Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:54, 18 July 2023

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
BrownHairedGirl at CFD	Motions	15 July 2023	3/0/2

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

BrownHairedGirl at CFD

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

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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:

... "This is another vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination by LL, who is stalking my contribs"... (Diff)
"I don not believe that you a[r]e acting in good faith"... (Diff)
... "this vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" ... (Diff)
... "And yes, I can produce evidence of the tag-teaming" … (Diff)
... "it is quite invidious to propose to demolish my work"... (Diff--I had to look that word up!)
... "I will not accept the use of a malicious and unresearched CFD as a weapon to bully me" ... (Diff)
"Ah Marcocapelle, that's disingenuous." ... (Diff)
"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)
"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)
"... This is yet another blatantly bad faith nomination by a highly-experienced editor ... who is par[t] of a tag team ..." (Diff)
"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)
"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Barkeep49: No, but there are 3 top controversies: What is “small”? What are the exceptions? Who is responsible for populating newly created categories? (Enlisting an RFC facilitator seems prudent.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@@Barkeep49: I am not aware of any RfC question about SMALLCAT that is reasonably ready to go, and I don't see how there could be one. There are least 5 difft issues to be resolved: numbers, growth potential, established series, technological developments, and the obligations of CFD nominators.
Rushing into an unstructured RFC would just waste everyone's time on hot air. Please, can the arbs implement something like my suggestion above of facilitators to help draft a set of RFCs? The community cannot do the drafting unaided, because e.g. recent CFD debates have been dominated by a small group of editors who believe that "Small with no potential for growth" means exactly the same thing as "small". We need a facilitator who can remind editors that these are radically different options, and try to put all options clearly on the table. If we ask the parties to solve this, we will just be back in the weeks of drama where some editors think that ignoring everything after the first word is "an interpretation" and who then shout "uncivil" when their absurdity is called utter nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF Universal Code of Conduct is highly relevant here. 3.2, 3rd bulletpoint: Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want. It's an anti-gaslighting rule.
Throughout this dispute, several editors have been gaslighting others by falsely claiming not only that simple parts of WP:SMALLCAT have nothing resembling their plain English meaning, but also that those upholding the actual words are disruptive, aggressive or "toxic".
RevelationDirect has been the most extreme user of this tactic, repeatedly abusing civility policy to try to suppress objections; but similar techniques have been used by Oculi, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Laurel Lodged. Gaslighting is a particularly vicious form of misconduct, and its widespread use is why the dispute over SMALLCAT has become so heated. I urge Arbcom to take this gaslighting very seriously, because it also happen elsewhere on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee's point about a framing effect is important. RevelationDirect has used this framing technique repeatedly throughout this debate, by repeatedly trying to frame the dispute as big solely about me having the impudence to object to their sustained misuse of WP:SMALLCAT. (Oculi posted at ANI a search which found 103 separate CFD pages in which RevelationDirect used the SMALLCAT-defying rationale of a crude numerical threshold).
The framing was used;
1. in the discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment, where RD refused to discuss substance
2. in RevelationDirect's opening post at ANI, where RevelationDirect sidleined te substantive dispute in favour of personalised complaints
3. at WP:ANI#The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT, where RevelationDirect opened a new sub-thread trying to frame the core the dispute as a "side issue".
I do not speculate about why RevelationDirect does this, or whether it is a conscious choice. I cannot know either. But I do see a pattern here, in which RevelationDirect repeatedly impedes resolution by framing the dispute as being about how I object to RevelationDirect's abuse of SMALLCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The #Statement by El_C is a clear case of gaslighting.
My discussion with El_C can be seen in full in the collapsing of it[1] by Beyond My Ken. See Disruption_by_Laurel_Lodged
El_C's first comment is that my complaint was lengthy and difficult to parse. Others could understand it, but if El_C couldn't, then they should move on.
I replied politely I decided that since this issue is about neither CFD nor allegations against me, it was on balance better as a new thread. El_C could have easily verified that, since my complaint did not use any of the words "category", "categories", or "CFD".
Instead, El_C responded I'm gonna merge it, sorry. It's still about CfD, so it's best that everything be kept in one place. El_C had failed to read and comprehend a simple reply.
El_C then proceeded to accuse me of disruption and bad faith. Such charges are absurd and insulting when issued by someone who has already demonstrated that they do not understand what they are talking about.
A competent, good faith admin would the have at least apologised for their error, and preferably bowed out. But instead El_C called me disruptive, threatened me with sanctions, and doubled down by accusing me of bad faith. It's weird to be accused of bad faith by someone who understands neither a detailed complaint nor the the simple it is not in any way about CFD. It's about WT:IRELAND and about TFD.
Now El_C comes here to gaslight me again by telling Arbcom that not only am I unrelentingly uncivil and combative, but also gaslighted @Beyond My Ken by asserting falsely that BMK had titled the collapsed field glowingly in BHG's favour. Utter nonsense: BMK's headline 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 is scrupulously neutral.
No editor, let alone an admin, should be allowed to demonstrate the uncomprehending, unapologetic aggression which El_C displayed here to both me and BMK ... and I should not have my character smeared for objecting El_C's misconduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Oculi

