Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute closed

Original announcement

This is a very sad occasion, speaking as somebody who has seen BHG around for almost two decades, and almost always agreed with her on substance. A very high and substantial edit count, from a person who was key in forming many of our early editorial principals. I do understand what happened and why, but its still hard to take. Wish BHG, who always had very, very impressive energy and insight, all the best for future projects, and wish to thank her for her countless hours / years of voluntary work which has significantly aided our project. It seems like the end of an era. Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil: This might be a weird thing for the filing party of that ArbComm case to say, but I agree with every word of that. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the end of a 3 year long downward spiral.I think Wiki was stressing her and this is certainly time for her to think of her actions through.I hope she comes back better that ever.--88.240.152.194 (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

She has closed to 3M edits, the second-highest only behind Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 09:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and 88.240's point is well made...that level of work and commitment has to lead to a certain level of burn out. I do see a way back for her also, after time out, as 88.240 says. Ceoil (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• I thank the Arbitration Committee for making the difficult but ultimately correct decision for enwiki. I truly wish it didn't have to come to this but years of intractable disputes take a toll on editors, and the community in general (Barkeep's vote on the matter comes to mind, it is quite well-written and conveys the point much better than I have). That said, I wish the parting editors the best, and I hope to see them participating positively to the wiki in the future. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• For those ArbCom members who patrol these discussions, you might want to look at WP:AN#Request to delete some taunts from a userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Personally I think the community gets to decide this. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that this a community issue, and as a member of this community I have removed the worst bit. Further discussion at the AN thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can't believe you're on WPO talking shit about about someone you just sitebanned. Ugh. Personally I think that's actually worse than what BHG did, and she was also very uncivil. But as least she didn't use her tools on people and then talk shit about them on other websites. And then on top of that, removing stuff from her userpage? The only thing worse is that everyone else here tolerates this. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I tolerate it, in the sense of the second definition on wiktionary, because the community, through ACE, has decided it tolerates it (in which definition of the word I don't know) in an otherwise really good arb. I have on more than one occasion said something to Beeblebrox when I thought he posted something which went too far on WPO. Truthfully, and he knows this, I would prefer he stop posting to WPO altogether. Failing that I wish would cut it back to participation of the sort Newyorkbrad and Worm That Turned do. And yet I cannot say that I think anything posted there about BHG was too far or even talk "shit". Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think he made the right call, and have revered Levivich on the basis that the diff would hamper any future block appeal. Re WPO, generally Beeblebrox holds back, and from the trenches its good to see an arb being open on another form, it gives insight and makes the gods seem more human :) Incidentally Barkeep I think you went above and beyond on this. Ceoil (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I try to be really open here, on wiki, with the people who've trusted me and are a current part of the community I serve, rather than being open with people who have, in many circumstance, been banned from the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Am well aware and glad of you being really open here, in case you thought I was saying otherwise. Frankly I think the current generation of arbs is one of the best yet. Ceoil (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll admit to being ignorant of virtually everything that happens on WPO, but I think it's unseemly for an arb to be discussing cases on outside forums. If it's confidential, do it on arbcom's private channels. If it's not confidential, do it on the public case pages. RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have to disagree, editors should be able to discuss cases wherever they want. It's a position of responsibility, as long as they are not misusing the powers of their given responsibility, I don't see a problem. Let's not forget that committee members are community members first and arbitrators second. qedk (t 愛 c) 22:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  As a matter of practicality, people will discuss aspects of one part of their lives in other places outside of that part, and it's not feasible to try to have some kind of blanket rule. But as I wrote before when this came up, the issue is expanding the minimum requirements to be able to engage fully in Wikipedia's community. I understand why it's attractive for editors to make comments off-wiki, allowing them to make statements beyond what Wikipedia's etiquette and guidance would permit. But if editors make a habit of this, and it becomes necessary to participate in venues other than Wikipedia in order to gain a full understanding of people's reasoning and actions, then participation on this site alone is no longer the minimum requirement for editors to fully engage with others. I think editors need to bear this in mind and strive not to set up different cliques of users with differing levels of access and knowledge. (Or the community should be upfront and state that participation in venues X, Y, and Z is necessary to be a full participant.) isaacl (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Isaacl that's at least part of where I was going. There's off-wiki channels (IRC and mailing lists) that I participate in where stuff relevant to my admin work is discussed. Some of them are access controlled, some are (mostly) public. None are technically required, but if I didn't participate, I'd be totally out of the loop on many things. But at least those channels are advertised on-wiki as appropriate and suggested places to communicate.

