The Evidence phase for this case has closed. Any further edits to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without further reason. If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page.

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

BrownHairedGirl's allegations of gaslighting

On multiple occasions since the Portals case, BrownHairedGirl has asserted that other editors have engaged in gaslighting. The Wiktionary entry defines "gaslight" as "to manipulate someone such that they doubt their own memory, perceptions of reality, or sanity, typically for malevolent reasons". modified per talk page, 18:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Accused editor	Date	Diff(s)
non-party	March 2020	[1] [2] [3]
non-party	April 2020	[4]
non-party	July 2020	[5]
non-party	August 2020	[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
	August 2021	[11]
non-party	October 2020	[12]
non-party	August 2021	[13]
non-party	November 2021	[14]
non-party	December 2021	[15]
	August 2022	[16] [17]
non-party	April 2022	[18]
Nederlandse Leeuw	July 2023	[19] [20]
Laurel Lodged	July 2023	[21]
Oculi	July 2023	[22]
RevelationDirect	July 2023	[23]
non-party	July 2023	[24]

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

Some ANI discussions involving Laurel Lodged

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

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

BrownHairedGirl often makes accusations of malice

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

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

In that ANI I asked ( 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)) BHG why not bring the accusations of bad faith to ANI and she indicated it was a dysfunctional venue. ( 17:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)) —DIYeditor ( talk) 03:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

BHG quotes the WMF Code of Conduct herself [59] and includes the terms "psychological manipulation" and "malicious" in the definition. I think the use of "vicious" right in this diff and the other adjectives above indicate an understanding that malice is part of the meaning. —DIYeditor ( talk) 22:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Nederlandse Leeuw interaction with BrownHairedGirl at ANI

NL commented ( 22:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)) on BHG's persistent typos at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD which BHG took as mockery and indicated it was due to a broken keyboard ( 01:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)), to which NL responded ( 08:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)) that such an admission invites more mockery, which is insensitive and not CIVIL I think. NL did apologise [60] here in the Arbitration case, however BHG rejected the apology. [61]

NL also commented very extensively on the ANI and was warned by me ( 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)), MJL 05:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)), WaltCip ( 1:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)), and Bastun [62] against BLUDGEONing the process. —DIYeditor ( talk) 17:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) 23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

LL "apology" indicates the provocation of BHG may not stop

LL issued a seemingly backhanded apology [63] indicating BHG's character flaws (e.g. her weakest point - her vanity and pride in her skills) that may lead to LL being unable to stop provoking her. LL frames this as a Christian apology, apparently a core element of which being listing the sins of the person one is apologizing to. —DIYeditor ( talk) 15:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Possible gaslighting at ANI? her problems require more specialist care. —DIYeditor ( talk) 11:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit summary of "brace yourself Bridget" may be directed at BHG. —DIYeditor ( talk) 12:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl engages in battleground and IDHT behaviour

Link to evidence

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

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

BrownHairedGirl not being WP:CIVIL

Evidence previously gathered by:

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

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

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

BrownHairedGirl not recognising the importance of being WP:CIVIL

• Link to evidence (unless otherwise indicated)

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

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

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

• At the Expatriates CfD, after I raised serious WP:CIVIL concerns ( Diff), BHG replied:
  • That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking. The real issue here is [pet peeve], 14:59, 15 June 2023 ( Diff)
• On BHG's talk page, after RevelationDirect raised serious WP:5P4 (civility) concerns ( Diff), BHG replied:
  • How about we avoid the drama boards, and you (...) accept that WP:SMALLCAT really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really does say that is about "potential for growth" rather than current pagecount. 12:34, 30 June 2023 ( Diff)
  • Frankly, I am utterly sick of wasting time on your tedious obsession with so-called "civility issues" while you evade [pet peeve] 10:57, 2 July 2023 ( Diff)
• At the ANI:
  • this [ANI] is an attempt to invoke "civility" to punish criticism of [pet peeve] 09:31, 7 July 2023
  • So yet again, you wholly ignore [pet peeve] 12:53, 7 July 2023
  • You a[nd a] few others want to [ma]ke it about me. (...) I have taken a stand agai[n]st [pet peeve] 13:53, 7 July 2023
  • I don't want anyo[n]e sanctioned. I just want the hounding and the tag-teaming to stop, and [pet peeve] 15:31, 7 July 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example of BHG having productive disagreements with other editors (question from Arbcom)

• Edit: I had posted evidence here of a productive disagreement I had with BHG on 12–13 June 2023 ( Diff), but apparently she has no memory of it ( Diff): My experience of you so far has all been of this SMALLCAT-related dispute. So I'll just retract this evidence. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Analysis of apologies

