Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Example

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 2

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of March 2020 discussion on discussion thread formatting

The first set of diffs in the evidence from DanCherek is from an incidents' noticeboard discussion on talk thread formatting from March 2020, after an edit war between RexxS and BrownHairedGirl. For a description of the technical details of the disagreement, see my previous analysis of this discussion. The exhibited behaviour in the incidents' noticeboard thread from both disputing parties was frustrating, as they focused narrowly on repeating their own arguments and did not try to understand the other person's point of view. The level of loud accusations set in a larger typeface size by BrownHairedGirl was extreme, though, and not conducive to resolving the dispute. isaacl (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence posted by User:Laurel_Lodged

1. Under the heading "Threats", Laurel_Lodged posted this comment by BHG:

"If that guideline-flouting is upheld, then a DRV is the appropriate venue to review that."

This does not appear to me to be a "threat" of any kind, it appears to be a suggestion then WP:Deletion review (DRV) can be used to resolve a dispute. Floating a suggestion to use a regular Wikipedia process is inherently not threatening.

2. Similarly, in the same edit, under the heading "Assumed revenge / paranoia" is quoted:

"It follows a series if[sic] unpleasant and/or hostile encounters with you since I challenged your huge nominations in which you offered no evidence of having done any WP:BEFORE, and where you ignored my calls for it to be provided."

I am at a loss to see the "assumed revenge" in that statement. It seems more like a statement of factual chronology, albeit characterized by BHG's personal impression of it. Furthermore, describing it as "paranoia" on BHG's part is perilously close to being a personal attack, as statements do not have paranoia, people do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What is meant by "Threat" here may indeed require some clarification. My second Diff (14:48, 15 June 2023) already addresses this, but this is how I interpreted it at the time (quite important, because this is what motivated me to raise WP:CIVIL issues in the first place):

BrownHairedGirl, in my words, "sort of 'intimidating' the closer"

@BrownHairedGirl WP:CLOSECHALLENGE does not allow a deletion review to be used 5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion. Your 18:58, 13 June 2023 Oppose !vote already argued that it is impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill WP:SMALLCAT which is for "Small with no potential for growth". You've repeatedly invoked both policies in your comments since, so this cannot be a ground for a deletion review. Moreover, I think you shouldn't be sort of 'intimidating' the closer by warning that you will take it to WP:DRV before any decision has even been made. A closer needs to be able to make a decision without any beforehand pressure from any editor involved that there will be negative consequences if they make a decision which any editor involved disagrees with. This isn't the first time in this discussion that I think the way you are treating your fellow editors (myself included) should be a bit more WP:CIVIL. (...) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I now see (this is new information to me) that RevelationDirect later (29 June 2023) concurred with that assessment of mine in a different CfD, where RD expressed (with some understandable frustration and sarcasm) that BHG had again "threatened" the closer to not make a decision BHG would disagree with, or else... she would take it to some other forum like WP:DRV or WP:RFC to overturn whatever the closer decided. (Diff). LL cites BHG's response to this (Diff) as yet more evidence of BHG "threatening" the closer, namely, that the closer will be "flouting" the guideline if they close the CfD discussion in a way BHG disagrees with, and therefore possibly liable to sanctions for having violated a guideline. A closer worried about violating a guideline due to making a decision BHG vehemently disagrees with might be intimidated by such remarks into doing whatever BHG thinks should be decided. Therefore, I think RD's and LL's conclusions, which confirm my earlier conclusion, are correct. I hope this provides enough context, and helps everyone here to draw their own conclusions. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

What LL appears to mean with "Assumed revenge / paranoia" more clearly requires clarification. I wouldn't say it like that, and I believe LL has not provided as much context as he should have, so that it looks much like a personal attack (which is unacceptable). But if he phrased it differently, and provided more context and evidence, I would probably agree with it. Because BHG has indeed said she felt "hounded" by a "tag team" which was allegedly engaged in "revenge-nominating". Although I have not really seen evidence of "tag-teaming" and "revenge-nominating", I have taken her expression that she felt hounded very seriously (per WP:HOUNDING). It's one of the reasons why I suggested two-way IBANs for her vis-à-vis the three. BHG should be able to edit Wikipedia without being harassed by others (if that is indeed what was going on). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: Meanwhile, LL has clarified several statements. Assumed revenge / paranoia has been changed to Assumed revenge as motive for SmallCat differences. I welcome this clarification, which is helpful for moving the process forward. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: I believe Robert McClenon underestimates the seriousness of "intimidating/threatening" the closer. I would recommend him to (re-)read my analysis above. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I concur with the analysis by User:Beyond My Ken that the mention of DRV was not a threat, and that its characterization as one is mistaken. An error by the closer at CFD should be taken to DRV, just as an error by the closer at AFD should be taken to DRV. I was about to write an Analysis of Evidence to that effect, and so will concur with this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence posted by User:DanCherek