Civility. "stop being an attack dog for the tag team" (part of (Diff), quoted above by RevelationDirect). Is calling a fellow editor 'an attack dog' civil? Is it a personal attack? Is a difference of opinion over the interpretation of a guideline sufficient to induce such intemperate language?
I supported Floquenbeam's proposal when it was first mooted, long ago, and withdrew my own open nomination involving BHG's creations.
BHG's claims that her work is 'being demolished' is hyperbole: a small sample of the 2% or so of her category creations with 1, 2 or 3 members were taken to cfd for scrutiny, which is generally a routine matter. (BHG did not object to one of my nominations: 2023 June 24#Irish field hockey players.) BHG has created 1000 categories since 19 June 2023 (diff), the vast majority of which are exemplary.
As RevelationDirect states above, there are 3 top BHG-related controversies in WP:SMALLCAT. What is "small"? What are the exceptions? Who is responsible for populating newly created categories? Oculi (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Izno: I attempted to get LL's conduct at AN examined last year and Fram tried to get his conduct regarding categories examined 2 years ago. Neither thread closed conclusively. It's pretty clear that the 2013 restrictions he's currently under are entirely insufficient. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: Mind explaining how you are not guilty of the exact (unsubstantiated claims of WP:TAGTEAM) same (questioning the motives of other editors) behavior (incivility and personal attacks) you are willing to condemn BHG for? Please do so without violating the Tu quoque fallacy yourself. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please, nobody ping me anymore. I regret saying anything. I do not have any special insight, I do not have any additions to or clarification of my original proposal, I do not agree or disagree with the block/unblock. I just made a drive-by comment, very clearly stating it was based on skimming the ANI thread, that I thought might help. Since then the Dysfunction Vortex has been trying to suck me in. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The fact that no admin here was willing to enforce the civility restriction before things spun out to the point of that no longer being feasible, makes me think this is ripe for ArbCom review. One nuance that community enforcement vis-à-vis BHG has often failed to capture, I think, is that she is often (usually, even) substantially right in the disputes she gets into, and that difference between substance and style seems to be too much for AN/I to handle.

I don't have any desired outcome for an ArbCom case. Most of the time that I see BHG, it's in a context that gives me a favorable impression, and I complimented her in a recent AN/I close for having kept a cool enough head in a tough situation. But I think some sort of structured discussion, both of the incident at hand and of the general behavior of editors involved, including BHG, is needed in a setting free of the noise of AN/I. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lourdes and DeCausa make good points. I now think ArbCom should accept, since the meat of Floq's proposal (block for any party upon future violation) is a dead letter. No admin would want to unilaterally do something that the community is polarized on (agree with Tamzin, "no longer feasible"). Furthermore, relying on admin discretion guarantees that BHG is the only one at risk of sanctions, whether or not that's right (I have no opinion on any party), because the allegations against other parties could never be sanctioned without diffs and discussion. Not to mention that the unblock and ANI close were pretty much predicated on ArbCom dealing with it. DFlhb (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Hatting myself.

