Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:12, 2 August 2023

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

That RevelationDirect be investigated for being a WP:MEATPUPPET of @Laurel Lodged: now

1) I'm a little unclear on the exact claim against me since I seem to be an mascot of a WP:TAGTEAM rather than a full fledged member. I'm also unsure of how a meat puppet investigation works and how conclusive the results are. But there has been a repeated claim that I am under the improper influence of another editor and I would love to clear the air on that as part of the evidence phase of ArbComm. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support motion, preliminary provision of context, counter-evidence, and possible explanation for misunderstanding I support this motion. We cannot ignore baseless accusations that harm the reputation of fellow Wikipedians. I'll provide some context below, and my analysis why BHG probably mistakenly arrived at the conclusion that there was some sort of "tag team" which was "revenge-nominating" categories she had created. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BHG's allegations of a tag team

Since at least 28 June 2023, but possibly earlier, (1: People by occupation in Northern Ireland nom by LL; 2: Irish trade unionists nom by Oculi; 3: BHG's talk page, BHG replying to Pppery, 4: again Irish trade unionists nom by Oculi), BrownHairedGirl (BHG) has repeatedly claimed, without providing evidence, that there is a "tag team" consisting of Laurel Lodged (LL) and Oculi which has allegedly been WP:HOUNDING her and "revenge-nominating" categories created by her for deletion. On 12:34, 30 June 2023, BHG still seemed unsure whether RevelationDirect was part of the alleged LL/Oculi "tag team", or just working for them in and "attacking" BHG on their behalf in practice: I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them. She repeated this claim shortly after (Diff), and again on 10:57, 2 July 2023 (Diff).

Although BHG stated at the ANI several times that she was "gathering evidence", so far, BHG has not provided any evidence for this supposed "tag team", prompting several other Wikipedians (including Dronebogus and me) to say she could be WP:Casting aspersions with each repetition of this claim without evidence. Just saying you're still working on gathering evidence for allegations is not an excuse for repeating them publicly without evidence. BHG did acknowledge that such claims require evidence, but not that she shouldn't repeatedly make such claims before providing evidence of those claims along with the claims themselves. (This is the very first piece of Evidence provided by QEDK: They [BHG] agree that their allegations are strong claims here: [BHG quote], but fail to submit diffs where such statements are proved).

For their part, all three accused people have already denied the "tag team" allegations that BHG kept repeating without evidence (despite warnings not to per WP:ASPERSIONS):

RD's ANI opening statement of 03:31, 7 July 2023 denied any involvement in any supposed tag team: But I'm not an attack dog for a tag team or a bad cop!
- She felt she had to repeat this on 00:03, 8 July 2023: Instead, during this nomination BrownHairedGirl continues to accuse me of tag teaming without evidence: [BHG quote]
Oculi's statement of 11:13, 8 July 2023: I am not particularly likely to tag team with Laurel Lodged, [example 1] (...). In any case it would have been an ineffective tag team as LL contributed nothing to [example 2].
- Oculi's Evidence: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence#There was no tag team: The editors arguing in favour of merging small categories are merely the same editors repeating the views they have expressed consistently at cfd after cfd for months. Oculi (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2023
LL indirectly denied being part of some sort of tag team in his Evidence: [BHG's] underlying assumption seems to be that since she is (always) right, then any comment to the contrary must be the result of incompetence, a desire to insult her or part of an elaborate conspiracy to undermine her. As a result, we see a lack of assumption of good faith (AGF), theories about teams out to get her and wiki-disciplinary threats. He cited quotes of BHG alleging the existence of a "tag team" as instances of Lack of AGF on her part.

In closing, evidence of any tag team whatsoever is still lacking. BHG has 3 more days to submit it. If she fails to do so, given that all three accused people have denied it, and others have warned that repetitive accusations without evidence amount to WP:ASPERSIONS, I believe BHG should be sanctioned for WP:ASPERSIONS. We cannot sit idly by while the reputation of three fellow Wikipedians is called into question for no good reason. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-evidence and possible explanation for misunderstanding

Personally, I was surprised BHG never accused me of "being part of the tag team". As far as I can tell, merely agreeing with LL, Oculi and/or RD on merging certain Smallcats in the past several months is apparently sufficient "evidence" of a "tag team" according to BHG. Well, I did that a lot as well. And, I also disagreed a lot with them at other times, just like they often agreed and disagreed with each other, each for their own reasons. It's almost as if nothing suspicious is actually going on between us.