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I wholly endorse the findings of DanCherek regarding BrownHairedGirl's allegations of gaslighting. I have been subjected to this myself by BrownHairedGirl. This repetitive WP:UNCIVIL conduct should be sanctioned accordingly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• I generally concur with the findings of DanCherek regarding Laurel Lodged inappropriately emptying categories out of process, and making inappropriate comments to other participants. LL has shown willingness to retract or rectify inappropriate comments, and thus recognising the importance of being WP:CIVIL (something I can't say about BHG, see my Evidence). But serious consideration should be given to implement one or several of the previously suggested restrictions (temporary blocks or topicbans on categorisation in certain problematic topic areas, such as "Irish counties" and "years in Austria") in order to adequately deal with repetitive inappropriate conduct. But I would oppose banning him from CFD entirely; virtually all my interactions with Laurel Lodged there have been amicable, he is quite productive and makes valuable contributions to the project. Clashes with other editors in certain topic areas, as well as clashes with BHG over SMALLCAT nominations, have been the exception rather than the rule, and a two-way WP:IBAN between BHG and LL has previously gained widespread support at the ANI when I and others proposed it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Observations about both & about enforcement: Past and current restrictions for BHG and LL have evidently been insufficient, or have simply been insufficiently enforced. Both LL and BHG are under active WP:EDR:

• 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. (...). Indefinite.
• Laurel Lodged is placed under an editing restriction from adding, removing or altering the names or significance of Irish counties (...) Indefinite. Can be removed after 2013-12-20.

I believe that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Irish police officers by county, 10 categories created on 24 June 2023 7 June 2023 by BHG and nominated for upmerging per WP:SMALLCAT by LL the same day on 24 June 2023, resulting in vehement opposition from BHG who then arguably engaged in incivility towards LL, not only contributed to a series of escalations (already beginning at the Expatriates CfD in mid-June, if not earlier) which led us to the ANI and this ARC today. (I would like to note that both LL and BHG are from Ireland, and have been at odds about categorisation since at least 2011). I believe that this could have been prevented by enforcing the editing restriction on LL not to interfere with anything to do with Irish counties (which this arguably is), and incivility engaged in by BHG towards LL could have been prevented by enforcing the editing restriction on BHG not to behave uncivilly (which she arguably did). PS: If you wonder whether BHG was really so uncivil towards LL, here are some excerpts:

BHG to LL at the Irish police officers by county CfM

@Laurel Lodged: Go READ WP:SMALLCAT. You don't even need to read the whole paragraph: Its headline is Small with no no potential for growth. Do you understand what no potential for growth means? You clearly did not do any WP:BEFORE. (...) The whole nomination is at best a act of unintended disruption caused by a failure to do WP:BEFORE. However, I find it very hard to believe that after all your years at CFD you are not aware that WP:SMALLCAT is for categories with "no potential for growth", or that it does not apply to established series. Please end the disruption by promptly withdrawing this nomination. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks I would like to offer my thanks to BHG for acknowledging that it was "unintended disruption". It's nice when she assumes that I work in Good Faith. Oh wait...did I just admit to being disruptive. Darn. Sigh. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC) I assume good faith until the assumption becomes untenable, as it has here. But of course it is wholly untrue to say that I was acknowledging that it was "unintended disruption". I said that it is "at best a act of unintended disruption". Please stop abusing CFD as a platform to publish untruths as part of your taunting games. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Note that as a demonstration of LL's bad faith, LL made no response to the expansion of the categories, or to my comments about how WP:SMALLCAT supports keeping these categories. Instead, they just posted snark. A good faith editor would at this stage withdraw the nomination, and apologise both the failure to read WP:SMALLCAT and for their lack of WP:BEFORE, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Now judge that by WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, and draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that BHG's comments qualify as uncivil, and could have been sanctioned with a twelve-hour block per her behavior probation. At the same time, LL is arguably liable for sanctioning per his topicban due to starting a CfM about Irish counties. These editing restrictions are already in place. Why are they not enforced? Enforcement should prevent conflicts like this. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the Irish Police officers categories were created on 7 June 2023 (diff and diff - 44 categories created in 1 day). 17 days to populate them. Oculi (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Okay I don't know how I thought BHG created them all on 24 June 2023, and LL nominated 10 of them all on the same day BHG created them, because you are correct that this isn't the case. Thanks for pointing it out.  Fixed Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by others:

SilkTork I have provided a diff[1] in my evidence in which BHG quotes the WMF Code of Conduct which explicitly says "psychological manipulation" and "malicious", and in which diff she uses the term "vicious" herself, possibly showing that she does understand this meaning for "gaslighting". —DIYeditor (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I've said this before at the AN/I, but Nederlandse Leeuw is wrong in saying [LL recognizes] the importance of being WP:CIVIL. There isn't any evidence to support that statement. He had to be warned twice by Black Kite about his incivility before finally disengaging. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence posted by User:Oculi

