Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
BrownHairedGirl at CFD		15 July 2023	1/1/1

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Durova	Motion	(orig. case)	12 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	Motion	none	10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	12 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

BrownHairedGirl at CFD

Initiated by RevelationDirect (talk) at 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Involved parties

• RevelationDirect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marcocapelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carchasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MJL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification BrownHairedGirl
• diff of notification Laurel Lodged
• diff of notification Marcocapelle
• diff of notification Oculi
• diff of notification Nederlandse Leeuw
• of notification Carchasm
• diff of notification MJL

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk Page
• ANI

Statement by RevelationDirect

Hello, I'm concerned about User:BrownHairedGirl's repeated failure of WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, and WP:5P4 generally at Categories for Discussion (WP:CFD) toward me and others when nominations involve the WP:SMALLCAT editing guideline.

There is a legitimate WP:CONTENTDISPUTE but BrownHairedGirl repeatedly questions both the motives and competency of others. BrownHairedGirl believes that Laurel Lodged is targeting her and influencing five other editors, including me, with a secret WP:TAGTEAM.

Rather than raise those concerns about us at ANI with evidence, BrownHairedGirl sprinkles those accusations within CFD:

1. ... "This is another vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination by LL, who is stalking my contribs"... (Diff)
2. "I don not believe that you a[r]e acting in good faith"... (Diff)
3. ... "this vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" ... (Diff)
4. ... "And yes, I can produce evidence of the tag-teaming" … (Diff)
5. ... "it is quite invidious to propose to demolish my work"... (Diff--I had to look that word up!)
6. ... "I will not accept the use of a malicious and unresearched CFD as a weapon to bully me" ... (Diff)
7. "Ah Marcocapelle, that's disingenuous." ... (Diff)
8. "Utter nonsense. ... It's blindingly obvious that you are pontificating away with great certainty about how to do a task which you have never actually done." ... (Diff)
9. "That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking. When it comes the treatment of other editors, the real issue here is the attempt to demolish the categorisation work" ... (Diff)
10. "... This is yet another blatantly bad faith nomination by a highly-experienced editor ... who is par[t] of a tag team ..." (Diff)
11. "when editors tag-team to abuse the CFD process by systematically misrepresenting guidelines and vindictively targeting the work of other editors, then it is important that this info is presented to the CFD discussion. In 17 years at CFD, I have never before seen anything remotely like this." (Diff)
12. "No it is not a 'difference of opinion'. There has been a systematic efforts by a tag team. ..." (Diff)

There are an additional dozen examples at ANI.

When I attempted to resolve this issue at BrownHairedGirl’s talk page, she wrote a parable about how I was like a corrupt police officer ignoring violence. (Diff)

I also took my concerns to a sprawling ANI nomination where BrownHairedGirl doubled down: “I stand by my comments.It will take me several hours to collect all the evidence, but I will make a full response when I have do[n]e so.“ (Diff suppressed, ANI timestamp 09:31, 7 July 2023) A week later, I'm still waiting for those Diffs though.

Both MJL and BrownHairedGirl did raise separate concerns about Laurel Lodged going back years but those aren't related to tag teaming and perhaps could be reviewed separately. There’s no similar history of bad blood with me though; in the past BrownHairedGirl even gave me a barnstar for my CFD work.