I've only just seen the thread with EI_C and I have to say that the behaviour is exactly typical of the conduct issues that ArbCom needs to take account of - were there personal attacks involved? Probably no. Was the entire discussion needlessly and continuously fueled and derailed with as much dramatic effect as possible? Yes. It is absolutely exhausting to be on a discussion with BHG where your view is opposed to her because there's always multiple threads about the same issue and by the second or third reply, it is no longer about the crux of the debate but your character (ad hominem). --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the argument that Paul and Courcelles should be added as parties to the case, if accepted. This is not to say that either of the actions were wrong, but that the behaviour of all parties should be examined, I give committee members free remit to include my behaviour as well. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I urge committee members to read SilkTork's latest comment, The issue I see being brought to ArbCom is one of civility and conduct, and that's the case I am supporting opening. The SmallCat guideline is not within ArbCom's remit, and ArbCom recommending.... The reason a case request is here is not because there are fundamental issues with content guidelines, it's that there is a long-standing issue with incivility that the community has failed to resolve. As Lepricavark had said at ANI, the reason it was not possible for uninvolved admins to close this easily was because such a consensus was not formed, and as I had iterated earlier, is theoretically impossible to resolve a discussion where each and every thread is derailed with behavioural aspersions and general misconduct. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clarification in response to messages on my talk page: see Anchoring_(cognitive_bias). In this context, when the case is named after a person, it plants the idea in the committee's minds that the named person has done something wrong. Historically, whenever a case is named after an editor, that editor is overwhelmingly likely to be sanctioned, and it is argued that anchoring is part of why that happens. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@El C: Actually, I did not apprehend your merger as an admin action, since editors of all sorts merge threads on AN/I, and no admin tools were used - I thought it was a normal editorial action. I did see BHG characterize it that way, but I believed that her characterization was inaccurate; obviously, she was more perceptive than I was in this instance. Since I did not read the discussion very closely, just noticed its length, I did not see if you agreed with the characterization or not. If I had realized it was an admin action, I almost certainly would not have collapsed it, since I've learned that reverting admins is generally not a terribly smart thing to do.

Thank you for accepting my apology, and I extend that to misunderstanding the nature of your action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

BMK, briefly 'cause I'm writing in haste. Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. But I was not "offended" and do not require an apology, though I'm happy to accept one. I, however, do object to you having inserted yourself to collapse/hat a conversation thread where I was engaged in legit administrative intervention. Where I, an uninvolved admin, had merged new thread by BHG on the admin noticeboard, and then being forced to formally warn her for that (which I did not originally intend on doing), and then needing to endure more BATTLEGROUND/ABF conduct.

Now, you're of course free to disagree with said admin intervention, but you are not permitted to intervene yourself, as you had done. Your title was FALSEBALANCE, then — an uninvolved admin contra a user who is both a complainant and subject to a complaint. And a user whom above you effectively gave a free pass to when stating that: there are behavioral issues, but they do not rise to the level of needing Arbitration, despite the geschreing at ANI. Anyway, so I hope that clears things up, and so long as lessons learned, we can move on amicably. Best wishes, El_C 03:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, though no admin tools were used, they would have had she reverted me. Generally, non-admins are allowed to clerk and WP:NAC some obvious threads at the admin noticeboards; even though a significant number of these are either superfluous or otherwise subpar (just not usually to the extent that anyone bothers pointing it out). In fact, one of the reasons I attended to the merger right away, as an uninvolved admin, was to prevent any non-admins from possibly doing that themselves, which I feared BHG might have reverted, in turn. But imagine those 2 threads open concurrently: the mega-thread and the merged one — it'd be chaos. Anyway, it could have simply ended with my <small> merger notice, but for whatever reason BHG tried using my conflating TfD with CfD as some kind of a gotcha, after which it was all over. Because sadly, when one is in a BATTLEGROUND mindset, everything's a battle. El_C 06:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have just closed the ANI discussions. ArbCom should accept the case to provide clarity, given the extreme dissonance within the community on the issue. If this case is not accepted, ANI might be unable to reach any consensus, as evidenced in the current discussions. Worse, given the recent block on BHG, if the case goes back, and if BHG gets blocked again (and again), there will be significant community outpouring for and against BHG again, and we shall be possibly back here soon. Thanks, Lourdes 03:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~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)~~[reply]

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)[reply]

@SamX: I simply cannot comprehend how a series of disputes over a small and obscure corner of the encyclopedia metastasized into a 41,000-word monster of an ANI thread in barely a week... because that's the way we roll *crazy rolling eyes emoji* SN54129 09:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbcom: (and talking of @, why don't you have an {{@Arbs}} template like the clerks, crats and other groups of co-ords do?) But it occurs to me, if the committee does not (should not?) look at cases the community cannot (will not) handle, then the ANI thread (recently closed by Lourdes due to being here) should have been unable to reach a consensus. However, although most of the proposals saw no heavy consensus either way, one certainly did: Floquenbeam's proposals, by around ten supported to only one clear oppose. It seems that, in this case, the community was willing to coalesce around a consensus-based conclusion, but no admin was willing to implement it. The committee, however, should. SN54129 09:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: {{@ArbCom}} — Wug·a·po·des 21:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@SilkTork: I would be happy to unblock, but note: BrownHairedGirl's restriction reads:

Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks, she may be blocked first for twelve hours and then for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion.

So I would prefer if ArbCom would do the unbock, I certainly won't object. Paul August ☎ 14:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Now unblocked by Courcelles Paul August ☎ 15:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:: How is "Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion" incongruent with me thinking I can't unblock without a community discussion? Paul August ☎ 15:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Roy Smith: It has already been shown that the way the block works means, BHG was never silenced, she commented all the way through. Your claim is plain false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

Wow, there's so much to unwind here (and I haven't read everything), but I'm going to narrowly address my comments to a few specific points.