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• I wholly endorse the findings of Oculi regarding common practice and consensus at CFD with respect to Upmerging WP:SMALLCATs. In fact, I am surprised by just how accurate Oculi's evidence is, and just how strong the agreement between all of us at CFD was about how to apply the WP:SMALLCAT guideline in practice. Even more surprising is how BHG does not appear to have done WP:BEFORE, and check whether these categories had potential for growth (BHG's main pet peeve when others suggest merging/deleting categories per WP:SMALLCAT) prior to her 19:43, 26 May 2023 CfM nomination (in which I did not participate). I cannot help but express feeling a strong sense of irony at seeing how the same editor – who was constantly reminding us ad nauseam about how she interpreted the passage (no) potential for growth in the WP:SMALLCAT guideline to be prohibiting any deletion or merging of any category under nomination, and that we must do WP:BEFORE, and that it was impossible to believe for her that the nominator of this or that category had done WP:BEFORE – but not following those rules herself when nominating categories for upmerging per WP:SMALLCAT. BHG has no grounds for claiming, well, the high ground. I find it even more surprising now, and even less understandable, why things escalated so quickly at the Expatriates CfD in mid-June 2023. I would like to thank Oculi for carefully gathering and submitting this evidence and analysis. It provides insights I didn't yet have. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence posted by User:Valereee

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am very undecided on what the evidence says about LL (hence why I asked for it). Let's instead discuss Editor Foo. If when presented with concerns about their conduct Editor Foo substantially changes their behavior to address the concerns without saying anything that's just fine with me. It's great even. If, however, Editor Foo in attempting to discuss this makes things worse such they are advised to just say nothing, that's a cause of concern itself for me because it suggests that they're not going to actually be able to change concerning conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Just a brief comment: amongst three instances which Valeree claimed as evidence that Laurel Lodged refuses to communicate, Valeree cited 22:41 July 12 stops responding to pings to direct questions at ANI: here and 15:13 July 13 here. I think that misses the point that LL was told very early on to entirely disengage from the ANI by Black Kite (12:44, 7 July 2023), myself (12:56, 7 July 2023), and possibly others. Laurel Lodged can hardly be expected to simultaneously stay disengaged from 7 July 2023 on and resume responding to questions at the ANI on 12 July and 13 July. (Schrödinger's smallcat?)

Hypothetically: What is editor A, who has been requested by editors B, C and D to completely disengage, to do if A is later tagged by editors E, F and G to answer direct questions? A is at the risk of being accused of "refusing to communicate" by E, F and G if A does not, but accused of "ignoring demands to completely disengage" by B, C and D if A does. Tricky...

I was actually faced by the same dilemma. I decided to respond only once when tagged to answer a direct question and immediately disengaging again; yet, even that appears to have made some other people unhappy. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... Perhaps someone can explain some procedural rules about this? It's unfamiliar terrain to me, so I didn't know what to do either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, sorry if I've missed it above, you gave a timestamp but can you give us a diff of that instruction from BK to entirely disengage? Ping @Black Kite for clarification?

At any rate, what is editor A to do? Editor A can go to editor E's talk and explain that editor B has recommended disengaging, and then explain there. And then Editor A can not immediately resume disputing with editor 0. Valereee (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes I suppose you're right that, in such a situation, using each other's talk pages makes sense. Perhaps you were unaware of the fact that BK and I had asked LL to disengage, and therefore had expected him to respond to your questions, and when he didn't, concluded he deliberately refused to communicate? I can see how that may have happened.

Unfortunately the diffs have been suppressed, but I can give you the link and the quotes:

[LL] I suggest you disengage from this ANI completely and let your fellow editors involved in the situation handle it. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged Good on you for deleting the material. I recommend you take Black Kite's suggestion and disengage from this ANI, at least for now. We'll take it from here. Have a good day, see you elsewhere. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd recommend to people that when someone pings them to a direct question, they should respond, and that that is completely different from unhelpfully contributing to the discussion. Valereee (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that LL did the same thing at the case request here: the ignored ping to a direct question is in MJL's section. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so it's recommended to respond to a pinged question? I think that is fair.

But I suppose we cannot require people to respond to a pinged question, can we? If it's a loaded question or suggestive question, like "@ User:Foo Do you still behave uncivilly these days?" In certain cases I think other people are not entitled to an answer, particularly if it is a rather hostile question.