I just want the incivility to stop. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• @L235: No, I find Floquenbeam's thoughtful suggestions helpful but incomplete. There is a content dispute and resolving that at an RFC as proposed sounds like the right path forward. There is also an issue with either rampant uncivil comments or justified comments to rampant WP:TAGTEAM meatpuppetry. An RFC can't resolve those issues and--despite the length of the discussion--ANI has barely scratched the surface of either. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I want editors at CFD to apply what is actually written in the 100-word guideline WP:SMALLCAT, rather than citing it while ignoring what it actually says. I deplore the incivility to colleagues and the disruption to consensus-formation of repeatedly misrepresenting SMALLCAT. I deplore RevelationDirect's refusal to discuss the substance or open an RFC, and instead launch multiple dramas about the tone of my complaints. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Guerillero:, this isn't asking the other parent. This is RevelationDirect's third attempt (prev my talk and ANI) to weaponise civility policy to suppress objections to sustained misuse of SMALLCAT by RevelationDirect and others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• @L235: Floquenbeam suggested at ANI a path to actual resolution: everyone involved will stand down from nominating/commenting on category deletion discussions related to SMALLCAT until there's been an RFC on SMALLCAT.
  The substance of this should be resolved at RFC, rather than a huge timesink at Arbcom which cannot resolve the substance. Whether SMALLCAT retains its current wording or is changed to something else, editors should follow what it actually says rather than what they would like it to say. (Ignoring everything except the opening word "small" is not a "interpretation"; it is flagrant misrepresentation.)
  Note that WP:ANI#The_core_issue_of_WP:SMALLCAT, I invited other parties to endorse a simple summary of what SMALLCAT actually' says. AFAICS, none of them has done so. Laurel Lodged called it "bait"; Oculi said your interpretation of what SMALLCAT means inherently causes SMALLCAT to defeat itself.
  This is absurd, and it is highly disruptive: when a highly experienced category editor like me creates categories within the letter and spirit of a stable guideline, they should not risk having their work arbitrarily deleted by a small group of editors who ignore the guideline's actual wording.
  The community needs to agree a wording, and editors need follow it (as with any guideline, there will be occasional exceptions, which should be explicitly acknowledged as occasional exceptions).
  I invite all parties to commit to upholding in letter and spirit whatever is agreed at RFC. One way or another we cannot conitinue the disruption of having the actual words of a stable guideline dismissed as "bait".--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity, I commit to accepting the outcome of whatever is decided by the RFC(s) on SMALLCAT, and to follow it in letter and spirit.

  Also, I commend the idea of having one or more experienced but uninvolved editors assist consensus-formation by helping to draft the RFCs needed in a way which neutrally puts all issues and perspectives on the table. Can Arbcom help by nominating one or more facilitators? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• I may be getting out of scope for this page, but one way in which WP:SMALLCAT could work more consistently and with less conflict is by explicitly requiring the nominator to address the principles set out in the guideline.
  E.g. with the curently-worded guideline, a new final para could say "Nominations citing SMALLCAT should explain why the nominator believes that the category a) lacks potential for growth, and b) is not part of an overall accepted series".
  Obviously, an RFC might led to a different set of questions being posed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Laurel Lodged

I have to walk on eggshells here in case I inadvertently stray into certain areas and speculate about things in which I have no personal expertise whilst simultaneously trying to provide a possible motive for the bizarre behaviour that is the subject of this case. I'll try to stick to the facts and leave feelings at the door, in as much as one can do so in a case whose very object is the bad feelings engendered by the actions of others. (1) The nom is correct - this case is about incivility and lack of AGF, not the interpretation or application of certain wiki guidelines; (2) BHG has shown no recognition whatsoever that the actions complained of above are uncivil and lack AGF; (3) BHG has shown no recognition whatsoever that the actions complained of above, if true, would result in hurt feelings on the part of those to whom they were directed; (4) BHG recognises behaviour that is uncivil and hurtful only when she herself is the victim of such behaviour; (5) BHG has never apologised for the behaviour complained of above. This is logical given the gaps noted in points 2, 3 & 4 above.; (6) No promise of future good behaviour extracted from BHG under duress could have any credibility given the gaps noted in 2, 3, 4, 5 above; (7) BHG has a track record of abandonment of civility & AGF promises; no parole board, therefore, could set any store in her promises of future good behaviour that would be based on voluntary self-policing; (8) it therefore follows that mandated, enforceable actions are required to make WP:CFD in particular a safe place for participation by editors and which do not bring WP:CFD space into disrepute.; (9) having offered to remove the speck from my sister's eye, I will endevour to remove the beam from my own eye.; (9) Beware the Tu quoque fallacy - a multitude of faults on my part or the part of "the others" does not excuse, let alone give permission, for abuses by BHG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

[Moved from Arbitrators section]:

• I can abide by Floquenbeam's proposal as an interim step. Meanwhile, I see no reason why this arbitration case cannot continue in parallel. As the nom says, it's not about smallcat, it's about incivility. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Marcocapelle

This is not about how to apply WP:SMALLCAT. It is a case about conduct. (Even) if you are convinced of yourself that you are right you can still not put WP:CIVILITY aside in a way like this. So any references to WP:SMALLCAT should be considered as mere background, and basically irrelevant for the outcome of this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Later addition: I am not hoping for any sanctions resulting from this case per se. What I'd rather hope is that BrownHairedGirl ultimately recognizes that she went way too far. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