I'm about as strident a defender of WP:CIVIL as you're going to find, but looking at the list of supposed WP:CIVIL violations, I'm hard pressed to say any of those are uncivil. Testy and strongly worded, sure, but calling them uncivil seems like a stretch.
I'm frankly appalled at Paul August's block. Totally unnecessary. This is already at arbcom; to silence the subject of the case is just plain draconian and incendiary. I'm doubly appalled by their refusal to unblock based on the argument that they're not allowed to reverse their own block. That's mind-blowing (and TBH, what prompted me to comment here).
I'm sorely tempted to implement Floquenbeam's proposed close, or encourage him to do so, and/or I'd be willing to co-sign if if he wanted.
RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this further, I see two distinct issues here.

Arbcom running a WP:SMALLCAT RFC. I was involved as part of the closing team in the last arbcom-driven RFC. That didn't work well, for a variety of reasons. I'll accept some of the blame for the controversial close, but there was also a feeling in the community that arbcom had overstepped its remit by wading into content. I agree with that, and urge you not to go there again.
BHG's way of interacting with their fellow editors, which always seems to get them in trouble. Again, I urge arbcom not to get involved (i.e. decline). There's nothing here that requires arbcom's superpowers. There's no admin conduct to be evaluated. There's no private evidence that needs to be shielded from public view. The community has all the tools necessary to handle this through a variety of sanctions all the way up to a siteban if they feel that's justified. That they haven't yet just says to me that the community doesn't feel the need. And if the community doesn't, then it's not arbcom's place to trump community consensus. RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

As a note for posterity sake: a discussion to unblock BHG and overturn the imposition of the community sanction was started at 14:08 on 16 July by Bastun and was closed at 15:10 on 16 July by Courcelles as there being consensus to unblock BHG. Courcelles then unblocked BHG one minute after closing the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

The nonsensical block by Paul August (and their equally suboptimal attitude after they were called out on it) suggests to me that implementing Floquenbeam's close should be something that should be done ASAP. Given the previous Portals episode, I am unconvinced that another issue involving BHG should go to ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vermont

August 2019: An AN thread about her incivility ends with consensus to urge BHG "not to accuse her perceived opponents of mendacity".
January 2020: In the Portals case, ArbCom finds that BHG "has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith"
August 2021: An ANI thread about her incivility ends with consensus that BHG "has engaged in conduct that falls well below our accepted requirements of civility and has engaged in personal attacks." A behavior probation is imposed.
October 2022: An ANI thread about her incivility, in which she made personal attacks towards the user who started the thread, resulted in a 12-hour block. The 12-hour block was upheld after community discussion.

So...for the fifth year in a row, we’re here, with a big ANI thread and now an ArbCom case request about BHG’s incivility. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kusma

I would like to urge ArbCom to accept this case, and to have a reasonably broad scope. On the one hand we have the usual pattern of BHG getting into a dispute, being sure she is right about the substance of the dispute, and then starting to assume bad faith of her opponents or raising questions about their competence. I don't usually care about CfD much, but that CfD super-regular Marcocapelle thinks there is a problem says there probably is one. Anyway, we could have solved the immediate issue by a short block based on the civility restriction, but that didn't happen until Paul August came in with it too late; instead, LL made it clear they are part of the problem and that their behaviour needs to be looked at. That doesn't excuse BHG's behaviour towards others, but is important context that justifies doing this with a proper case instead of a hopeless ANI discussion. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that ArbCom intervention is needed to help guide a RfC about SMALLCAT; the wider behavioural issues seem generally more difficult to resolve (and in some cases, like Laurel Lodged's unnecessary comments to BHG about succession boxes, did not happen at CFD and do not have an obvious relationship to the SMALLCAT dispute). —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

1) Please add Paul August as a party to the case and consider yet another instance of long term admin blocking/unblocking sub-optimally. Or, alternatively, deal with that behavior by motion if the committee feels the facts are sufficiently clear.

2) Please consider adopting (by motion, if a case is not opened) a finding that any administrator placing a unilateral block under a sanction scheme that disallows unblocks except by arbcom or community consensus may unilaterally lessen or remove that block when it is clear that the block was unhelpful. (I believe, as the ultimate arbiters of block and other tool use, this is within ArbCom remit) I strongly dislike the idea that an admin who places a suboptimal block considers the block immune from modification or removal in the face of evidence their block was suboptimal.

