== BrownHairedGirl and categories ==

'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) '''at''' 01:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===

<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->

*{{admin|Nyttend}}, ''filing party''

*{{admin|BrownHairedGirl}}

*{{admin|Fayenatic london}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=759067297 BrownHairedGirl]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=759067568 Fayenatic london]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried

none

=== Statement by Nyttend ===

I recently nominated a category tree for renaming in the first section of [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 8]], and after it was closed in favor of renaming, I followed the instructions of closing administrator Fayenatic london to have the categories speedy renamed; I initially listed them at [[WP:CFDS]] because I wasn't 100% sure how to have them bot-renamed (there's nothing here precisely comparable to [[:Commons:User:CommonsDelinker/commands]]) and knew that admins active there were familiar with doing this, although I specifically stated that this was a technical matter of enforcing the CFD and not subject to the normal provision permitting people to object. However, once I discovered how to do it, I listed them on the [[WP:CFDW|bot-move page]], and the bot moved these categories. Despite this clear situation, BrownHairedGirl has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=759060534&oldid=758958045 rejected the whole situation], claiming that an objection she made to the listing at CFDS prohibits these moves from going forward, and she has now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=759060634 ordered the bot] to begin recreating them: she is creating over one hundred categories that were deleted in accordance with a CFD. On top of all of this, we have a profoundly disingenuous situation: a major component of her accusations (included in the "rejected the whole situation" link) is that I violated [[WP:INVOLVED]] by listing them on the full-protected bot-move page, despite the fact that I was merely following the closing admin's instructions. At the same time, she has first injected herself into the discussion and then taken precisely the type of action that she considers to have been a violation on my part. When you use admin tools solely to follow another admin's instructions carefully, you're not INVOLVED, but when you do it on your own initiative, you definitely are. Even were I considered to be involved, following the instructions of the closing administrator would easily count as WP:INVOLVED's "straightforward case" because any reasonable administrator would come to the conclusion that the solution to having the to-be-renamed categories speedily renamed is to list them on the page where they get renamed. No such provision exists for BHG's actions. Aside from the INVOLVED claim, much of the argument appears to me to hinge on the fact that I first left the note at CFDS (several actions she disputes wouldn't have happened had I gone straight to CFD/W, and she may not have noticed the whole situation had I done that), and using admin tools to affecting hundreds or thousands of pages based on the chain of another user's edits is even more absurd, even more demonstrative of her improprieties in this situation<br /><br />[[WP:WHEEL]] notes that wheel warring "usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration", and that includes unilateral edit-warring with admin tools against another admin's unilateral decision. This being a case of unilateral warring with admin tools against an XFD decision, it's more serious, especially given the fact that this affects 100+ categories and all of their contents. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 02:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by BrownHairedGirl ===

Holding statement (now my bedtime). Meanwhile, see [[User talk:Nyttend#Waterside places categories|User talk:Nyttend]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANyttend&type=revision&diff=759063092&oldid=759035747] and ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=759068306&oldid=759066406].

Nyttend falsely claims above that I caused the bot to {{tq|creating over 100 categories that were deleted in accordance with a CFD}}. Untrue: the categories were renamed, not deleted; they were not validly nominated at CFD; Nyttend acted outside the CFD closure, overriding CFD/S rules; bot is ''reverting moves'' made out-of-process, not recreating any deletion. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 02:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted an admin action, as permitted (with provisos) per [[WP:RAAA]]. [[WP:WHEEL]] refers to ''reinstating a reverted action'', which did not occur, and is not alleged to have occurred. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 03:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going to write a longer statement, but prioritised my responses at the reopened ANI thread, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=759286795&oldid=759283361].

I don't see much to add to that, except to reject the claims by Nyttend and BU Rob13 that I was [[WP:INVOLVED]]. My objection at CFD/S[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=758883343&oldid=758878664] was purely procedural, and I had no prior involvement with this matter. I acted throughout purely in an administrative role, which is specifically excluded from the definitions in WP:INVOLVED. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As noted at ANI[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=760279590&oldid=760278179], and following a discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fayenatic_london&oldid=760274590#Next_steps_re_Waterside_populated_places] with Fayenatic london and Nyttend, I have opened a CFD discussion at [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_16#Populated_waterside_places|WP:CFD 2017 January 16]]. This gives editors the choice of completing the renaming, or reverting the start made so far. Fayenatic london and I have begun discussing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fayenatic_london&oldid=760274590#Next_steps_re_Waterside_populated_places] an RFC to resolve the underlying procedural issue. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 01:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fayenatic london ===

There was no need to open this case, as other steps in dispute resolution (starting with [[WP:CFDS#Opposed_nominations]]) have not yet played out. I am not familiar with Arbitration procedures, but expect that this case should be closed early on procedural grounds. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] '''<font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/Fayenatic london|L]]</font>'''[[User talk:Fayenatic london|ondon]] 22:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Xaosflux ===

