a problem that is endemic to the topic. I am somewhat surprised that there aren't already DS applied to this topic considering how political/controversial the nexus is, and suggest that applying DS via motion may cut the Gordian Knot.

There are a few issues I see at the article. (primarily content disputes, compounded by their methods of dispute resolution

1) In my opinion the main disputants in the topic Roscelese and Esogluou are both talking past each other, trying to adamantly convince the other one of their position, and not really listening to each other's statements and trying to compromise. This extends to ignoring the multiple other uninvolved editors who have come in, and given fairly consistent opinions, which may rise to the level of WP:DE via WP:IDHT. As with many content disputes they are so deeply involved with each other, and every nuance that the outside opinions get washed out by the excessively lengthy posts between the two of them. Esoglou does appear to be reading the comments of uninvoled, and taking them into account, but most of that accounting involves them saying "See, X agrees with me". (For the most part they are right, but it could be better handled).

2) (mainly) Roscelese has a consistent problem with trying to get the Church's statement to say something the source does not say. The core issue is trying to speak in absolutes (never, always, etc) when the document itself is very wishy-washy (may, sometimes, some cases, etc). This dispute about the literally the exact same sentence in the article has been going on for months. Its coming to the point that either there is willfull misrepresentation of the source to spin the article, or a WP:CIR reading comprehension issue.

3) The Edit warring and pointed tagging/editing of the article (From at least July '14 until now).


 * Subsequent to this posting Roscelese has engaged in some conversation that indicates they are looking to compromise and take into account the feedback from other editors. If that can move forward then this particular edit war dispute may go away, which further reduces the need for a full case. I would still recommend DS applied for future issues.


 * In the statements above I have seen allegations against Esoglou regarding harassment, bias/npov, or homophobia. I have not seen any of that behavior, but my interaction on the topic and between these editors has been limited to this specific content dispute. Its possible that such behavior is real, but has been limited to other discussions, but I think allegations of that level require diffs clearly showing the problem. In my interactions with Esogluou he has been rather heavy handed in the "gotcha" style of arguing/discussion, but I have not seen any other issues.  Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The narrow DS on catholicism and homosexuality at a minimum seems appropriate (and would also cover another recent flareup at Salvatore_J._Cordileone). The broader "religion" DS might also be beneficial as it would cover other controversial areas like Westboro Baptist Church. IBan could be beneficial in general, but seems problematic as related to this ongoing dispute - would they both be allowed to participate, but just not comment to/about each other?. I don't see behavior by either party as rising to the level of topic ban worthy, but remain open to being persuaded by diffs. I would think bans would require a full case to be evaluated rather than just motions though. Roscelese has posted some diffs on her talk in her conversation with George Ho and Mop which do show some problematic behavior by Esogluou I was not aware of, but I think those fall more into the iban realm than the topic ban realm. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Salvatore dispute is more visible from this lengthy RS/N discussion, also involving R & E. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on the filename, I am guessing that the photo was either this one, or one from this series. (Note the description "photomodel Dani" which matches the other filename. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rope_bondage-020914-2896-24.jpg   That does seem wildly inappropriate, and perhaps evidence towards the IBan, but I am not sure of its relevance to the topic (and hence a topic ban etc) unless the prior chain of conversation can be followed for context. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, we prefer secondaries to primaries. I agree absolutely. But in this case what we are trying to describe is "What is the official statement from the Vatican about X". If there are discrepancies between the official statement and secondaries about what the official statement is, the official statement should win. (We have a similar policy about when there are discrepancies between the text of a law and secondary descriptions of the law, but I can't find the link at the moment) see self-reply below

