![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
Case clerks: Guerillero ( Talk) & CodeLyoko ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: KrakatoaKatie ( Talk) & Mkdw ( Talk) & Bradv ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia.
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia.
4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Editors, particularly Administrators, should remember there is no deadline, and so should consider moving on, at least temporarily, to other areas of Wikipedia if they find themselves in conflicts that risk escalation, such as to a level that necessitates arbitrator involvement. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute.I see no problem with this principle, and the concerns about essay vs guideline are a non-starter. Lots of essays have the level of consensus of policies: WP:SNOW, WP:BRD, and WP:COMMONSENSE are not marked as policies but clearly have the same level of consensus. — Wug· a·po·des 02:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
2) Wikipedia's deletion policy specifies alternatives to deletion. As these use the terms "page" and "page's," they apply to portals, not just articles. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
3) If an editor reverts a page to an earlier version, and then later nominates the resulting page for deletion based on its content or quality, it can be seen as gaming the system and may appear that the reversion, or the nomination, or both, were not done in good faith. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't find diffs. on this, since I think every portal where this happened was then deleted. But it definitely happened, and editors with access to deleted pages may wish to investigate this further during this case. We may also consider a change to the deletion policy that discourages this in all namespaces. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1) The purpose of editing restrictions - up to the site ban - is to protect Wikipedia. Anyone applying or proposing them should verify that these measures are the best way to solve a problem. However, inaction can be a problem, too.
2)Active adminstrators with severe conduct issues in the recent past are leading other users by bad example, creating a more hostile environment.
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
1) BrownHairedGirl has shown signs of severe uncivil battleground behaviour in portal space, e.g. this, especially in deletion discussions.
1) BrownHairedGirl is desysoped. They may apply to regain adminstrator privileges via a successful request for adminship no earlier than 24 months after this case is closed.
2) User:BrownHairedGirl is restricted to 1 edit per 120 hours to pages related to portals, broadly construed; edits falling under the usual exceptions( WP:BANEX) and answers to questions about these edits that are directly addressed to her should not be counted. Attempts to game the restriction by answering or asking overly broad questions are not acceptable, from anyone.
3) User:BrownHairedGirl is topic banned from pages and sections related to deletion discussions of portals, broadly construed.
4) User:BrownHairedGirl is warned that more incivility will lead to a site ban rather quickly.
1) Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are never acceptable. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g., the other editor's talk page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, etc).— Bagumba ( talk) 18:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
2) Wikipedia is a work in progress, and perfection is not required. Through collaborative work, a page that is incomplete, poorly organized, or not regularly updated can evolve into a high-quality page. If editing can improve a portal, that should be done instead of wholesale deletion of the portal. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup.
WP:BEFORE states If the article can be fixed through normal editing. However, a portal is not an article, so WP:BEFORE is clearly inapplicable.
BrownHairedGirl supported the nominator's deadline rationale: Nobody wats to maintain ether portals[192] I explained that someone fixed it, so "nobody" is incorrect. Bagumba fails to note the distinction between a one-off correction and ongoing maintenance. which I set out clearly in the MFD. Bagumba's choice to omit my responses is highly selective an thoroughly misleading; it presents a skewed view of the discussion. Note for example my reply [6] in which i noted the lack of interest from WikiProjects.
I suspect there is a trend among the MfD nominations to find a few errors then justify the whole portal's deletion, while alluding to the risk of BLP violations lurking and lack of dedicated editors for said portal. If Bagumba actually believed that there was such a trend, they should have sought and presented actual evidence rather thanking arbcom to endorse an untested "suspicion". The reality is that I personally made about 500 MFD nominations, of which the ~400 which dealt with non-autoated portals set out in structured form evidence of problems such as indiscriminate article selection, long-term neglect, narrow scope, low readership, lack maintainers, lack of of interest from related WikiProjects. Many other editors (e.g. Newshunter12) made similarly thorough nominations, but here's a sample of mine:
This appears to refer to Bagumba's evidence ... sadly is replete with falsehoods ... However, a portal is not an article, so WP:BEFORE is clearly inapplicable." You missed where I wrote:
Should portals be different?Per WP:5P5:
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording ...— Bagumba ( talk) 07:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba's choice to omit my responses is highly selective an thoroughly misleadingI had a 500 word limit for my evidence; you had a 1500 word limit for your evidence. We all had 1+ month to prepare our own evidence. Arbcom is entrusted to analyze all evidence and weigh the arguments. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.(h/t UnitedStatesian at #Deletion Policy).— Bagumba ( talk) 16:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that Bagumba's case is based on unevidenced suspicion of malign intent: "I suspect there is a trend ..." If Bagumba actually believed ...suspect v. səˈspekt 1. have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof. Arbcom is capable of combining everyone's evidence and assessing accordingly.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
3) During content disputes, the focus should be on content and not editor conduct. Assume good faith. Bringing up conduct during content discussions can be antagonizing and unproductive. Seek appropriate dispute resolution on the content issue if the discussion becomes unavoidably uncivil. Conduct disputes should be dealt with directly with the other party on their talk page in a civil manner. If the conduct issue still cannot be resolved, seek an uninvolved administrator or an appropriate noticeboard.
4) Long posts risk being misunderstood, if not ignored. They can hinder communication. Detailed posts, when necessary, are generally clearer when points are seperated and organized. Discussions should use basic English, inasmuch as possbile. To be inclusive to all Wikipedians, specific terms or ideas that may not be familiar to all should have links to relevant policies, guidelines, past discussions or essays.
decide if the guideline generally applies to all discussions; it is an invitation to ArbCom to make policy. Given the nature of Bagumba's other comments, it appears to be designed to facilitate the criticism of editors who have served the community by making detailed analysis of complex portals or detailed rebuttals of falsehoods. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Detailed posts, when necessary, are generally clearer when points are seperated and organized.This seemsed to me to be a universal best practice. There is no ban on longs posts. If we all can forget about Portals and Wikipedia for one moment, we all know that TLDR can be a real-life issue. Or look at the long Evidence post with no subsections for individual assertions.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
5) Disagreements can be the result of different perspectives, and are generally not because of ill intent or incompetency. People make mistakes. These can generally be corrected with a civil reminder. Seek dispute resolution when disagreements appear unmanageable.
6) The principles and spirit of policies and guidelines matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.
Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above), Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (
When two editors disagree over what to do with an article, they must talk things through politely and rationally.), Wikipedia:Verifiability (
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.). I don't suggest that portals be exempt from these. An exception for PERFECTION could be argued for portals per WP:IAR, but I have not seen evidence that there is such a consensus.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
7) Using the term "gaming the system" should be done judiciously, as it can be viewed negatively as an accusation of bad-faith editing. Even if bad intent by others seems subjectively clear, one should not cast aspersions about the mentalities or motivations of other editors. These alleged problems should be addressed at the proper noticeboards. Uninvolved parties there can detect bad behavior with consise evidence containing proper diffs. Repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.