• Link to evidence

• On 24 July, I made a public apology to BHG over two comments I made ( Diff), but she rejected it ( Diff). At first I really didn't understand, but several days later, I do: BHG steadily prioritises acknowledgement of her own personal interpretation of policies/guidelines being correct over the importance of being WP:CIVIL (which BHG doesn't seem to recognise). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

There is no consensus on how to interpret WP:SMALLCAT

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

BrownHairedGirl has no monopoly on WP:PG interpretation, nor the right to be WP:UNCIVIL if anyone disagrees

Most instances of BrownHairedGirl being WP:UNCIVIL cited in this Evidence section are probably BHG's reaction to someone disagreeing with her own personal interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT. That's how it all started on 22:00 13 June 2023, when BrownHairedGirl called Marcocapelle disingenuous, merely for disagreeing with her interpretation of the phrase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme in WP:SMALLCAT.

BHG claims she's just "upholding" what the WP:SMALLCAT guideline "says". But:

1. It's BHG's own personal interpretation of that guideline.
2. BHG doesn't have a monopoly on interpreting it, or any other WP:PG.
3. BHG is essentially arguing Wikipedia:Because I say so, but rephrasing it as "this is what WP:SMALLCAT actually/literally/really really really etc. says".
4. Disagreement over interpretation is no excuse for BHG being WP:UNCIVIL.

If you read the ANI interaction I had with BHG throughout 7 July carefully, I really tried understanding BHG, patiently taking her concerns and POV seriously. But I was required to agree 100% with her POV. Note that BHG escalated to me over the very same phrase in WP:SMALLCAT. I said: No, I don't disagree that it currently is in the guideline. I disagree that it should be in the guideline just because it currently is in the guideline. It shouldn't... I never said it wasn't there, or should be ignored / not applied. ( Also) I only said it is way too vague, and therefore impossible to adequately apply in practice (emphasised), because it's so open to multiple contradictory interpretations (BHG's POV being just one out of many). This was me calling for WP:PGCHANGE. Yet, BHG seized on this to make things so personal that she upset me.

Admin Fayenatic london, calling himself "an editor you should rightly consider as an ally", reminded BHG of "your history of personalising disputes by calling other editors' competence and good faith into question" ( 1), so "that everybody concerned gets upset" ( 2). This happened to me at 21:02, 7 July 2023, when BHG – after a full day of me trying to understand her side – suddenly made all sorts of personal accusations against me, including outrageous denialism, a hopelessly simplistic approach only tolerated in a weirdly dysfunctioanl uiverse, a very nasty form of bullying, with a strong tint of gaslighting, etc. Why?

Because I disagreed with her own personal interpretation of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline, BHG treated me as an outlaw, against whom all these things may be said, regardless of the Wikipedia:Civility guideline. That upset me. (That's why I lost my WP:COOL, and made two comments I later sincerely apologised for).

Completely uncalled for.

BHG has no right to be WP:UNCIVIL to anyone who merely disagrees with her own personal interpretation. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl not being WP:CIVIL

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

Wiki-disciplinary-related threats

• "If that guideline-flouting is upheld, then a DRV is the appropriate venue to review that." [64]

Lack of AGF

• "…yet another blatantly bad faith nomination by a highly-experienced editor w[sic] persistently refuses to apply te[sic] actual guideline WP:SUBCAT, and who is par[sic] of a tag team.." [65]
• "…when editors tag-team to abuse the CFD process…" [66]
• "There has been a systematic efforts by a tag team (in which Oculi is one of the two main players) to radically misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT…" [67]
• "…a bad faith nom targeting one editor…" and "…supported by a tag team." [68]
• "..you flagrantly disregard...” and “…your decision to misrepresent the guideline…" [69]
• "…it is extremely disruptive to misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT and to abuse it as a weapon to demolish categorisation" [70]
• "… a malicious nomination by a nominator wo[sic] has wholly disregarded the actual wording of WP:SMALLCAT, ignoring bot[sic] the "no potential for growth" headline and the "existing series" clause" [71]
• "…as a demonstration of LL's bad faith, LL made no response to the expansion of the categories…" That one is actually true – I made no reply. This is to the infamous addition of 246 categories in the middle of a nomination. I’m still torn between admiration of the talent that it took to do such a mass nom whilst simultaneous reeling in horror when I think of the mindset that could commit such an act. [72]
• "I don[sic] not believe that you ae[sic] acting in good faith" [73]
• "this is a rushed, vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" [74]
• "That appears to be the aim of LL@s stalking" [75]