3) I echo the above comment on WP:Anchoring. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

The rationale for blocking BHG eludes me. It did not stop disruption as BHG's behavior is now at ANI and here. Looks punitive? Certainly, during an ArbCom case request, the block is in and of itself disruptive.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per DeCausa, it is time -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that ArbCom needs to address the behavior of Laurel Lodged and BHG, and perhaps others, but these two stand out the most. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this commentary from BHG illustrates why we are here. Personal attack mixed with assuming bad faith. All over merging two related threads at ANI. I think BHG has demonstrated she cannot disagree without becoming disagreeable. Overly reactive and overly combative. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

Major long-term contributor with intractable WP:CIVIL issues where the community can't even agree what the issue is; huge, meandering, unintelligible ANI thread; desperate "drive by" ANI close proposal that includes the plea if anyone is interested in a better place to take diff-heavy, multi-faceted complicated conflicts that the ANI community cannot adequately handle, there's ArbCom; out-of-the-blue 48hr block followed by a 7 editor open-for-hour-and-a-half "community consensus" unblock; entrenched admin and non-admin "friends" and opponents. In what universe can there be any doubt this needs to go to Arbcom? DeCausa (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep's motion and comment here is very surprising and SilkTork has it exactly right here. The SmallCat dispute is just the symptom of the issue and not the issue. The RfC won't resolve the issue. This is about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE not WP:SMALLCAT. DeCausa (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

Decline the case, close the ANI thread (per Floq) and start an RFC.

BHG is at times hot-headed and uncivil but all for the right reasons. Of course it's not an excuse but being someone who had repeatedly told people to fuck off™ after losing their cool I can kinda understand. Anyway as far as I know BHGs incivilty isn't a regular thing.

Anyway nothing good will come of this case or the ANI thread. Decline, close the ani thread and start an RFC. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jc37

Ok, to take each topic by sections:

a.) Smallcat - In general, the intent of WP:OC is to provide a guideline to provide guidance for category creators, to (hopefully) reduce CfD discussions of certain types, and to be a sort of WP:AADD for WP:CfD, as well. But in the case of SMALLCAT, that appears to be unsuccessful. As I noted here, it's become clear that even long-term editors of categories and at WP:CFD, apparently differ on the interpretation, the wording, and the applicability, of this section of the WP:OC guideline. By splitting it, this will allow not only for discussion of the existing text, but also allow for better, more full and clear, explanatory text. [...] Hopefully giving everyone a central venue to work on this, and work this out, should help reduce the disruptions that we've seen on this topic over the years. The section has been split to Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth.

b.) BHG - I'll mostly just defer to my comments at the AN/I discussion. One thing that may be worth noting. In the past, I've defended her, in that, even though she seems to go for full on WP:BATTLEGROUND for any topic that she likes, she typically was always just in the "battle of the moment", and usually just let it all go (no long-term grudges) once that particular battle was over. Based upon what we're seeing here, I don't know if that appears to still be true. Which, if so, is disenheartening even more. I mentioned a topic ban at AN/I, but really, she's been doing this on anything she enjoys editing, so I don't think a topic ban's going to be helpful in this case. If arbcom can address the parry-thrust counterpoint of automatic personal attacks and questioning others' motives (along with the faux "being persecuted" counter move), I think that could be a step in the right direction. And a two-way interaction ban with LL (below), would also seem like a good idea.

c.) Laurel Lodged - While there does seem to be some (seemingly easily done) baiting of LL going on, I also am seeing some barely-not-quite-pointy behaviour at CfD by LL over the smallcat situation, where they are posting to any discussion referencing smallcat, (and even some that did not) questioning its applicability there. So I think that perhaps some time away from CfD might be in order. And again, a 2-way interaction ban, would seem to be a good idea. Though, LL and BHG seem to tend to edit similar areas, so I'm not sure how that would work.

d.) Paul August - Does BHG have a civility restriction? yes. Is it fair to say that - within admin discretion - she violated it? yes. So was Paul August following "the rules", seemingly, yes. And my long experience of him is that, if anything, he very much is a rules follower. Now, from a bird's eye view, with everything else going on, was blocking right now, due to the restriction, a good idea? maybe, maybe not. I think others are showing that there seems to be a difference of opinion on that. I guess you all may (or may not) decide whether it was appropriately within admin discretion or not. And (hopefully) whether an admin is allowed to undo their own blocks - it would be odd if they are not allowed to undo a potential mistake, as that's a fundamental concept at Wikipedia. (WP:PERFECTION, etc.)

