Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:53, 24 July 2023

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Detailed explanation of scope

While the case is entitled "SmallCat dispute" because it was that dispute which spurred the case, the Arbitration Committee will be taking a comprehensive look at the conduct of the named parties including, but not limited to, small categories. For BrownHairedGirl (BHG), the Committee does not feel a need to re-examine or re-do work already completed by the 2020 Committee committee during the Portals case. As such, the Committee may consider the findings of fact from the Portals case in the decision of this case but any submitted evidence about BHG should be from after that case. Any evidence submitted about BHG which is from before that case may be summarily collapsed, removed, or otherwise addressed at the discretion of the arbitrators and clerks. While there is no prohibition for other named parties, the Committee reminds editors that the Committee may choose to disregard or give less weight to evidence that is not recent. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean any evidence submitted about other users dating from before the 2020 Arbcom Portals case (opened on 26 November 2019) shall also be inadmissible, or at least may be summarily collapsed, removed, or otherwise addressed at the discretion of the arbitrators and clerks as well? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw No. The last sentence discusses other parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Why should pre-26 November 2019 evidence about BHG be more easily disqualifiable than pre-26 November 2019 evidence about other users? If, hypothetically, BHG and User:Foo had a dispute about SMALLCAT on 01-01-2007 in which both parties were allegedly uncivil, may the evidence against BHG be summarily collapsed, removed etc. but the evidence against User:Foo may merely be disregard[ed] or give[n] less weight to by the Committee, but not be summarily collapsed, removed, or otherwise addressed at the discretion of the arbitrators and clerks? If so, why? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a hypothetical or do you have evidence? The reason for the prohibition is in the statement the Committee does not feel a need to re-examine or re-do work already completed by the 2020 Committee committee during the Portals case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have evidence – unrelated to the Portals case – dating from before 26 November 2019, which involves both BHG and other editors discussing categorisation. I am unsure whether it is going to be relevant to this case. But if I run the risk that the evidence about BHG will be summarily collapsed, removed, etc. but the evidence about other editors will not be summarily collapsed, removed, etc. when I believe both parties (to a greater or lesser extent) to be at fault, I will not be submitting such evidence. I am concerned that parties will not be treated equally if the evidence could possibly be selectively altered by arbitrators or clerks with the effect of favouring or disfavouring one party or the other. I hope you understand my concern. Perhaps the prohibition is only related to Portals case material, and not all pre-26 November 2019 material? If so, then my concerns are probably allayed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you email ArbCom the evidence and we can make a decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm thanks for the offer, but that seems even less attractive as an option to me. I think the evidence should be publicly examinable to all parties involved and all users interested, so that everyone can come to their own conclusions. If I email the evidence privately (which will also share my email address with all members of the Arbcom, apparently), I have even less control over ensuring that it will not be selectively altered per the stated prohibition. Right now I don't feel like submitting such evidence either publicly or privately.

But it's not just about me. If other people want to submit pre-26 November 2019 material (unrelated to the Portals case), edits by BHG should be qualifiable in a way that edits by others will also be. I think Arbcom should not be giving the impression that BHG might get a Get out of Jail Free card for all her pre-26 November 2019 edits while others won't. I think, to ensure fairness and equality for all, either all pre-26 November 2019 edits (particularly relating to categorisation) should be inadmissible as evidence, or it should all be admissible, except material relating to the Portals case. (Prohibiting Portals-case-related material sounds reasonable to me, to save Arbcom time and energy on re-hashing old discussions, and would seem the reason why the prohibition was instated in the first place).

For the record, I believe that the evidence will be a net positive in favour of BHG, and bring more balance to the evidence I have so far submitted (which is currently critical of BHG alone, although I do not believe certain others to be entirely blameless either). But I do not want any pre-26 November 2019 evidence critical of BHG that I might submit to be selectively altered per this prohibition. I hope you understand my concern. Incidentally, I will probably have to request a word limit extension if I do decide to submit this additional evidence, but that's a matter for later. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw I think I maybe miscommunicated, but in reading your reply that it ultimately wouldn't change your thinking. My suggestion to email the evidence was so arbs could make an informed decision about whether or not to grant you an exception. If granted the evidence would then be posted as per normal. ArbCom has already said that as of 2020 BrownHairedGirl has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying; labeling editors with opposing viewpoints to hers in portal matters as 'portalistas', which she defined as 'those editors who have engaged in misconduct to subvert the application of community consensus to portals'; and questioning the intelligence of those participating in portal edits and discussions with accusations of mendacity, 'Dunning–Kruger conduct', and being a 'low-skill group'. That is being accepted as fact as of 2020 in this case and so it is hardly a Get out of Jail Free card not extended to other parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, at the risk of posting something I shouldn't... suppose I submitted this link and went on to analyse it and several categorisation-related pre-26 November 2019 events (unrelated to the Portals case) which I think might be relevant, what guarantee will I have that whatever anti-BHG evidence I submit will be left intact for all to see, and will not be selectively altered per the prohibition, just like whatever anti-User:Foo evidence I submit will be left intact for all to see? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Never mind. I think DanCherek has already submitted enough evidence. I added my analysis at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#Analysis of evidence posted by User:DanCherek; that should suffice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth underlining that it is conduct that we will be focusing on. We are not here to assess the rights and wrongs of the SmallCat guideline, or decide who is right or wrong in their interpretation of that guideline. What we are assessing is the conduct of the named parties. Evidence showing that Party A and Party B behaved inappropriately during the SmallCat dispute is useful. As is evidence that Party A behaved the same way during disputes outside of the SmallCat dispute. As is evidence that Party B is normally a well behaved editor, and that behaviour during the SmallCat dispute was unusual. SilkTork (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Word and diff limits