If anything, I believe that the use of Twinkle, which sends automatic notifications to the creator of any category tagged for discussion, may have given an overwhelming impression on BHG's talk page. The automatic Twinkle notifications which BHG received from several editors (including LL, but also many others) in recent months may have been one of the things which really upset BHG over time. Given that LL and BHG have a history of disagreeing about the categorisation of Irish counties since at least 2013, I believe LL's automated 20 May 2023 Twinkle notifications about sportspeople by county in Ireland / Northern Ireland / the Republic of Ireland on BHG's talk page might have set the stage (although BHG didn't participate).

But particularly after the fierce disagreement at the 13–20 June 2023 Expatriates CfM nominated by Oculi (where I first raised WP:CIVIL issues to BHG), Laurel Lodged's automatic Twinkles of 24 and 25 June 2023 about ‎Irish police officers by county and some other Ireland-related categories may have severely upset BHG, just 4 days after nominator Oculi withdrew the Expatriates CfM. My current, tentative, humble conclusion is that BHG's allegation of there being some sort of "tag team" between LL and Oculi, and perhaps RD being a part of it, may have been an overreaction by BHG to an overwhelming amount of automatic Twinkle notifications by LL posted on her talk page about cats she had created.

Given the fierce disagreement she had recently had with nom Oculi and long-time "adversary" LL, I believe BHG, while being – understandably – upset, may have jumped to incorrect conclusions about LL and Oculi teaming up by "tag-teaming" / "revenge-nominating" categories she had created after Oculi had to withdraw the Expatriates CfM nomination over her objections. It is only right now that I'm checking the history of BHG's talk page that I'm noticing this pattern, and that I think I see where this misunderstanding might have come from, and why BHG may have unintentionally emotionally overreacted to a spree of automated CfM nomination notifications by LL. (I do not believe said nomination by LL to have been in bad faith against BHG. But as I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure if LL should have been categorising anything to do with Irish counties given his WP:EDR on that very topic area. Whether that is a separate or connected question, I do not know).

In all this, I am afraid that RevelationDirect accidentally got caught in the crossfire between BHG on the one hand and her perceived enemies (LL and Oculi), because RD supported their nominations, and agreed with me (from during the Expat CfM) that BHG should not be "threatening the closer". In doing so, RD said something ABF which she later apologised for, although BHG wasn't really satisfied with that apology. As far as I can tell, BHG and RD had previously joyfully cooperated at CFD, both were sad that they now found themselves in conflict with each other, did not understand why things had to be this way, but unfortunately could not find a way to reach agreement on BHG's talk page and elsewhere. With tensions increasing in multiple places between BHG and the four of us (and others), and BHG eventually alleging that RD must be in league with the supposed LL/Oculi tag team, RD appears to have seen no other option but to go for an ANI (and I think she made the right call).

I think this overreaction is the best explanation for why BHG has mistakenly arrived at the conclusion that there was a tag team, which did not exist. After an already tense situation, BHG made a human mistake which all of us could have made if we had been in her position. Nevertheless, that does not justify repeatedly casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence, let alone ignoring calls to either provide evidence or retract the accusations. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man. I never alleged that RevelationDirect is under the improper influence of another editor. See [1], here I wrote: I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

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}

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}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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}

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)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@Barkeep49:: Regarding this comment: I do not feel that "violent wording/metaphors" were used by RexxS, though I will agree there were aggressive responses and unflattering personal commentary. isaacl (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm a little sheepish to weigh in here since the DRV part is where I crossed the line myself into incivility. In the light of day, I no longer see it as a threat but I do think it is better to submit evidence of misconduct to ANI rather than ask CFD closers to evaluate such behavior (or DRV if the closer fails to do so). - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence posted by User:DanCherek

Comment by Arbitrators:

I spent yesterday diving deep on Dan's gaslighting evidence, reading not only the diffs but the entire conversations which contained them (and in some cases reading the conversations which spurred the conversations entered into evidence). My observation is that BHG has a strong emotional response to violent wording/metaphors and that other editors have a similar strong emotional response to having their conduct labeled as gaslighting. As best as I can tell the failure to understand the perspective of the other side about why specific words/phrases elicit such a strong emotional response is often some combination of cultural differences among English speaking countries and the personal makeup of the specific editors involved. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a comment made by Isaacl elsewhere on this page about this comment, I will add that this is not my only observation about those diff, so it would have been more accurate for me to have said My An observation is that.... I have nearly a page of type written notes about those diffs in fact. However, this observation felt like something useful to note publicly at this point in time. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

SilkTork I have provided a diff[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Analysis of evidence posted by User:Oculi

Comment by Arbitrators:

My work today has been to read the various CfDs linked in evidence sections. Oculi's evidence seems to imply BHG is being selective about how she interprets SMALLCAT. But I don't see that. I see a clear through line of how BHG uses realistic potential for growth in the 2020 and 2023 discussions. realistic potential for growth is a subjective standard so different editors are going to reach different conclusions on how to apply in a given instance but that doesn't make any of them wrong. What am I missing?