This is a specific letter, signed by a specific small group of people and therefore covered by WP:BLPGROUP. (and the current pope is singled out as a signatory/presenter) While it is certainly valid (even mandatory) to include analysis or responses from notable secondary sources, for the specific of "What did the letter say" we should not rely on "the opposition (Eg, LGBT groups who are protesting the Church's position)" to accurately repeat things and not spin it. R's summary versions of the letter have repeatedly failed to accurately describe the contents of the letter.
 * MOS:LAW (So not a policy, but still) "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority." This is a very analagous situation imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved Marauder40
I disagree with people that say that Esoglou is here for Catholic apologetics. There is a difference between preaching what the Church says and making sure that the article reflects the official Church viewpoint. If an article is about Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism it should accurately reflect what the official view of the Roman Catholic church is. Other viewpoints are appropriate but if the Church officially says X and some RS says Y and another says Z, all can be presented but it doesn't negate the fact that the Church actually says X. In a parallel, almost every time Pope Francis speaks you have 5 newspapers come out and say he said one thing, 5 more newspapers come out and say he said a different thing and then usually an official Vatican newspaper comes out and says the correct interpretation of what he says is something else. In most cases in here Esoglou asks that the equivalent of the official Vatican newspaper source be used and Roscelese would ask that whichever source more closely resembles what she wants the article to say be used. I have had arguments with Roscelese in the past on other articles related to this where she will do things like claim that NO Catholic newspaper article can be used as a reliable source, but will then accept a Catholic news source if it backs up what she is trying to say. There is also a tendency she has that if you even allude to the fact that she may be biased she will do everything in her power to have you banned, but then she (and other editors) have no problem making remarks about Esoglou being biased. I think the number of people that have interaction bans with her is a very telling thing about her editing style. She is very dismissive of anyone that disagrees with her. Any time people bring up the fact that she should discuss things with Esoglou she brings up things that happened two years ago between them (which Esoglou has apologized for as an attempt at humor that was misunderstood) instead of addressing things that are happening now. This is definitely not a one-sided problem.Marauder40 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw the picture, it was not a naked picture. According to Esoglou he meant the picture as an attempt at humor, to signify that HE felt tied up. The same picture has been used in another article at around the same time and was being commented on in multiple places on WP at the time. It wasn't like he searched the archives just to find it. Was it inappropriate, probably. Was it something that should apply now two years later, not really. Marauder40 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to Georgo Ho's statement

Statement by Bbb23
I semi-protected the article on August 17, 2014, for a month. According to the log (I have no independent memory of this), it was because of a an edit warring/content dispute and "probable sock puppetry - IP hopping". I have nothing else to add unless an arbitrator has a question for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Callanecc at 16:14, 16 July 2015 (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


 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARoscelese&type=revision&diff=671728779&oldid=671640137 Roscelese]

Statement by Callanecc
Following an AE request (I'll add a permalink when it's closed) could the Committee please clarify what the second part of dot point one in Roscelese's restriction ("and is required to discuss any content [emphasis added] reversions on the page's talk page") applies to.

My suggestion would be that the bit in brackets for the first clause could be made to apply to the second clause as well, or if WP:BANEX could be applied to the whole dot point?

Roscelese may wish to make request regarding exceptions for dot point 2, but I'll leave that up to her. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That really depends, currently there is no mechanism other than a formal amendment for the arbitrator comments below to be taken into account (or even found and referred to) for any enforcement in the future. If the Committee doesn't have an appetite for a formal amendment by motion perhaps they could do it through this request by foot noting the remedy with a summary of the arb comments here (though that would probably need to be done by an arb rather than a clerk). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually given that not all of the arbs commenting have answered:
 * Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts?
 * Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)?
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing to consider here (and something which has come up in the past) is that if the admins involved in the enforcement of the Committee's decision don't understand or need clarification to confirm their interpretation (whether the interpretation is correct or not) then the Committee should provide that clarification as clearly as possible. The comments here are equivalent to obiter dicta on the PD page and they disappear to the case talk page, that is, you'd look at the decision the Committee has passed when deciding whether to report/enforce not the case talk page. In this case the dot points are separate items and so don't necessarily rely on the conditions set in in each other, so in this case the questions being asked are valid and may very well come up again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

 * Obviously, I agree with the arbs who have commented here; if the user had provided some reason for removal (either in the edit summary or the talk page) I wouldn't have reverted with a simple "?" ("why did you do this?"), which seemed like a nicer thing to say than "rv vandalism" despite the lack of a summary, the fact that the text was cited to reliable sources, and the absence of other edits on the account. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz
I don't see any reason to make material changes to the sanctions. The sanctions involved in my initial filing set minimum communication requirements. She breached; no one seriously argues otherwise. Claiming her breach was justified by WP:BANEX simply doesn't fly; BANEX requires that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption". That's pretty much equivalent to the communication requirement that Roscelese didn't comply with; it would be rather silly to say she should provide an edit summary explaining why she didn't have to provide an edit summary. Perhaps the Committee might amend the second clause of the remedy to allow an appropriate edit summary in lieu of talk page comment when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations, but Roscolese didn't even make that minimal effort here. The more significant issue, as I saw it, was the violation of sanction 2, making an automated rollback-type edit without providing an edit summary; given that rollback-type edits are pretty much limited to situations which would fall under BANEX, it seems clear to me that no exception was indicated by the Committee's language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (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.