With respect to the proposed ANI closure:

Floquenbeam basically says "from now on everyone should be civil" but this does not address at all the earlier incivility that the ANI case was supposed to be about. It is good advice for sure, but irrelevant to the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Nederlandse Leeuw

This ANI was my first, and this is my first ARC, so I hope I did/do things right. I don't have a long history with BrownHairedGirl (BHG) or "the three": Laurel Lodged (LL), RevelationDirect (RD), and Oculi. With all but until recently BHG, my interactions have been amicable; I believe they can be again in the future. I want BHG on English Wikipedia, but I think limited restrictions for her, and perhaps the three, are necessary to make future conduct acceptable.

I concur with RD's findings about BHG's lack of WP:CIVIL conduct at SMALLCAT CfDs. I therefore proposed:

• WP:TBAN for BHG at SMALLCAT CfDs. Should solve core issue identified by RD. Initially supported by some, opposed by others.

Later, evidence provided by others (particularly S Marshall and Nobody) that BHG had been sanctioned for incivility several times before – temporary blocks, partial bans, desysoping, probation – convinced me inaction towards BHG was no longer an option. We cannot afford wishful thinking. Like RD and Marcocapelle say, a SMALLCAT RfC (alone) – even under Floquenbeam's well-meant terms – won't solve the underlying conduct issues. More measures are necessary, also perhaps for the three. So I also proposed:

• two-way WP:IBAN between BHG and LL/RD/Oculi. More widely supported, especially BHG—LL. BHG: "I don't want anyone sanctioned", but "just want the WP:HOUNDING to stop". RD indicated she was "not sure" she wanted a two-way IBAN; "just want the incivility to stop".

Finally, I proposed:

• limited nomination ban on all 4: the three cannot nominate any category created by BHG, nor can BHG nominate any category created by LL/RD/Oculi; nor may any of the 4 ask others to do so per WP:CANVASS. Should prevent the "team-tagging" and "revenge-nominating" as alleged by BHG. Not sure this is happening, but recommended just in case, to prevent future hostilities. Worries about "gaming".

At ANI, I tried to be helpful as a diplomat between BHG and the three, suggesting solutions to reach consensus. When some people thought I'd given too much input, recommending me to disengage, I did. I was surprised Robert McClenon suggested a two-way IBAN between BHG and myself, but am grateful for the overwhelming community response: they saw no need, and generally found my own behaviour to be civil and amicable. That's what I strive for as a Wikipedian, although I'm not flawless. I'm ready to apologise if any jokes towards BHG were too harsh. I'd like to work with her again in the future. Hope this ARC can solve what ANI apparently couldn't. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Carchasm

I've tried to minimize my own involvement on ANI and CFD, and don't know any broader history, but I've written up a list of proposed changes to SMALLCAT to make the wording more clear, because after reading closely, I believe that the guideline is vague enough to support multiple incompatible interpretations, and should be discussed and updated by the community. While I believe this is a de-escalation path that those more involved should have considered a long while ago, I agree with others that it would be best to have a pause on WP:SMALLCAT nominations until an RfC is conducted. - car chasm (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

I didn't think I've been involved enough to justify being a party (with no participation in the underlying disputes), but I guess I'm fine with it. I have quite a bit to say about Laurel Lodged and think if Arbcom does accept this case, it should be re-titled to just name both him and BHG (even if there are other parties). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that this case should be accepted. I'm trying my best to balance my desire for a certain outcome with my own understanding of how time-consuming arbcom cases actually are. However, both BHG and LL are really due to have their conduct examined individually, and I don't think we have a robust enough community process for that.

I was pretty hopeful about the AN/I thread for a while. The problem is many well-meaning editors (I among them) have entirely different perspectives on what a justified outcome of it would be. Floq's proposal is certainly one method, but there are definitely folks who prefer a different path forward instead.

For me, I think Floq's solution falls just a bit short of the real issue: Can we trust BHG and LL won't just continue their substandard conduct after WP:SMALLCAT gets resolved?

BHG has said she would respect whatever consensus comes out of the potential RFC, but that doesn't really address people's concerns with her behavior leading up to now (whether those concerns are justified is not for me to say because, truthfully, I have not looked into her conduct particularly closely). LL, for his part, has also made no statement he even sees anything wrong with how he's conducted himself, but he has not committed himself to productively building a consensus.