Additionally, in Expatriates A-G BHG also quotes another part of WP:SMALLCAT unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme which I don't see any attempt to explain how it would not apply in that discussion. The only one who notes the broader implications is Liz with her comment about other recent CfD. Have any of the parties addressed this somewhere (and if it was in the ANI thread that preceded this case, apologies as despite having read that three times already, there's so much going on there that it's possible this detail didn't stick). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: I wouldn't expect any changes to the case if that's what you're thinking. I hope BHG reconsiders, but if not we will be proceeding with the evidence that is submitted. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Moved from a response to Barkeep49's 18:19 UTC comment I have been attempting a succinct reply but now await reaction to the latest move by BHG. Oculi (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oculi's evidence is compelling. In my preliminary statement I stated that I broadly agreed with BHG's interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT but the context provided by Oculi here is causing me to reconsider that position. I maintain that the main issue in this case is not whether or not BHG was right or wrong in her interpretation of SMALLCAT, but her incivility towards others in expressing those views not just in this instance but as a long term behaviour pattern. Nevertheless Oculi's evidence provides vital context as to the root of this particular conflict. Waggers TALK 08:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?^[Joke])

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NL, this editor was

a named party
at a noticeboard discussion
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Response by LL I don't know if I'm permitted to respond here - this is all very new and legalistic. Delete it if it's not permitted. @Valereee: does not like my philosophy of "treating people as you'd like to be treated"; that's his/her/their privilege. In defence of the philosophy, it is enjoined by a notable personage and by Holy Scripture. I don't know who advocates Valereee's preferred philosophy of "treating them as they'd like to be treated"; perhaps it's sufficient that Valereee finds it personally fulfilling. Personally, I could not see myself adopting it as it would place an intolerable burden on me. How would I possibly know how each person that I encounter would like to be treated? I'm a mere man, not an omniscient or angelic being. I think that it was Mr. Justice Bryan — the medieval English jurist — who first made the rule that "the Devil Himself Knows Not the Mind of Man". I'll stick to what I know (me, myself & I) and leave idle speculation as to intent to others. It's not up to me nor anyone else to say which of the two philosophies is the better. As I recall, I mis-gendered MJL once; this was enough to set an avalanche of righteous outrage tumbling down the mountain, inundating wiki with many gigabytes of vitriol and dire denouncements. When did this case decide to go off on a tangent about unintentional mis-gendering? How could it possibly be germane to BHG's behaviour? Goodnight. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well Laurel, if I could give a word of advice: I would prefer to treat someone else how they wish to be treated, rather than how I wish to be treated. (Edit: Re-reading the exchange above, I fully agree with what Valereee said about this). For instance, there are certain jokes people are allowed to make about me, but I think I should not make those/such jokes about certain other people (e.g. people who may have had traumatic experiences, or have a different background, gender, identity, ability etc.). That all depends on context and on those other people; I cannot assume myself as a universal standard when it comes to deciding which jokes are acceptable. Therefore, I reject the Golden Rule as falling short of dealing properly with many ethical situations in which I should actually treat certain other people differently than myself. An argument from religious authorities doesn't seem too impressive to inform modern ethics anyway. Finally: a good rule of thumb is to use gender-neutral language such as singular they until you know someone else's preferred pronouns. That's the best way to avoid misgendering. E.g. it was actually during the ANI when I noticed people referring to RevelationDirect as "she/her"; I had until that point believed RD to be male, but referred to RD with "they/them" just in case, as I do by default to anyone about whom I don't know it. When I checked, I could confirm it, and I have referred to RD with "she/her" ever since. I hope this is helpful for you. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see MJL has already made this point below. Well, I guess it may help if you, @Laurel Lodged, also hear it from me. :) I think considering an apology would be a good idea just to clear up this misunderstanding.