Case in point (at the risk of making this a huge meta-fallacy haha), Editor A states:

@ Editor B Mind explaining how you are not guilty of the exact [allegations] you are willing to condemn Editor C for? Please do so without violating the Tu quoque fallacy yourself. - Editor A

Arguably, Editor A is themselves committing the Tu quoque fallacy against Editor B. Moreover, by pointing this out, I myself might be committing the Tu quoque fallacy against Editor A. (I hope I didn't whahaha. Sorry, I find irony funny). But it's arguably quite a hostile question. I could understand it if Editor B wouldn't want to answer it. And even if so, where would you like Editor B to answer that question? In their Preliminary Statement? We were limited to only 500 words. Editor A in this case was not an involved party. I think Editor B in this case, at this stage, was not required to answer Editor A, who was not entitled to an answer, let alone to a rather hostile question. That's not Editor B refusing to communicate, it's B enjoying the right to remain silent to an uninvolved party they have no obligation to answer at any stage, let alone this preliminary stage that needs to be brief and focused on the essentials of a case, let alone to a rather hostile one. If you were in B's shoes, I think you would agree.

At any rate, feel free to ask me any questions. I tend to be quite responsive, as you might have noticed. I could actually learn from being more concise and sometimes not answering a question I don't need to answer. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Another reason we cannot require editors to reply to direct questions is that this could sometimes conflict with editing restrictions. For example I once pinged an editor based on my knowledge of their previous involvement of previous discussions of related subjects, not knowing that they had an interaction ban with the person who started the section. On this occasion they left me a note on my talk page explaining this but there was no requirement for them to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying we need to require it, even at active noticeboard discussions. We'd been asked if it was a pattern. Valereee (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh now I see the connection. Yes, the question was raised It was alleged at the ARC that Laurel Lodged will just ignore and otherwise attempt to wait out disputes involving them. So my answer stands that LL had been explicitly asked to disengage from the discussion by B, C and D. Then E, F and G tagged him to ask further questions and he answered once, but even that resulted in a negative response from other people who had demanded him to disengage, so yeah. It's difficult, you can't please everyone simultaneously, I guess. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

NL, this editor was

1. a named party
2. at a noticeboard discussion
3. and stopped responding to questions that don't seem to be part of an editing restriction?

I get that editors were advising them to stop participating disruptively, and that's good advice. I feel like it shouldn't be extended to "so-and-so told them to stop participating disruptively" as a reason to stop communicating altogether. Valereee (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that refusing to continue to communicate at MJL's objection to being misgendered is part of the pattern. For the record, I follow the Golden Rule (i.e. all instances of "he/him" in law are assumed to also mean "she/her"). No. Assuming maleness is not okay. It doesn't help our goals. I've been assumed to be male by multiple other editors who've addressed me as sir, Mr., dude, bro...I try to politely correct the misapprehension and brush off the annoyance, but yeah. It's not very welcoming, and we should encourage people to address other editors by their preferred pronouns. If you don't want to bother with that, just call everyone they/them, very few people object to that.

@Laurel Lodged, FFR: instead of treating people as you'd like to be treated, maybe try treating them as they'd like to be treated. You may like to be assumed male. I don't. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm commenting here to say I've seen the above discussion and will be presenting evidence sometime soon as to how LL responds to editor concerns in order to directly address barkeep's question.
I will also point out that, while no one is required to respond to a ping per WP:NOTREQUIRED, the absence of a response can itself be taken as a reply when it can be shown the editor has intentionally ignored the question. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Apology from Nederlandse Leeuw to BrownHairedGirl

@BrownHairedGirl: I would hereby like to formally apologise for two comments I made to you at the ANI. The first dates from 22:16, 7 July 2023, and was a poor joke about some typos you had made in your comment of 21:02, 7 July 2023. For background, ever since the morning of 7 July 2023, I had been trying to be diplomatic between you and "the three" (RD, LL and Oculi), and seeking a solution to prevent future conflicts between the 4 of you. I had been trying (and partially failing) understand what you were trying to say and do.

I believed that several of your comments were be counter-productive to making your case that you had not engaged in incivility, or at least that it should not be sanctioned, and that we should (also) look at the conduct of "the three" whom you alleged to be "tag-teaming", "revenge-nominating" and "hounding" you. While I still see no evidence of the former two, I have taken your accusation of WP:HOUNDING very seriously, because I believe Wikipedia should be our harassment-free virtual workplace (15:46, 7 July 2023): If you genuinely feel hounded as you say (...) I may support such sanctions, because I do not want you to be subjected to hounding while you're working on Wikipedia. This should be a harassment-free virtual workplace. At numerous other occasions, I had emphasised that I want you here on Wikipedia (06:26, 7 July 2023; 08:31, 7 July 2023; 12:38, 7 July 2023; 13:10, 7 July 2023; 13:43, 7 July 2023; 16:16, 7 July 2023), to be able to write and edit about the topics you care about, even offering to cooperate on topics of mutual interest. But, with the recommendation that you do "damage control" and accept certain restrictions that would hopefully prevent future conflicts with "the three" for your and their own good (whether restrictions, and which ones, are a good idea or not, is still undetermined).