..so yeah, I'm not particularly optimistic we can just tell either of them to knock it off to prevent further disruption at this point. It's just not that simple. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by GeneralNotability

I remain astounded that every AN/I thread about BHG seems to require a case request, rather than the community handling the problem on their own. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I got Barkeep's ping. If you look at the ANI sprawl, I think it's clear that the community is not going to be able to resolve the whole dispute at ANI. I think there are a couple of options:

• Accept my proposed imperfect close. Because by it's nature it was unlikely to make everyone happy, I didn't want to close it myself with the low level of acceptance. Pros: saves time and heartache. Cons: probably doesn't get to the root of the problem, leaving it to simmer until next time.
• Maybe I'm completely wrong, and the whole mess at ANI could be definitively closed by someone. Pros: wouldn't that be great. Cons: seems unlikely.
• I think someone somewhere in that thread said BHG has an active civility parole type thing from the last ArbCom case? If true (I have no idea) as a community restriction (thanks Tamzin, thanks Izno), I think that clearly got violated, and could be referred to AE. Pros: saves some time and some heartache. Cons: if BHG is correct that there are behavioral concerns on the other "side" too, those don't get addressed.
• Accept a case to look at all facets of the case. Pros: there is at least some hope that this would get to the root of the problem. Cons: time and heartache.
• Do nothing. Pros: saves time (probably doesn't save heartache). Cons: instead of simmering, the problem is more likely to fester, and explode in the future.

I honestly don't know what would be best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin

@Floquenbeam: There is a community-imposed civility restriction. I have enforced it once (at the maximum first-block length of 12 hours), which was overwhemingly upheld at AN/I. I think it would be within admin discretion to invoke that restriction here, but have felt it would be better coming from a different admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by DFlhb

I prefer Floq's clever ANI proposal to an ArbCom case. Not only have ArbCom earned a bit of a rest after the recent cases, but I think Floq's remedies are better than what ArbCom could provide. They're both generous (the current situation is messy enough that the slate is wiped clean) and tough (block for any involved party upon future violation), and the proposed SMALLCATS RfC will better address this in the long-run. DFlhb (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by QEDK

As Floq said, not one bit of the ANI discussion was able to resolve the issue at hand even if some editors managed to make interesting and good points about the correct way to handle things. Here's a list of things of things that need to be examined, IMHO:

• Are BHG's WP:MEAT allegations valid?
• If the allegations are not valid, are they classified as personal attacks?
• If they are personal attacks, should there be a respective enforcement action?
• While defending themselves, BHG and LL have been repeatedly incivil, what level of WP:CIVIL enforcement is required at this stage?
• How is the community supposed to enforce WP:CIVIL policies with protracted conduct issues?

As I have also said at the ANI thread, it is theoretically impossible for a rational editor to read through the massive thread and decide on appropriate enforcement actions, as such, ArbCom is the body that is elected to go through conduct issues with a fine-toothed comb and seems to be perfect solution for protracted conduct issues involving long-standing editors (WP:UNBLOCKABLES, but I don't want to make an implication thereof). --qedk (t 愛 c) 00:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Floq's close is a good preventative action to prevent further conflict but it has no considerations for past conduct issues with the editors in question. Further, we have observed repeat, extensive WP:WIKILAWYERing and gaming, so I have no doubt the same will apply to the applied restrictions (most prominently, point (b)). The reason this warrants a case is because it involves long-standing editors with unresolved issues where the community has been unable to come to a definite conclusion on appropriate enforcement actions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

We really really really really should make WP:Anchoring into a blue link and official policy. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

It seems to me that the core of this problem is the content issue, and ArbCom can't solve that, but an RfC can. There are behavioral issues, but they do not rise to the level of needing Arbitration, despite the geschreing at ANI. That's why I think Floq's quick and dirty drive-by solution -- which includes an RfC, a stand-down from CfD nominations by the participants, and blocks for any of the involved parties who are uncivil -- is the better choice at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@El C: I'm sorry you took offense in my collapsing of the discussion on AN/I; please believe that -- at least none was intended. I think you know that I greatly respect you as an admin, and consider you to be -- at least casually -- a wiki-friend. My thought was that the very long discussion broke up the flow of the section and that it was therefore a good idea to collapse it so the section as a whole could be more easily read, and anyone who wished to read your discussion could simply uncollapse it. The title, too, was intended to be as neutrally descriptive as possible and not to be in BHG's favor. That these actions upset you pains me, and I apologize unreservedly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by BD2412