More to the point of the case, several people (including but not limited to MJL, Black Kite and Valereee) have suggested or implied that it might be a good idea to express certain apologies for potential incivility to BHG herself, as I did below. I think you've already made good steps by removing certain comments or rephrasing assertions. An explicit apology may be even better at this stage. Even if BHG may never make an apology from her side. Even if it may also be that BHG will reject your apology if it does not include an acknowledgement of her interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT and WP:BEFORE to be correct (which I believe to be the reason why BHG rejected RD's apology and my apology to her, as I analysed below yesterday), it will be sign of your goodwill, and a demonstration that you do find being WP:CIVIL important (just as I do). Whether or not you should be making an apology to BHG, MJL or anyone else, and for what, is your call to make. (Compare how RD, I and EI C did not think we owed BHG an apology merely for disagreeing with her interpretation of certain policies and guidelines, so we didn't make such an apology). I can't decide that for you. Good day, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: The scope of the case is regarding the conduct of the named parties (of which you are included).
I really don't know how to respond to this because you really don't seem to know or care about any of the concerns I've consistently tried to outline about you.
For example, you say that your misgendering was unintentional, but you never apologized for it. You only tried to justify your decision to use he/him after the fact. Even now, when Valereee tried to tell you to just use they/them for people you don't know how to address, you respond by referring to her with his/her/their as if his is even an option for someone who just told you they aren't male.
It's all rather ridiculous. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

@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[3] 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[4] 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)[reply]

Apology from Laurel_Lodged to BHG

My thanks to @Nederlandse Leeuw: for reminding me of my obligations in common charity. A better Christian than I would not have needed such a reminder. For how can I expect justice in this case whilst denying what is right and just in the case of BHG? Matthew 5:23–24 seems to be pertinent. What I say now is not done in the hope that it will influence the outcome of this case; I have a fair idea already of the direction that the decision will go. Rather I do so because it is the right thing do, and BHG, while not without sin herself, is still a person with feelings - feelings that my actions have hurt. So then, I have written things to @BrownHairedGirl: and about BHG that cannot fail to have hurt her. While baiting — probably mutual baiting — was involved that might explain some of those things, it is irrelevant nor can it ever serve as a real excuse. I ought to have avoided the temptation to be sarcastic and to use mockery to undermine her arguments; in failing to rise above these base urgings, I caused her hurt. Above all, of the many things that I have written over the years that caused offense, the worst (and least effective!) things were those that ridiculed her insights and skills. Everybody is aware of her skills. No. They were written to touch on what I knew to be her weakest point - her vanity and pride in her skills. It mattered little that what I wrote was inaccurate or not really worked out; the point was that I knew in advance that the barb would drive home. In that knowledge lies the offence and my guilt. I apologise for causing the hurt. It was wrong. I promise to not offend in this way again. I offer this promise whether or not it is reciprocated. It is also offered in the sad self-awareness that I may be unable to resist future provocations, despite best intentions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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):

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).
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.
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)[reply]

PS: I welcome the fact that Laurel Lodged has now also made an apology to BrownHairedGirl (Diff) at my suggestion, and indirectly the suggestion of others (see above under analysis of Valereee's evidence). I would have worded several things differently; e.g. I wouldn't have invoked the Bible (I'm not a Christian myself, and millions of other Wikipedians aren't; Christian ethics are not something we all have in common). I also get the impression BHG may, in fact, not be a Christian herself, as she has been quite critical of particularly the Catholic Church and the Pope, so I'm not sure if this helps. (Beyond My Ken might have a point that this could come across as claiming the moral high ground rather than being part of the apology, but I believe Laurel Lodged to be sincere in his Christian beliefs, and if this motivates him to be a better Wikipedian for himself, without holier than thou expressions, great.) However, I appreciate the sentiment of expressing regret for having potentially been uncivil to a fellow editor. I think this further demonstrates that LL recognises the importance of being WP:CIVIL, even if sometimes failing at it himself. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@BrownHairedGirl: I 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)[reply]
Comment regarding the apologies: Regarding the series of apologies above, it appears to me that at some point they cease to become true apologies, and instead become strategic attempts to claim the moral high ground in order to influence the course of the case. That is a rather cynical view, I know, but I have found that in life the cynical view is often the most accurate one.
Please note that I am not accusing any particular editor of doing anything malevolent or devious, and that I am not pretending to be able to read the minds of anyone and know their thoughts or intentions, I am merely making an observation about the appearance to me of what I have read here.
It might have been much better in this case – and in future cases – that such apologies be made directly between two editors on their user talk pages, and not be submitted as part of a case. In fact, I would urge arbitrators or clerks to collapse this material or remove it to a talk page, where it would have been more appropriately posted in the first place, if it had to be posted on case pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Those are both useful areas for the committee to consider. Please advise if you would need a small extension @MJL. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll draft for both then and request an extension if necessary at the appropriate place. Thank you for the response.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier Apology from RevelationDirect to BrownHairedGirl

I also crossed the line with WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF with this second half of this edit (Diff). I have stricken it & retracted it (Diff) and separately apologized on BrownHairedGirl's talk page (Diff). Her response to that apology seemes reasonable to me.