Upon request for technical help at [[Special:PermaLink/758983284#Bulk_delete_request.2C_round_1|WP:AN]] by administrator [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]], I did bulk process a large number of category deletions related to costal locations. These categories were empty. Any administrator is welcome to reverse this action without consultation with me - though I would suggest you consult with Nyttend. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]} 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Softlavender ===

An ANI thread was opened on this subject by the filer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=759064458] 13 minutes before this RFAR was filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=759066777]. In my opinion logic would dictate that the issue remain at ANI and that this RFAR be declined, since Arbitration is generally perceived as being reserved for issues that have failed to have been resolved after various other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 10:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi ===

As noted above, this forum is specifically reserved for issues {{green|where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed}}. This is clearly not the case, since this was lodged ''whilst the AN/I case was still processing.'' There may well be a case for the Committee; but not yet.

=== Statement by Jbhunley ===

My attention was drawn to this because I noticed an ANI filing by a well known admin against another well known admin. I noticed that while {{u|Nyttend}} had names {{u|BrownHairedGirl}} twice in the complaint he had neither pinged nor notified her of the complaint. I made the notification and left a note in the ANI thread. About ten minutes later I saw this case request pop up. I closed the ANI because, as I said at the time, splitting the discussion between two venues would only confuse matters. <p> As to the case request itself. Well, my rather strong opinion is that Nyttend has gone a bit off the rails on this. From what I can tell the issues BHG raised were valid and should have been addressed courteously and not met with the hostility they were. Everyone messes up and we all have bad days and get carried away but going after the tools of a fellow admin who points out ones errors is just ''way'' over the top. I hope that, upon calmer reflection, he will withdraw this case, go properly tag the categories in question, wait for the required time etc and move on. This is not a good hill to die on.

*The ANI has been re-opened. Floq got to it before I did but I concur with the re-opening. [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">J</span><span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;font-size:10pt;color:#886600">bh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F">^Talk</span>]] 17:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

*{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} there may be an issue/pattern with involved actions. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=759268376&diff=prev] ANI post with an edit summary of {{green|"Abuse of rights demands loss of rights"}}, even after a night to cool down and feedback at ANI shows a shocking lack of... well lots of things that an admin should not lack so I did a quick look to see if this incident was a one-off. <p> This ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive275#Possible_abuse_of_admin_tools_by_User:Nyttend] from 2015 was closed, referring to Nytend's behavior, with {{green|... Some dispute remains over how exactly to apply WP:Involved, in this matter, although, at the least, a plurality sees an Involved problem.}} The 2015 ANI, the discussion mentioned below by {{u|SMcCandlish}} and the incident at issue here show the possibility of a long term pattern with respect to, at a minimum, pushing the envelope of INVOLVED. [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">J</span><span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;font-size:10pt;color:#886600">bh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F">^Talk</span>]] 23:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

:<small>'''Clerks:''' Please do not add me to the mass message list for this case. Thank you.</small>

=== Statement by Sphilbrick ===

I think this is here because of [[WP:WHEEL]], but as noted (and often misunderstood), WHEEL requires:

# Admin action

# Reversion of admin action

# Reinstatement of original admin action

I see step 1 and 2, but not 3, so this should be rejected by ArbCom, and the ANI thread re-opened.

(If WHEEL applied, it would trump the usual requirement to exhaust other venues, but as WHEEL did not occur, that exception is moot.)

=== Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz ===

As Sphilbrick notes, above, there is no reason to open a case here without any substantive community discussion, which might well resolve the matter. The ANI discussion should not have been NAC-closed. That discussion should be reopened and this request should be dismissed until the community has had an appropriate opportunity to address the matter. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 16:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hammersoft ===

<small>(I am not involved)</small> I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jbhunley&diff=prev&oldid=759167710 invited] Jbhunley to re-open the [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BrownHairedGirl_and_categories|WP:AN/I thread]]. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Floq ===

Based on my strong confidence that this case is not going to be accepted without some attempt at prior dispute resolution, I've reopened the ANI thread. I strongly encourage people who have an opinion on the underlying dispute to try to resolve it there, rather than clutter up this RFAR with opinions masquerading as accept/decline recommendations. My guess is this can be resolved at ANI faster than the case request will be declined here. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 16:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Davey2010 ===

The ANI thread has since been reopened so I would suggest this be closed/declined - No point having 1 discussion in 2 places!, That aside I see no reason why discussion couldn't have happened at DRN. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]^{[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]} 16:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by GoldenRing ===

What a horrible storm in a teacup. This belongs at CfD, not ANI and especially not A/R. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 17:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by BU Rob13 ===

==== Summary of relevant CfD procedures ====

All category renames must go through CfD; we don't do "bold" renames due to the large number of edits required to rename categories. There are certain situations where a full CfD discussion would be overkill, though, so we have a set of "speedy rename" criteria to allow moves to occur if unchallenged for a short period of time. If a speedy rename is objected to, it's typically moved into a full CfD discussion. Contested speedy renames are ''very'' rarely actioned upon, although the instructions don't expressly forbid it. It's extremely uncommon.