My frustration grew throughout the day as you and I failed to agree on several findings of fact, and on ways forward, the impression that I got that you did not seem to understand what I was trying to say and do, and my apparent failure to understand what you were trying to say and do. (I also saw frustration on your side; you appeared to think I couldn't be an "ally" of yours or otherwise helping you in your situation without agreeing with your interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT, which I found irrelevant in the given situation of an ANI about concerns about your conduct). In particular, that you were rapidly replying to participants with repetitive accusations of "tag-teaming" and "revenge-nominating" without evidence, as well as more comments which could serve to confirm you were engaging in incivility, instead of carefully preparing your defence (which I wished you good luck in doing early on): I would further advise BHG to give priority to sifting through those diffs and carefully writing her response before mounting a defence. This comment appears to have been written in great haste (hence also lots of typos, which is uncharacteristic; the BrownHairedGirl I know writes very carefully), (...) Good luck; I understand that you are a bit stressed now, but I think I and most editors here genuinely mean well and are trying to find a workable solution for us all. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC).

Finally, when late at night, you posted a comment on 21:02, 7 July 2023, accusing me of several things (see Evidence presented by DanCherek § Nederlandse Leeuw), and I still saw you rapidly responding and making accusations without evidence (now against me) filled with typos that I found funny, I lost my patience and made a joke about your typos that was poor in taste. I then went on seriously, going over 4 options of ways forward for you, again suggesting you should do damage control so that you could keep editing Wikipedia about topics you like, adding that I was giving up my role as a diplomat, and was joining 'the opposition'. I thought my joke was acceptable humour, somewhat relaxing a tense situation, but in hindsight, I needlessly aggravated the tensions between you and me, so my joke was counterproductive. You misinterpreted my option to voluntarily retire as NL is overtly trying to drive me off Wikipedia etirely, suggesting that I retire. I wasn't, but in hindsight I should have known better after first poking fun at you (I tried mitigating the impact by clarifying it on 08:34, 8 July 2023). This was exacerbated by the fact that I had unintentionally apparently insulted you over the state of your keyboard (which I knew nothing about, but which you blamed the typos on). On 08:34, 8 July 2023, I tried to address this new information, first by saying that is not our problem, but yours (which may have been true, but was possibly insensitive to say), then by suggesting you correct your typos after posting, or to have your keyboard repaired, or buy a new one (which I meant as amicable and helpful).

Nevertheless, my last remark is the one I regret most, and I wish to apologise most for, namely that it would be your own fault if people would mock you for having a dying keyboard. I shouldn't have said that. I understand how appalled you were by it (18:16, 8 July 2023). I apologise for it without reservation. I hope you don't doubt my sincerity. No amount of incivility you may have directed at me or others can justify me saying this. It was my own failure to adequately deal with the frustration and with what I regarded as unfair accusations that led me to say something I shouldn't have. I'm sorry.