Christianity and Sexuality: Clerk notes

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



Christianity and Sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Generally speaking, an unexplained removal of large chunks of an article, especially by a very new editor, is reasonably treated as a vandal or test edit. Roscelese was well within reason to do so here. I would see the meaning of "content revert" as the reversal of a content edit, which would exclude vandalism. Regardless, I'm not inclined to require Roscelese to start a talk page discussion every time she removes "HI JOE!!!!!!!!" type vandalism from a page. If, of course, that editor comes back and provides a reason they believe the material should be removed, that would then bring these restrictions into force should Roscelese revert it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the restriction in question and was surprised to see that we did not explicitly say it did not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism/BLP violations; that said, I agree with Seraphimblade. It would be a waste of time to have Roscelese open a thread whenever she were to revert vandalism. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * i agree with both of my colleagues. Next time we must make this explicit. Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Having thought about this more since my comment at AE, I think all that is needed for vandalism reverts is an edit summary that notes it is vandalism being reverted (which is good practice for everyone). I'd be happy to amend the wording of the restriction to make this clear if people think that would be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * to explicitly answer your two questions:
 * Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts? It is neither required nor prohibited.
 * Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)? An explanation is needed, but an edit summary noting the nature of the revert (i.e. that it is reverting indisputable vandalism or BLP violations) is sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to examine the full relevant sentence of the restriction being clarified: Given that reversions are expressly defined as excluding "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations", reverting simple vandalism is outwith the scope of the restriction. In my view no amendment is needed and the answer to the question seems fairly plain. AGK  [•] 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually the second bullet point that clarification is being sought with regards: While that contains no exceptions on it's own, it unclear whether the exception in the first bullet is intended to apply only to the first restriction or to both restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, thanks Thryduulf. I think all of the above in any case have answered the question from that angle fairly exhaustively, so I still concur that no amendment is required. AGK  [•] 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Yes it applies to both"; or "yes it applies to the first only"?. I read it as applying to both. There can be a need to revert vandalism immediately; there is not a need to revert without explanation.  DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I read it as no discussion is required for reverting obvious vandalism, and Rosclese did nothing wrong here. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that Roscelese should not be required to start a talk page discussion for reverting obvious vandalism. An edit summary mentioning that this was vandalism wouldn't have been a bad choice, but I'm not terribly concerned by "?". If we need to modify restrictions so that this is more clear, so be it, but I think that the exception of obvious vandalism is implied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think at this point we need input. Do or anyone else feels that the clarifications are sufficient as they stand or whether we need to amend the wording? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mildly surprised this is necessary, but suggest we add "except when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations" so that the sanction is clearer for anyone considering it at AE. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , that would have to be done by motion, but it is not a bad idea. I'm going to write one, hopefully this is noncontroversial, and we can get this out of here. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Motion proposed inline with my opinion. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Roscelese restricted


Proposed:


 * Remedy 2 (Roscelese restricted) of the Christianity and Sexuality case is modified to read the following:
 * is subject to the following restrictions. Other than in cases of indisputable vandalism or BLP violations, they are indefinitely prohibited from:
 * making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
 * making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
 * is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.
 * These restrictions may be appealed to the committee twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.
 * Enacted: L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 03:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Courcelles and I predicted this was going to be needed in the first place, so rolling it out. Please feel free to C/E as needed. Left the third part out as I see no reasonable case where it would need that exception. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With mild copy edit (revert if disagree). With the insight of a couple of months I think the original case restrictions were probably too strict, but the above motion has the virtue of addressing this specific ARCA request, and given the age of this request it's time to pass it and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 10:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is necessary, but won't be harmful, so no objection. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As Seraphimblade. Doug Weller (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Euryalus that these restrictions could stand some loosening. Courcelles (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Amendment request (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)