Is it just me, or are editors being quicker to jump to WP:ARBCOM of late? I see nothing here that can not be handled through the discussion underway at WP:ANI. BD2412 T 02:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon (BHG)

This case has become a great monster with tentacles. It has long been my opinion that some ANI cases should be referred by the community to ArbCom, and should be accepted by ArbCom, and this is one of those cases. In my opinion, ArbCom can deal with this case in one of two ways. The easier way, if ArbCom wishes to minimize its involvement in this mess and to resolve it quickly, will be to implement User:Floquenbeam's proposed closure by motion. The more thorough way will be a regular case with evidentiary hearings. Nearly everything that needs to be said has probably already been said, so a full case should focus more on analysis of the evidence of the monster WP:ANI proceedings than new evidence. Now that a formal case request has been made to ArbCom, I believe that it would be mistake simply to decline the case. If ArbCom wants to close the case with minimal proceeding, they should do so by motion to implement Floquenbeam's closure.

However, I urge ArbCom to accept this case, which is otherwise likely to boil over again, even after the editors have been warned. I urge ArbCom to redesignate this case as "Conduct at CFD Discussions" and consider the conduct not only of BrownHairedGirl, but of other editors, because the personal attacks and violations of civility have gone both ways. If ArbCom accepts this case, they should investigate not only the immediately listed remarks by BHG, but also any baiting or provocation.

I urge ArbCom to accept this case. If ArbCom wishes to act by motion, they may implement Floquenbeam's restrictions by motion, but a full evidentiary review will be better. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

In my experience, BHG is unrelentingly uncivil and combative, often entirely for naught, so I urge for this case to be accepted and for her behaviour to be examined in detail (and that of others, if applicable). After all these years, I've little faith that this is a problem that the community is able to resolve. I realize that from ArbCom's position, throwing this back to the community might seem like it's the path of least resistance, but my thinking is that it almost certainly will not be that. It is my thinking that if ArbCom fails to tackle this directly, the issues will simply repeat at a later date, as that's been the pattern through the years. Crucially, I see very little reflection or introspection on BHG's part, which in itself seems quite indicative and emblematic of this perennial problem.

I also don't understand why BHG supporter (?) Beyond My Ken, who is not an admin, took it upon himself to collapse my formally warning her in my capacity as an uninvolved admin not to misuse ANI, as well as the two other uninvolved admins whose comments in that conversation thread seem to agree with me. And he also titled the collapsed field glowingly in BHG's favour as: Discussion between BHG and El C about whether the complaint against Laurel Lodged should stand alone or have been merged into the "BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD" discussion. I've reverted it, in any case. BMK, please don't do that again. El_C 09:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Lourdes

The committee might already know of this; but documenting it for other editors here about community's earlier consensus on levying escalating blocks on BrownHairedGirl for continuing incivility. Should administrators start acting on this, than come to Arbcom? Thank you, Lourdes 09:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

I'm in agreement with El_C here: BHG's ongoing blatant uncivil rhetoric, already a subject of blocks and sanctions, should be a focus of attention, as the attempted remedies have clearly been ineffective, and I urge ArbCom to take this case. Jusdafax (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by SN54129

Several commentators in that thread noted that the (in)civility issues concerned more than just BHG, which is fundamental. Too often have we seen cases, accepted by arbcom, that chew away at the meat of an issue but leave the bone of it untouched. If this case is accepted (need it be? It seems to rehash the ANI to me, and that's gotta have more words than brains at this point), then it should look at concerns re. all parties and weigh as necessary, But, as with everything on WP, it takes two to tango. SN54129 11:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Can somebody block Paul August, please, who has just added fuel to a fire that was at least beginning to die down *facepalm* SN54129 12:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Back to this particular case, I suspect that Floquenbeam's Principals are the easiest, most pain-free and most efficient way forward. Yes, they do mostly comprise threats; but you know, notwithstanding that this is a "collaborative project built on consensus" (as the blurb on the back might put it), there are also times when we find groups of editors work very well under the threat of immediate and weighty sanction. Those that are heavily invested in the subject knuckle down and make their points and argue the minutiae, thus actually bringing their expertise to bear and addressing the issue. They do so knowing that there are by then far more editors both actively involved in the same discussions, and others watching without commenting. This is a form of restraint for all parties, and it would work because it would identify "civil" incivility as easily as rude incivility and treat infractions thereof equally. SN54129 13:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Paul August