Justification for lack of AGF

• "I assume good faith until the assumption becomes untenable…" [76]
• "A good faith editor would at this stage withdraw the nomination, and apologise both the failure to read WP:SMALLCAT…" [77]

Assumed revenge as motive for SmallCat differences

• "It follows a series if[sic] unpleasant and/or hostile encounters with you since I challenged your huge nominations in which you offered no evidence of having done any WP:BEFORE, and where you ignored my calls for it to be provided." [78] Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Consensus at cfd in favour of upmerging/deleting small categories

Some examples of consensus from 2020

Cfd	Date	Nominator	Closer	result	Contributors
[79]	2020 July 17	BHG	MER-C	Delete	MC
[80]	2020 July 17	BHG	FL	Delete most	AL-, Deus-, MC, Euryalus - Contentious
[81]	2020 July 17	BHG	FL	Delete most	AL-, Deus-, MC - Contentious
[82]	2020 August 30	BHG	MER-C	Delete	Wolfgang8741-, MC, Peterkingiron
[83]	2020 July 2	BHG	buidhe	Keep (populated)	Nihonjoe, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle

• AL = AussieLegend, Deus = Deus et lex, BHG = BrownHairedGirl

• "AussieLegend, you did cherrypick the guideline, repeatedly. And you are still at it.
  Now that you have finally chosen to acknowledge the existence of the phrase "realistic potential for growth", you have done a volte-face on your earlier position about there not being enough editors. Since you offer no evidence of any likely influx of editors, there is no realistic hope of expansion, just a faith in magic." BHG (where BHG's argument is based on the word 'realistic')

• "If and when articles are created that make a category viable, the category can be recreated." BHG

• "the practice at CFD for over for the 14 years I have been involved has consistently been to remove such categories unless they meet a minimum size threshold" BHG

• "The principle of not chopping things up into smallcats is long-established and uncontroversial, as is a threshold of about five (some editors advocate a higher number, but less than 5 starts getting silly)." BHG
• "The only frivolous/vexatious actions here is your 8-year-long run of creating categories without trying to populate them." BHG
• "smallcats are an impediment to navigation, which is the primary purpose of categories" BHG

From Jan 2023 to May 23 there was clear consensus at over 142 cfds in favour of upmerging small categories in large schemes to their parents

In the table, all but 2 cfd discussions were upmerged, usually unanimously, and usually without controversy (per precedents, per previous consensus).

Several editors were regular contributors and made consistent comments in support of the 140+ cfds

These include Marcocappelle (all of them), Laurel Lodged (19), Nederlandse Leeuw (13), RevelationDirect (39), Oculi (12), Peterkingiron (12) and Aidan721 (>80 including noms). A complete list (around 40) is Aidan721, Aman Kumar Goel, Bduke, Crowsus, Dan Carkner (o), eruditeScholar, FL, Fram, GiantSnowman, GodzillamanRor, Gonnym, Grutness, Hugo999, Ipigott, JAAqqO, Joseph2302, Kaffet i halsen, Kbdank71, LaundryPizza, Lenticel, LL, Lokys dar Vienas, Mason, MC, Mugtheboss, NL, Oculi, PamD, Paulpat99, Peterkingiron, Place Clichy, QuietHere, RD, S.A. Julio, Scope+creep, Tom Danson, WAS, Wozal.

There were 9 different closers

Closers: ClydeFranklin, Explicit, FL, jc37, LaundryPizza, Pppery, Qwerfjkl, Timrollpickering, WAS.

There were 19 different nominators

Nominators: Aidan721, Bearcat, BHG, Estopedist1, FL, Joseph2302, LaundryPizza, LibStar, Lights and freedom, LL, MC, Monhiroe , Namiba, NL, Oculi, Pbritti, Pelmeen10, QuietHere, WAS

This is not a 'small bunch of editors'.

BrownHairedGirl made a smallcat nomination on 2023 May 26

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

BrownHairedGirl made various statements about the obligations of the nominator on 2023 June 13

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

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

BHG's own nomination (above) suffers from the exact same 'flaws'. A remarkable reversal of views in a few short days. Moreover the word 'realistic' has been dropped from "no realistic potential for growth"; Aussielegend was castigated at length for this ("your decision to repeat the misrepresentation cannot be due to misunderstanding; is clear evidence that your deceit is intentional. Please stop the deception, and adopt the sort of honest conduct which is esential to effective collaboration" - BHG).

There was no tag team

The editors arguing in favour of merging small categories are merely the same editors repeating the views they have expressed consistently at cfd after cfd for months.