Because of the perceived pattern of behavior, I may be requesting to exceed the prescribed limits for evidence but will hold off on doing so until I've drafted my list and can make a concrete request with specific numbers. Other involved parties also perceive patterns of behavior, so I would favor similar leeway for them should they make formal requests before I do. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee, particularly this Committee, has historically been quite willing to grant parties extensions for word and diff limits, especially if it's a singular request. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just submitted my evidence in stages, with addenda and corrections. I was happy to learn that as an involved party, I am entitled to 1000 words rather than 500 (I already struggled with that during the Preliminary Statements phase).

Just a question, I'm using https://www.countofwords.com/ to count my words as recommended, but should I count what can actually be read on display on the "Evidence" page (currently at 865), or the whole HTML text as found in the text editor, including all words in a URL not displayed on the page (currently at 1127)? Given the impossibility of getting diffs from the ANI page history, I'm ending up with a lot more HTML words than displayed words. And now I'm worried I've exceeded my word limit. Did I do it wrong? If so, how can I correct it?

Btw, isn't there a means to make it technically impossible for users to exceed their given word limit? We see that in online submission forms all the time, and Wikipedia edit summaries also have a character limit. But this ARC format seems to rely on the goodwill and self-policing of participants to observe the word limit. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rendered text. By my quick count you're at 807. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just submitted evidence. I have no idea how it compares with the limits on words etc and would like to apply for an increase (if nec) as I expect to add more. The table could perhaps go on a subpage. Oculi (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my estimation, you are at around 600 words and 53 diffs. As such, you still have more words and diffs that you can add before you hit the limit. As such, I would suggest seeing what else you want to submit and if it is a fair bit extra you could ask for an extension at that point. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz I've been asked to submit evidence by Barkeep49. I've done so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence#Example of BHG having productive disagreements with other editors (question from Arbcom). In my count, I am now at 1063 words, but I'm not sure what your count is? If I have exceeded the limit, may I hereby request an extension? If not, I'll try to abridge the evidence (though I think it is quite valuable to be on display in its entirety). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By my count you are at 971. As such, this should be under or close enough to the limit for it to be allowed. Therefore, as long as you don't need to add more evidence you are fine. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressed Diffs in ANI

Much of the history in the ANI discussion was suppressed, at least from non-admins like me. My understanding was that this was due to an issue in an unrelated nomination. That makes it harder to link to Diffs in this case though. Is there any way we could use a scalpel instead of a cleaver and unsuppress the edits for the that earlier ANI? (I have no idea how granular the tools are for doing so.)

If not, instead of a Diff, I used the following citation format: "(Diff suppressed, ANI timestamp 09:31, 7 July 2023)". Is that acceptable? - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can provide an annotated format like that, the Arbitrators can still cross-check the information is valid. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make our lives easier, Wikipedia:Convenient Discussions is a script that lets you link to specific comments in a way that other users will be able to use as well, even without the original diff. For example, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence#c-RevelationDirect-20230721132800-Suppressed_Diffs_in_ANI links to your comment on this page, and that link works even for those without the script. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the procedural guidance! - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect unfortunately the way the oversight tool works it's not possible to "use a scalpel instead of a cleaver", we can only suppress (and unsuppress) whole revisions. This means that every revision that contains supressable material must be suppressed, e.g. if an editor adds a potentially libellous BLP violation in revision 10 and it isn't removed until revision 20 then all of revisions 10-19 need to be suppressed, even if none of the intermediate edits were at all problematic (or even related). Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In hyper-theory land, someone who has both oversight and importupload privileges (a group that consists of only one person) could use importupload to reconstruct a synthetic history without the suppressed content. But that's a lot of work, and almost certainly is not going to be done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to section

Is a link to a cfd discussion such as this in the requisite format? — Oculi (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi a link like that can be submitted as evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken section

In Laurel_Lodged's evidence section, under the heading "Threats" is:

"If that guideline-flouting is upheld, then a DRV is the appropriate venue to review that."[35]

I don't see how a suggestion that DRV can be used to resolve a dispute can be characterized as a "threat". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly under "Assumed revenge / paranoia":

"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."[49]

where is the "assumed revenge" in that statement? It seems more like a statement of factual chronology, albeit characterized by BHG's personal impression of it.