What I've learnt is that I should be more careful about trying too hard to solve this whole situation on my own. (This has a lot to do with me feeling responsible for having, in my understanding, set off a chain of events that led us to the ANI because I was (one of) the first to raise civility issues (14:48, 15 June 2023). I felt like I had to bring the process, that I thought I had put in motion, to a good conclusion, but took on too much responsibility). Several editors pointed me to WP:BADGER and WP:BLUDGEON, which I had never heard about, but I realised that they were right that it applied to me at the ANI. I should also be more careful when editing late at night; when I'm tired, I'm somewhat more prone to lose my patience, and I have more difficulty being the good Wikipedian I'm really trying to be, and the example I'm trying to set. And I'm grateful that most fellow editors expressed that my conduct had been civil and amicable so far; I strive to uphold that. I really hope this ARC will lead to an outcome which will prevent future conflicts between us. I felt that me making this apology to you would be necessary in order to do that. I am still open to working together with you on topics we both care about, should you be interested. Have a good day, and good luck with preparing your defence. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Thank you for trying to aologise. But the basis of your apology is so radically different to the facts that I am unable to accept it.
The overall problem is that I have seen no stage in the whole saga when you have, as you claim, been trying to be a diplomat or mediator or conciliator, despite your claims since this came to Arbcom. On the contrary, you have repeatedly tred to stoke conflict and to attack me.
E.g. at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G, you posted at length[2] to stoke conflict, by accusing me of
a) using DRV for sort of 'intimidating' the closer;
b)Made three allegatios agaist me of ABF.
Note that you entirely avoided any substantive comment on the core reasons I oposed the nominations: the sheer scale of this nomination makes it impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill WP:SMALLCAT which is for "Small with no potential for growth". You addressed neither the nomination's failure to respect anyting other than the first word of SMALLCAT not the impossibility of believing that the nominator had checked potential for growth. Instead of asking why I made that assertion, you went stright to attacking me for making it. If you want to resolve a dispute, the way to respnd to an assertion that seems problematic is to ask for explanation; that way, the dialoge may reach agreement. But instead, you adopted the dispute-escalation path of adding an extra layer of dispute, over whether I assumed bad faith.
Nonetheless, I explained[3] to NL why I had found impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill WP:SMALLCAT.
Yet at ANI, you repeated that assertion in full, without noting my explanation. (the diffs are unavailable, but see my response timestamped 09:54, 7 July 2023 in the archive WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#BrownHairedGirl's_lack_of_civility_in_CFD). That was dispute escalation, and your replies escalated it further. You continued to try to frame it all a he-said/she-said dispute, while repeatedly failing to engage with the very simple core point: that Oculi's nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G wholly misrepresented SMALLCAT by ignoring all of the 100+ word guideline apart from its first word "small". Instead, in that long discussion between us at ANI, you repeatedly demanded that I either recuse myself from all SMALLCAT-related discussions, or be topic-banned from them.
And as to your claims that you made "jokes" which you regret: no. The reality is that having preached at me about civitty, you set out to mock me and to invite other editors to mock me.
It has taken me over an hour of diff-farming my way through multiple old discussions to write this reply. I don't have the energy or inclination to do more of this. The core issue here is and always has been very very simple: that CFD nominations which cite WP:SMALLCAT but are based solely on the current size of a category are invalid because they ignore everything after the first word of the headline Small with no potential for growth, and they unambiguously flout SMALLCAT's clear assertion "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories". No amount of diff-farming will alter the fact that this is all entirely about why some editors repeatedly misrepresent that short and simple guideline.
So I have no wish to collaborate with you on anything at all. My experience of you so far has all been of this SMALLCAT-related dispute, in which you have repeatedly complicated a very simple issue about a unusually short guideline into a vast, sprawling, multi-pronged timesink of a dispute which is being conducted in a way that cannot resolve the simple underlying issue, which I summarise as "Do the words in WP:SMALLCAT mean what they say?". I wish you well, but I want to work with editors who solve problems rather than escalating dramas. So I want to WP:DISENGAGE from you entirely. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of apologies

I am genuinely sad and disappointed that my sincere apology has not been accepted (Diff). No matter what context and nuance I provide, no matter how amicable and diplomatic I try to be, and make amends for two mistaken comments I made, BHG apparently does not accept any apologies unless I agree with her interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT and WP:BEFORE, which I found and still find irrelevant in the given situation of an ANI (and now an ARC) centred about concerns about BHG's conduct per WP:CIVIL.

On a general note: making apologies is not always necessary, but in interpersonal conflicts it is a good thing to do if you intend to get along with each other again in the future (as I have been intending with BHG). It's better to err on the side of making an apology to someone who doesn't think it was necessary than the side of not making an apology to someone who felt an apology was due. (A great example of erring on the good side can be found at the Preliminary statements between two uninvolved parties: Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. But I was not "offended" and do not require an apology, though I'm happy to accept one.) It is good practice to be self-critical, carefully evaluate your own behaviour, and make an apology if you feel you've done something wrong, even if it hasn't been explicitly demanded by the person you might have wronged. (This is what has led me to post the apology above). Demanding apologies for severe misconduct can sometimes be justified, but one should always remain self-critical, and see if you should apologise to anyone else even if you feel like you're in a situation where you are justified in demanding apologies of others (perhaps the same people). For me personally it is unusual to directly demand an apology of someone else; I tend to think they should take the initiative themselves by understanding how I respond by expressions of being upset, confused, frustrated, sad, etc. Most fellow editors here on Wikipedia recognise those signals and say sorry or something in such a situation, which I really appreciate, even when I feel it was unnecessary. Most people want to be nice, make amends for any mistake and keep cooperating amicably, and that's an important part of what makes Wikipedia so wonderful and successful.

Unfortunately, this sincere apology of mine to BHG, as well as the apology previously made by RevelationDirect to BHG (Diff), as well as several rectifications and retractions made by Laurel Lodged at ANI and ARC, as well as several apologies made for relatively minor mistakes by some other editors to certain other editors, and the latter accepting such apologies or even saying such apologies aren't really necessary (just Ctrl+F for "apolog", e.g. at the Preliminary statements), stand in stark contrast to BHG demanding apologies from lots of people, but never making any apologies to anyone whatsoever thoughout this process, as far as I can tell. While BHG's conduct is at the centre of this whole dispute, she has been the person demanding apologies the most, and making apologies the least. Again if we Ctrl+F just the Preliminary statements, BHG says things such as:

A competent, good faith admin would the have at least apologised for their error

No editor, let alone an admin, should be allowed to demonstrate the uncomprehending, unapologetic aggression which [X] displayed here

[My] complaint [is] about the misconduct of an admin who failed to read, failed to apologise, and assumed bad faith

the malice is clear from [X]'s failure to apologise at the time

At the ANI, if we again Ctrl+F for "apolog", what do we find? BHG demanding apologies from others, sometimes receiving apologies from others, but not making any apologies to anyone herself:

Apologies demanded (directly or indirectly)

BHG: A goo[d] faith editor would at this stage withdraw the nomination, an[d] apologise Diff

BHG: you make no apology for entirely omtting to menton [pet peeve]

BHG: I am sad to see the lack of apology

BHG: I would also hope that per WP:ADMINACCT any admin would apologise for their repeated error about the nature of my complaint, rather than issuing a warning.