BrownHairedGirl has a history of attacking my cfd nominations

A long cfd nomination takes several hours (if not days) to put together and tag all the categories. The last thing a nominator wants (having spent say the last hour tagging the categories and perfecting the wording of the nom) is an immediate multi-pronged WP:This&Thatted oppose.

1. Organisation to organization, 2018 Nov 3 BHG's initial multi-line 'oppose' was based on a misreading of the nomination. Rather than withdraw the 'oppose', BHG decided to take the matter very slowly to RFC on 4 April 2019 where the discussion was predictably bludgeoned, lasted 6 months and was inconclusive.
2. Expatriates A-G (13 June) is not a collaborative oppose, moving on to subsequent goading, and also relies on WP:BEFORE which relates exclusively to articles.
3. Expatriates 2, cfd opened 9 June, unopposed until 18 June.
4. More emigrants - this is the only other major unwelcome intervention I recall by anyone in my nominations, by Laurel Lodged as it happens.

I was not aware of any ongoing difficulties between myself and BHG before June 2023; rather the reverse.

Precedents to the expats/emigrants nominations

• Cited in both noms: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
• Not cited: 8, 9

Nominations at cfd usually rely on previous consensus. None of the above 9 precedents have any actual opposes, other than procedural.

Smallcat at cfd

1. The text of WP:SMALLCAT has been stable since 2007 or so (jc37's evidence here)
2. the interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT at cfd has largely been stable until June 2023

Format of smallcat nominations in 2020

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 2. There are 65 smallcat nominations on the same day, all nominated by BHG. There are 2 versions of the nomination:

1. Rationale 1 "Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these categories for small places in the Mid-Western Regional Council, New South Wales are are tiny, with little chance of expansion. They all currently contain 2 or 3 pages: the head article plus one or two others. I haven't found any other articles to expand the categories. As with many other New South Wales locations, category creation seems to have been a bit indiscriminate. BrownHairedGirl" (used 8 times)
2. Rationale 2 "Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only the eponymous Eugowra and one other article. Both are already well-categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl" (used 57 times)

The string "per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle" appears 13 times on the page. The string "RevelationDirect" appears 12 times on the page. Eg is typical.

Most are nodded through as merge/delete.

This looks to me like a normal day at cfd: the highly-experienced nominator has exerted (at least) due diligence, merge targets are carefully selected, rationale 1 includes a mention of looking for other articles.

But 30 of the Japanese ones were kept; user:Nihonjoe added hundreds of articles in 5 days after which the 30 categories had 291 articles between them. Eg Bungo-ōno, Ōita

Category:Stanton, California was also kept, per user:Namiba; the place has a population of 40,000.

Again, there is nothing unusual about editors populating categories during a cfd smallcat discussion ("populate or delete/merge").

There is nothing unusual about the burden of populating the categories: this is placed firmly on the shoulders of the creators - "Please drop the anger, sarcasm and personal attacks, and put your energies populating the categories the categories which which you created as mostly one-article categories. --BrownHairedGirl", "@Maculosae tegmine lyncis, it is not useful to just mention articles that belong in the category in this discussion. Take your responsibility and actually add these articles to the category. (Which you should have done when you created the category.) Marcocapelle" [84]

Rationale 2 however contains no reference whatever to the 'unless' part of smallcat (again, not unusual).

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 4 has many more: one endorsed by Oculi and there are hundreds more for the next several weeks.

Rationale 3 : "Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 78 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Sydney, New South Wales is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus zero, one or two other pages. In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Sydney (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Sydney (so merger would be wrong). I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages. The size of this nomination (total of 78 categories) seems very high, but it's only about 1/3 of the 219 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Sydney. As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl" [85]

One could argue that with 219 subcats we have an established scheme. One could certainly argue that these, as deletes, do lose information; eg Eastwood railway station would be less precisely categorised if Category:Eastwood, New South Wales had been deleted. Also Category:Eastwood, New South Wales is not an intersection of 2 categories. Category:Costa Rican emigrants to Jamaica is the intersection of Category:Costa Rican emigrants and Category:Immigrants to Jamaica; upmerging loses no information whatever. Certainly the nominator glosses over any need for comprehensive WP:BEFORE - there's too many to check.

So it is quite clear that in 2020:

1. a rationale such as "per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only the eponymous Eugowra and one other article. Both are already well-categorised, so no need to merge" was exemplary;
2. The onus was not on the nominator to assess the possibility of expansion (with existing articles, not to mention articles yet to be written) otherwise the Japanese nominations would have been 'deeply flawed'

What is unusual is the intervention of BHG in Expatriates A-G, which is evidenced by the bewildered reactions of Marcocapelle and RevelationDirect (not to mention Oculi) who believed it to be a routine nomination, the sort that BHG would have supported in 2020.

