Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

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.

On multiple occasions since the Portals case, BrownHairedGirl has asserted that other editors have engaged in gaslighting. The Wiktionary entry defines "gaslight" as "to manipulate someone such that they doubt their own memory, perceptions of reality, or sanity, typically for malevolent reasons".

DanCherek (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• April 2021 (link to ANI archive) – Laurel Lodged was reported for emptying categories during ongoing CfD discussions. He was warned that further changes without consensus would result in a block [25], and agreed to stop temporarily [26]. In the ensuing discussion, two editors suggested that further instances should result in a block [27][28]. Others stated that a block would be excessive [29][30], and several editors suggested a topic ban from categories (or a subset of categories) [31][32][33][34][35]. The discussion was archived by a bot without formal closure.
• February 2022 (link to ANI archive) – Laurel Lodged was reported for a comment he made in an Armenia/Azerbaijan-related topic ban appeal from another user. The ensuing discussion included a dispute over Laurel Lodged's use of incorrect pronouns, and Laurel Lodged referring to another user as "my favorite stalker" [36] and receiving a warning for that comment [37]. After some additional comments, the discussion was archived by a bot without formal closure, manually unarchived by the original reporter [38][39], and archived by a bot again without additional comments.
• July 2023 (link to ANI archive) – the ANI thread that precipitated this case. Parts of Laurel Lodged's initial comments about BrownHairedGirl were redacted for personal attacks [40][41], and he was warned that further comments about another editor's mental health would result in a block [42]. Separate (sub)sections were started about Laurel Lodged's conduct at CfD [43] and TfD [44], and various sanctions against Laurel Lodged were proposed, including a two-way interaction ban with BrownHairedGirl [45]; a one-way interaction ban regarding BrownHairedGirl [46]; a partial block from projectspace (withdrawn by proposer) [47], and a restriction on CfD nominations [48]. The discussion was closed in favor of resolution at ArbCom.

DanCherek (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To augment DanCherek's extensive list; right in the request for this case BHG did this same thing [49] with gaslighting accusations. Basically the pattern is when someone challenges her beliefs/assumptions/anything, they are a vile/vicious/nasty/despicable gaslighting bastard bully/thug (and such),[50][51][52][53][54][55][56] when gaslighting properly means doing so maliciously, which she provides no real evidence for. Despite being told this in no unclear terms and that she is not gaslighting [57] by doing essentially the same thing as the people she accuses, she turns this around [58] into my accusing her of gaslighting, when again I explicitly said what she and El_C were doing is not gaslighting. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if all these people are really that aggressively hostile toward her or not, but I don't see clear evidence of such in the allegations she has made in those diffs. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to evidence

• They agree that their allegations are strong claims here: I agree that my claims of vindictive, disruptive bad-faith tag-teaming are strong claims, which require evidence. The collation of that evidence is a big job, and as I noted below I will present it later, when I have collated it. But I stand my assertion. I will try to remember to ping you when I post it. but fail to submit diffs where such statements are proved. I hope they submit their diffs during this phase.
• In their own words, they termed LL's comments as: They are pure snark, whose purpose is solely to score points, and to try to stoke a dispute in an otherwise highly productive discussion. Then, in response, they decided on the following: So I inserted[22] a new level 2 header above LL's comments, to allow discussion of the navboxes to proceed uninterrupted. More comments along these lines follow.
• In response to EI_C's (quite neutral) comment about housekeeping: Well, whatever X the -FD is, it needs to be contained. Otherwise, outlining those grievances separately is hindering the normal operation of this noticeboard (such as it is), they replied with: I am sorry to say that your decision to take action on grounds that are simply wrong (even the error was pointed out to you before your action) shows a lack of care. And I am sad to see the lack of apology when you belatedly decided to assert a different rationale. More comments along these lines follow.
• In response to a discussion about their conduct: no, the core issue is your lack of WP:CIVIL. Don't go WP:OFFTOPIC, please. I suggest we close this irrelevant subsection, they replied with: ...this whole thread is entirely about a sprawling dispute which arises from the sytematic misuse of WP:SMALLCAT by a small set of editors. I do undestand that it suits some editors to ignore the sustance and to try make an ANI drama focused solely on the tone of my challenges to that sytematic misuse. More comments along these lines follow.

That's all I have. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence previously gathered by:

• The community on 05:58, 16 August 2021, putting BrownHairedGirl under active, indefinite, escalatory incivility sanctions
• Myself at CFD on 14:48, 15 June 2023
• RevelationDirect's ANI opening statement of 03:31, 7 July 2023
• 1AmNobody24's ANI statement of 14:25, 7 July 2023 about BHG's previous sanctions for not being WP:CIVIL, in particular BHG's desysopping and BHG's blocklog

For further evidence, I defer to fellow editors and admins for now, including but not limited to this page and the ANI archive page. I think the evidence of BrownHairedGirl not being WP:CIVIL is overwhelming. Instead, the focus of my case will be a demonstration of BrownHairedGirl not recognising the importance of being WP:CIVIL in theory, which is crucial for understanding why we see so much evidence of her not being WP:CIVIL in practice.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to evidence (unless otherwise indicated)

Remember the ANI was about BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD. Not about quoting WP:SMALLCAT ad nauseam, but BHG's incivility towards anyone who disagrees with her interpretation/application of WP:SMALLCAT (her main pet peeve). I've seen BrownHairedGirl respond to concerns/accusations of WP:UNCIVIL conduct on her part in 2 main ways, neither of which is reassuring.