As for how we revert out-of-process renames and merges, there are no guidelines or procedures there. It's a [[SNAFU]] every time it pops up. It's common to just throw the categories back to [[WP:CFD/W]] and let the bot undo itself in the case of a rename, although sometimes we hold a discussion first. Every administrator handles this type of situation differently.

[[WP:CFD/W]] is full protected, so the action of instructing the bot to rename the categories constitutes an admin action. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small>₁₃</small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 21:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

==== Opinion on case request ====

I see two obvious violations of [[WP:INVOLVED]], but no ArbCom case. The nominator for a speedy rename should not be instructing the bot to rename the categories themselves when the nomination is controversial. BHG shouldn't have moved the categories back herself, as she was also obviously involved with the discussion. None of this rises to the level of an ArbCom case. If anything, this can be decided by motion with two admonishments, but I doubt that's even necessary.

I urge ArbCom ''not'' to get bogged down by the specific speedy rename criteria here. Whether the categories should or should not be moved is essentially a content dispute. ArbCom should tightly restrict the scope of what they're considering here to whether two administrators should have applied their tools to an XfD discussion that they participated in. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small>₁₃</small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 21:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by SMcCandlish ===

BHG did nothing actionable here, though being that much of a process stickler was maybe not the absolute best possible approach to take. Still, this case should be accepted if for no other reason that to examine Nyttend's own behavior, per NewYorkBrad's "an administrator ... displaying egregiously or repeatedly bad behavior" acceptance rationale. Not just Nyttend's threat to go after BHG, and his shopping of this [[WP:LAME]] dispute from forum to forum after repeatedly being told (most recently at ANI) that it's much tedious ado about nothing other than his own failure to follow process. But also what appears to be a developing "threaten administrative punishment against anyone who doesn't do what I want" pattern. This particular RM close [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steamboat_Bill,_Jr.#Requested_move_15_December_2016] is completely beyond the pale, first completely misrepresenting the facts of a guideline's applicability, then seeking to deny editors the ability to use standard page-moving processes under pain of Nyttend-delivered sanctions. That was a blatantly [[WP:INVOLVED]] case of [[WP:Supervoting]].

Involvement:

* Nyttend was so vehemently against the guideline at issue ([[WP:JR]]) in the February–March 2016 RfC about it that he was cited by name in the close [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=710641570#RfC:_Amending_MOS:JR_on_comma_usage].

* Nyttend previously made bad-faith-assumptive and ridiculous accusations of "hoaxing" (over a typo in a source citation) at the talk page one of the participants in the discussion, over the exact same style matter [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing]

He's deeply involved in agitation against this guideline existing (having labeled it [[WP:CREEP]] at the RfC) or being complied with, had no business closing an RM about it, and the threat to go after anyone who doesn't agree with him is not a proper use of administrative authority. I.e., this is a [[WP:ADMINCOND]] issue, not [[WP:TOOLMISUSE]], though a threat of misuse may make that a moot distinction; I'm not sure how that is approached.

I don't know what it is about title/style issues that brings out the worst in some people, but it's becoming increasingly clear that MOS/AT/RM gnomes are not the problem; it's editors who will not accept that the guidelines exist to stop disputes about style (regardless whether the style selected is what a particular editor or set of editors prefers), they do not exist as targets for [[WP:GREATWRONGS]] / [[WP:TE]] campaigning against compliance with them. (RM gets a lot of this [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] activity because it has no effective archive mechanism, something I've proposed rectifying at [[WT:RM]].)

If the guideline says "do {{var|X}}" (and has done so stably, if not in exactly the same wording, since February 2009 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies&diff=272981019&oldid=272912132]), and an RfC upheld it being more emphatic about "doing {{var|X}}" and confirmed the breadth of its applicability in general (based on reliable sourcing), {{em|and}} month after month of RM discussions consistently hold that it applies to bios (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr. list]) {{em|and non-bios}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_D._Rockefeller_Jr._Memorial_Parkway#Requested_move_15_May_2016][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr._National_Historic_Site#Requested_move_28_June_2016][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr._Avenue#Requested_move_01_July_2016][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hank_Williams_Jr.%27s_Greatest_Hits#Requested_move_10_September_2016] alike, then it's anti-[[WP:CONSENSUS]] for Nyttend to try to declare otherwise by [[WP:1AM]] / [[WP:NOTGETTINGIT]] fiat. It doesn't matter one whit what the particular {{var|X}} to be done is, nor whether the RM in question actually qualified for the move suggested (if it doesn't, just close with "Not moved"). "None shall ever try such moves" is not an edict Nyttend possesses the authority to issue, especially when the majority of RM precedent directly contradicts him. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