Moreover Marcocapelle and RevelationDirect, loyal supporters of BFG's noms in 2020, have now become in 2023 part of a 'small bunch of editors' intent upon demolishing valuable tiny categories, as opposed to a reliable team in 2020 led by BHG, intent upon reducing the hindrance to navigation of useless tiny categories that others could not be bothered to populate.

My best guess is that I inadvertently included categories created by BHG (I have no method for easily listing the creators of 400 categories other than one by one): indeed I find after painstaking investigation at least 2, viz Category:Costa Rican emigrants to Jamaica, Category:German emigrants to Malaysia. I can't think offhand why I am precluded from nominating a BHG creation; one would think the discussion would be based on the merits of the category. Oculi ( talk) 19:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

SmallCat early history

• In November 2006, User:Radiant! created the Wikipedia:Overcategorization page, based upon many CfD discussion results - [86]

• In December 2006, Radiant! added the section "No potential for growth" to Wikipedia:Overcategorization - [87]

As can be seen, originally, "No potential for growth" was the title. The title did not use the word "small", until I added it several edits later: [88].

• In August 2007, Radiant! changed the words "two or three" to "a handful" - [89]

• Then "a handful" changed to "a few" (by me), in the next edit - [90]

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

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

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

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

BHG

I will quote someone else though, who I think nailed it pretty well. At time stamp 16:08, 12 July 2023, User:Valereee said:

Oppose topic ban. It's not the topic, it's the incivility. BHG, honestly, I'm seriously asking: why can't you control yourself when interacting with other editors? What is it going to take to get you to comply with CIVILITY? What is it going to take for you to stop fucking talking about other people? What is it going to take to get you to stop using the words vindictive, malicious, stalking, tag-teaming, bad faith, revenge? You are a highly-valued editor. We:re how long it's taking you to find diffs: IMO you should never, ever, ever again talk about another editor's behavior without providing a diff in real time.

Following up on that.

In the discussion here: [91], someone long friendly with BHG attempted to offer some friendly suggestions. (Note that Fayenatic has let others know that they are currently on holiday.)

After that discussion, BHG posted this: [92]

I saw that and posted here: [93]

Fayenatic posted this note to BHG: [94]

BHG responded to me here: [95]

And then to Fayenatic's note here: [96]

Fayenatic later responded to BHG's initial post here: [97]

I later posted in response to BHG's comments here: [98] (edited here [99])

BHG responded to Fayenatic here: [100]

Oculi, then posted a response to BHG: [101]

And the Fayenatic posted a response to BHG: [102]

BHG responded to Fayenatic: [103]

And then BHG's response to me: [104]

I'm providing no analysis, I think the edits/text speak for themselves. I do think the order of what-happened-when is mildly important when looking what each person said. - jc37 00:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

LL

So to find some examples for my comment here, I went through a lot of CfD pages. And in general, LL tends to be civil, and even have fun and joke with other participants (see this for example.

But then I started to see things like this lately ( full discussion). Which I guess isn't "bad" on its own, per se, but in context of other edits and the current situation, seems to be what I called it: "barely-not-quite-pointy behaviour".

So maybe it could just be this battleground situation with BHG that's causing this. I don't know.

Edit: I should probably note, that when looking at diffs for the above, I intentionally was not looking at the CFD threads where LL and BHG were interacting. And so, my comments were based upon that. - jc37 19:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Since an arbitrator asked at the workshop Are there examples of BHG having productive disagreements with other editors?, I present Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Organisation of constituencies, which took place during the same time frame as the ANI thread that spawned this case and seems to involve productive disagreement.

We were asked for evidence of Laurel Lodged ignoring/attempting to wait out disputes, and of BHG having constructive disagreement.

Laurel Lodged edits disruptively/BHG argues constructively

Laurel Lodged first brings up issues from 2016: here in the middle of a long and 'what appears to have been constructive disagreement among several editors, including BHG, causing disruption.

Then when asked at ANI about their own 2016 behavior, LL remarks that surely there’s a statute of limitations: here. Immediately afterward, LL asks for an iban protection from BHG.

Brace yourself, Bridget

" Brace Yourself Bridget" is supposedly the Irish definition of foreplay. It's often extended as "Brace yourself Bridget, this might get rough". It's a joke about marital rape and stereotypes of the Irish that decades ago was part of a comedy act that is no longer considered funny. Using this edit summary in a discussion with an Irish woman is really not okay.

Laurel Lodged refuses to communicate

After their above insertion referring to a 2016 edit, when asked at ANI about their own 2016 behavior, LL remarks that surely there’s a statute of limitations here. After this, LL stops responding to pings to direct questions:

22:41 July 12 stops responding to pings to direct questions at ANI: here and 15:13 July 13 here.

July 14 resumes editing here and

July 15 resumes disputing with BHG elsewhere here.

Same behavior at the case request; I can't figure out how to link to it but the ignored ping to a direct question is in MJL's section. Valereee ( talk) 12:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Deletion discussions are inherently contentious

The topic of deletion should be broadly construed as a contentious topic, per WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2. If editors are saying a proposal constitutes an attempt at deletion, the discussion of that proposal should be included. Valereee ( talk) 13:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Entire 'Apologies' and 'Analysis of Apologies' sections in the workshop are further evidence this whole mess is a contentious topic

I don't even know how to make this a succinct statement. It's just absurd. Valereee ( talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl avoided incivility in a difficult dispute with Timfoley50

Since there was a request for instances of productive disagreements: On 5 July, I closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132 § User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean. (Mostly a procedural close, as Timfoley50 had been blocked by two other admins.) I noted in closing:

[T]he last time I interacted with BrownHairedGirl at AN/I, it was to block her for incivility, and I'm really pleased to see that throughout this rather dramatic affair there haven't been any serious issues of that nature. ... Criticizing someone at length without slipping into incivility can be a challenge for any editor, but was accomplished here.

While BHG's tone grew heated at times, it was within normal limits for AN/I, and came amidst comments from Timfoley like "it's all too easy to hide behind a username to have a pop at someone because you have contemptuous opinion of them and their motives. Why not step out from behind that alias and repeat your accusations". Overall, as indicated in my closing statement, I felt she handled herself reasonably well in a difficult situation. I guess one can dispute whether this counts as a "productive disagreement" given that it ended in another editor's indef, but it seemed worth highlighting. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 04:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Deletion discussions are contentious

I'm not wanting to get too involved as I appreciate BHG's work with categories and haven't been involved recently etc but I would note as someone who has created many categories here and on Commons (and created Commons:Commons:Category inclusion criteria) but I would point out that at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 17 where BHD raised SMALLCAT a number of times yet Mudgeeraba, Queensland has a population of 13,624. Topic categories for settlements probably don't fall under the letter (or even spirit) of SMALLCAT. A place with a population of 13,624 is likely to have several things like buildings, media or similar which could be created for things within the boundaries of the place even if such articles haven't been written yet. The wording "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" and "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." does say categories that can be expanded are acceptable.

A category for "Churches in X" when X is a village or small town with only 1 or 2 churches would IMO pass being deleted under SMALLCAT as unless in the unusual situation lots of new churches were built in X such a category would have no reasonable prospect for growth but a topic category for a village even a small one wouldn't at least pass the letter of SMALLCAT.

While I wouldn't be as reluctant to delete small categories as the letter of SMALLCAT says I would point out that BHG's interpretation of SMALLCAT does seem to be far stricter than it actually is even allowing some leeway. My personal view would normally be to wait until there are enough articles for a category and then create but the wording does seem clear enough that there is no requirement to wait as long as such articles can be written.

There was discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 18#Category:Langley Park, County Durham and then at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 18#Topic categories with set categories about a village and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Category:Cliburn that was deleted in 2011 with having 2 articles but there are now 4 namely Cliburn, Cumbria, Cliburn railway station, Cliburn Moss and Listed buildings in Cliburn, Cumbria. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

A recent block of BHG for allegedly violating a community sanction was swiftly overturned

Wikipedia administrator Paul August blocked BHG at 12:21 on 16 July 2023, citing a community sanction that subjects her to escalating blocks for any violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding civility and personal attacks. A discussion to unblock BHG and overturn the imposition of the community sanction was started at 14:08 on 16 July by Bastun and was closed at 15:10 on 16 July by Courcelles as there being consensus to unblock BHG. Courcelles then unblocked BHG one minute after closing the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

A 12-hour block of BHG in October 2022 was followed by BHG having her talk page access revoked

In October 2022, Tamzin blocked BHG for 12 hours on the basis that BHG had violated the aforementioned community sanction. The discussion that took place that surrounded and led to the block is archived here.