• 1. WP:IDHT: Dismissing/ignoring accusations, and trying to divert attention away to her pet peeves.

For example, the phrase potential for growth (a quote from WP:SMALLCAT) is mentioned 31 times at the ANI, and in 28/31 cases this phrase was written by BHG or people quoting BHG. Nobody else really found it relevant for examining whether or not BHG had been uncivil, but BHG attempted diverting attention away from the WP:UNCIVIL accusations, apparently not taking them seriously at all.

• At the Expatriates CfD, after I raised serious WP:CIVIL concerns (Diff), BHG replied:
  • That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking. The real issue here is [pet peeve], 14:59, 15 June 2023 (Diff)
• On BHG's talk page, after RevelationDirect raised serious WP:5P4 (civility) concerns (Diff), BHG replied:
  • How about we avoid the drama boards, and you (...) accept that WP:SMALLCAT really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really does say that is about "potential for growth" rather than current pagecount. 12:34, 30 June 2023 (Diff)
• At the ANI:
  • this [ANI] is an attempt to invoke "civility" to punish criticism of [pet peeve] 09:31, 7 July 2023
  • So yet again, you wholly ignore [pet peeve] 12:53, 7 July 2023
  • You a[nd a] few others want to [ma]ke it about me. (...) I have taken a stand agai[n]st [pet peeve] 13:53, 7 July 2023
  • I don't want anyo[n]e sanctioned. I just want the hounding and the tag-teaming to stop, and [pet peeve] 15:31, 7 July 2023

• 2. Tu quoque defences: Accusing others of also engaging in WP:UNCIVIL conduct.

Merely disagreeing with her interpretation of WP:PG, or even not fully quoting her interpretation, itself supposedly constitutes WP:UNCIVIL behaviour.

• At the ANI:
  • It seems to me to be deeply uncivil to treat my observation of that fundamental omiss[i]on as a civi[l]ity issue (...), and to omit in your complaint any mention of [pet peeve]. 09:54, 7 July 2023
  • you make no apology for entirely om[i]tting to ment[i]on [pet peeve]. That is not my idea of how to treat another editor with civility. WP:civil says "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". 12:53, 7 July 2023

She does this regularly, apparently believing/hoping that incivility accusations against her critics will cancel out their incivility accusations against herself. (LilianaUwU also pointed this tactic out on 20:05, 7 July 2023).

• Conclusion: Even if other people may have been uncivil to her, BrownHairedGirl [does not] want anyone sanctioned, and to avoid the drama boards. She wants the Wikipedia:Civility guideline to remain unenforced, not least because she has been sanctioned for incivility in the past ( 1, 2, 3), and still is under active, indefinite, escalatory incivility sanctions.

BrownHairedGirl's entire strategy is to ad nauseam repeat her pet peeves in order to divert attention away from her own incivility. In doing so, BrownHairedGirl commits yet more incivility, whilst simultaneously counter-accusing others of supposed incivility (whenever it tactically suits her) or other supposed violations, all the while arguing nobody should actually be sanctioned for incivility (highly ironic).

The level of incivility BHG appears to believe everyone should find acceptable and unsanctionable, even against herself, is astonishing. The fact that during an ANI about BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD, she repeatedly was WP:UNCIVIL according to many participants (see evidence provided by others), also seems to confirm BrownHairedGirl is not recognising the importance of being WP:CIVIL. As long as it remains unenforced, BHG herself can (and apparently does) engage in WP:UNCIVIL conduct.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Answering question from Arbcom
• On 12–13 June 2023 at CFD, I had a productive disagreement with BHG, which ended with us agreeing to Listify a category, and her making some suggestions to me that I could use in order to do so. To be quite frank, this is the only extensive interaction I have ever had with BHG before the Expatriates CfD just 2 days after. Earlier interactions – all at CFD – were brief, often indirect, and amicable as far as I can remember. As I would say many times after, I had often found myself agreeing with BHG. Several nominations of mine were actually based on precedents she had set, one as far back as 2010 (e.g. this one from 12 June 2013, the same day). I had built up quite some respect and admiration for BHG, although admittedly without really knowing her prior to June 2023. This is why I was so surprised by how things escalated quickly 2 days later at the Expatriates CfD. I really wanted things to return to normal. By raising WP:CIVIL issues, I hoped they would. Sadly, they didn't. Here we are... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the evidence below is new or has been adduced by others. So much has been written…My word count excludes bytes from diffs. As others have written, BHG gets high-handed and impatient in discussions. She tends to go to rough language too quickly. A huge knowledge of wiki policies and immense amount of wiki-experience makes her erasable with those with less experience. This is not a licence to be uncivil. Discussions in other forums to curb her incivility have largely failed because the community is afraid of losing such a prolific, and generally constructive, editor. All these undoubted skills have tended to produce an unhealthy level of pride in BHG, a pride that will brook no criticism. The pride, when struck, very quickly resorts to abuse. Her 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. This is not good for me nor for the project since no new editor in CFD space would wish to enter such a hostile environment. At no point is there evidence of introspection or acknowledgement of hurt caused by this incivility; in the absence of a mea culpa, let alone contrition, no voluntary change in behaviour can be expected.