  WPO is not. So, consider the situation here. We have an accusation that one of our arbs has acted inappropriately. And a counter-claim that he hasn't. Since this occurred in a forum I don't participate in, I'm at a loss to evaluate for myself which of those are true. Multiply that by Discord, Mastodon, and who knows what else, and this becomes a real problem.

  @QEDK I agree that our policies don't forbid participating in WPO. But, there's a gap between "not misusing the powers of their given responsibility" and "best practices". RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, by "access" I meant that, for example, those participating on IRC with you have access to you and your statements through that channel, while others do not. This can create different categories of users unless care is taken to avoid this. isaacl (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @RoySmith sure - like others I'd rather he didn't, but like you note policy doesn't prohibit it. As such, the correct way to try and square that circle is firstly to make your views known (and Beeblebrox is aware of various concerns), then to bring it up at ACE questions, and (as needed) in your votes for candidates. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was already planning to ask about this at ACE. I did spend a little time poking around on WPO and noticed that Beeb isn't our only arb who partakes. RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'd just note here, because I know that some folks won't even look at WPO that I said nothing substantive about the case while it was underway, and my comments since then have been as follows:

• I'm glad it is over
• I think we came to the correct result
• I do not think BHG is the sort of person who would resort to socking in this situation.

I'd genuinely like to know which part of that is "talking shit" about BHG. It is also funny to me how many times peiople have said that they don't approve of my participation there while at the same time making it clear that they read it religiously. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your attempt to make participation on the site an equivalent act to reading it. I make no secret that I read it; this is how I could say that I also found the charge of talking shit baseless. I read it because it's helpful to understand the full context when some WPO bugaboo makes the leap and becomes an onwiki thing (though I do think this happens less than when I started 5 years ago) and secondarily because I want to consider many viewpoints in order to make the best decision I can because there are some good faith critics whose POV deserves consideration even if I have to wade through admitted trolls and banned editors to get it. On top of that your participation as an arb colleague of mine makes it more important to read it than it would be otherwise. If you and a few other people who I like and think well of, outside of your WPO participation, weren't lending that crowd legitimacy I'd have a lot less motivation to read it. But you do participate and the community tolerates it, so here we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I didn't mean you or any of the arbs. You said you tolerate it, which I know, and which is far more ... tolerant... than a lot of other feedback I've gotten on this subject. On that point, I am also very aware that a decent segment of the community thinks it is crazy/scandalous/should be against policy/etc. That's fine too. I don't require everyone to "get" what my own personal agenda is in this regard. I don't know that I've ever even tried to explain what it is to anyone here or there. It's probably better that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

On the broader point raised above by isaacl, yes, if you want to read my candid comments about WP, that's where they are. That is where I have personally chosen to have just one off-wiki venue for discussion of WP-related things. I don't have any desire to use IRC or Discord for that, but I have no issue with others who make that choice. It's a mixed bag to be sure, but so is WP itself. We wouldn't need an Arbitration Committee at all if it wasn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding, but the true test is if Beeblebrox is voted in by the community. Check. Any intra-arb disagreements should be taken off-line. Ceoil (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Which is the point that Barkeep made. Izno (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've posted a note at VPP to get the community's pulse on this... Thanks, Lourdes 15:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Noting that the VPR discussion has been closed. Folly Mox (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Linking the closed discussion's permanent link here for reference. Thanks, Lourdes 09:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Break