1) BrownHairedGirl frequently accuses others of lying during content discussions [13] [14] [15]
2) BrownHairedGirl frequently criticizes others' intelligence esp. in content discussions, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] labels opponents as portalistas [21] [22] [23] and condescendingly refers to editors' "playground" portals [24] [25] @BHG's Evidence
This isn't Classic Wikipedia ... it's Classic Portalista!.[27].— Bagumba ( talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
3) BrownHairedGirl often discusses personal behavior at inappropriate venues. She believes this incivility is misunderstood and exempt because:
... you don't even have the courtesy to acknowledge that I noted two possible [negative] explanations, and you offer no alternative possible explanation.[31]
4) BrownHairedGirl makes a lot of long posts. "Editors who do not wish to engage with the mass of detail of an MFD of a large multi-page portal are free to recuse themselves from the discussion.", she says. [32]
4) Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines had been listed as a guideline since 2008. In 2019, it was tagged for update requests and disputes before being marked as under discussion, which led to its current status as a failed proposal. Discussions have been difficult at MfDs with long discussions, incivility, and accusations of gaming the system.
5) BrownHairedGirl often mixes a good faith comment along with a bad faith attack in the same statement. [35] [36] [37]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) The community shall not create portals nor nominate portals for deletion at MfD for one year. Moratorium can be appealed if a portal guideline becomes approved by the community.
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibitedin this context. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Articles are the raison d'etre for Wikipedia, presenting human knowledge to readers in the form of the encyclopedia. All other namespaces in Wikipedia are incidental to article space, which presents human knowledge to the readers.
encouraging positive editing is an important goal of many subsidiary arenas. Categories, navboxes, exist are all defined on their functional merits rather than as some sort of boost to "positivity". That appears to be a personal view of yours, and it's pity that you present a personal view as some sort of undocumeted community consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle either good-faith content disputes or policy disputes among editors.
Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.
5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account.
In order to maintain the highest quality of content in the encyclopedia, it is necessary to have processes for the deletion of pages from the encyclopedia. Decisions about the deletion of pages must be made deliberately and with collaboration, and with mutual respect for other editors who may have different philosophies about the maintenance and deletion of pages.
war on portals, [39] and those advocating deletion of a portal have been labelled as
deletionists[40]. Some editors repeatedly misrepresented that WP:ENDPORTALS as banning any portal deletion as wrong, creating the WP:BATTLEFIELD atmosphere which led to those of repetaedly smeared by in this way to use terms such as "portals fans" and "portalistas". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Civility may not be compromised even in pursuit of truth. Certain allegations, such as that an editor is lying or that an editor is stupid, should not be made even if they are believed to be true. Editors who repeatedly violate this principle may be sanctioned, because uncivil conduct is contrary to the concept of collaborative work.
In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.
In any area where Wikipedia policies and guidelines are silent, are ambiguous, or are unclear, Use Common Sense is a governing policy.
In any area where Wikipedia policies and guidelines are silent, are ambiguous, or are unclear, the use of common sense should govern.
Wikipedia has forums that focus on article content and forums that focus on editor conduct issues. The discussion of conduct is sometimes necessary and inevitable in content discussions, but should be kept to a minimum, because the purpose of content discussions is to improve the encyclopedia.
Discussions of whether to delete material from Wikipedia pages and spaces should focus on content. While sometimes discussion of conduct is necessary in deletion discussions, it should be kept to a minimum.
Portals are a feature of Wikipedia that are intended to facilitate access to the articles that are the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. The creation, maintenance, and deletion of portals have been contentious and have resulted in conflict among editors.
encourage readers to convert to editors... but my many requests for evidence of this have produced zero evidence. So I conclude that this is just wishful thinking asserted as if it was fact. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
unquantifiable. All but a handful of portals have absymally low pageviews: in 2019, only 60 of the current 494 portals exceeded 100 views per day, and the median was 26 / day. So while we don't know the lower bound, we do know that the upper bound is tiny.
The community has never enacted guidelines concerning portals. Proposed guidelines concerning portals have failed to gain consensus.
motivatingchestnut again; see my comment above [43]).
the portals project as a unified voice. I know there have been various views on some issues, but it was dominated in 2018 by supporters of the automated portalspam, and dominated in in 2019 by angry opponents of deleting even abandoned junk portals. My point however, was that the project never set about building a community consensus on any of these questions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deletion debates, concerning articles, portals, and other types of pages have too often been disrupted by inappropriate conduct, such as personal attacks, battleground editing, gaming the system, and incivility.
In the second half of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, The Transhumanist and other editors created thousands of low-quality portals, in accordance with Wikipedia policy because Wikipedia policy was silent on the subject, but without discussion with the larger Wikipedia community.
here was no policy that was clearly against any of these experiments.
New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. So the whole thing was a pointless waste of time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
In 2019, some editors have identified large numbers of portals that they have proposed for deletion. These portals included but were not limited to those created by The Transhumanist and others. These deletion discussions have been contentious and have resulted in personal attacks and incivility.
The conflict between certain editors over the retention or deletion of portals has been unacceptable.
BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 have personalized the conflict over the deletion of portals to an extent that has been harmful to Wikipedia.
Northamerica1000 has resorted to gaming the system and tendentious editing in order to retain portals, and has sacrificed quality of portals in order to maintain their quantity. Northamerica1000 has personalized disputes with BrownHairedGirl and other editors.
BrownHairedGirl has resorted to incivility amounting to personal attacks on other editors in deletion debates concerning portals, alleging that the other editors are lying, and insulting their intelligence or reading comprehension. BrownHairedGirl has personalized conflicts over portals with Northamerica1000 and other editors.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
ArbCom discretionary sanctions shall be available for all deletion discussions.
A two-way interaction ban is imposed between BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.
... It's mainly a dispute beween two well established editors (one of whom has over 1.5 mio edits) who should be experienced enough to attempt to put aside their mutual animosity and resolve it themselves ...(I'm merely stating a fact, not endorsing one way or another)— Bagumba ( talk) 08:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 is topic-banned from all edits in portal space and all deletion discussions involving portals. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.
The Transhumanist is topic-banned from all edits in portal space. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.
2)
Portals complement main topics in Wikipedia, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics.
2.1) Portals are designed to complement main topics in Wikipedia and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals can also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics.
are designed toor
are intended towould be helpful; more accurate and covers the bases as it's clear from this case that Portals are aspirational. Likewise, I think removing the comma before
and expoundwould be good, as would saying
Portals may also assist.... ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
This is my first time participating in an ArbCom case, so I'll give it a go if it means helping the encyclopedia. I trust the Wikipedia community will find this very fitting. ミラ P 21:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1) The proposal is to restrict portal creation so that no one will misuse them. Several points:
2) The proposed sanctions with respect to BHG and NA1K will be any of the following choices, all of which come with making their bans from editing in portalspace and PfD permanent:
3) Portals will be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.