And if "Paranoia" is meant to describe BHG, that's a clear personal attack and @Laurel Lodged: should strike it immediately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some place I should post these objections other than on this talk page? Is this appropriate material for the workshop? (I've never been quite sure what's supposed to go there.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken It seems like this is really Analysis? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thanks, I will reformulate the material and post it there. What do you think about "Paranoia" being a PA? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will discuss with the other drafters but traditionally named parties are extended more leeway than other editors because they have something at stake. So understanding that this diff is thought of by LL as Assumed revenge / paranoia informs me about LL in addition to BHG. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken I thought the same thing. I posted to their talk page, as mine had been commented on by an Arb for similar reasons. Seemed better than even including it here because maybe LL would remedy those concerns before it sets in... —DIYeditor (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just saw your comment and added my suggestion that it be withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:UNCIVIL but not a personal attack, imo, if we're talking semantics (similar to saying I think you're being paranoid in a non-friendly context) - but yes, the section should be relabelled to something more appropriate. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Material posted at "Analysis". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken Would you find it okay if I gave my analysis here of what LL appears to mean with "Assumed revenge / paranoia"? Because 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. 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. 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]

Wouldn't it be better to put that analysis in the Analysis section as an additional response to the material I posted there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm yeah, I guess that's a better idea. Alright, I'm going for a walk to take a break, and perhaps I'll go and analyse it when I come back. Or I'll wait until tomorrow to look at it with fresh eyes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Meanwhile, LL has changed his statement from Assumed revenge / paranoia to Assumed revenge as motive for SmallCat differences. I welcome this clarification, which is helpful for moving the process forward. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlandse Leeuw section

@Beyond My Ken: I'm sorry, you're right. This is my first ARC, I'm not used to this format in which we are supposed to only comment in our own sections. I'm glad Barkeep49 moved my comment to analysis. I'm happy that these rules even exist, to keep involved parties and different types of comments separate. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should DIYeditor's 18:25, 23 July 2023 comment then also be moved to their own section? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no expectation that editors only post to their own section on the evidence talk page (where we are now). I think @Beyond My Ken might be getting this confused with the Proposed Decision talk page where everyone does get their own section. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Well, I still think moving my comment to analysis was a good move of yours, thanks. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to all, I could swear that rule applied to all talk pages here. Live and learn! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha it's alright! I'm also still learning how all of this here works.

At any rate, I hope my analysis was helpful for understanding what RD, LL and I meant by "intimidating/threatening" the closer. LL provided no context, so misunderstanding what he meant was, well, understandable. Haha. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I would like to make an apology to one of the involved parties for something I said. Where should I post that? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#General discussion under "Comment by parties"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 I posted it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#Apology from Nederlandse Leeuw to BrownHairedGirl. If this is the incorrect place to do so, please tell me where to put it instead. Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably fine. If it needs to be moved myself or another drafter will let you know. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 Thanks! I really hope this helps de-escalating the tensions and moving this process forward. It is easy to point out what others do wrong. It is harder to recognise your own faults and admit them, but I felt that I had to do so, and this seemed to be the best way and place. I hope she appreciates it.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not...

. I'm afraid I've done all I can for now in direct communication with BHG during this ARC. At least I tried. It genuinely makes me sad. But I do not regret raising the WP:CIVIL issue. I believe it was the right thing to do. And I still do. We need to see this case through to a proper end. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Where would you like me to answer your questions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#Questions/Commenst from Arbitrations? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By submitting evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence#Example of BHG having productive disagreements with other editors (question from Arbcom). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :::::::::Okay, at the risk of posting something I shouldn't... suppose I submitted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ALaurel+Lodged this] link and went on to analyse it and several categorisation-related pre-26 November 2019 events (unrelated to the Portals case) which I think might be relevant, what guarantee will I have that whatever anti-BHG evidence I submit will be left intact for all to see, and will not be selectively altered per the prohibition, just like whatever anti-User:Foo evidence I submit will be left intact for all to see? Cheers, [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|Nederlandse Leeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw|talk]]) 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 ::::::::::PS: Never mind. I think DanCherek has already submitted enough evidence. I added my analysis at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#Analysis of evidence posted by User:DanCherek]]; that should suffice. Cheers, [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|Nederlandse Leeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw|talk]]) 15:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
+*I think it's worth underlining that it is conduct that we will be focusing on. We are not here to assess the rights and wrongs of the SmallCat guideline, or decide who is right or wrong in their interpretation of that guideline. What we are assessing is the conduct of the named parties. Evidence showing that Party A and Party B behaved inappropriately during the SmallCat dispute is useful. As is evidence that Party A behaved the same way during disputes outside of the SmallCat dispute. As is evidence that Party B is normally a well behaved editor, and that behaviour during the SmallCat dispute was unusual. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 17:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 ==Word and diff limits==