• I'm not sure where to put this comment so I'll just place at the bottom of the page. I'm shocked at the punishment for BHG. I have gone to her for help countless times. Yes, she can be brusque but an indefinite ban, no email, no talk page? This is what we do for sockpuppets with long-term abuse, not editors that I think are irreplaceable. I haven't read through the entire case but it seems like you are coming down particular hard on a female editor. As for emptying categories out-of-process, I handle empty categories daily and while doing this disruptive editing is something I rail about in CFD discussions, it is very common behavior for editors who work with categories to empty them out. Is this going to be the new red line for blocking editors and this emptying is going to be treated so severely, we'll lose half of the editors who participate in deletion discussions at CFD. I really don't understand the harsh reaction here against these editors but I'll look over the evidence later. Who knows, I may return and strike some comments but just reading the case summary, it seems to come out of nowhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you had reviewed the evidence, in the way that the arbs had, you might have reached a different conclusion. For instance, because of my knowledge of the evidence I know for a fact that, at least at one point in time, you didn't feel that LaurelLodge's emptying of categories was appropriate.Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, granted I am just looking at the evidence and maybe my attitude is colored by my longtime admiration for BHG, her work ethic, skills and knowledge. But I thought, at least, some agreement would come out about what we should do with SMALL CATS but this is all about editor behavior. I understand ARBCOM doesn't set policy but I expect disagreements on this subject of small categories to continue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am very confident that ArbCom did not treat BHG any differently because she is a female editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I thought, at least, some agreement would come out about what we should do with SMALL CATS but this is all about editor behavior. Isn't that exactly what ArbCom's supposed to do? Arbcom is all about behaviour failure - what we do with an editing guideline such as SMALLCAT is a matter for community consensus and is not within Arbcom's remit, surely. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Arbcom does not set policy, and that includes not telling the community what it should do about small categories. Arbcom's remit in cases like this is to investigate the behaviour of one or more editors that is allegedly preventing the community coming to an agreement and, if they find the accusations were supported by evidence (which in this case they did) to issue remedies that will enable the community to reach agreement. Thryduulf (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't empty categories out of process and have been working with Liz to address that issue. Other than Laurel Lodged, this practice seems to be more common with one-time CFD participants or non-participants. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Liz, if you don't have the time and patience to wade through the entire case, please at least read the proposed decision page, and in particular the arbitrator comments for Finding of Fact 3 and Remedy 1. This ban didn't come out of nowhere. —Cryptic 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would add principle 3 to that reading list. It's a new principle for the committee, and I belive a very important one that we will be seeing again. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Its sad to see BHG banned, I had a bit of interaction with her as both of us have lots of involvement with categories. While I didn't think when I first started seeing complaints years ago about civility I didn't think they were correct but as time went on unfortunately I did seem to notice problems however I'm not sure a site ban with an appeal date of at least a year is proportionate, would maybe an appeal of a few months be better? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, definitely not -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  To expand on that, this is a standard minimum timeframe for an appeal of an ArbCom ban. Only in exceptional circumstances would the committee even consider an appeal before that, and I am unaware of any such circumstances here. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• As someone who did follow this case closely, and was previously hounded off the project by BHG and her supporters, I for one think ArbCom absolutely made the right decisions here, and that the two banned editors have no place on this project until and unless they see the error of their ways, express genuine understanding and remorse for their disruptive behaviour, and can demonstrate significant changes in their attitudes.

The notion that any participant in this case was treated more harshly based on their gender is utterly groundless. WaggersTALK 20:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk page access

The site ban policy allows for an exception allowing editors to keep their talk page access.

Fellow top-ten editors with lengthy block histories Koavf and Rich Farmbrough have never had their talk page access revoked, but Lugnuts had theirs revoked on August 2, 2022, a day after their last edit.

Her talk page access was previously revoked at 18:12, 9 October 2022, but only for a matter of hours, not days (expiration time was 01:11, 10 October 2022) - "talk page access while blocked is for appealing the block, not for posting extended diatribes" Community sanction enforcement: Violation of the civility probation imposed at Special:Diff/1039021442, per WP:ANI#Uncivil behavior by BrownHairedGirl. Calling editors "sneaky" and "nasty"; accusations of "anti-intellectual bullying".