1) Portals are a long-standing part of Wikipedia. Community consensus has been sought to delete the namespace, but the community has affirmed its support for the existence of portals. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
2) Portals are unusual in being designed to be reader facing, yet to display areas associated with editing, such as WikiProjects. They are not purely navigational aids like categories. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
3) Portals are unusual in directing readers to curated content across a topic area that is interesting, of high or at least moderate quality, and in toto is intended to form a balanced selection suitable for an introduction to the topic area. They are not the same as categories, navigation boxes or outlines, which do not filter content by quality level. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
4) Excluding template-based (and similar) automated portals created after the RfC closure and deleted with community consensus, the number of portals has fallen from ~1500 to just under 500 since ~May 2018. The number of portals that had been reviewed as featured (before the featured process ceased in 2017) has fallen from 172 to 140. This has been as a result of a large number of individual deletion discussions at Miscellany for Deletion. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
5) In the absence of a generally agreed guideline for portals, portal deletion discussions are not underpinned by any generally agreed portal-specific policy. Arguments based in general policies or in application of policies for other namespaces have been disputed. Discussions have often been acrimonious. Deletion discussions have tended to produce eccentric results depending on the participants and the closer. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
6) Deletion of portals based on the multi-subpage model is not like the deletion of articles. Hundreds of subpages need to be deleted, and not even those with permission to view deleted content can form any view of the nature of the original portal after deletion. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
7) The climate at deletion discussions has led some editors to take a break from portal editing or the encyclopedia. Those editors who continue to edit portals have felt discouraged. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
8) The featured portal process was deprecated unilaterally by Bencherlite on 30 March 2017 [45]. This subsequently had a major impact on the hits of some but not all featured portals; see eg [46]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
9) Portals are poorly accessible from the mobile view and thus portal hits (as well as main-page hits) have declined on average as mobile views have increased. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1) Newshunter12 is admonished for their uncivil conduct during this case. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
good faith arguments in favour of keeping portalswas
"fanboys clinging to their playground"? You're putting words in my mouth and creating a quote I never said. Your comment below is all the evidence needed that Wikipedia isn't worth a competent person's time if this ArbCom case ruling can't uphold a need for skill and honesty to be an editor. Once again a portal advocate (or at least that's my impression of you) focuses entirely on tone and feelings, not hard evidence or hard realities. Newshunter12 ( talk) 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1) Limited discretionary sanctions are authorised for discussions of portals as follows: A: Any editor who disrupts a discussion about portals in general or about one or more specific portals may be banned from making any further contributions to that discussion. Where the discussion is about one or more specific portals, or a specific (proposed) policy or guideline such a ban includes making any changes to the portal(s)/(proposed) policy or guideline being discussed before the discussion is formally closed or (for discussions that do not require formal closure, and for which formal closure has not been requested) has received no non-minor edits for seven consecutive days (excluding edits by bots and reverted edits). Such bans must be logged on the talk page of the discussion, or in a separate (sub)section of the discussion if it is taking place on a talk page in addition to the discretionary sanctions log. B: Any editor who disrupts multiple discussions about portals in general or about one or more specific portals may be topic banned from contributing to all, or a specified subset of, discussions about portals for up to 6 months for a first topic ban from some or all portal discussions, and with no limit for a second (or subsequent) or expanded topic ban from portals. Disruption includes, but is not limited to, incivility, harassment, casting aspersions, posting walls of text, repeating accusations already fully responded to or before the editor concerned has had a chance to respond, re-presenting arguments there is prior consensus against, gaming the system or attempting to achieve a goal by means of a fait accompli.
2) The community is encouraged to develop a comprehensive set of policies and/or guidelines for portals.
1) Should any editor breach a type A ban, they may be blocked for a period of up to one week for a first offence, up to 1 month for a second offence and up to 6 months for a third or subsequent offence. 2) Should any editor breach a type B ban, they may be blocked for up to 1 month for a first offence, and up to one year for a second or subsequent offence.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
I was looking at the oft-cited WP:ENDPORTALS RfC ("Should the system of portals be ended?") and found !votes there by NorthAmerican1000 and BrownHairedGirl that were useful to me for perspective. I'm not sure about the timeline on when the conflict between the two started, but it's likely that April 2018 was before or early in the cycle, and doubtfuul either of them knew it would reach this point. From that perspective, it might provide an unfiltered lens to prove or disprove the gaming allegations. !Votes below for convenience, listed chronologically and in full to avoid accusations of misleading (feel free to remove if inappropriate, as the link is still above; diffs possible but a bit harder due to copied comments from main Village pump):
Oppose – This would delete the entire portal namespace, and some portals are viewed fairly often. This would also remove a navigational feature that many readers utilize. Perhaps tag outdated ones as historical instead. Deletion of all portals per some of them being outdated, and subjective reasons such as some users not liking or using them, some thinking they are useless, pointless, etc. equates to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and in the process would throw out thousands of hours of work performed by hundreds of editors in one fell, overarching swoop. It would be quite overly drastic and hasty to mass-delete all of the work that has been performed on portals in such manner. North America1000 04:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. Whatever the theoretical benefits of portals, the reality is that most of them are woefully under-maintained, and v little used. This been the case for years, so all the talk of "keep and improve them" is dreaming: there simply are not enough editors with a sustained interest in doing so, Worse, given the viewing figures, anyone advocating widespread improvement is unintentionally encouraging editors to waste their time. That would actively damage Wikipedia by diverting effort away from actually improving en.wp
I say this with some sadness because I recently spent a day or two making Template talk:YearInCountryPortalBox to automatically add portal links to thousands of country-by-year cats; but as I built it and viewed more portals, I became more and more convinced that my concerns were well-founded.
My ideal solution would be too keep about 20 major portals(art/science/etc plus continents), and delete the rest. But given the unhelpful binary nature of this proposal, I'd prefer outright deletion to either keeping them all or to having 1500 MfD debates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 19:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Following are some quick notes on my review of an ANI case of " Portal updates reverted" in October 2019.
I don't think that our portal structure is generally the product of consensus in the first place. My impression is that editors have more-or-less randomly and independently developed portals, although often by copying existing portals without giving much thought to whether the structure being copied was ideal.[49]
maybe edit 10 or so portals and give it 2 weeks or so and see what happens. Then try another 10-20.They also tell BHG that her edit summaries are also vague e.g.
Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed[51] I note another "sneaky".
if you believe that issues of competence are off-limits, then you should see consensus for that view by nominating WP:CIR deletion. I would be surprised, and deeply saddened, if the community decided that competence was not a relevant attribute in building an encyclopedia, but maybe that's not just your view. But when CIR is deleted, let's talk again.[52]
— Bagumba ( talk) 20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl wrote that the portals project: "Ran a Featured portal process which focused almost entirely on presentation, and almost never even considered the selection of articles. I have found no FP review which examined the portal by a checklist of criteria."
Newshunter12 wrote "The Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as .22historical.22 ended the abandoned playground practice of giving comprehensive endorsements to certain portals, overwhelmingly on aesthetic value only grounds as any reading of the analysis at a FP review discussion will show."
There were agreed featured portal criteria, and many reviewers referred to these in their reviews. They do (on rereading) appear to concentrate on appearance (1b) but 1a, 1c & 1d all touch on content selection. I can only speak for myself, and most of the other frequent reviewers are retired, but in my featured portal reviews I always considered the selection of articles & other content. In general, I don't find filling in checklists (eg reviewing GAs, DYKs) to promote detailed, thoughtful analyses, but I tried to be systematic in my reviews, which often took several hours to complete. It's also worth noting that many successful portals had previously gone through a detailed peer-review process that addressed major flaws, such as content choices.
Looking through the archives, there were some successful featured portal reviews that appear cursory, but others seem to have been more detailed; see eg two of the promotions from Sept 2010: Volcanoes 2, Speculative fiction. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Newshunter12 is listed as a party and has provided evidence. I have been associated with portals on & off since 2007 but have not encountered this editor prior to this case. Their only edits to portals that I can find are 9 edits to 8 deleted portals placing MfD notices. [53]. Nor am I aware of them discussing portals in any of the usual venues. This does not seem to me to be sufficient experience for them to criticise edits to portals from an expert point of view, nor to expound on what might or might not make a portal useful.
Their statement/evidence contains repeated non-neutral wording such as [from statement] "portal advocates/fans", "portal advocates", "shenanigans", "nonsense", "portal fans", "playground" (twice); [from evidence] "hostile takeovers", "playgrounds", "portal advocates", "spam portals", "playground behavior", " playground practice". It also makes generalisations unwarranted in the evidence presented and ascribes motivations to editors, eg [from statement] "Facts, policies, and reality do not matter to this editor.", "They are clearly not in portal space to help build an encyclopedia, they are there to have fun." [from evidence] "they use portal space to have fun".
Some specific points:
[From statement] "At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Monaco, portal advocates Certes and Kusma both respectively 1 and 2 3 displayed incredible cognitive dissonance stating that page views (or lack thereof), a core reason for deleting most of the 1000 abandoned pre-TTH spam portals over the last 7 months, were not a reason to consider deleting a portal. Portals do not have their own content and are useful only for their utility as navigational devices, and how else can a rational person measure this basic utility other then in page views? What mattered most to Certes was that the portal looked good, not that the portal would take nearly five years to get the total number of views the head article gets in a single day, and Kusma displayed the same irrational keep criteria here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Christmas, which ignored the obvious abandonment and decay of the portal. They are clearly not in portal space to help build an encyclopedia, they are there to have fun."
The "low page views merits deletion" notion is not in accordance with any policy of which I'm aware. (I've never, for example, seen it used to delete a category, yet many categories receive low pageviews; eg see [54], a category picked at semi-random from an article I started.) I believe the notion was allowed to pass largely unchallenged in the well-attended MfDs of template-based automated portals because, frankly, almost everyone agreed with their deletion, and didn't want to derail it.
"Portals do not have their own content" is simply incorrect.
[From evidence]: "we have closely collaborated since early August at hundreds of portal MfD's"
"We" refers to BrownHairedGirl and Newshunter12. Collaborating at MfD implies a joint strategy, which I sincerely hope is not correct, and goes against the spirit of independent assessment in deletion discussions.
I have commented on the featured portal process on this page and in my own (brief and ad hoc) evidence. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Per the various allegations over his portal work, I have examined the edits of Northamerica1000 to Portal:Maryland, on the grounds that this is still at MfD and thus visible to everyone.
The original portal was a multi-subpage one, with 6 selected articles and 6 selected bios (no BLPs). The articles excerpted were all either FAs/FLs or B/C class tagged by the Wikiproject as of high or top importance. There were also 6 selected pictures & huge collection of On This Day items. All extracts were taken in November 2007. Many were substantially unchanged since then, but three had been improved by editors/IPs other than the creator. One had been copied complete with "citation needed" notes. The latest news was dated 1 November 2007. The creator states that he is semi-retired, and has also been blocked since 1 February 2018, so is unlikely to return to improve the portal.
Northamerica1000 edited on 1 October 2019 to:
Only one of the articles I checked ( Chicken George (restaurant chain); B class, low importance) did not seem to be entirely suitable as the article is quite short, the topic peripheral and possibly promotional. The C/start class article noted above, Battle of Baltimore, appears to be C class, but has some orange-level tags for sourcing towards the bottom, which should have excluded it.
I also noticed three places where the Lua failed to parse a working link to the article.
Northamerica1000's edit summaries appear appropriately informative and not obviously fallacious. They do not list the individual articles, which are however clearly listed on viewing the portal code, and can easily be made visible by putting the code sections into a page and adding "|showall=" to the options. The portal model he used is the same one I use in my attempt at a fully automated portal dating from July 2018. It might not now be the best currently available, but it was what was being trialled at that time. I see no evidence that Northamerica1000 attempted to hide what content he was adding.
WikiProject Maryland is tagged as "semi-active", although there is some activity on their talk page. Northamerica1000 does not seem to have made any attempt to contact them.
On 12 October 2019 the edits were reverted by BrownHairedGirl, with the edit summary: "Reverted to revision 919061811 by Northamerica1000: Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed (TW))" BrownHairedGirl also made no attempt to engage the Wikiproject, which could be said to have accepted the edits, as no-one there had reverted them in the intervening 11 days.
A little over a month later, the portal was nominated for deletion by Robert McClenon; where he comments: "Examination of the (reverted) efforts to renovate the portal shows that it would have displayed 22 Featured Articles, 30 Good Articles, and 21 selected articles (with no explanation of how the 21 articles were selected). That might have been an improvement, although it should have been discussed. It is very unlikely that any improvement in the portal would increase the viewing rate by a significant factor." but appears to make no attempt to check the 21 articles for appropriateness.
My summary would be that Northamerica1000's actions were entirely reasonable, and could easily have been improved upon further, although it would have been courteous to notify the Wikiproject. BrownHairedGirl's reversion appears suboptimal; the "sneaky" comment appears uncalled for and uncivil. The subsequent MfD is unfortunate, but Robert McClenon is not a party to this case. Espresso Addict ( talk) 09:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
Case clerks: Guerillero ( Talk) & CodeLyoko ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: KrakatoaKatie ( Talk) & Mkdw ( Talk) & Bradv ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia.