Following Tamzin's block of BHG, GeneralNotability revoked BHG's talkpage access, saying that talk page access while blocked is for appealing the block, not for posting extended diatribes. BHG had posted a commentary on the block on her talk page prior to GeneralNotability's revocation of talk page access, writing that he had identified BHG's talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl makes accusations of bad faith and lack of competence in relation to this case

here BHG makes accusations of bad faith, saying that this case is due to the antics of a small bunch of people who are furious that I insist that the words in a short simple guideline means what it say and that that there is an almighty drama of out of context quotation etc going on to blacken my name again.

In response to it being suggested that the case is about your history of personalising disputes by calling other editors' competence and good faith into question, when you could instead have just written about the facts and merits of the case she continues the incivility by replying the facts and merits of this case are that a bunch of editors have wholly misrepresented a simple guideline, and have persisted in doing so long after their error has been pointed out to them. That is inherently a competence and good faith question. JaggedHamster ( talk) 09:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

BHG has now made an additional accusation of bad faith and lack of competence in the same section: in this case a small group of editors has repeatedly insisted that black is white, on a very simple matter. That is a competence and good faith question which needs to be resolved. In this case, some of that group have engaged in retaliation against me, vengefully trying to destroy my work. I have tons of evidence of this, and it would be helpful if you would withhold judgement until you have seen the evidence. JaggedHamster ( talk) 07:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks to DanCherek for presenting some of the relevant info on LL. Saves me some time. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

LL hides previous comments in violation of WP:TALK#REPLIED

After 2 of LL's initial comments recieved pushback from Nederlandse Leeuw, he chose to rewrite his comments to hide his initial response despite violating WP:TALK#REPLIED. This made it harder for other parties to see his misconduct. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Black Kite then told LL to disengage from AN/I for being uncivil. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Previous LL misconduct

Xenophobic remarks towards The Banner

On 18 March 2021, LL copy-edited Corofin (parish) using the edit summary Grammar improvements. Replace Germano-English with Hiberno-English. This is because LL was acting like The Banner (who wrote the article) couldn't speak proper Hiberno-English since he wasn't born in Ireland (he's Dutch). He explicitly admitted that was what he was doing as just some mischievous humour.

The Banner is the user would later call his favourite stalker (without evidence) for the record.

Child recruitment ring accusations

In February 2022, LL claims (without evidence) a user is involved in some scheme by adults who ought to know better which recruits children to engage in Azeri-POV pushing. After I reported him for it, he first responds that it's fair comment.

In his apology... I'll just post a quote: I admit that I got very emotional in my contributions to the two requests from Az editors for unblocking. Although both [users] showed apparent bad behaviour, the language that I used to highlight that bad behaviour could have been softer. I apologise for the intemperate language used. I should have let the facts speak for themselves.

Misgenders me

In the same report, LL misgenders me. I wouldn't bother pointing this out, but it was an odd circumstance. LL went through my Azeri Wikipedia user page (linked to at the bottom of my English one), but claims he didn't see my pronouns listed at the top of my English user page.

I asked him to apologize for the above, but he refused. He claimed he uses he/him for everyone including for women and explained he would not make further comment about the matter. I pinged him but received no response. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Islamophobia

In 2022, in response to a muslim editor's topic ban appeal, LL said this: ...So he has been a good boy on unrelated topics; I remain unimpressed - even the pagans do as much. His rehabilitation.... When this was rightfully called out by Fram, LL deflected and ignored the concerns. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

LL and categories

Categories make up 23.9% ( archived link) of LL's contributions.

2011 blocks and before

In 2011, LL was blocked twice for manually emptying categories out of process. Ironically, the second blocking admin was BHG.

He had already been warned about this. First, in September 2010 for unilaterally creating and populating a set of North and South Tipperary categories and attempting to delete the original. Notably, he was also warned by the likes of Oculi regarding an unrelated category issue.

topic ban and violation

January 2013, TheBanner reports Brocach for an edit war with LL over categories. The report is incredibly favourable towards LL. Still, LL also recieved a final warning from Kim Dent-Brown; though no formal topic bans were imposed.

This changed in June that year with a new report. There, LL claimed: That there is a claque of irredentist editors (excepting Banner) with a misty-eyed vision of a 32-county state who wish to pursue an " A Nation Once Again" agenda through wiki, is no reason for me to admit that facts are not facts. Kim Dent-Brown ultimately closed it in favor of a topic ban; he elaborated: What was decisive was the near-unanimous consensus against [LL] and [his] inability or unwillingness to accommodate it.

He violated his topic ban a few months later and received a warning.

Fram's report

In 2021, Fram reported LL for emptying categories out of process.

I need to highlight one of LL's responses though: Even Mr. Chauvin was permitted to enter a defense. Here, he compares himself to Derek Chauvin which had the immediate effect of derailing the thread.