<small>''Procedural note:'' Drmies was the closer of the RfC mentioned above; I don't know if that affects his arbness on this matter. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)</small>

<small>PS: This has nothing whatsoever to do with the particular ''pro'' or ''con'' outcome of that RM. It's a borderline case, because the titlecard of the film uses one style, the film's producers/distributors used both styles, and RS about the film use both styles. (And I have previously advocated keeping the now-deprecated comma in cases of published works where the comma is consistently present in the title, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hank_Williams_Jr.%27s_Greatest_Hits#Requested_move_10_September_2016 here], where my argument {{em|did not prevail}}, which is why I went with removing it in this case). If the ongoing WP:MR [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_December#Steamboat_Bill.2C_Jr._.28closed.29] results in the discussion being re-closed by someone unconnected to the debate, it may well close with "no consensus" or close in the same direction as Nyttend closed it – just without Nyttend's false statements about MOS:JR's scope being limited to bios, and certainly without his out-of-band threats.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 17:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)</small>

Followup with regard to a diff someone else provided: One could [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=759268376&diff=prev take Nyttend seriously and hold him to what he demands for other admins], though I did not come here for Nyttend's admin head on a platter, just an admonition to knock off the involved actions. {{U|Dicklyon}}'s attempt to address them at [[WP:AN]] the other day [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive286#Requested_Move:_Steamboat_Bill] met with the standard "admins at AN will never do anything about admin misbehavior unless it's so off the deep end we'll look bad site-wide if we don't" routine, and this seems typical whenever Nyttend's antics come up, so it really does fall to ArbCom to address it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jkudlick ===

BHG has opened a formal CfD [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Populated waterside places|here]], so I believe it is best for this to be declined, and for the process to proceed as designed. —&nbsp;[[User:Jkudlick|Jkudlick]]&nbsp;&#x2693;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jkudlick|t]]&nbsp;&#x2693;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Jkudlick|c]]&nbsp;&#x2693;&nbsp;[[User:Jkudlick/sandbox|s]] 07:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Clerk notes ===

:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

*

=== BrownHairedGirl and categories: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0> ===

{{anchor|1=BrownHairedGirl and categories: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>

*At the moment I'm not inclined to accept - we aren't the first port of call for disputes. Closing the ANI doesn't change that. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

**'''Decline'''. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

*I like to begin by making sure I understand what is being argued about, so let me make sure I understand. As I am reading the background, the underlying issue seems to be whether the CfD decision to rename (for example) "Category:Populated waterside places" to "Category:Waterside populated places", automatically means that "Category:Populated waterside places in Brazil" gets moved to "Category:Waterside populated places in Brazil," or whether further process is required before the subcats are moved. This is the sort of argument that must leave nonspecialists shaking their heads and thinking "only on Wikipedia...." If I understand the issue correctly, and if I were going to be the one to decide whether the subcats should automatically be moved or not, I would ask (1) whether there is policy or precedent governing how a category move affects subcats, and (2) whether there is any reason the subcats should not follow the same [[Adjective#Order|order of adjectives]] as the parent cats. But this seems to be the sort of thing that would be everyday grist for CfD ordinarily and ANI at worst. The only reason we would take this sort of case would be if these category disputes were becoming a widespread source of discord and an arbitration could somehow help, or if we were concerned that an administrator may have gone off the rails by displaying egregiously or repeatedly bad behavior. I'm open to persuasion but thus far I'm not seeing either of those things. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

**'''Decline''' as the category-move dispute appears to be on its way to resolution. With respect to SMcCandlish's request for an administrator-conduct case against the filer, the "Jr." matter is unrelated to the request before us. I understand his point that building an admin-conduct case can require consideration of multiple incidents that are unrelated except for involving the same administrator, but I don't see these two disputes as sufficient to constitute a pattern. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

*'''Hold''' until AN/I resolves....or doesn't. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 20:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

* At first glance this looks like a "small servings of trout all around" kind of issue. But maybe I'm not seeing why this got here in the first place. {{u|Nyttend}}, can you clarify why you moved this from ANI to arbcom? [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 21:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

**'''Decline''' Seems like for once something is being handled just fine at ANI. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

*'''Decline''' for now as a) still at ANI, b) surely resolvable in good-faith discussion between the two principal parties, and c) not meeting the commendable criteria outlined in the second-last sentence by NYB above. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 22:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

*'''Decline''' -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 00:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

*'''Decline''' -- '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|^{''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''}]] 07:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

*'''Decline'''. Agreed with my colleagues. There was no reason for this to be escalated to ArbCom so quickly; now that the ANI has been reopened we should wait to see how discussion there goes. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)