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia.
4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Editors, particularly Administrators, should remember there is no deadline, and so should consider moving on, at least temporarily, to other areas of Wikipedia if they find themselves in conflicts that risk escalation, such as to a level that necessitates arbitrator involvement. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute.I see no problem with this principle, and the concerns about essay vs guideline are a non-starter. Lots of essays have the level of consensus of policies: WP:SNOW, WP:BRD, and WP:COMMONSENSE are not marked as policies but clearly have the same level of consensus. — Wug· a·po·des 02:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
2) Wikipedia's deletion policy specifies alternatives to deletion. As these use the terms "page" and "page's," they apply to portals, not just articles. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
3) If an editor reverts a page to an earlier version, and then later nominates the resulting page for deletion based on its content or quality, it can be seen as gaming the system and may appear that the reversion, or the nomination, or both, were not done in good faith. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't find diffs. on this, since I think every portal where this happened was then deleted. But it definitely happened, and editors with access to deleted pages may wish to investigate this further during this case. We may also consider a change to the deletion policy that discourages this in all namespaces. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1) The purpose of editing restrictions - up to the site ban - is to protect Wikipedia. Anyone applying or proposing them should verify that these measures are the best way to solve a problem. However, inaction can be a problem, too.
2)Active adminstrators with severe conduct issues in the recent past are leading other users by bad example, creating a more hostile environment.
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
1) BrownHairedGirl has shown signs of severe uncivil battleground behaviour in portal space, e.g. this, especially in deletion discussions.
1) BrownHairedGirl is desysoped. They may apply to regain adminstrator privileges via a successful request for adminship no earlier than 24 months after this case is closed.
2) User:BrownHairedGirl is restricted to 1 edit per 120 hours to pages related to portals, broadly construed; edits falling under the usual exceptions( WP:BANEX) and answers to questions about these edits that are directly addressed to her should not be counted. Attempts to game the restriction by answering or asking overly broad questions are not acceptable, from anyone.
3) User:BrownHairedGirl is topic banned from pages and sections related to deletion discussions of portals, broadly construed.
4) User:BrownHairedGirl is warned that more incivility will lead to a site ban rather quickly.
1) Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are never acceptable. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g., the other editor's talk page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, etc).— Bagumba ( talk) 18:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
2) Wikipedia is a work in progress, and perfection is not required. Through collaborative work, a page that is incomplete, poorly organized, or not regularly updated can evolve into a high-quality page. If editing can improve a portal, that should be done instead of wholesale deletion of the portal. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup.
WP:BEFORE states If the article can be fixed through normal editing. However, a portal is not an article, so WP:BEFORE is clearly inapplicable.
BrownHairedGirl supported the nominator's deadline rationale: Nobody wats to maintain ether portals[192] I explained that someone fixed it, so "nobody" is incorrect. Bagumba fails to note the distinction between a one-off correction and ongoing maintenance. which I set out clearly in the MFD. Bagumba's choice to omit my responses is highly selective an thoroughly misleading; it presents a skewed view of the discussion. Note for example my reply [6] in which i noted the lack of interest from WikiProjects.
I suspect there is a trend among the MfD nominations to find a few errors then justify the whole portal's deletion, while alluding to the risk of BLP violations lurking and lack of dedicated editors for said portal. If Bagumba actually believed that there was such a trend, they should have sought and presented actual evidence rather thanking arbcom to endorse an untested "suspicion". The reality is that I personally made about 500 MFD nominations, of which the ~400 which dealt with non-autoated portals set out in structured form evidence of problems such as indiscriminate article selection, long-term neglect, narrow scope, low readership, lack maintainers, lack of of interest from related WikiProjects. Many other editors (e.g. Newshunter12) made similarly thorough nominations, but here's a sample of mine:
This appears to refer to Bagumba's evidence ... sadly is replete with falsehoods ... However, a portal is not an article, so WP:BEFORE is clearly inapplicable." You missed where I wrote:
Should portals be different?Per WP:5P5:
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording ...— Bagumba ( talk) 07:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba's choice to omit my responses is highly selective an thoroughly misleadingI had a 500 word limit for my evidence; you had a 1500 word limit for your evidence. We all had 1+ month to prepare our own evidence. Arbcom is entrusted to analyze all evidence and weigh the arguments. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.(h/t UnitedStatesian at #Deletion Policy).— Bagumba ( talk) 16:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that Bagumba's case is based on unevidenced suspicion of malign intent: "I suspect there is a trend ..." If Bagumba actually believed ...suspect v. səˈspekt 1. have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof. Arbcom is capable of combining everyone's evidence and assessing accordingly.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
3) During content disputes, the focus should be on content and not editor conduct. Assume good faith. Bringing up conduct during content discussions can be antagonizing and unproductive. Seek appropriate dispute resolution on the content issue if the discussion becomes unavoidably uncivil. Conduct disputes should be dealt with directly with the other party on their talk page in a civil manner. If the conduct issue still cannot be resolved, seek an uninvolved administrator or an appropriate noticeboard.
4) Long posts risk being misunderstood, if not ignored. They can hinder communication. Detailed posts, when necessary, are generally clearer when points are seperated and organized. Discussions should use basic English, inasmuch as possbile. To be inclusive to all Wikipedians, specific terms or ideas that may not be familiar to all should have links to relevant policies, guidelines, past discussions or essays.
decide if the guideline generally applies to all discussions; it is an invitation to ArbCom to make policy. Given the nature of Bagumba's other comments, it appears to be designed to facilitate the criticism of editors who have served the community by making detailed analysis of complex portals or detailed rebuttals of falsehoods. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Detailed posts, when necessary, are generally clearer when points are seperated and organized.This seemsed to me to be a universal best practice. There is no ban on longs posts. If we all can forget about Portals and Wikipedia for one moment, we all know that TLDR can be a real-life issue. Or look at the long Evidence post with no subsections for individual assertions.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
5) Disagreements can be the result of different perspectives, and are generally not because of ill intent or incompetency. People make mistakes. These can generally be corrected with a civil reminder. Seek dispute resolution when disagreements appear unmanageable.
6) The principles and spirit of policies and guidelines matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.
Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above), Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (
When two editors disagree over what to do with an article, they must talk things through politely and rationally.), Wikipedia:Verifiability (
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.). I don't suggest that portals be exempt from these. An exception for PERFECTION could be argued for portals per WP:IAR, but I have not seen evidence that there is such a consensus.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
7) Using the term "gaming the system" should be done judiciously, as it can be viewed negatively as an accusation of bad-faith editing. Even if bad intent by others seems subjectively clear, one should not cast aspersions about the mentalities or motivations of other editors. These alleged problems should be addressed at the proper noticeboards. Uninvolved parties there can detect bad behavior with consise evidence containing proper diffs. Repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.