BHG: [X], this exchange would have ended long ago if you had had the courtesy to simply apologise for your error.

Some responses:

X: Negative, BHG, that is not an error of note here and you are owed no apology.

BHG to X: So you not only fail to apologose for your error, (...)

BHG to X: You have had ample opportnity to demstrate your good faith by apologising for your error. But you didn't; you chose to act like someone of bad faith.

Apologies received

RevelationDirect: apologized on BrownHairedGirl's talk page (Diff)

Some responses

Y to RevelationDirect: I have to say, while I have not read everything, you really seem to have tried to keep collegiate discussion open with BHG. Yes, you both seem to clearly disagree on certain policy/guidelines, and you did lose your cool a few times, but you apologized and came back to the table to discuss. I don't think those discussions would win awards for positivity, but to me, it looks like you have tried.

Apologies made

(none as far as I can tell, but I stand to be corrected if I have missed anything)

Other comments

I myself didn't demand anything, but I suggested it might have been a good idea for BHG to apologise for certain things she just might have done wrong in a situation where she was (and still is) being accused of WP:UNCIVIL conduct, because I believed what she was doing (and that I was trying to warn her against) was counter-productive: [Y]ou're undermining your case by recklessly criticising the very people who are saying you should be more WP:CIVIL. If you entered this conversation being all nice to everyone and apologising for any offence you might have caused, your case might have been credible, but we're seeing the opposite.

I previously contrasted RD's apology and LL's retractions/rectifications with BHG's lack of apology as well (this is the closest I've ever got to demanding an apology of BHG; ideally, everyone should take the initiative themselves): I note that nom herself has admitted to having been uncivil on at least one occasion, but having apologised for it to BHG. She recognises the importance of WP:CIVIL. (...) I finally note that BHG has not admitted to any wrongdoing whatsoever so far, let alone apologised for it. She does not recognise the importance of WP:CIVIL. (This later became the focus of my Evidence).

Meanwhile, we see several other editors making apologies or saying "sorry" to each other for relatively minor mistakes, and sometimes discussing whether BHG should make an apology to, or receive an apology from, some party or another. (E.g. LL saying BHG should apologise for certain things, and [Z] saying LL should apologise to BHG for certain things. Whether they should is not up for me to say; as said, it's often better if everyone themselves figures out whether an apology is due, and err on the side of making apologies that were neither demanded nor expected than the side of not making apologies where they were felt due).

Analysing the pattern

The pattern that I see is as follows, noting that what a policy or guideline says is not necessarily the same as how BHG believes it should be interpreted (although she seems not to be aware that those could be two different things):

1. If someone does not act in accordance with the way BHG interprets a policy or guideline, BHG feels she can demand an apology from said person. (In the examined examples, this is usually WP:SMALLCAT and/or WP:BEFORE, but never WP:CIVIL).
2. If said person "fails" to apologise for not acknowledging that BHG's interpretation of a policy or guideline is correct, BHG states this as evidence that said person has acted or is acting in bad faith.
3. If said person makes an apology to BHG which does not include an acknowledgement that BHG's interpretation of a policy or guideline is correct, BHG rejects the apology. If BHG's subsequent calls for an apology by said person to do so are still not heeded, BHG also states this as evidence that said person has acted or is acting in bad faith.

The basic question here is: Is BHG always right? Answer: No, not always. It's well-understood that Everyone makes mistakes, including BHG. Therefore, we cannot assume BHG's interpretation of policies and guidelines to always be right etc. Therefore, I think this approach is untenable, because BHG does not have a monopoly on interpreting policies and guidelines (certainly not so long and heavily contested as SMALLCAT; I refer to jc37's Evidence on that). Nor is she in a position to demand an apology of anyone who disagrees with her interpretation of policies and guidelines, nor do I think it is justified to accuse anyone of acting in bad faith if they don't.

So, why did BHG reject RevelationDirect's apology and my apology to her?

I think the fact that, because RevelationDirect's apology and my apology above to BHG did not include an acknowledgement that BHG's interpretation of a policy or guideline is correct, BHG rejected our apologies (Diff; Diff). But that wasn't what RD and I intended to apologise for; we tried to apologise for having potentially not been WP:CIVIL towards BHG. However, because BHG does not appear to be recognising the importance of being WP:CIVIL, even if incivility is ever directed against herself, such apologies are useless to BHG and she rejects them.