I have just blocked BrownHairedGirl for violation of the civility probation per ANI discussion: "Piotrus' concerns about User:BrownHairedGirl", and uncivil statements as documented at "BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD". Paul August ☎ 12:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: The block is for 48 hours, so BrownHairedGirl will be unable to respond for a while, consequently I would appeal to ArbCom not to take any final action until BrownHairedGirl is able to comment here again. Paul August ☎ 14:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Thank you Paul August, if the parole had been known and acted upon at the beginning of the ANI discussion perhaps the community would not be at Arbcom. (Part of assuming good faith is assuming everyone is responsible, and responsible for themselves. 'They made me do it' has always been a bad defense.) You still can work to sort this out further here, or at ANI but the unenforced parole was gumming up the works, and not letting it resolve. (For example, it seems likely that BHG has been told several different ways over the years to bring her claims to behavior boards and not make them in ill-equipped project space, perhaps that needs reinforcement in a new Arbcom case or otherwise, as that practice might have obviated everything BHG related over the years.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Silk Tork: BHG is not just already over the limit to comment more here, she can continue on her talk page and when the short block is over. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

BrownHairedGirl at CFD: Clerk notes

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

• Recused. Obviously. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• @BrownHairedGirl: you are now at 538 words. Please don't add any more without requesting an extension or removing a comment which has not been replied to by others. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl at CFD: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/1/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Will be awaiting more community feedback but it had seemed from my reading of the ANI thread that this was headed towards a community resolution with Floquenbeam's proposed close having no real opposition to implementation and so it was just a matter of that actually happening. Is this incorrect in some way? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Floq: from my POV, the community taking incremental action to keep something at a simmer rather than letting it boil doesn't strike me as a choice that would require ArbCom to step in necessarily. I'm really not opposed to opening a case with these plays in principle. But if the community can handle it - and by my read your close has support for implementation - I think the community should be the one to handle it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @QEDK: your opinion as (I believe) an uninvolved administrator is that a case is a better outcome than Floq's proposed close which you've also supported? If that is corrrect can you tell me why, as I believe Floq's close offers remedies to the issues you've identified, if not offering judgement about who is actually right and I'm not sure that's enough of a reason to justify a full case. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Recuse. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Floquenbeam, it is a community restriction. Izno (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Decline I am struggling to see how this isn't an extended exercise in asking the other parent to win a dispute. The request is almost a carbon copy of the opening post of the ANI thread. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• @RevelationDirect, BrownHairedGirl, and Laurel Lodged: I would appreciate hearing your input as to whether Floquenbeam's proposal sounds like a reasonable way to proceed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• I find Floquenbeam's proposal appealing for various reasons, and if we do have a vote on that I would be very inclined to support it. However, as Floq says above, this would not be truly dealing with the underlying reasons of the dispute. Most of our guidelines are imperfect, and there's no saying that after a RfC that a revised SmallCat will become perfect, or that the behaviour of the parties involved will change. When folks are in disagreement about interpretation of a guideline, there are better ways of sorting it out than engaging in long term disputes resulting in ANI reports and/or ArbCom case requests. I'm not seeing the issue here as being SmallCat itself, but in how folks have handled the natural disagreements as to interpretation of SmallCat. Changing SmallCat doesn't necessarily change the mindset or behaviour of the folks involved in the dispute - it may simply move the dispute to a new location somewhere down the road. When there are personal disputes between people such that the people themselves cannot or will not sort out themselves, and when the matter has been referred to ANI and the folks and admins there have spent a week and 35,000 words trying and failing to reach a solution and so have turned to ArbCom, I do think that ArbCom needs to take the case just to check if the issue is just an inability to behave appropriate in this dispute, and not that some of the individuals involved may have a mindset that generates a dispute out of minor disagreements. At heart here we have claims that BHG is incivil and involved in persecutory delusion, against BHG's own claims of vindictive, disruptive bad-faith tag-teaming. I think these claims do need looking into rather than brushing aside in an attempt to find a quick solution. Accept. SilkTork (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Paul August, would you please unblock BHG in order to allow them to continue to take part in this discussion. You may impose a restriction on BHG to forbid them from editing elsewhere, but they need to be allowed to take part in a discussion about them. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)