e.) As for the rest, I think it's mostly just an extension of the issues with smallcat, noted above. Hopefully they can focus their attention on working on developing it more, and that will reduce that disruption as well. - jc37 04:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork - Just a quick clarification. While I did split Smallcat to a separate page (and have recently been working on cleaning up WP:OC in general), I intentionally have avoided changing the wording of the text of smallcat itself, so as to give others an opportunity to more easily discuss and work it out. - jc37 16:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SamX

This is a ( Peanut gallery comment) – I don't have anything to say about whether or not this case should be accepted or the conduct of the parties named in this case request that hasn't been said already a dozen times. I don't edit categories or participate in CfD, I can't recall any noteworthy interactions with any of the parties named here, and I have no personal interest in the outcome of this dispute and the associated case request. This might not be a helpful comment, in which case I apologize, but I hope I'm able to lend some perspective.

I really don't understand why everyone is so worked up about categories. They're only accessible to most readers via the little blue links that go in a little bar at the very bottom of the article, past all of the references, external links, and navboxes that casual readers probably ignore anyway. At the time of this comment, Category:Internet celebrities has been viewed 223 times in the past 30 days. That's less than Triglochin maritima (365 views), a small and visually unremarkable plant that grows in bogs, fens, and salt marshes throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Pageviews on that article will inevitably increase after I post this comment, but I digress. I don't mean to demean categories and those who edit and discuss them—it's vitally important to classify our articles for the convenience of readers, data analysts, and editors—but I simply cannot comprehend how a series of disputes over an small and obscure corner of the encyclopedia metastasized into a 41,000-word monster of an ANI thread in barely a week. I understand why people lose their heads over stuff hot-button stuff like LGBT rights and ethno-religious conflicts, but I don't understand this.

Again, I apologize if this comment is inflammatory or unhelpful; I just want to remind everyone why we're here. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

I think if ArbCom wants an RfC, ArbCom moderation is the way to go. They know what they want and mean by that.

If ArbCom accepts this case, I'd urge them to deal with Laurel Lodged, too. The closing of the ANI case meant that discussion was unresolved. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Banedon on the cognitive bias introduced by naming a party in the case title; further info is at Framing effect (psychology). Valereee (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

As I closed the ANI thread with the restrictions regarding blocks on BrownHairedGirl for civility/personal attacks, I just wanted to clarify what is apparently a point of confusion. I certainly did not think there was any consensus that an admin could not reverse their own block, and it has always more or less gone without saying that an admin can reverse their own action if they later believe they erred or believe it's no longer necessary. But I guess I should have stated that explicitly! In any case, it was certainly not my intent, nor I believe that of the people who discussed it, that an admin should be unable to reverse their own block in that case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

This honestly feels like a WP:FORUMSHOP to me - the ANI thread seems to have been fairly clearly headed towards a consensus, it was just not a close and resolution that everyone liked, because they felt it did not go far enough. So it was dragged to ArbCom (crucially, before the close was complete, in order to pre-empt it, because ArbCom clearly would not have accepted afterwards) in hopes that ArbCom would give a different outcome. This is not how we do things, and I urge ArbCom to decline on those grounds; if the re-opened ANI thread fails to reach a consensus or if there are clear problems afterwards we can always return here, but ArbCom is supposed to be for when the community has clearly failed, not for when someone simply disagrees with the outcome it is reaching.

I also agree with the discussion above re: WP:ANCHORING and would take it a step further - ArbCom really ought to forbid the creation of cases that name editors in the title. If a dispute is complicated enough for ArbCom, and the community has repeatedly failed to resolve it, then there's never just going to be one person obviously at fault, and ArbCom cases are never supposed to just consider one person's conduct anyway; they're supposed to examine the behavior of every participant. A strict ban on user-named cases would force people to consider that when filing. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I do not support the suggested motion. While an RFC about SMALLCAT may or may not be useful, it doesn't need to be under arbcom's auspices. What needs to be examined is the behaviour of BHG, which is independent of what she is arguing about. For example:

The October 2022 ANI thread concerned deletion review of a category unrelated to SMALLCAT
The August 2021 declined request for arbitration stemmed from a dispute regarding a BRFA.
The 2019 Desysopping was related to Portals
September 2022 Bludgeoning and "domination of a speaker's platform" concerned a requested move regarding state funerals
October 2009 Talk:M18 motorway (Great Britain)#Requested move (ancient history now of course but came up in a search when I was looking for something else) shows exactly the same behaviour of bludgeoning and personal attacks regarding the requested move about a British road.