• "If that guideline-flouting is upheld, then a DRV is the appropriate venue to review that."[59]

• "…yet another blatantly bad faith nomination by a highly-experienced editor w[sic] persistently refuses to apply te[sic] actual guideline WP:SUBCAT, and who is par[sic] of a tag team.."[60]
• "…when editors tag-team to abuse the CFD process…"[61]
• "There has been a systematic efforts by a tag team (in which Oculi is one of the two main players) to radically misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT…"[62]
• "…a bad faith nom targeting one editor…" and "…supported by a tag team."[63]
• "..you flagrantly disregard...” and “…your decision to misrepresent the guideline…"[64]
• "…it is extremely disruptive to misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT and to abuse it as a weapon to demolish categorisation"[65]
• "… a malicious nomination by a nominator wo[sic] has wholly disregarded the actual wording of WP:SMALLCAT, ignoring bot[sic] the "no potential for growth" headline and the "existing series" clause"[66]
• "…as a demonstration of LL's bad faith, LL made no response to the expansion of the categories…" That one is actually true – I made no reply. This is to the infamous addition of 246 categories in the middle of a nomination. I’m still torn between admiration of the talent that it took to do such a mass nom whilst simultaneous reeling in horror when I think of the mindset that could commit such an act.[67]
• "I don[sic] not believe that you ae[sic] acting in good faith"[68]
• "this is a rushed, vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination"[69]
• "That appears to be the aim of LL@s stalking"[70]

• "I assume good faith until the assumption becomes untenable…"[71]
• "A good faith editor would at this stage withdraw the nomination, and apologise both the failure to read WP:SMALLCAT…"[72]

• "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."[73] Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the table, 53 cfd discussions were all upmerged, usually unanimously, and usually without controversy (per precedents, per previous consensus). I have a larger table of 150 cfds going back to Jan 23: only 2 of these were closed as 'keep'.

These include Marcocappelle (>20), Laurel Lodged (>10), Nederlandse Leeuw (6), RevelationDirect (>20), Oculi (7), Peterkingiron (4) and Aidan721 (>20 including noms).

Closers included Pppery, Qwerfjkl, Explicit, Timrollpickering, LaundryPizza, Fayenatic London, ClydeFranklin.

6. BHG, the nominator, had not done any WP:BEFORE (which in fact applies to AFD, not CFD), as user:Crowsus easily found a dozen sportspeople, and Category:People from Cobh now has 44 pages (including those in subcats). BHG argued that Category:Sportspeople from Cobh is not part of a larger scheme, and yet it is part of Category:Sportspeople by city or town.

diff. "*Note to closer. This nomiation is deeply flawed:

1. It has no WP:BEFORE
2. it ignores the guideline WP:SMALLCAT's restriction to categories with "no potential for growth", without indication of any assessment of such potential
3. #it ignores the guideline WP:SMALLCAT's exception for categories whch are part of an established series, as these are."

BHG's own nomination (above) suffers from the exact same 'flaws'. A remarkable reversal of views in a few short days.

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) 22:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In November 2006, User:Radiant! created the Wikipedia:Overcategorization page, based upon many CfD discussion results - [74]

• In December 2006, Radiant! added the section "No potential for growth" to Wikipedia:Overcategorization - [75]

As can be seen, originally, "No potential for growth" was the title. The title did not use the word "small", until I added it several edits later: [76].

• In August 2007, Radiant! changed the words "two or three" to "a handful" - [77]

• Then "a handful" changed to "a few" (by me), in the next edit - [78]

There were many reasons to change from a set number. For one thing, it had become divisive. Things were getting nominated due to numbers alone, without actually looking to see if it was part of an overall system. (And had also begun to be nominated for Speedy Deletion.) As can be seen, "Songs by artist" had really become contentious over this. For example, this was the edit right after Radiant! initially added the section. Which was then re-written in the next edit here.

Another reason is semi-related - gaming the system. If you set a finite amount, then: "anything over that amount should be an automatic Keep, right?" Or so went the argument. It also was leading to category "stuffing". As it's not that difficult to find anything anywhere that could maybe fit under a category, just to prevent its deletion.

So an indeterminate amount, handled on a case-by-case basis at WP:CFD, was seen to be better.

That said, there have always been those who want a set amount, because they have the seeming idealistic hope that it would reduce discussions at CfD, or that it might dissuade category creators from making small categories. Neither of which has been proven out over the years. - jc37 14:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.