A finding of fact in the Small-cat case noted the previous block from her talk, but the vote to ban her did not explicitly vote to revoke her talk page access. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is standard procedure for Arbcom bans to revoke talk page access. So when the Lugnuts block became an ArbCom ban TPA was revoked and BHGs was done as part of the block. The other two editors named were not blocked by Arbcom. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

See also the note at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures § Enacting bans and editing restrictions (The banning policy states that talk page access is "usually not allowed" and may only be used for appeals. As ArbCom only accepts appeals (for their site bans) by email there is no reason to depart from the "usually not allowed" given that the user in question wouldn't be able to use their talk page anyway.). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That text, which appears on the first line in the table Wikipedia:Banning policy § Difference between bans and blocks, was changed from "Usually not allowed" to "No, except for some appeals" by a couple of December 2020 edits. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little disturbed at the mention of "top ten editors" as if they are some special class and not just editors who make heavy use of automated tools to make tens of thousands of minor edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed they are a special class of editors who make heavy use of automated tools to make tens of thousands of minor edits. Are you disturbed because they get disproportionate attention from the Wikimedia Foundation and the press? (I'll never join this club because I program bots to make such edits, which takes a lot more time, and my bots' edits are counted separately) – wbm1058 (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If you were to combine edit counts from you and all three of your bots that would get about 1.6 million, or currently 8th in the list behind Rich Farmbrough. But that's unfair since you would have to include every other bot operator in the list, knocking you down to somewhere between 30 and 40. By comparison you are at position 199 not counting bots. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

SmallCat guideline discussion

As I would guess everyone watching this is at least "aware" of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline. I'm noting that I started an RfC on whether to mark it historical. - that's my neutral note.

My "opinion" (stated in the RfC) is that I think the rest of categorization policy/guidelines cover this well enough, WP:NARROWCAT, in particular, and so it can probably be deprecated. And I also wonder if perhaps the consistent controversy concerning it might indicate that there is not consensus that it should be a guideline. But whatever the case, I think we should have a community discussion about this. I'd like to hear what others think, and see if we all can talk this out and come to a consensus. - jc37 20:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• ArbCom made a big point that BHG's actions were unacceptable even if she was right on the content question, and I recognise that its role is not to make content decisions. Unfortunately, evaluating conduct objectively will, in some cases, require looking at the content position being adopted.
• For example, suppose editors A and B are bickering over a content issue. A wants statement X removed, B says it is reliably sourced, but A says it is a violation of (say) the WP:V policy because B can't access the printed source being used. Both may be acting poorly / unwisely and open to sanctioning, but the fact that B's position is inconsistent with what WP:V actually says / means would be relevant to evaluating each editor's conduct – especially if A and other editors have been WP:IDHT-ignored when the actual meaning of WP:V was pointed out.
• In the present case, both BHG and LL engaged in conduct that ArbCom has found to be sanctionable without needing to look at such issues, which has the unfortunate consequence that the content issue about which BHG was screaming was set aside. IMO, this contributed to ArbCom's mishandling of BHG and contributed to her choices regarding participation. I think ArbCom should reflect with regret on how it contributed to her alienation from the process, even if the outcome would not likely have changed.
• A related consequence is that ArbCom's limited comments on the SmallCat topic itself have left ArbCom open to being misrepresented. In the RfC on SmallCat started by user:Jc37 at this moment, nearly 40% of all edits and over 50% of the content has come from Nederlandse Leeuw, the editor who ArbCom warned in this case about behaviour in discussions (where evidence of warnings about WP:BLUDGEONing from [multiple editors was presented). NL has added nearly four times as much text to the page as the RfC-initiator (and next largest contributor).
• NL's contributions are inconsistent with my reading of the little ArbCom actually did say about the category, representing the situation as ArbCom having declared the guideline ambiguous and that there was no consensus on what the guideline actually says. NL's actions were not sanctioned during the case, though a warning was given, and ArbCom's choice to not acknowledge any merits of respective content positions have (predictably) led to the case's outcome now being presented as a de facto ruling against BHG's content position.
• The case outcome (in terms of sanctions) was likely correct, and even inevitable – but the (IMO) unseemly behaviour of NL was predictable and avoidable. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll keep this brief. Arbcom found: reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions about other elements of the guideline, including the potential for growth and whether categories "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." I don't see how this should be understood as BHG was right. Arbcom is implying nobody was "right" (or "wrong"), but that the WP:SMALLCAT guideline's text was so ambiguous that multiple reasonable, but contradictory, conclusions could be reached about what it means, and how it should be applied. That said, you're right I should be careful about how much input I give in the RfC. I've already retracted some comments at jc37's request because they were too unrelated to the question at hand. NLeeuw (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Typo