1) BrownHairedGirl frequently accuses others of lying during content discussions [13] [14] [15]
2) BrownHairedGirl frequently criticizes others' intelligence esp. in content discussions, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] labels opponents as portalistas [21] [22] [23] and condescendingly refers to editors' "playground" portals [24] [25] @BHG's Evidence
This isn't Classic Wikipedia ... it's Classic Portalista!.[27].— Bagumba ( talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
3) BrownHairedGirl often discusses personal behavior at inappropriate venues. She believes this incivility is misunderstood and exempt because:
... you don't even have the courtesy to acknowledge that I noted two possible [negative] explanations, and you offer no alternative possible explanation.[31]
4) BrownHairedGirl makes a lot of long posts. "Editors who do not wish to engage with the mass of detail of an MFD of a large multi-page portal are free to recuse themselves from the discussion.", she says. [32]
4) Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines had been listed as a guideline since 2008. In 2019, it was tagged for update requests and disputes before being marked as under discussion, which led to its current status as a failed proposal. Discussions have been difficult at MfDs with long discussions, incivility, and accusations of gaming the system.
5) BrownHairedGirl often mixes a good faith comment along with a bad faith attack in the same statement. [35] [36] [37]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) The community shall not create portals nor nominate portals for deletion at MfD for one year. Moratorium can be appealed if a portal guideline becomes approved by the community.
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibitedin this context. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Articles are the raison d'etre for Wikipedia, presenting human knowledge to readers in the form of the encyclopedia. All other namespaces in Wikipedia are incidental to article space, which presents human knowledge to the readers.
encouraging positive editing is an important goal of many subsidiary arenas. Categories, navboxes, exist are all defined on their functional merits rather than as some sort of boost to "positivity". That appears to be a personal view of yours, and it's pity that you present a personal view as some sort of undocumeted community consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle either good-faith content disputes or policy disputes among editors.
Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.
5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account.
In order to maintain the highest quality of content in the encyclopedia, it is necessary to have processes for the deletion of pages from the encyclopedia. Decisions about the deletion of pages must be made deliberately and with collaboration, and with mutual respect for other editors who may have different philosophies about the maintenance and deletion of pages.
war on portals, [39] and those advocating deletion of a portal have been labelled as
deletionists[40]. Some editors repeatedly misrepresented that WP:ENDPORTALS as banning any portal deletion as wrong, creating the WP:BATTLEFIELD atmosphere which led to those of repetaedly smeared by in this way to use terms such as "portals fans" and "portalistas". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Civility may not be compromised even in pursuit of truth. Certain allegations, such as that an editor is lying or that an editor is stupid, should not be made even if they are believed to be true. Editors who repeatedly violate this principle may be sanctioned, because uncivil conduct is contrary to the concept of collaborative work.
In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.
In any area where Wikipedia policies and guidelines are silent, are ambiguous, or are unclear, Use Common Sense is a governing policy.
In any area where Wikipedia policies and guidelines are silent, are ambiguous, or are unclear, the use of common sense should govern.
Wikipedia has forums that focus on article content and forums that focus on editor conduct issues. The discussion of conduct is sometimes necessary and inevitable in content discussions, but should be kept to a minimum, because the purpose of content discussions is to improve the encyclopedia.
Discussions of whether to delete material from Wikipedia pages and spaces should focus on content. While sometimes discussion of conduct is necessary in deletion discussions, it should be kept to a minimum.
Portals are a feature of Wikipedia that are intended to facilitate access to the articles that are the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. The creation, maintenance, and deletion of portals have been contentious and have resulted in conflict among editors.
encourage readers to convert to editors... but my many requests for evidence of this have produced zero evidence. So I conclude that this is just wishful thinking asserted as if it was fact. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
unquantifiable. All but a handful of portals have absymally low pageviews: in 2019, only 60 of the current 494 portals exceeded 100 views per day, and the median was 26 / day. So while we don't know the lower bound, we do know that the upper bound is tiny.
The community has never enacted guidelines concerning portals. Proposed guidelines concerning portals have failed to gain consensus.
motivatingchestnut again; see my comment above [43]).
the portals project as a unified voice. I know there have been various views on some issues, but it was dominated in 2018 by supporters of the automated portalspam, and dominated in in 2019 by angry opponents of deleting even abandoned junk portals. My point however, was that the project never set about building a community consensus on any of these questions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deletion debates, concerning articles, portals, and other types of pages have too often been disrupted by inappropriate conduct, such as personal attacks, battleground editing, gaming the system, and incivility.
In the second half of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, The Transhumanist and other editors created thousands of low-quality portals, in accordance with Wikipedia policy because Wikipedia policy was silent on the subject, but without discussion with the larger Wikipedia community.
here was no policy that was clearly against any of these experiments.
New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. So the whole thing was a pointless waste of time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
In 2019, some editors have identified large numbers of portals that they have proposed for deletion. These portals included but were not limited to those created by The Transhumanist and others. These deletion discussions have been contentious and have resulted in personal attacks and incivility.
The conflict between certain editors over the retention or deletion of portals has been unacceptable.
BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 have personalized the conflict over the deletion of portals to an extent that has been harmful to Wikipedia.
Northamerica1000 has resorted to gaming the system and tendentious editing in order to retain portals, and has sacrificed quality of portals in order to maintain their quantity. Northamerica1000 has personalized disputes with BrownHairedGirl and other editors.
BrownHairedGirl has resorted to incivility amounting to personal attacks on other editors in deletion debates concerning portals, alleging that the other editors are lying, and insulting their intelligence or reading comprehension. BrownHairedGirl has personalized conflicts over portals with Northamerica1000 and other editors.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
ArbCom discretionary sanctions shall be available for all deletion discussions.
A two-way interaction ban is imposed between BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.
... It's mainly a dispute beween two well established editors (one of whom has over 1.5 mio edits) who should be experienced enough to attempt to put aside their mutual animosity and resolve it themselves ...(I'm merely stating a fact, not endorsing one way or another)— Bagumba ( talk) 08:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 is topic-banned from all edits in portal space and all deletion discussions involving portals. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.
The Transhumanist is topic-banned from all edits in portal space. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.
2)
Portals complement main topics in Wikipedia, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics.
2.1) Portals are designed to complement main topics in Wikipedia and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals can also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics.
are designed toor
are intended towould be helpful; more accurate and covers the bases as it's clear from this case that Portals are aspirational. Likewise, I think removing the comma before
and expoundwould be good, as would saying
Portals may also assist.... ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
This is my first time participating in an ArbCom case, so I'll give it a go if it means helping the encyclopedia. I trust the Wikipedia community will find this very fitting. ミラ P 21:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1) The proposal is to restrict portal creation so that no one will misuse them. Several points:
2) The proposed sanctions with respect to BHG and NA1K will be any of the following choices, all of which come with making their bans from editing in portalspace and PfD permanent:
3) Portals will be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.