I regret the comment and am embarrassed by how long it was up before I struck it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect Thanks for bringing this up. I notice that your analysis of how BHG responded to your apology differs a bit from how I analysed her response to your apology (see #Analysis of apologies above). I'm curious how you concluded that, and what you think of my conclusions.

Detailed explanation of what I think

Because what I am reading is that you apologised for having assumed bad faith on BHG, and she said (11:55, 30 June 2023): Thanks, @RevelationDirect ... but you have left in place the first part which falsely asserts that I "threatened" the closer. You [h]ave also not struck your bogus allegation that I engaged in WP:POINT disruption. And so on. So I interpreted it as only a partial acceptance of your apology (which seeme[d] reasonable to you, and also to me).

But immediately after that, she went on to argue you should retract and apologise for more stuff. You responded (12:17, 30 June 2023) with openly wondering what else you should be apologising for, but being unsure what else to say or do to satisfy BHG's concerns. This resulted (12:34, 30 June 2023) in BHG bringing up several of her (what I regard as) pet peeves. This one comment by BHG blatantly disregarded your original concerns about assuming good faith and civility, and your apologising for it; instead, BHG sought to steer the conversation towards trying to have you publicly acknowledge that her interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT and other policies and guidelines is correct, while implicitly saying WP:CIVIL should remain unenforced. I have taken this 12:34 BHG comment as a central piece in my Evidence of BrownHairedGirl not recognising the importance of being WP:CIVIL (especially the really really really really really really really really really really really really.... part).

Are you sure this is a "reasonable" response from BHG overall? Because to be honest, the only words of BHG that I, personally, find reasonable in her 11:55 and 12:34 comments are:

Thanks, @RevelationDirect (partial acceptance of your apology)
I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. (a statement she later repeatedly contradicted by asserting without evidence that you were/are part of alleged "tag team" , which allegedly also included LL and Oculi); and
I am sad about tis, 'cos I have mostly enjoyed our previous interactions. (acknowledging good cooperation in the past; something she did not remember about me, even though I remember it about her)

The rest of it is her trying to argue that she is correct about minute details of certain policies and guidelines, and not really about how to treat each other with respect and civility.

Her 14:27, 30 June 2023 post scriptum was yet more of the same, trying to expound her view of how categorisation should be done, how LL did it all wrong and how there was allegedly an LL/Oculi tag team which was "vindictive" and "attacked" and "targeted" BHG, and that you were essentially in league with them. Those are some pretty bold and hostile claims, and quite unrelated to what you wanted to talk about, let alone apologise for.

At 02:48, 2 July 2023, you made another attempt to try to get back to the civility issues: Let's put a pin in our WP:SMALLCAT perspectives for now since I think there are two WP:5P4 civility issues where we're more likely to find common ground... But BHG's response of 10:57, 2 July 2023 to this was an astonishingly rude rejection of the importance of civility in favour of returning the conversation to her pet peeves: 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. (...), I have also included this comment in my Evidence of BHG not finding civility important, even though you wanted to apologise to her for possibly not having been civil to her. What I see time and again is BHG apparently not being interested in such apologies. All she seems to want is for you to acknowledge her interpretation of certain policies and guidelines as correct.

Do you also see this pattern? I think you duly apologised, and I appreciate that very much. But I'm curious if you might agree with me that her overall response to your apology wasn't very "reasonable"? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My whole discussion on BHG's talk page was under the "Apologies for CFD comment" header but I only consider my initial post and BHG's first line of her response to be the true apology part of that discussion. (She thanked me but indicated that she thought the apology was incomplete which is a reasonable reply.) From there the broader conversation did become increasingly problematic from my perspective. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 I think this overreaction is the best explanation for why BHG has mistakenly arrived at the conclusion that there was a tag team, which did not exist. After an already tense situation, BHG made a human mistake which all of us could have made if we had been in her position. Nevertheless, that does not justify repeatedly casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] without evidence, let alone ignoring calls to either provide evidence or retract the accusations. Cheers, [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|Nederlandse Leeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw|talk]]) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 {{cob}}
+* This is a straw man. I never alleged that RevelationDirect is {{tq|under the improper influence of another editor|q=y}}. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1162659729], here I wrote: {{tq|I also do no know whether you are a ''part'' of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.|q=y}}. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 ::
 :'''Comment by others:'''