I present this only to show that BHG's manner of conduct is both long term and unrelated to SMALLCAT or any other single topic, and that it is her conduct that needs to be examined. The conduct of other named parties may or may not need examining also, I have not looked and so express no opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DIYeditor

Agree with Deepfriedokra that BHG is combative and does not AGF. BHG's persistent accusations of bad faith outside proper venues also should be looked at. BrownHairedGirl, you cite the rule against gaslighting, but seem to miss the most important part, that it must be malicious, otherwise you could just as easily be accused of gaslighting El_C or anyone whose perceptions/abilities/whatever you call into question.

Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.

⬇️

El_C had failed to read and comprehend a simple reply. El_C then proceeded to accuse me of disruption and bad faith. Such charges are absurd and insulting when issued by someone who has already demonstrated that they do not understand what they are talking about.

You are doing the same thing you are calling gaslighting, but that's not gaslighting whether you do it or someone else does it, unless it's malicious. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: you have been granted your requested additional 1000 words and 250 more words for a future reply. Further extensions are much less likely to be granted, so please plan accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: you are now at 550 words. Please don't add any more without requesting an extension or removing a comment which has not been replied to by others (which at this point I think would only be your reply to L235 given that the entirity of the case request has been considered and replied to). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RevelationDirect granted an extension to 1,000 words total. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl at CFD: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/2>

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
- There is some opinion among those supporting Floq's close (including in my read from Floq himself) that the close is insufficient compared to a regular case. I am taking this feedback seriously and am now leaning towards an accept. Here's where I'm stuck. In a scenario where we have Veteran Editors A, B, C as the core parties to a case request about a somewhat sprawling and nasty at times CfD dispute, it's certainly conceivable we would accept the case. It's inconceivable, in my mind, that we would accept the case in light of a reasonable community solution with unanimous community support on how to move things forward. We would say "try the community solution and if that doesn't work come back to us". Instead the reason I think we're not just doing that is the BHG of it all and that when we last had a case request in 2021 we said "Try the community solution and if it doesn't work come back to us". But having a case just about BHG would be patently unfair to her and would not address the larger issues at play here, including potential misconduct by the other core parties. Not to mention the "come back and see us" was 2 years ago so it's not clear to me that the community solution hasn't been working. So exactly what case I would be voting to accept is unclear to me and since that's the case I'm not yet ready to do it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there an RfC question that could clarify community consensus about SMALLCAT that is reasonably ready to go? Would appreciate input on this from anyone but will ping the 3 I see as the core parties to this case request, @RevelationDirect, BrownHairedGirl, and Laurel Lodged:. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, it is a community restriction. Izno (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What attempts have been made to resolve the conduct of the participants, ignoring the ANI discussion prior this case request? I am less inclined to a broad examination if there are no other attempts besides the recent one. Izno (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
- We could/should probably so two cases here (as we did with American politics 2 and Collect et al. in 2015). Case 1 to examine BrownHairedGirl's conduct since Portals. I am an accept on this case due to Vermont's evidence that behavioral problems seem to follow BHG from topic area to topic area. Further, neither the community sanction nor ANI seem to be able to solve this ongoing issue. I was overly hopeful a few days ago that with Floq's almost close we could avoid a case. But here we are. We could also have a second case to examine the SmallCat issue. I am not sure that it is fully ripe for arbitration right now. There seems to have been little to no prior efforts to resolve the conflict outside of the mega ANI thread. The committee could consolidate these two issues into a single case, but that seems needlessly chaotic for the drafters. I am a firm no on the motion below. The RfC and the question on SmallCat should come from the community, not arbcom. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
- For the information of the parties, I expect to vote to accept the case request. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Given that it's a 48 hour block I have no problem with copying replies from her user talk to here. I also admit that Paul's idea that he can't change his own block to be incongruent with the community's restriction. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: I could wikilawyer why I think you could have undone your own block, but unlike a community ban or some other community sanction, which an individual, even the one implementing, can't undo without consensus, this was still a grant to individual admin and I don't think the community had any desire to impose a kafkaesque one way imposition on that grant to individual admins. This is based, in no small part, on my re-read of the discussion about sanctions that led to this editing restriction a few days ago. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I've seen this; I'm inclined to accept, but I'll wait for further developments before doing so. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accept I agree with SilkTork's analysis of the situation. Most editors manage to routinely disagree about guideline interpretations without needing ANI, let alone ArbCom, intervention. The problem here isn't the wording of SMALLCAT, and the idea of running an RfC is just a distraction from the underlying issues which will crop up at some other guideline dispute in the future. — Wug·a·po·des 22:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse Worm^TT(talk) 13:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Open and suspend

Motion clearly misses the mark

A case entitled Categories for Discussion will be opened and immeadiately suspended. While the case is suspended, the drafting arbitrator(s) will attempt to facilitate a RfC to address the outstanding guideline question(s). During the suspension, the drafting arbitrator(s) may take appropriate action(s) to facilitate finding consensus, including but not limited to imposing:

word and/or diff limits on all participants and/or parties,
bans on participating in the RfC on editors who have disrupted the consensus process, and
sectioned commenting rules.

While the case is suspended, named parties to the case may not:

Question the motive of other editors;
Attempt to bait other editors, especially named parties, into violating any guideline or policy; or
Nominate any category for discussion related to WP:SMALLCAT, or any other scope decided by a consensus of the drafting arbitrator(s).

In addition to the facilitation authority granted above to the drafting arbitrators, any uninvolved administrator (including non-recused arbitrators) may enforce behavioral expectations on named parties with escalating blocks beginning at 48 hours. Appeals from any blocks levied under this paragraph may be directed only to the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee may in its discretion modify any such block, including by extending it.

The drafting arbitrator(s) may add or remove named parties to the case, in accordance with normal arbitraton procedures.

The case may be unsuspended at any time by consensus of the drafting arbitrator(s) or by a majority vote of the Arbitraton Committee, either on its own motion or following a request at WP:ARCA. Following closure of the RfC, the Arbitraton Committee will decide by majority vote whether to close the case, unsuspend the case, or take other action as it deems appropriate.

Arbitration Discussion

In my opinion we have two (overlapping) case requests here. A case request based on a dispute at CFD regarding SMALLCAT and a case request based on allegations of chronic incivility by BHG. I don't think either of these requests on its own has risen to the level of Arbitration Committee intervention, but I think the combination of them does because the complexity of them is beyond what the community can reasonably handle. So this motion (with some copyedits by L235) is my attempt to resolve one of them, the SMALLCAT one. As has been noted by several editors and arbs (including me), the so-called "driveby close" has community consensus. However, there was seemingly no admin willing to implement it and even if there was there was no method to launching the RfC which is at the core of that solution. I am proposing Arb moderation, rather than appointing a facilitator, because I think that provides the cleanest path towards deciding the RfC process isn't working and we need to go the case route first (rather than trying to resolve the dispute and then see if a case is still needed). I am guessing there might need to be further substantive refinements before we're ready to vote and I'm not sure this committee will want to take on such an active moderation role even once we reach the voting phase. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I see being brought to ArbCom is one of civility and conduct, and that's the case I am supporting opening. The SmallCat guideline is not within ArbCom's remit, and ArbCom recommending, advising or overseeing a RfC have historically not been successful. If there are folks who are interested in working on the SmallCat guideline (which User:Jc37 has been working on recently, and has split out into a stand alone guideline: Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth) they can do that without some authority looking over their shoulder. I'm not seeing the guideline itself as being the issue (and a glance at the guideline history and talkpage doesn't show any disruption), so I'd not support ArbCom inserting themselves into what is essentially a non-problematic area. What ArbCom should concentrate on is looking into behaviours which prevent everyday community activity happening as it should (which includes resolving disagreements over how a guideline is interpreted). If there is a dispute between editors which they themselves nor the community can resolve then we should look into the individuals involved in the dispute, not what they are disputing over. SilkTork (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 333: / Line 333: @@
 *October 2009 [[Talk:M18 motorway (Great Britain)#Requested move]] (ancient history now of course but came up in a search when I was looking for something else) shows exactly the same behaviour of bludgeoning and personal attacks regarding the requested move about a British road.
 I present this only to show that BHG's manner of conduct is both long term and unrelated to SMALLCAT or any other single topic, and that it is her conduct that needs to be examined. The conduct of other named parties may or may not need examining also, I have not looked and so express no opinion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
+=== Statement by DIYeditor ===
+Agree with {{u|Deepfriedokra}} that BHG is combative and does not AGF. BHG's persistent accusations of bad faith outside proper venues also should be looked at. {{u|BrownHairedGirl}}, you cite the rule against gaslighting, but seem to miss the most important part, that it must be ''malicious'', otherwise you could just as easily be accused of gaslighting {{u|El_C}} or anyone whose perceptions/abilities/whatever you call into question.
+:{{tq|Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.}}
+:⬇️
+:{{tq|El_C had failed to read and comprehend a simple reply. El_C then proceeded to accuse me of disruption and bad faith. Such charges are absurd and insulting when issued by someone who has already demonstrated that they do not understand what they are talking about.}}
+You are doing the same thing you are calling gaslighting, but that's not gaslighting whether you do it or someone else does it, unless it's malicious. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 14:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
+<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
 === Statement by {Non-party} ===