1) Portals are a long-standing part of Wikipedia. Community consensus has been sought to delete the namespace, but the community has affirmed its support for the existence of portals. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
2) Portals are unusual in being designed to be reader facing, yet to display areas associated with editing, such as WikiProjects. They are not purely navigational aids like categories. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
3) Portals are unusual in directing readers to curated content across a topic area that is interesting, of high or at least moderate quality, and in toto is intended to form a balanced selection suitable for an introduction to the topic area. They are not the same as categories, navigation boxes or outlines, which do not filter content by quality level. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
4) Excluding template-based (and similar) automated portals created after the RfC closure and deleted with community consensus, the number of portals has fallen from ~1500 to just under 500 since ~May 2018. The number of portals that had been reviewed as featured (before the featured process ceased in 2017) has fallen from 172 to 140. This has been as a result of a large number of individual deletion discussions at Miscellany for Deletion. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
5) In the absence of a generally agreed guideline for portals, portal deletion discussions are not underpinned by any generally agreed portal-specific policy. Arguments based in general policies or in application of policies for other namespaces have been disputed. Discussions have often been acrimonious. Deletion discussions have tended to produce eccentric results depending on the participants and the closer. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
6) Deletion of portals based on the multi-subpage model is not like the deletion of articles. Hundreds of subpages need to be deleted, and not even those with permission to view deleted content can form any view of the nature of the original portal after deletion. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
7) The climate at deletion discussions has led some editors to take a break from portal editing or the encyclopedia. Those editors who continue to edit portals have felt discouraged. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
8) The featured portal process was deprecated unilaterally by Bencherlite on 30 March 2017 [45]. This subsequently had a major impact on the hits of some but not all featured portals; see eg [46]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
9) Portals are poorly accessible from the mobile view and thus portal hits (as well as main-page hits) have declined on average as mobile views have increased. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1) Newshunter12 is admonished for their uncivil conduct during this case. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
good faith arguments in favour of keeping portalswas
"fanboys clinging to their playground"? You're putting words in my mouth and creating a quote I never said. Your comment below is all the evidence needed that Wikipedia isn't worth a competent person's time if this ArbCom case ruling can't uphold a need for skill and honesty to be an editor. Once again a portal advocate (or at least that's my impression of you) focuses entirely on tone and feelings, not hard evidence or hard realities. Newshunter12 ( talk) 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1) Limited discretionary sanctions are authorised for discussions of portals as follows: A: Any editor who disrupts a discussion about portals in general or about one or more specific portals may be banned from making any further contributions to that discussion. Where the discussion is about one or more specific portals, or a specific (proposed) policy or guideline such a ban includes making any changes to the portal(s)/(proposed) policy or guideline being discussed before the discussion is formally closed or (for discussions that do not require formal closure, and for which formal closure has not been requested) has received no non-minor edits for seven consecutive days (excluding edits by bots and reverted edits). Such bans must be logged on the talk page of the discussion, or in a separate (sub)section of the discussion if it is taking place on a talk page in addition to the discretionary sanctions log. B: Any editor who disrupts multiple discussions about portals in general or about one or more specific portals may be topic banned from contributing to all, or a specified subset of, discussions about portals for up to 6 months for a first topic ban from some or all portal discussions, and with no limit for a second (or subsequent) or expanded topic ban from portals. Disruption includes, but is not limited to, incivility, harassment, casting aspersions, posting walls of text, repeating accusations already fully responded to or before the editor concerned has had a chance to respond, re-presenting arguments there is prior consensus against, gaming the system or attempting to achieve a goal by means of a fait accompli.
2) The community is encouraged to develop a comprehensive set of policies and/or guidelines for portals.
1) Should any editor breach a type A ban, they may be blocked for a period of up to one week for a first offence, up to 1 month for a second offence and up to 6 months for a third or subsequent offence. 2) Should any editor breach a type B ban, they may be blocked for up to 1 month for a first offence, and up to one year for a second or subsequent offence.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
I was looking at the oft-cited WP:ENDPORTALS RfC ("Should the system of portals be ended?") and found !votes there by NorthAmerican1000 and BrownHairedGirl that were useful to me for perspective. I'm not sure about the timeline on when the conflict between the two started, but it's likely that April 2018 was before or early in the cycle, and doubtfuul either of them knew it would reach this point. From that perspective, it might provide an unfiltered lens to prove or disprove the gaming allegations. !Votes below for convenience, listed chronologically and in full to avoid accusations of misleading (feel free to remove if inappropriate, as the link is still above; diffs possible but a bit harder due to copied comments from main Village pump):
Oppose – This would delete the entire portal namespace, and some portals are viewed fairly often. This would also remove a navigational feature that many readers utilize. Perhaps tag outdated ones as historical instead. Deletion of all portals per some of them being outdated, and subjective reasons such as some users not liking or using them, some thinking they are useless, pointless, etc. equates to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and in the process would throw out thousands of hours of work performed by hundreds of editors in one fell, overarching swoop. It would be quite overly drastic and hasty to mass-delete all of the work that has been performed on portals in such manner. North America1000 04:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. Whatever the theoretical benefits of portals, the reality is that most of them are woefully under-maintained, and v little used. This been the case for years, so all the talk of "keep and improve them" is dreaming: there simply are not enough editors with a sustained interest in doing so, Worse, given the viewing figures, anyone advocating widespread improvement is unintentionally encouraging editors to waste their time. That would actively damage Wikipedia by diverting effort away from actually improving en.wp
I say this with some sadness because I recently spent a day or two making Template talk:YearInCountryPortalBox to automatically add portal links to thousands of country-by-year cats; but as I built it and viewed more portals, I became more and more convinced that my concerns were well-founded.
My ideal solution would be too keep about 20 major portals(art/science/etc plus continents), and delete the rest. But given the unhelpful binary nature of this proposal, I'd prefer outright deletion to either keeping them all or to having 1500 MfD debates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 19:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Following are some quick notes on my review of an ANI case of " Portal updates reverted" in October 2019.
I don't think that our portal structure is generally the product of consensus in the first place. My impression is that editors have more-or-less randomly and independently developed portals, although often by copying existing portals without giving much thought to whether the structure being copied was ideal.[49]
maybe edit 10 or so portals and give it 2 weeks or so and see what happens. Then try another 10-20.They also tell BHG that her edit summaries are also vague e.g.
Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed[51] I note another "sneaky".
if you believe that issues of competence are off-limits, then you should see consensus for that view by nominating WP:CIR deletion. I would be surprised, and deeply saddened, if the community decided that competence was not a relevant attribute in building an encyclopedia, but maybe that's not just your view. But when CIR is deleted, let's talk again.[52]
— Bagumba ( talk) 20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl wrote that the portals project: "Ran a Featured portal process which focused almost entirely on presentation, and almost never even considered the selection of articles. I have found no FP review which examined the portal by a checklist of criteria."
Newshunter12 wrote "The Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as .22historical.22 ended the abandoned playground practice of giving comprehensive endorsements to certain portals, overwhelmingly on aesthetic value only grounds as any reading of the analysis at a FP review discussion will show."
There were agreed featured portal criteria, and many reviewers referred to these in their reviews. They do (on rereading) appear to concentrate on appearance (1b) but 1a, 1c & 1d all touch on content selection. I can only speak for myself, and most of the other frequent reviewers are retired, but in my featured portal reviews I always considered the selection of articles & other content. In general, I don't find filling in checklists (eg reviewing GAs, DYKs) to promote detailed, thoughtful analyses, but I tried to be systematic in my reviews, which often took several hours to complete. It's also worth noting that many successful portals had previously gone through a detailed peer-review process that addressed major flaws, such as content choices.
Looking through the archives, there were some successful featured portal reviews that appear cursory, but others seem to have been more detailed; see eg two of the promotions from Sept 2010: Volcanoes 2, Speculative fiction. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Newshunter12 is listed as a party and has provided evidence. I have been associated with portals on & off since 2007 but have not encountered this editor prior to this case. Their only edits to portals that I can find are 9 edits to 8 deleted portals placing MfD notices. [53]. Nor am I aware of them discussing portals in any of the usual venues. This does not seem to me to be sufficient experience for them to criticise edits to portals from an expert point of view, nor to expound on what might or might not make a portal useful.
Their statement/evidence contains repeated non-neutral wording such as [from statement] "portal advocates/fans", "portal advocates", "shenanigans", "nonsense", "portal fans", "playground" (twice); [from evidence] "hostile takeovers", "playgrounds", "portal advocates", "spam portals", "playground behavior", " playground practice". It also makes generalisations unwarranted in the evidence presented and ascribes motivations to editors, eg [from statement] "Facts, policies, and reality do not matter to this editor.", "They are clearly not in portal space to help build an encyclopedia, they are there to have fun." [from evidence] "they use portal space to have fun".
Some specific points:
[From statement] "At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Monaco, portal advocates Certes and Kusma both respectively 1 and 2 3 displayed incredible cognitive dissonance stating that page views (or lack thereof), a core reason for deleting most of the 1000 abandoned pre-TTH spam portals over the last 7 months, were not a reason to consider deleting a portal. Portals do not have their own content and are useful only for their utility as navigational devices, and how else can a rational person measure this basic utility other then in page views? What mattered most to Certes was that the portal looked good, not that the portal would take nearly five years to get the total number of views the head article gets in a single day, and Kusma displayed the same irrational keep criteria here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Christmas, which ignored the obvious abandonment and decay of the portal. They are clearly not in portal space to help build an encyclopedia, they are there to have fun."
The "low page views merits deletion" notion is not in accordance with any policy of which I'm aware. (I've never, for example, seen it used to delete a category, yet many categories receive low pageviews; eg see [54], a category picked at semi-random from an article I started.) I believe the notion was allowed to pass largely unchallenged in the well-attended MfDs of template-based automated portals because, frankly, almost everyone agreed with their deletion, and didn't want to derail it.
"Portals do not have their own content" is simply incorrect.
[From evidence]: "we have closely collaborated since early August at hundreds of portal MfD's"
"We" refers to BrownHairedGirl and Newshunter12. Collaborating at MfD implies a joint strategy, which I sincerely hope is not correct, and goes against the spirit of independent assessment in deletion discussions.
I have commented on the featured portal process on this page and in my own (brief and ad hoc) evidence. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Per the various allegations over his portal work, I have examined the edits of Northamerica1000 to Portal:Maryland, on the grounds that this is still at MfD and thus visible to everyone.
The original portal was a multi-subpage one, with 6 selected articles and 6 selected bios (no BLPs). The articles excerpted were all either FAs/FLs or B/C class tagged by the Wikiproject as of high or top importance. There were also 6 selected pictures & huge collection of On This Day items. All extracts were taken in November 2007. Many were substantially unchanged since then, but three had been improved by editors/IPs other than the creator. One had been copied complete with "citation needed" notes. The latest news was dated 1 November 2007. The creator states that he is semi-retired, and has also been blocked since 1 February 2018, so is unlikely to return to improve the portal.
Northamerica1000 edited on 1 October 2019 to:
Only one of the articles I checked ( Chicken George (restaurant chain); B class, low importance) did not seem to be entirely suitable as the article is quite short, the topic peripheral and possibly promotional. The C/start class article noted above, Battle of Baltimore, appears to be C class, but has some orange-level tags for sourcing towards the bottom, which should have excluded it.
I also noticed three places where the Lua failed to parse a working link to the article.
Northamerica1000's edit summaries appear appropriately informative and not obviously fallacious. They do not list the individual articles, which are however clearly listed on viewing the portal code, and can easily be made visible by putting the code sections into a page and adding "|showall=" to the options. The portal model he used is the same one I use in my attempt at a fully automated portal dating from July 2018. It might not now be the best currently available, but it was what was being trialled at that time. I see no evidence that Northamerica1000 attempted to hide what content he was adding.
WikiProject Maryland is tagged as "semi-active", although there is some activity on their talk page. Northamerica1000 does not seem to have made any attempt to contact them.
On 12 October 2019 the edits were reverted by BrownHairedGirl, with the edit summary: "Reverted to revision 919061811 by Northamerica1000: Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed (TW))" BrownHairedGirl also made no attempt to engage the Wikiproject, which could be said to have accepted the edits, as no-one there had reverted them in the intervening 11 days.
A little over a month later, the portal was nominated for deletion by Robert McClenon; where he comments: "Examination of the (reverted) efforts to renovate the portal shows that it would have displayed 22 Featured Articles, 30 Good Articles, and 21 selected articles (with no explanation of how the 21 articles were selected). That might have been an improvement, although it should have been discussed. It is very unlikely that any improvement in the portal would increase the viewing rate by a significant factor." but appears to make no attempt to check the 21 articles for appropriateness.
My summary would be that Northamerica1000's actions were entirely reasonable, and could easily have been improved upon further, although it would have been courteous to notify the Wikiproject. BrownHairedGirl's reversion appears suboptimal; the "sneaky" comment appears uncalled for and uncivil. The subsequent MfD is unfortunate, but Robert McClenon is not a party to this case. Espresso Addict ( talk) 09:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)