BHG told RD: Frankly, I am utterly sick of wasting time on your tedious obsession with so-called "civility issues" while you evade the two issues of substance (...): (1) The systematic misrepresentation of WP:SMALLCAT by you and others who repeatedly chose to wholly disregard both the "no potential for growth" and "established series" parts of WP:SMALLCAT; (2) The recent malicious tag-teaming to apply that warped-and-twisted take on SMALLCAT to categories newly created by me.

BHG's rejection of my apology above is almost entirely dedicated to her demand that I acknowledge her interpretation of certain policies and guidelines: The core issue here is and always has been very very simple: that CFD nominations which cite WP:SMALLCAT but are based solely on the current size of a category are invalid because [pet peeve]. Almost every sentence in her rejection is about "SMALLCAT", potential for growth, "BEFORE" or some other policy or guideline unrelated to WP:CIVIL, with the exception of two passing sentences which are actually relevant to my apology to her about civility: And as to your claims that you made "jokes" which you regret: no. The reality is that having preached at me about civitty, you set out to mock me and to invite other editors to mock me. While I found it of central importance to apologise for this, it seems to be of no consequence to BHG, because she then goes on: My experience of you so far has all been of this SMALLCAT-related dispute, in which you have repeatedly complicated a very simple issue about a unusually short guideline into a vast, sprawling, multi-pronged timesink of a dispute which is being conducted in a way that cannot resolve the simple underlying issue, which I summarise as "Do the words in WP:SMALLCAT mean what they say?. So everything is all about her interpretation of policies and guidelines being correct, and the rest of us having to acknowledge it as correct, and having to apologise to her as long as we do not acknowledge it as correct; everything else is just irrelevant and a waste of time, including being WP:CIVIL and apologies for potential incivility, apparently. RD and me raising the importance of civility is making things needlessly "tedious" or "complicated", it merely "evades" or distracts from what BHG actually does find important.

Closing remarks

I'll close by emphasising that rules about apologies are not set in stone, but apologies or just saying "sorry" are good practice to help people get along again in the future after a conflict; that I may have missed good examples because I searched only for variations of the words "apology" and "apologise"/"apologize" (or that the examples could have been skewed in my favour; evidently, I am an involved party); and that for my part, I have seriously and sincerely tried to do my part with the apology to BHG posted above. She has now said she wants to disengage from me entirely, which makes me sad and disappointed, but I will accept and respect that. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Moved from direct reply to BrownHairedGirlI will include evidence of Nederlandse Leeuw mocking the keyboard/typing issue and being warned about BLUDGEONing the process which may (if you choose) spare you the time and space to focus on defending accusations against you and/or your interpretation of SMALLCAT. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Question to Barkeep49

@Barkeep49: I submitted some evidence of LL ignoring a dispute involving him. I have a little over 100 words left, so I'll ask if it would also be helpful to provide a history of LL emptying categories out of process? I wouldn't need an extension for that, but I don't want to waste time providing evidence for something the committee isn't particularly interested in looking at. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, I can further present evidence as to how LL handles conduct disputes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Questions/Comments from Arbitrators

• As we examine this case, I am interested seeing any evidence that might be presented on:
  • It was alleged at the ARC that Laurel Lodged will just ignore and otherwise attempt to wait out disputes involving them. Is there evidence or counter evidence about this allegation?
  • Are there examples of BHG having productive disagreements with other editors?
• Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• User:DanCherek, thank you for the list of the number of occasions where BHG has used the term gaslighting - this is useful. I note that you have prefaced this with a definition which includes the term "malevolent". Are you suggesting that BHG was [accusing others of]* being malevolent? If not, then perhaps a link to our article on Gaslighting which expands upon possible readings and understandings of the term, and removing "malevolent" from your preface, would less worrisome. Meanwhile, some analysis of the gaslighting evidence, if you feel up to it, would be helpful. SilkTork (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  *I mistyped originally. SilkTork (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  I saw that as an attempt of drawing the distinction that this section of the Gaslighting article is drawing. Perhaps rephrasing in taht way would be helpful. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  The term gaslighting is often used just to indicate disagreement, which is outlined in our article: "frequently used to describe ordinary disagreements". I'd be interested to see an analysis which indicated that BHG was suggesting that others were deliberately trying to physiologically harm them, or, on the other hand, indicated that BHG was meaning little more than others were confusing and frustrating them because of disagreements. Without a closer understanding of BHG's own understanding of the term "gaslighting" it's difficult to assess the weight of BHG's use of the term. SilkTork (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Robert McClenon for your observation - I find that interesting. Do you feel that deletion discussions should be considered for designating as a Contentious topic? If so, do you feel that might be better as an ArbCom decision or as a community decision? SilkTork (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)