The announcement says "The following remedies has been enacted:" That should be corrected to "have". (I see that an editor tried to correct it, but was reverted as a clerk action, so I'm pointing it out in talk.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree have, I mean has, fixed it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Heh ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If our WP (or ArbCom) culture is such that this typo fix was reverted, there’s something wrong with our WP (or ArbCom) culture. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

(Mostly in response to your edit summary, "what a weird site this is",) to be fair, few websites allow users to edit others' messages, and doing so is almost always inappropriate. That's neither ArbCom- nor Wikipedia-specific. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I would also say that the notices on ACN are cross-posted, so editing just the copy here brings an inconsistency between the notices placed on multiple pages. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and will stipulate that it is not at all silly to revert someone who is fixing a typo, quote a guideline at them to make sure they know what they did was wrong, and then redo the same thing yourself, only after the proper forms have been filled out. In my ideal world, the reaction would have just been “thanks”, but I acknowledge that’s crazy talk. Indeed, one of the biggest benefits of Wikipedia is the constant reminder that I do not live in my ideal world. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The proper forms, for those who missed it. —Cryptic 15:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think some of the inconsistent reaction was that I made my revert before talking to the arbitrators and other clerks (as the "no editing this page" rule is well enforced on ACN). So to be clear (in case there was doubt), it wasn't my intention for that revert and then undo-revert process to have been followed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, thanks to JPxG for finding the typo. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess in my ideal world, a person who finds an error of this nature just asks for it to be changed, and someone changes it with thanks (and in this case perhaps changes it in the multiple places it needed changing). And I would say that of any "officialish" writing, including things like closes. But also I'm pretty live and let live and so I just acknowledged how Wikipedia-like it is for the person who recently changed something officialish I wrote that is quite stale and will probably only be read a handful of times in the rest of Wikipedia history. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Just as an intellectual exercise, I was looking at this and trying to think which guideline or essay might cover this (besides WP:TPO, which apparently allows for "minor changes" like typo-fixing). At first I thought of WP:CREEP (and m:Instruction creep is an interesting read); then I looked at WP:AJR and WP:SENIORITY; and looked at WP:UCS, and WP:DBI, too; but in the end, I guess it's probably just Wikipedia:The rules are principles. It's interesting to go through and (re-)read the essays once in awhile. - jc37 13:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

So JPxG found something that was unambiguously a trivial typo. Just a typo, not some sacred revelation from on high. After a procedural (and unnecessary) revert, I decided to do things "by the book", and post in this section. And ToBeFree promptly fixed what needed to be fixed, and the world was back to normal. And now, there has been all this additional discussion, which is just so Wikipedia. I agree with Floq that there is something incredibly bizarre about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This was tame. What would have been so Wikipedia would be a revert war, and an ANI thread culminating in JPxG being topic banned from fixing typos in project space. RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Now I feel so much better. ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith don't forget the edit war over whether it should be listed at WP:LAME or not... Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Superclerk Bishzilla always fix typos on ArbCom pages when seen. Little arbs and clerks never dared revert her yet (cordially invited to try, bwahaha). Unfortunately missed this typo, sorry. (Bishzilla waves at young Floquenbeam and their sock.) bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 22:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC).