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

Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed.

Hello, I'm concerned about User:BrownHairedGirl's repeated failure of WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, and WP:5P4 generally at Categories for Discussion (WP:CFD) toward me and others when nominations involve the WP:SMALLCAT editing guideline.

There is a legitimate WP:CONTENTDISPUTE but BrownHairedGirl repeatedly questions both the motives and competency of others. BrownHairedGirl believes that Laurel Lodged is targeting her and influencing five other editors, including me, with a secret WP:TAGTEAM.

Rather than raise those concerns about us at ANI with evidence, BrownHairedGirl sprinkles those accusations within CFD:

1. ... "This is another vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination by LL, who is stalking my contribs"... (Diff)
2. "I don not believe that you a[r]e acting in good faith"... (Diff)
3. ... "this vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" ... (Diff)
4. ... "And yes, I can produce evidence of the tag-teaming" … (Diff)
5. ... "it is quite invidious to propose to demolish my work"... (Diff--I had to look that word up!)
6. ... "I will not accept the use of a malicious and unresearched CFD as a weapon to bully me" ... (Diff)
7. "Ah Marcocapelle, that's disingenuous." ... (Diff)
8. "Utter nonsense. ... It's blindingly obvious that you are pontificating away with great certainty about how to do a task which you have never actually done." ... (Diff)
9. "That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking. When it comes the treatment of other editors, the real issue here is the attempt to demolish the categorisation work" ... (Diff)
10. "... This is yet another blatantly bad faith nomination by a highly-experienced editor ... who is par[t] of a tag team ..." (Diff)
11. "when editors tag-team to abuse the CFD process by systematically misrepresenting guidelines and vindictively targeting the work of other editors, then it is important that this info is presented to the CFD discussion. In 17 years at CFD, I have never before seen anything remotely like this." (Diff)
12. "No it is not a 'difference of opinion'. There has been a systematic efforts by a tag team. ..." (Diff)

There are an additional dozen examples at ANI.

When I attempted to resolve this issue at BrownHairedGirl’s talk page, she wrote a parable about how I was like a corrupt police officer ignoring violence. (Diff)

I also took my concerns to a sprawling ANI nomination where BrownHairedGirl doubled down: “I stand by my comments.It will take me several hours to collect all the evidence, but I will make a full response when I have do[n]e so.“ (Diff suppressed, ANI timestamp 09:31, 7 July 2023) A week later, I'm still waiting for those Diffs though.

Both MJL and BrownHairedGirl did raise separate concerns about Laurel Lodged going back years but those aren't related to tag teaming and perhaps could be reviewed separately. There’s no similar history of bad blood with me though; in the past BrownHairedGirl even gave me a barnstar for my CFD work.

I just want the incivility to stop. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @L235: No, I find Floquenbeam's thoughtful suggestions helpful but incomplete. There is a content dispute and resolving that at an RFC as proposed sounds like the right path forward. There is also an issue with either rampant uncivil comments or justified comments to rampant WP:TAGTEAM meatpuppetry. An RFC can't resolve those issues and--despite the length of the discussion--ANI has barely scratched the surface of either. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barkeep49: No, but there are 3 top controversies: What is “small”? What are the exceptions? Who is responsible for populating newly created categories? (Enlisting an RFC facilitator seems prudent.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I defer to ArbComm to set the appropriate scope. But, if there is any evidence against me for WP:TAGTEAM meatpuppetry or other misconduct, I would welcome including that review. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want editors at CFD to apply what is actually written in the 100-word guideline WP:SMALLCAT, rather than citing it while ignoring what it actually says. I deplore the incivility to colleagues and the disruption to consensus-formation of repeatedly misrepresenting SMALLCAT. I deplore RevelationDirect's refusal to discuss the substance or open an RFC, and instead launch multiple dramas about the tone of my complaints. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Guerillero:, this isn't asking the other parent. This is RevelationDirect's third attempt (prev my talk and ANI) to weaponise civility policy to suppress objections to sustained misuse of SMALLCAT by RevelationDirect and others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @L235: Floquenbeam suggested at ANI a path to actual resolution: everyone involved will stand down from nominating/commenting on category deletion discussions related to SMALLCAT until there's been an RFC on SMALLCAT.
  The substance of this should be resolved at RFC, rather than a huge timesink at Arbcom which cannot resolve the substance. Whether SMALLCAT retains its current wording or is changed to something else, editors should follow what it actually says rather than what they would like it to say. (Ignoring everything except the opening word "small" is not a "interpretation"; it is flagrant misrepresentation.)
  Note that WP:ANI#The_core_issue_of_WP:SMALLCAT, I invited other parties to endorse a simple summary of what SMALLCAT actually' says. AFAICS, none of them has done so. Laurel Lodged called it "bait"; Oculi said your interpretation of what SMALLCAT means inherently causes SMALLCAT to defeat itself.
  This is absurd, and it is highly disruptive: when a highly experienced category editor like me creates categories within the letter and spirit of a stable guideline, they should not risk having their work arbitrarily deleted by a small group of editors who ignore the guideline's actual wording.
  The community needs to agree a wording, and editors need follow it (as with any guideline, there will be occasional exceptions, which should be explicitly acknowledged as occasional exceptions).
  I invite all parties to commit to upholding in letter and spirit whatever is agreed at RFC. One way or another we cannot conitinue the disruption of having the actual words of a stable guideline dismissed as "bait".--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarity, I commit to accepting the outcome of whatever is decided by the RFC(s) on SMALLCAT, and to follow it in letter and spirit.

  Also, I commend the idea of having one or more experienced but uninvolved editors assist consensus-formation by helping to draft the RFCs needed in a way which neutrally puts all issues and perspectives on the table. Can Arbcom help by nominating one or more facilitators? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I may be getting out of scope for this page, but one way in which WP:SMALLCAT could work more consistently and with less conflict is by explicitly requiring the nominator to address the principles set out in the guideline.
  E.g. with the curently-worded guideline, a new final para could say "Nominations citing SMALLCAT should explain why the nominator believes that the category a) lacks potential for growth, and b) is not part of an overall accepted series".
  Obviously, an RFC might led to a different set of questions being posed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @@Barkeep49: I am not aware of any RfC question about SMALLCAT that is reasonably ready to go, and I don't see how there could be one. There are least 5 difft issues to be resolved: numbers, growth potential, established series, technological developments, and the obligations of CFD nominators.
  Rushing into an unstructured RFC would just waste everyone's time on hot air. Please, can the arbs implement something like my suggestion above of facilitators to help draft a set of RFCs? The community cannot do the drafting unaided, because e.g. recent CFD debates have been dominated by a small group of editors who believe that "Small with no potential for growth" means exactly the same thing as "small". We need a facilitator who can remind editors that these are radically different options, and try to put all options clearly on the table. If we ask the parties to solve this, we will just be back in the weeks of drama where some editors think that ignoring everything after the first word is "an interpretation" and who then shout "uncivil" when their absurdity is called utter nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The WMF Universal Code of Conduct is highly relevant here. 3.2, 3rd bulletpoint: Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want. It's an anti-gaslighting rule.
  Throughout this dispute, several editors have been gaslighting others by falsely claiming not only that simple parts of WP:SMALLCAT have nothing resembling their plain English meaning, but also that those upholding the actual words are disruptive, aggressive or "toxic".
  RevelationDirect has been the most extreme user of this tactic, repeatedly abusing civility policy to try to suppress objections; but similar techniques have been used by Oculi, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Laurel Lodged. Gaslighting is a particularly vicious form of misconduct, and its widespread use is why the dispute over SMALLCAT has become so heated. I urge Arbcom to take this gaslighting very seriously, because it also happen elsewhere on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee's point about a framing effect is important. RevelationDirect has used this framing technique repeatedly throughout this debate, by repeatedly trying to frame the dispute as being solely about me having the impudence to object to their sustained misuse of WP:SMALLCAT. (Oculi posted at ANI a search which found 103 separate CFD pages in which RevelationDirect used the SMALLCAT-defying rationale of a crude numerical threshold).

  The framing was used;

  1. in the discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Apologies_for_CFD_comment, where RD refused to discuss substance
  2. in RevelationDirect's opening post at ANI, where RevelationDirect sidleined te substantive dispute in favour of personalised complaints
  3. at WP:ANI#The side issue of WP:SMALLCAT, where RevelationDirect opened a new sub-thread trying to frame the core the dispute as a "side issue".

  I do not speculate about why RevelationDirect does this, or whether it is a conscious choice. I cannot know either. But I do see a pattern here, in which RevelationDirect repeatedly impedes resolution by framing the dispute as being about how I object to RevelationDirect's abuse of SMALLCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The #Statement by El_C is a clear case of gaslighting.
  My discussion with El_C can be seen in full in the collapsing of it[1] by Beyond My Ken. See Disruption_by_Laurel_Lodged
  El_C's first comment is that my complaint was lengthy and difficult to parse. Others could understand it, but if El_C couldn't, then they should move on.
  I replied politely I decided that since this issue is about neither CFD nor allegations against me, it was on balance better as a new thread. El_C could have easily verified that, since my complaint did not use any of the words "category", "categories", or "CFD".
  Instead, El_C responded I'm gonna merge it, sorry. It's still about CfD, so it's best that everything be kept in one place. El_C had failed to read and comprehend a simple reply.
  El_C then proceeded to accuse me of disruption and bad faith. Such charges are absurd and insulting when issued by someone who has already demonstrated that they do not understand what they are talking about.
  A competent, good faith admin would the have at least apologised for their error, and preferably bowed out. But instead El_C called me disruptive, threatened me with sanctions, and doubled down by accusing me of bad faith. It's weird to be accused of bad faith by someone who understands neither a detailed complaint nor the the simple it is not in any way about CFD. It's about WT:IRELAND and about TFD.
  Now El_C comes here to gaslight me again by telling Arbcom that not only am I unrelentingly uncivil and combative, but also gaslighted @Beyond My Ken by asserting falsely that BMK had titled the collapsed field glowingly in BHG's favour. Utter nonsense: BMK's headline Discussion between BHG and El C about whether the complaint against Laurel Lodged should stand alone or have been merged into the "BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD" discussion is scrupulously neutral.
  No editor, let alone an admin, should be allowed to demonstrate the uncomprehending, unapologetic aggression which El_C displayed here to both me and BMK ... and I should not have my character smeared for objecting El_C's misconduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Deepfriedokra at 1:28 wrote[2] that my post above is Personal attack mixed with assuming bad faith.

  Why do people write such inversions of fact? My post is not in any sense a {{tq|personal attack|q=y]}, not is it me assuming bad faith.

  It is complaint about the misconduct of an admin who failed to read, failed to apologise, and assumed bad faith. I made no comment on El_C's character; I stuck firmly to that episode, and to te related issue of El_C's unwarranted hostility to BMK.

  If objecting to admin misconduct is a Personal attack, we are in a dangerous place. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DIYeditor: see this[3] reply by El_C to me. El_C asserted a clear falsehood as the basis for taking action.

  And yet you accuse me of gaslighting El_C????? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee: re [4]. I see why you fid my words about El_C to be harsh, ut I urge you to re-read that discussion. El_C themselves stated that they did't understand my complaint, and they were objectively wrong as a point of fact in insisting that it was about CFD. It was in no way about CFD.

  El_C then threatened with me sanctions, insisted that my post was disruptive, and accused of my bad faith because I objected. That is terrible conduct, and the malice is clear from El_C's failure to apologise at the time, from their attempt here to weaponise their misconduct against me, and their bogus allegations against BMK.

  And I note that yet again, the only concern so far expressed here is about how I described the misconduct, rather the substance of an admin repeatedly doubling down their misbehaviour. This is a pattern on Wikipedia :( BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to walk on eggshells here in case I inadvertently stray into certain areas and speculate about things in which I have no personal expertise whilst simultaneously trying to provide a possible motive for the bizarre behaviour that is the subject of this case. I'll try to stick to the facts and leave feelings at the door, in as much as one can do so in a case whose very object is the bad feelings engendered by the actions of others. (1) The nom is correct - this case is about incivility and lack of AGF, not the interpretation or application of certain wiki guidelines; (2) BHG has shown no recognition whatsoever that the actions complained of above are uncivil and lack AGF; (3) BHG has shown no recognition whatsoever that the actions complained of above, if true, would result in hurt feelings on the part of those to whom they were directed; (4) BHG recognises behaviour that is uncivil and hurtful only when she herself is the victim of such behaviour; (5) BHG has never apologised for the behaviour complained of above. This is logical given the gaps noted in points 2, 3 & 4 above.; (6) No promise of future good behaviour extracted from BHG under duress could have any credibility given the gaps noted in 2, 3, 4, 5 above; (7) BHG has a track record of abandonment of civility & AGF promises; no parole board, therefore, could set any store in her promises of future good behaviour that would be based on voluntary self-policing; (8) it therefore follows that mandated, enforceable actions are required to make WP:CFD in particular a safe place for participation by editors and which do not bring WP:CFD space into disrepute.; (9) having offered to remove the speck from my sister's eye, I will endevour to remove the beam from my own eye.; (9) Beware the Tu quoque fallacy - a multitude of faults on my part or the part of "the others" does not excuse, let alone give permission, for abuses by BHG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved from Arbitrators section]:

• I can abide by Floquenbeam's proposal as an interim step. Meanwhile, I see no reason why this arbitration case cannot continue in parallel. As the nom says, it's not about smallcat, it's about incivility. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about how to apply WP:SMALLCAT. It is a case about conduct. (Even) if you are convinced of yourself that you are right you can still not put WP:CIVILITY aside in a way like this. So any references to WP:SMALLCAT should be considered as mere background, and basically irrelevant for the outcome of this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later addition: I am not hoping for any sanctions resulting from this case per se. What I'd rather hope is that BrownHairedGirl ultimately recognizes that she went way too far. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the proposed ANI closure:

Floquenbeam basically says "from now on everyone should be civil" but this does not address at all the earlier incivility that the ANI case was supposed to be about. It is good advice for sure, but irrelevant to the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Civility. "stop being an attack dog for the tag team" (part of (Diff), quoted above by RevelationDirect). Is calling a fellow editor 'an attack dog' civil? Is it a personal attack? Is a difference of opinion over the interpretation of a guideline sufficient to induce such intemperate language?
2. I supported Floquenbeam's proposal when it was first mooted, long ago, and withdrew my own open nomination involving BHG's creations.
3. BHG's claims that her work is 'being demolished' is hyperbole: a small sample of the 2% or so of her category creations with 1, 2 or 3 members were taken to cfd for scrutiny, which is generally a routine matter. (BHG did not object to one of my nominations: 2023 June 24#Irish field hockey players.) BHG has created 1000 categories since 19 June 2023 (diff), the vast majority of which are exemplary.
4. As RevelationDirect states above, there are 3 top BHG-related controversies in WP:SMALLCAT. What is "small"? What are the exceptions? Who is responsible for populating newly created categories? Oculi (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI was my first, and this is my first ARC, so I hope I did/do things right. I don't have a long history with BrownHairedGirl (BHG) or "the three": Laurel Lodged (LL), RevelationDirect (RD), and Oculi. With all but until recently BHG, my interactions have been amicable; I believe they can be again in the future. I want BHG on English Wikipedia, but I think limited restrictions for her, and perhaps the three, are necessary to make future conduct acceptable.

I concur with RD's findings about BHG's lack of WP:CIVIL conduct at SMALLCAT CfDs. I therefore proposed:

• WP:TBAN for BHG at SMALLCAT CfDs. Should solve core issue identified by RD. Initially supported by some, opposed by others.

Later, evidence provided by others (particularly S Marshall and Nobody) that BHG had been sanctioned for incivility several times before – temporary blocks, partial bans, desysoping, probation – convinced me inaction towards BHG was no longer an option. We cannot afford wishful thinking. Like RD and Marcocapelle say, a SMALLCAT RfC (alone) – even under Floquenbeam's well-meant terms – won't solve the underlying conduct issues. More measures are necessary, also perhaps for the three. So I also proposed:

• two-way WP:IBAN between BHG and LL/RD/Oculi. More widely supported, especially BHG—LL. BHG: "I don't want anyone sanctioned", but "just want the WP:HOUNDING to stop". RD indicated she was "not sure" she wanted a two-way IBAN; "just want the incivility to stop".

Finally, I proposed:

• limited nomination ban on all 4: the three cannot nominate any category created by BHG, nor can BHG nominate any category created by LL/RD/Oculi; nor may any of the 4 ask others to do so per WP:CANVASS. Should prevent the "team-tagging" and "revenge-nominating" as alleged by BHG. Not sure this is happening, but recommended just in case, to prevent future hostilities. Worries about "gaming".

At ANI, I tried to be helpful as a diplomat between BHG and the three, suggesting solutions to reach consensus. When some people thought I'd given too much input, recommending me to disengage, I did. I was surprised Robert McClenon suggested a two-way IBAN between BHG and myself, but am grateful for the overwhelming community response: they saw no need, and generally found my own behaviour to be civil and amicable. That's what I strive for as a Wikipedian, although I'm not flawless. I'm ready to apologise if any jokes towards BHG were too harsh. I'd like to work with her again in the future. Hope this ARC can solve what ANI apparently couldn't. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to minimize my own involvement on ANI and CFD, and don't know any broader history, but I've written up a list of proposed changes to SMALLCAT to make the wording more clear, because after reading closely, I believe that the guideline is vague enough to support multiple incompatible interpretations, and should be discussed and updated by the community. While I believe this is a de-escalation path that those more involved should have considered a long while ago, I agree with others that it would be best to have a pause on WP:SMALLCAT nominations until an RfC is conducted. - car chasm (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I've been involved enough to justify being a party (with no participation in the underlying disputes), but I guess I'm fine with it. I have quite a bit to say about Laurel Lodged and think if Arbcom does accept this case, it should be re-titled to just name both him and BHG (even if there are other parties). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that this case should be accepted. I'm trying my best to balance my desire for a certain outcome with my own understanding of how time-consuming arbcom cases actually are. However, both BHG and LL are really due to have their conduct examined individually, and I don't think we have a robust enough community process for that.

I was pretty hopeful about the AN/I thread for a while. The problem is many well-meaning editors (I among them) have entirely different perspectives on what a justified outcome of it would be. Floq's proposal is certainly one method, but there are definitely folks who prefer a different path forward instead.

For me, I think Floq's solution falls just a bit short of the real issue: Can we trust BHG and LL won't just continue their substandard conduct after WP:SMALLCAT gets resolved?

BHG has said she would respect whatever consensus comes out of the potential RFC, but that doesn't really address people's concerns with her behavior leading up to now (whether those concerns are justified is not for me to say because, truthfully, I have not looked into her conduct particularly closely). LL, for his part, has also made no statement he even sees anything wrong with how he's conducted himself, but he has not committed himself to productively building a consensus.

..so yeah, I'm not particularly optimistic we can just tell either of them to knock it off to prevent further disruption at this point. It's just not that simple. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: I attempted to get LL's conduct at AN examined last year and Fram tried to get his conduct regarding categories examined 2 years ago. Neither thread closed conclusively. It's pretty clear that the 2013 restrictions he's currently under are entirely insufficient. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's incorrect to claim RevelationDirect has unfairly framed this case against BHG. If that was entirely true, I wouldn't have been added as a party solely to be able to discuss issues with LL. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: Mind explaining how you are not guilty of the exact (unsubstantiated claims of WP:TAGTEAM) same (questioning the motives of other editors) behavior (incivility and personal attacks) you are willing to condemn BHG for? Please do so without violating the Tu quoque fallacy yourself. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LL has made almost 100 edits elsewhere before responding to this question.
I disagree that this case should focus on BHG, and this subpar behavior from LL is why. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remain astounded that every AN/I thread about BHG seems to require a case request, rather than the community handling the problem on their own. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got Barkeep's ping. If you look at the ANI sprawl, I think it's clear that the community is not going to be able to resolve the whole dispute at ANI. I think there are a couple of options:

• Accept my proposed imperfect close. Because by it's nature it was unlikely to make everyone happy, I didn't want to close it myself with the low level of acceptance. Pros: saves time and heartache. Cons: probably doesn't get to the root of the problem, leaving it to simmer until next time.
• Maybe I'm completely wrong, and the whole mess at ANI could be definitively closed by someone. Pros: wouldn't that be great. Cons: seems unlikely.
• I think someone somewhere in that thread said BHG has an active civility parole type thing from the last ArbCom case? If true (I have no idea) as a community restriction (thanks Tamzin, thanks Izno), I think that clearly got violated, and could be referred to AE. Pros: saves some time and some heartache. Cons: if BHG is correct that there are behavioral concerns on the other "side" too, those don't get addressed.
• Accept a case to look at all facets of the case. Pros: there is at least some hope that this would get to the root of the problem. Cons: time and heartache.
• Do nothing. Pros: saves time (probably doesn't save heartache). Cons: instead of simmering, the problem is more likely to fester, and explode in the future.

I honestly don't know what would be best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, nobody ping me anymore. I regret saying anything. I do not have any special insight, I do not have any additions to or clarification of my original proposal, I do not agree or disagree with the block/unblock. I just made a drive-by comment, very clearly stating it was based on skimming the ANI thread, that I thought might help. Since then the Dysfunction Vortex has been trying to suck me in. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: There is a community-imposed civility restriction. I have enforced it once (at the maximum first-block length of 12 hours), which was overwhemingly upheld at AN/I. I think it would be within admin discretion to invoke that restriction here, but have felt it would be better coming from a different admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no admin here was willing to enforce the civility restriction before things spun out to the point of that no longer being feasible, makes me think this is ripe for ArbCom review. One nuance that community enforcement vis-à-vis BHG has often failed to capture, I think, is that she is often (usually, even) substantially right in the disputes she gets into, and that difference between substance and style seems to be too much for AN/I to handle.

I don't have any desired outcome for an ArbCom case. Most of the time that I see BHG, it's in a context that gives me a favorable impression, and I complimented her in a recent AN/I close for having kept a cool enough head in a tough situation. But I think some sort of structured discussion, both of the incident at hand and of the general behavior of editors involved, including BHG, is needed in a setting free of the noise of AN/I. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Floq's clever ANI proposal to an ArbCom case. Not only have ArbCom earned a bit of a rest after the recent cases, but I think Floq's remedies are better than what ArbCom could provide. They're both generous (the current situation is messy enough that the slate is wiped clean) and tough (block for any involved party upon future violation), and the proposed SMALLCATS RfC will better address this in the long-run. DFlhb (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes and DeCausa make good points. I now think ArbCom should accept, since the meat of Floq's proposal (block for any party upon future violation) is a dead letter. No admin would want to unilaterally do something that the community is polarized on (agree with Tamzin, "no longer feasible"). Furthermore, relying on admin discretion guarantees that BHG is the only one at risk of sanctions, whether or not that's right (I have no opinion on any party), because the allegations against other parties could never be sanctioned without diffs and discussion. Not to mention that the unblock and ANI close were pretty much predicated on ArbCom dealing with it. DFlhb (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Floq said, not one bit of the ANI discussion was able to resolve the issue at hand even if some editors managed to make interesting and good points about the correct way to handle things. Here's a list of things of things that need to be examined, IMHO:

• Are BHG's WP:MEAT allegations valid?
• If the allegations are not valid, are they classified as personal attacks?
• If they are personal attacks, should there be a respective enforcement action?
• While defending themselves, BHG and LL have been repeatedly incivil, what level of WP:CIVIL enforcement is required at this stage?
• How is the community supposed to enforce WP:CIVIL policies with protracted conduct issues?

As I have also said at the ANI thread, it is theoretically impossible for a rational editor to read through the massive thread and decide on appropriate enforcement actions, as such, ArbCom is the body that is elected to go through conduct issues with a fine-toothed comb and seems to be perfect solution for protracted conduct issues involving long-standing editors (WP:UNBLOCKABLES, but I don't want to make an implication thereof). --qedk (t 愛 c) 00:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Floq's close is a good preventative action to prevent further conflict but it has no considerations for past conduct issues with the editors in question. Further, we have observed repeat, extensive WP:WIKILAWYERing and gaming, so I have no doubt the same will apply to the applied restrictions (most prominently, point (b)). The reason this warrants a case is because it involves long-standing editors with unresolved issues where the community has been unable to come to a definite conclusion on appropriate enforcement actions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I echo the argument that Paul and Courcelles should be added as parties to the case, if accepted. This is not to say that either of the actions were wrong, but that the behaviour of all parties should be examined, I give committee members free remit to include my behaviour as well. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I urge committee members to read SilkTork's latest comment, The issue I see being brought to ArbCom is one of civility and conduct, and that's the case I am supporting opening. The SmallCat guideline is not within ArbCom's remit, and ArbCom recommending.... The reason a case request is here is not because there are fundamental issues with content guidelines, it's that there is a long-standing issue with incivility that the community has failed to resolve. As Lepricavark had said at ANI, the reason it was not possible for uninvolved admins to close this easily was because such a consensus was not formed, and as I had iterated earlier, is theoretically impossible to resolve a discussion where each and every thread is derailed with behavioural aspersions and general misconduct. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really really really really should make WP:Anchoring into a blue link and official policy. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification in response to messages on my talk page: see Anchoring_(cognitive_bias). In this context, when the case is named after a person, it plants the idea in the committee's minds that the named person has done something wrong. Historically, whenever a case is named after an editor, that editor is overwhelmingly likely to be sanctioned, and it is argued that anchoring is part of why that happens. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the core of this problem is the content issue, and ArbCom can't solve that, but an RfC can. There are behavioral issues, but they do not rise to the level of needing Arbitration, despite the geschreing at ANI. That's why I think Floq's quick and dirty drive-by solution -- which includes an RfC, a stand-down from CfD nominations by the participants, and blocks for any of the involved parties who are uncivil -- is the better choice at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I'm sorry you took offense in my collapsing of the discussion on AN/I; please believe that -- at least none was intended. I think you know that I greatly respect you as an admin, and consider you to be -- at least casually -- a wiki-friend. My thought was that the very long discussion broke up the flow of the section and that it was therefore a good idea to collapse it so the section as a whole could be more easily read, and anyone who wished to read your discussion could simply uncollapse it. The title, too, was intended to be as neutrally descriptive as possible and not to be in BHG's favor. That these actions upset you pains me, and I apologize unreservedly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Actually, I did not apprehend your merger as an admin action, since editors of all sorts merge threads on AN/I, and no admin tools were used - I thought it was a normal editorial action. I did see BHG characterize it that way, but I believed that her characterization was inaccurate; obviously, she was more perceptive than I was in this instance. Since I did not read the discussion very closely, just noticed its length, I did not see if you agreed with the characterization or not. If I had realized it was an admin action, I almost certainly would not have collapsed it, since I've learned that reverting admins is generally not a terribly smart thing to do.

Thank you for accepting my apology, and I extend that to misunderstanding the nature of your action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just one further note to say that I agree that the merger you made was appropriate, and is something that I myself might have done in a similar instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or are editors being quicker to jump to WP:ARBCOM of late? I see nothing here that can not be handled through the discussion underway at WP:ANI. BD2412 T 02:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This case has become a great monster with tentacles. It has long been my opinion that some ANI cases should be referred by the community to ArbCom, and should be accepted by ArbCom, and this is one of those cases. In my opinion, ArbCom can deal with this case in one of two ways. The easier way, if ArbCom wishes to minimize its involvement in this mess and to resolve it quickly, will be to implement User:Floquenbeam's proposed closure by motion. The more thorough way will be a regular case with evidentiary hearings. Nearly everything that needs to be said has probably already been said, so a full case should focus more on analysis of the evidence of the monster WP:ANI proceedings than new evidence. Now that a formal case request has been made to ArbCom, I believe that it would be mistake simply to decline the case. If ArbCom wants to close the case with minimal proceeding, they should do so by motion to implement Floquenbeam's closure.

However, I urge ArbCom to accept this case, which is otherwise likely to boil over again, even after the editors have been warned. I urge ArbCom to redesignate this case as "Conduct at CFD Discussions" and consider the conduct not only of BrownHairedGirl, but of other editors, because the personal attacks and violations of civility have gone both ways. If ArbCom accepts this case, they should investigate not only the immediately listed remarks by BHG, but also any baiting or provocation.

I urge ArbCom to accept this case. If ArbCom wishes to act by motion, they may implement Floquenbeam's restrictions by motion, but a full evidentiary review will be better. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the recommendation by User:Courcelles that ArbCom should define conduct in deletion discussions to be a contentious topic. This is at least the third case to come to ArbCom in four years involving conduct in deletion discussions. The Portals case was really about conduct at MFD during deletion of portals, including allegations of lying (which is a form of bad faith). Then there was the case involving conduct in AFD. In both cases, some editors asked ArbCom to establish discretionary sanctions for conduct in deletion discussion. In both cases, the only effective action taken was sanctions on certain editors for incivility and battleground conduct, because in both cases, community discussions that were called for by ArbCom began with considerable participation and eventually fizzled out. This case involves incivility in Categories for Discussion. What we see is that incivility in deletion discussions is all too common, and that the community does not deal effectively with it, as is shown by three cases in four years coming to ArbCom. ArbCom should authorize the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement to deal with battleground editing in deletion discussions, because the community does not do this effectively.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, BHG is unrelentingly uncivil and combative, often entirely for naught, so I urge for this case to be accepted and for her behaviour to be examined in detail (and that of others, if applicable). After all these years, I've little faith that this is a problem that the community is able to resolve. I realize that from ArbCom's position, throwing this back to the community might seem like it's the path of least resistance, but my thinking is that it almost certainly will not be that. It is my thinking that if ArbCom fails to tackle this directly, the issues will simply repeat at a later date, as that's been the pattern through the years. Crucially, I see very little reflection or introspection on BHG's part, which in itself seems quite indicative and emblematic of this perennial problem.

I also don't understand why BHG supporter (?) Beyond My Ken, who is not an admin, took it upon himself to collapse my formally warning her in my capacity as an uninvolved admin not to misuse ANI, as well as the two other uninvolved admins whose comments in that conversation thread seem to agree with me. And he also titled the collapsed field glowingly in BHG's favour as: Discussion between BHG and El C about whether the complaint against Laurel Lodged should stand alone or have been merged into the "BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD" discussion. I've reverted it, in any case. BMK, please don't do that again. El_C 09:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, briefly 'cause I'm writing in haste. Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. But I was not "offended" and do not require an apology, though I'm happy to accept one. I, however, do object to you having inserted yourself to collapse/hat a conversation thread where I was engaged in legit administrative intervention. Where I, an uninvolved admin, had merged new thread by BHG on the admin noticeboard, and then being forced to formally warn her for that (which I did not originally intend on doing), and then needing to endure more BATTLEGROUND/ABF conduct.

Now, you're of course free to disagree with said admin intervention, but you are not permitted to intervene yourself, as you had done. Your title was FALSEBALANCE, then — an uninvolved admin contra a user who is both a complainant and subject to a complaint. And a user whom above you effectively gave a free pass to when stating that: there are behavioral issues, but they do not rise to the level of needing Arbitration, despite the geschreing at ANI. Anyway, so I hope that clears things up, and so long as lessons learned, we can move on amicably. Best wishes, El_C 03:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, though no admin tools were used, they would have had she reverted me. Generally, non-admins are allowed to clerk and WP:NAC some obvious threads at the admin noticeboards; even though a significant number of these are either superfluous or otherwise subpar (just not usually to the extent that anyone bothers pointing it out). In fact, one of the reasons I attended to the merger right away, as an uninvolved admin, was to prevent any non-admins from possibly doing that themselves, which I feared BHG might have reverted, in turn. But imagine those 2 threads open concurrently: the mega-thread and the merged one — it'd be chaos. Anyway, it could have simply ended with my <small> merger notice, but for whatever reason BHG tried using my conflating TfD with CfD as some kind of a gotcha, after which it was all over. Because sadly, when one is in a BATTLEGROUND mindset, everything's a battle. El_C 06:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The committee might already know of this; but documenting it for other editors here about community's earlier consensus on levying escalating blocks on BrownHairedGirl for continuing incivility. Should administrators start acting on this, than come to Arbcom? Thank you, Lourdes 09:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just closed the ANI discussions. ArbCom should accept the case to provide clarity, given the extreme dissonance within the community on the issue. If this case is not accepted, ANI might be unable to reach any consensus, as evidenced in the current discussions. Worse, given the recent block on BHG, if the case goes back, and if BHG gets blocked again (and again), there will be significant community outpouring for and against BHG again, and we shall be possibly back here soon. Thanks, Lourdes 03:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with El_C here: BHG's ongoing blatant uncivil rhetoric, already a subject of blocks and sanctions, should be a focus of attention, as the attempted remedies have clearly been ineffective, and I urge ArbCom to take this case. Jusdafax (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree fully with the statements made on this page by Thryduulf regarding the importance of clearly identifying the focus of this case as being on BHG's behavior towards other editors, and not only in the categories area. Again, in my view this must be a clearly delineated area of attention by ArbCom members going forward. Jusdafax (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several commentators in that thread noted that the (in)civility issues concerned more than just BHG, which is fundamental. Too often have we seen cases, accepted by arbcom, that chew away at the meat of an issue but leave the bone of it untouched. If this case is accepted (need it be? It seems to rehash the ANI to me, and that's gotta have more words than brains at this point), then it should look at concerns re. all parties and weigh as necessary, But, as with everything on WP, it takes two to tango. SN54129 11:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody block Paul August, please, who has just added fuel to a fire that was at least beginning to die down *facepalm* SN54129 12:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Back to this particular case, I suspect that Floquenbeam's Principals are the easiest, most pain-free and most efficient way forward. Yes, they do mostly comprise threats; but you know, notwithstanding that this is a "collaborative project built on consensus" (as the blurb on the back might put it), there are also times when we find groups of editors work very well under the threat of immediate and weighty sanction. Those that are heavily invested in the subject knuckle down and make their points and argue the minutiae, thus actually bringing their expertise to bear and addressing the issue. They do so knowing that there are by then far more editors both actively involved in the same discussions, and others watching without commenting. This is a form of restraint for all parties, and it would work because it would identify "civil" incivility as easily as rude incivility and treat infractions thereof equally. SN54129 13:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

@SamX: I simply cannot comprehend how a series of disputes over a small and obscure corner of the encyclopedia metastasized into a 41,000-word monster of an ANI thread in barely a week... because that's the way we roll *crazy rolling eyes emoji* SN54129 09:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Arbcom: (and talking of @, why don't you have an {{@Arbs}} template like the clerks, crats and other groups of co-ords do?) But it occurs to me, if the committee does not (should not?) look at cases the community cannot (will not) handle, then the ANI thread (recently closed by Lourdes due to being here) should have been unable to reach a consensus. However, although most of the proposals saw no heavy consensus either way, one certainly did: Floquenbeam's proposals, by around ten supported to only one clear oppose. It seems that, in this case, the community was willing to coalesce around a consensus-based conclusion, but no admin was willing to implement it. The committee, however, should. SN54129 09:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: {{@ArbCom}} — Wug·a·po·des 21:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

@ArbCom Clerks: Please strike Waggers's post as completely out-of-process for this deliberative phase of proceedings. SN54129 10:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked BrownHairedGirl for violation of the civility probation per ANI discussion: "Piotrus' concerns about User:BrownHairedGirl", and uncivil statements as documented at "BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD". Paul August ☎ 12:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The block is for 48 hours, so BrownHairedGirl will be unable to respond for a while, consequently I would appeal to ArbCom not to take any final action until BrownHairedGirl is able to comment here again. Paul August ☎ 14:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I would be happy to unblock, but note: BrownHairedGirl's restriction reads:

Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks, she may be blocked first for twelve hours and then for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion.

So I would prefer if ArbCom would do the unbock, I certainly won't object. Paul August ☎ 14:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Now unblocked by Courcelles Paul August ☎ 15:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:@Barkeep49:: How is "Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion" incongruent with me thinking I can't unblock without a community discussion? Paul August ☎ 15:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, per Seraphimblade's statement (below) I now realize I misunderstood the above restriction. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I didn't and don't have any problem with Courcelles's unblock. In fact, because of SilkTork's request (below), I was practically begging (above) for someone, other than me, to unblock. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Paul August, if the parole had been known and acted upon at the beginning of the ANI discussion perhaps the community would not be at Arbcom. (Part of assuming good faith is assuming everyone is responsible, and responsible for themselves. 'They made me do it' has always been a bad defense.) You still can work to sort this out further here, or at ANI but the unenforced parole was gumming up the works, and not letting it resolve. (For example, it seems likely that BHG has been told several different ways over the years to bring her claims to behavior boards and not make them in ill-equipped project space, perhaps that needs reinforcement in a new Arbcom case or otherwise, as that practice might have obviated everything BHG related over the years.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Tork: BHG is not just already over the limit to comment more here, she can continue on her talk page and when the short block is over. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Smith: It has already been shown that the way the block works means, BHG was never silenced, she commented all the way through. Your claim is plain false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take the case: You must at least now address the charge here made by BHG of "gaslighting" against various and sundry users, or get BHG to reign in the charge, and stop it.

It appears to me that BHG is expanding the term "gaslighting" to mean any differences in perception between two users expressed on Wikipedia, even down to perceptions of what is meant by what is said. This is wholly unworkable and would grow to encompass every disagreement with her (and all disagreements between any other users on the pedia), we are all individuals, we are all constrained by the limits of imperfect text writing to convey meaning, and we all disagree sometimes. (Or perhaps you will need to decide whether her charge is made based on an assumption of bad faith on her part). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you should not bring either of the administrators on the block/unblock into a case. They both did what they thought justified at the time (I happen to think the block protected the pedia by reinforcing standards of conduct with which BHG has a recorded and recurring problem, likely to reoccur unless reigned in by regular restriction, and the unblock rushed, but regardless . . .). Neither Admin is needed here to address any issue, BHG's restriction will obviously already be in the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC) (passim, nor did the 48 hr block slow/interfere with anything: ANI was in the crawl-along-to-likely-who-knows-never-where-phase much longer than 48 hours to go; and (no offense) ARBCOM is slow, slow already by design Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)).[reply]

• Wow, there's so much to unwind here (and I haven't read everything), but I'm going to narrowly address my comments to a few specific points.

1. I'm about as strident a defender of WP:CIVIL as you're going to find, but looking at the list of supposed WP:CIVIL violations, I'm hard pressed to say any of those are uncivil. Testy and strongly worded, sure, but calling them uncivil seems like a stretch.
2. I'm frankly appalled at Paul August's block. Totally unnecessary. This is already at arbcom; to silence the subject of the case is just plain draconian and incendiary. I'm doubly appalled by their refusal to unblock based on the argument that they're not allowed to reverse their own block. That's mind-blowing (and TBH, what prompted me to comment here).
3. I'm sorely tempted to implement Floquenbeam's proposed close, or encourage him to do so, and/or I'd be willing to co-sign if if he wanted.
   RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at this further, I see two distinct issues here.

1. Arbcom running a WP:SMALLCAT RFC. I was involved as part of the closing team in the last arbcom-driven RFC. That didn't work well, for a variety of reasons. I'll accept some of the blame for the controversial close, but there was also a feeling in the community that arbcom had overstepped its remit by wading into content. I agree with that, and urge you not to go there again.
2. BHG's way of interacting with their fellow editors, which always seems to get them in trouble. Again, I urge arbcom not to get involved (i.e. decline). There's nothing here that requires arbcom's superpowers. There's no admin conduct to be evaluated. There's no private evidence that needs to be shielded from public view. The community has all the tools necessary to handle this through a variety of sanctions all the way up to a siteban if they feel that's justified. That they haven't yet just says to me that the community doesn't feel the need. And if the community doesn't, then it's not arbcom's place to trump community consensus. RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for posterity sake: a discussion to unblock BHG and overturn the imposition of the community sanction was started at 14:08 on 16 July by Bastun and was closed at 15:10 on 16 July by Courcelles as there being consensus to unblock BHG. Courcelles then unblocked BHG one minute after closing the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsensical block by Paul August (and their equally suboptimal attitude after they were called out on it) suggests to me that implementing Floquenbeam's close should be something that should be done ASAP. Given the previous Portals episode, I am unconvinced that another issue involving BHG should go to ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• August 2019: An AN thread about her incivility ends with consensus to urge BHG "not to accuse her perceived opponents of mendacity".
• January 2020: In the Portals case, ArbCom finds that BHG "has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith"
• August 2021: An ANI thread about her incivility ends with consensus that BHG "has engaged in conduct that falls well below our accepted requirements of civility and has engaged in personal attacks." A behavior probation is imposed.
• October 2022: An ANI thread about her incivility, in which she made personal attacks towards the user who started the thread, resulted in a 12-hour block. The 12-hour block was upheld after community discussion.

So...for the fifth year in a row, we’re here, with a big ANI thread and now an ArbCom case request about BHG’s incivility. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to urge ArbCom to accept this case, and to have a reasonably broad scope. On the one hand we have the usual pattern of BHG getting into a dispute, being sure she is right about the substance of the dispute, and then starting to assume bad faith of her opponents or raising questions about their competence. I don't usually care about CfD much, but that CfD super-regular Marcocapelle thinks there is a problem says there probably is one. Anyway, we could have solved the immediate issue by a short block based on the civility restriction, but that didn't happen until Paul August came in with it too late; instead, LL made it clear they are part of the problem and that their behaviour needs to be looked at. That doesn't excuse BHG's behaviour towards others, but is important context that justifies doing this with a proper case instead of a hopeless ANI discussion. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that ArbCom intervention is needed to help guide a RfC about SMALLCAT; the wider behavioural issues seem generally more difficult to resolve (and in some cases, like Laurel Lodged's unnecessary comments to BHG about succession boxes, did not happen at CFD and do not have an obvious relationship to the SMALLCAT dispute). —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please add Paul August as a party to the case and consider yet another instance of long term admin blocking/unblocking sub-optimally. Or, alternatively, deal with that behavior by motion if the committee feels the facts are sufficiently clear.

2) Please consider adopting (by motion, if a case is not opened) a finding that any administrator placing a unilateral block under a sanction scheme that disallows unblocks except by arbcom or community consensus may unilaterally lessen or remove that block when it is clear that the block was unhelpful. (I believe, as the ultimate arbiters of block and other tool use, this is within ArbCom remit) I strongly dislike the idea that an admin who places a suboptimal block considers the block immune from modification or removal in the face of evidence their block was suboptimal.

3) I echo the above comment on WP:Anchoring. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The rationale for blocking BHG eludes me. It did not stop disruption as BHG's behavior is now at ANI and here. Looks punitive? Certainly, during an ArbCom case request, the block is in and of itself disruptive.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Per DeCausa, it is time -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is clear that ArbCom needs to address the behavior of Laurel Lodged and BHG, and perhaps others, but these two stand out the most. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this commentary from BHG illustrates why we are here. Personal attack mixed with assuming bad faith. All over merging two related threads at ANI. I think BHG has demonstrated she cannot disagree without becoming disagreeable. Overly reactive and overly combative. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DIYeditor:,Welp, now that you mention it, yes! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. I do hope ArbCom will take this case. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major long-term contributor with intractable WP:CIVIL issues where the community can't even agree what the issue is; huge, meandering, unintelligible ANI thread; desperate "drive by" ANI close proposal that includes the plea if anyone is interested in a better place to take diff-heavy, multi-faceted complicated conflicts that the ANI community cannot adequately handle, there's ArbCom; out-of-the-blue 48hr block followed by a 7 editor open-for-hour-and-a-half "community consensus" unblock; entrenched admin and non-admin "friends" and opponents. In what universe can there be any doubt this needs to go to Arbcom? DeCausa (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep's motion and comment here is very surprising and SilkTork has it exactly right here. The SmallCat dispute is just the symptom of the issue and not the issue. The RfC won't resolve the issue. This is about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE not WP:SMALLCAT. DeCausa (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline the case, close the ANI thread (per Floq) and start an RFC.

BHG is at times hot-headed and uncivil but all for the right reasons. Of course it's not an excuse but being someone who had repeatedly told people to fuck off™ after losing their cool I can kinda understand. Anyway as far as I know BHGs incivilty isn't a regular thing.

Anyway nothing good will come of this case or the ANI thread. Decline, close the ani thread and start an RFC. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to take each topic by sections:

a.) Smallcat - In general, the intent of WP:OC is to provide a guideline to provide guidance for category creators, to (hopefully) reduce CfD discussions of certain types, and to be a sort of WP:AADD for WP:CfD, as well. But in the case of SMALLCAT, that appears to be unsuccessful. As I noted here, it's become clear that even long-term editors of categories and at WP:CFD, apparently differ on the interpretation, the wording, and the applicability, of this section of the WP:OC guideline. By splitting it, this will allow not only for discussion of the existing text, but also allow for better, more full and clear, explanatory text. [...] Hopefully giving everyone a central venue to work on this, and work this out, should help reduce the disruptions that we've seen on this topic over the years. The section has been split to Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth.

b.) BHG - I'll mostly just defer to my comments at the AN/I discussion. One thing that may be worth noting. In the past, I've defended her, in that, even though she seems to go for full on WP:BATTLEGROUND for any topic that she likes, she typically was always just in the "battle of the moment", and usually just let it all go (no long-term grudges) once that particular battle was over. Based upon what we're seeing here, I don't know if that appears to still be true. Which, if so, is disenheartening even more. I mentioned a topic ban at AN/I, but really, she's been doing this on anything she enjoys editing, so I don't think a topic ban's going to be helpful in this case. If arbcom can address the parry-thrust counterpoint of automatic personal attacks and questioning others' motives (along with the faux "being persecuted" counter move), I think that could be a step in the right direction. And a two-way interaction ban with LL (below), would also seem like a good idea.

c.) Laurel Lodged - While there does seem to be some (seemingly easily done) baiting of LL going on, I also am seeing some barely-not-quite-pointy behaviour at CfD by LL over the smallcat situation, where they are posting to any discussion referencing smallcat, (and even some that did not) questioning its applicability there. So I think that perhaps some time away from CfD might be in order. And again, a 2-way interaction ban, would seem to be a good idea. Though, LL and BHG seem to tend to edit similar areas, so I'm not sure how that would work.

d.) Paul August - Does BHG have a civility restriction? yes. Is it fair to say that - within admin discretion - she violated it? yes. So was Paul August following "the rules", seemingly, yes. And my long experience of him is that, if anything, he very much is a rules follower. Now, from a bird's eye view, with everything else going on, was blocking right now, due to the restriction, a good idea? maybe, maybe not. I think others are showing that there seems to be a difference of opinion on that. I guess you all may (or may not) decide whether it was appropriately within admin discretion or not. And (hopefully) whether an admin is allowed to undo their own blocks - it would be odd if they are not allowed to undo a potential mistake, as that's a fundamental concept at Wikipedia. (WP:PERFECTION, etc.)

e.) As for the rest, I think it's mostly just an extension of the issues with smallcat, noted above. Hopefully they can focus their attention on working on developing it more, and that will reduce that disruption as well. - jc37 04:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork - Just a quick clarification. While I did split Smallcat to a separate page (and have recently been working on cleaning up WP:OC in general), I intentionally have avoided changing the wording of the text of smallcat itself, so as to give others an opportunity to more easily discuss and work it out. - jc37 16:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ( Peanut gallery comment) – I don't have anything to say about whether or not this case should be accepted or the conduct of the parties named in this case request that hasn't been said already a dozen times. I don't edit categories or participate in CfD, I can't recall any noteworthy interactions with any of the parties named here, and I have no personal interest in the outcome of this dispute and the associated case request. This might not be a helpful comment, in which case I apologize, but I hope I'm able to lend some perspective.

I really don't understand why everyone is so worked up about categories. They're only accessible to most readers via the little blue links that go in a little bar at the very bottom of the article, past all of the references, external links, and navboxes that casual readers probably ignore anyway. At the time of this comment, Category:Internet celebrities has been viewed 223 times in the past 30 days. That's less than Triglochin maritima (365 views), a small and visually unremarkable plant that grows in bogs, fens, and salt marshes throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Pageviews on that article will inevitably increase after I post this comment, but I digress. I don't mean to demean categories and those who edit and discuss them—it's vitally important to classify our articles for the convenience of readers, data analysts, and editors—but I simply cannot comprehend how a series of disputes over an small and obscure corner of the encyclopedia metastasized into a 41,000-word monster of an ANI thread in barely a week. I understand why people lose their heads over stuff hot-button stuff like LGBT rights and ethno-religious conflicts, but I don't understand this.

Again, I apologize if this comment is inflammatory or unhelpful; I just want to remind everyone why we're here. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think if ArbCom wants an RfC, ArbCom moderation is the way to go. They know what they want and mean by that.

If ArbCom accepts this case, I'd urge them to deal with Laurel Lodged, too. The closing of the ANI case meant that discussion was unresolved. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Banedon on the cognitive bias introduced by naming a party in the case title; further info is at Framing effect (psychology). Valereee (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, I absolutely see your side of that dispute with El C, but when you call it gaslighting, you start to lose me. Gaslighting requires malicious intent. If you'd said something like "The dispute with El C was over what I saw as an incorrect interpretation of what was going on, and I believe he is still misinterpreting it, and I'm having a hard time assuming good faith at this point", I'd have been there with you. When you use words like gaslighting you are harming the persuasiveness of your argument. Valereee (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Courcelles's suggestion of converting to AE, enforceable only there, seems likely to reduce disruption and creation of drama/timesinks. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree that deletion discussions are inherently contentious. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LL's refusal to answer questions they've been pinged to is the same thing that happened at the ANI. They just disappeared for a couple days, then started editing again and just ignored two direct questions I'd pinged them to. Valereee (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I closed the ANI thread with the restrictions regarding blocks on BrownHairedGirl for civility/personal attacks, I just wanted to clarify what is apparently a point of confusion. I certainly did not think there was any consensus that an admin could not reverse their own block, and it has always more or less gone without saying that an admin can reverse their own action if they later believe they erred or believe it's no longer necessary. But I guess I should have stated that explicitly! In any case, it was certainly not my intent, nor I believe that of the people who discussed it, that an admin should be unable to reverse their own block in that case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This honestly feels like a WP:FORUMSHOP to me - the ANI thread seems to have been fairly clearly headed towards a consensus, it was just not a close and resolution that everyone liked, because they felt it did not go far enough. So it was dragged to ArbCom (crucially, before the close was complete, in order to pre-empt it, because ArbCom clearly would not have accepted afterwards) in hopes that ArbCom would give a different outcome. This is not how we do things, and I urge ArbCom to decline on those grounds; if the re-opened ANI thread fails to reach a consensus or if there are clear problems afterwards we can always return here, but ArbCom is supposed to be for when the community has clearly failed, not for when someone simply disagrees with the outcome it is reaching.

I also agree with the discussion above re: WP:ANCHORING and would take it a step further - ArbCom really ought to forbid the creation of cases that name editors in the title. If a dispute is complicated enough for ArbCom, and the community has repeatedly failed to resolve it, then there's never just going to be one person obviously at fault, and ArbCom cases are never supposed to just consider one person's conduct anyway; they're supposed to examine the behavior of every participant. A strict ban on user-named cases would force people to consider that when filing. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the suggested motion. While an RFC about SMALLCAT may or may not be useful, it doesn't need to be under arbcom's auspices. What needs to be examined is the behaviour of BHG, which is independent of what she is arguing about. For example:

• The October 2022 ANI thread concerned deletion review of a category unrelated to SMALLCAT
• The August 2021 declined request for arbitration stemmed from a dispute regarding a BRFA.
• The 2019 Desysopping was related to Portals
• September 2022 Bludgeoning and "domination of a speaker's platform" concerned a requested move regarding state funerals
• October 2009 Talk:M18 motorway (Great Britain)#Requested move (ancient history now of course but came up in a search when I was looking for something else) shows exactly the same behaviour of bludgeoning and personal attacks regarding the requested move about a British road.

I present this only to show that BHG's manner of conduct is both long term and unrelated to SMALLCAT or any other single topic, and that it is her conduct that needs to be examined. The conduct of other named parties may or may not need examining also, I have not looked and so express no opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of any accepted case needs to be made clear (ideally explicitly) from the start. For example, is the case to examine BHG's conduct since the Portals case (as Guerillero suggests), to look at the behaviour and conduct around disagreement over interpreting the SmallCat guideline (as SilkTork comments), both or something else? In the first case evidence about BHG's conduct at deletion review in 2022 would be relevant but in the second it would not be. I think I'd be looking at a scope something like "the conduct of all parties in disputes involving BrownHairedGirl since February 2020" (the Portals case was formally closed on 29 January 2020), however that might be a bit unweildy and tricky to define a finite list of parties? Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Deepfriedokra that BHG is combative and does not AGF. BHG's persistent accusations of bad faith outside proper venues also should be looked at. BrownHairedGirl, you cite the rule against gaslighting, but seem to miss the most important part, that it must be malicious, otherwise you could just as easily be accused of gaslighting El_C or anyone whose perceptions/abilities/whatever you call into question.

Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.

⬇️

El_C had failed to read and comprehend a simple reply. El_C then proceeded to accuse me of disruption and bad faith. Such charges are absurd and insulting when issued by someone who has already demonstrated that they do not understand what they are talking about.

You are doing the same thing you are calling gaslighting, but that's not gaslighting whether you do it or someone else does it, unless it's malicious. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: @DIYeditor: see this[3] reply by El_C to me. El_C asserted a clear falsehood as the basis for taking action. And yet you accuse me of gaslighting El_C????? - You've asserted a clear falsehood in saying that I accused you of gaslighting above. In fact I said what you did is not gaslighting. Does that mean you're gaslighting me now? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the block and unblock rises to anything Arbcom-case worthy. It was a hasty, and IMO, punitive block to enact 9 days into a discussion that is longer than a novella, where the blocked-for conduct (that was not spelled out very clearly, if at all) was old, and it was, I'll admit, a bit hasty of an unblock. (Ironically, had the block been made when the ANI was filed, I think it could have found solid support.) I thought the ANI was soundly against the block, it was actively getting in the way of the discussion, and was likely to continue to make things worse. In hindsight, another hour or two of discussion would have been worthwhile. We both deserve a seafood dinner, perhaps, but nothing more. So, what would be useful? Convert BHG's restriction to an Arbcom one, enforcement only at AE by consensus of uninvolved administrators. That way we don't get more threaded messes like the ANI, and any blocks issued will be backed by a consortium of admins in a more controlled discussion. A structured RFC on SMALLCAT is also ideal, as the fundamental disagreement on what the word on the page mean is beyond Arbcom's remit. Finally, and this is something last year's Arbcom should have done in that deletion case, declare conduct at deletion discussions a contentious topic, at least CFD. Courcelles (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of civility often leads to WP:BATTLEGROUNDS and in general, to editors being driven from certain topic areas (or the project entirely). I hope ArbCom would adopt the civility parole passed by the community a while back. I also hope that nothing more serious would be necessary, and that this case, if accepted (and when closed), will not reduce the number of editors active in this project, but instead, will make our editing environment safer and prevent editors from being hurt and leaving. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P4 is a pillar. BHG has been on the project for 17 years and has just shy of 3 million edits making BHG the editor with the second most edits. I mention this to say that BHG has should know that their behavior is combative and uncollegial. I have seen Brown Haired Girl around the project and my observation is that when they think they are right they will battle to the point of disruption; the battle over portals comes to mind. The long term effect of BHG's incivility is disruptions to the project. As Piotrus has stated above, taking this case will be a net positive for our project. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BHG's behaviour with the portals fiasco drove me away from Wikipedia, to the extent that I wasn't active at the time that came to Arbcom and wasn't aware of that case until after I tentatively returned to the project. Since then we've seen repeated incivility, such as with Piotrus in 2021 and again now, often leading to drawn out discussions at AN/I and elsewhere that take up a lot of community time and effort that could be utilised much more productively.

BHG is a prolific editor; I often see her popping up in my watchlist making sensible, constructive edits. I happen to agree with her interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT that led to this case, but certainly not to the way she has expressed it.

The community is afraid of losing such a prolific, and generally constructive, editor, and is therefore slow and reluctant to impose any sanction on her. That fear is why this case needs to be accepted by Arbcom.

Civility is one of our central pillars, and no amount of good, constructive editing outweighs it. BHG has flouted that policy time and again, and having been given multiple second chances, will evidently continue to do so - and drive other good editors away - for as long as she remains active on Wikipedia. Very reluctantly and hesitantly, I call for a permanent ban. WaggersTALK 14:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This particular event seems too small and inappropriate for arbcom unless it is seen as a catalyst for dealing with a broader issue. IMO the 30,000 BHG view is that these things combine to create what seem to be eternal problems:

• A bit of innate battling and highhandedness type tendency
• Some high-handedness and impatience in discussions that comes from their immense amount of wiki-experience.
• Tendency to go to rough language too quickly

They probably need a strong mentor (backed by the community) for additional growth in this wiki-area for an overall fix. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]