Ymblanter even stated he was prepared to apply a long term block after just one edit against consensus. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm very hesitantly participating here because I have a strong distaste for Wiki-lawyering and all the Byzantine processes. Though, I would've happily participated in the ANI had I known about it before it closed, since I'm at least a bit more familiar with that process.

In the past, I haven't had much fun interacting with BrownHairedGirl. The scope creep here has me a bit vague about what the issue realll^llly is, I hope that one of the things that comes from this action is an improvement in BrownHairedGirl congeniality, empathy, and cooperation. Maybe, in the future, they can influence editors through hope rather than intimidation. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I've goofed up my diffs. They're corrected below, now. If I find again the third one I'll post it. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 16:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I figured out that I was using {{ diff2}} when I should've used {{ diff}}, so I've cleaned things up and they make sense. Oddly, my bogus invocations of {{ diff2}} didn't make an error message and sort-of worked. Now, I have to think that any time I'ver ever used these templates I had them the wrong way around. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 03:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl is not particularly WP:CIVIL by making accusations of malice or incompetence

Here's what I'm thinking of: one, two, three, three . Not much, I know -- but I don't feel a deeper search would be a good investment. But please do note that one of those interactions occurred while the related ANI and this very ArbCom were active.

Let's call this one four.

BrownHairedGirl engages in bludgeoning and does not respect consensus when it is against her

I will be relying on one particular episode here, which is BHG's response to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/From the Signpost team. Engaging in a crusade against what she falsely considered a NPOV breach (NPOV is for articles, not project-space), after objecting in the comments, BHG promptly tried to get the article deleted and the Signpost editors sanctioned. In the same span of less than a day, she first started a MfD which was SNOW closed against her, immediately escalated to DRV where the closure was overwhelmingly endorsed, and also went to ANI, which was closed without action. BHG commented 25 times at ANI, 19 times at the DRV, and another 41 times at this thread at VPM. The VPM thread in particular speaks for itself and I encourage the committee to examine her comments there; there's far too many for me to just list them in my evidence here. What I will say is they overwhelmingly show a battleground mentality and a complete and total unwillingness to understand or acknowledge that community consensus was strongly against her position, doubling, tripling, quadrupling down in the face of overwhelming opposition. BHG has shown zero remorse for her actions, stating "For the record, I stand by my judgement on this matter." at ANI. BHG was never blocked or sanctioned for this behavior. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl Repeatedly Claims Other Editors are Involved in WP:TAGTEAM Meatpuppetry at CFD

1. ... “the nominator and their tag team pals” ... ( Diff)
2. "No it is not a 'difference of opinion'. There has been a systematic efforts by a tag team (in which Oculi is one of the two main players) to radically misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT and to use that misrepresented guideline vindictively. ... If you really want to lower the temperature then stop pouring petrol on fires and stop enabling the tag team and stop being an attack dog for the tag team." ( Diff)
3. "... This is yet another blatantly bad faith nomination by a highly-experienced editor ... who is par[t] of a tag team overtly targeting my work i[n] revenge for my opposing some of his nominations. ..." ( Diff)
4. "when editors tag-team to abuse the CFD process by systematically misrepresenting guidelines and vindictively targeting the work of other editors, then it is important that this info is presented to the CFD discussion. In 17 years at CFD, I have never before seen anything remotely like this." ( Diff)
5. "The recent malicious tag-teaming. … It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to repeatedly endorse the antics of a bad faith tag team, as you have done. It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to repeatedly reproach the targets of a bad faith tag team for objecting to the tag team's antics. It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to attack them for impeding the efforts of a malicious tag team." … ( Diff, 3/4 down)
6. … “That misuse not only continued after being repeatedly challenged, but was weaponised by a tag team” … ( CDlink)
7. … “In revenge for my challenges to their abuses, LL & Oculi have been tag-teaming to vindictively attack my own categorisation work.” … ( CDlink)
8. … “I just want the hounding and the tag-teaming to stop.” … ( CDlink)
9. “I hoped that the tag team coud be persuaded to desist without the drama of a case discussion. Note tag this tag team engaged in little direct canvassing. They just followed each other around, targeting me.” ( CDlink)
10. … “I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.” … ( Diff, near the top)
11. … “We have an environmnent where falsifiers thrive and lead lynch mobs.” ( Diff, ending)
12. Addendum from Workshop Page: … "My direct challenges to those abuses brought a prompt end to the tag-teaming and to the vindictive, SMALLCAT-defying nominations." ( Diff)

BrownHairedGirl Repeatedly Promises to Provide Diffs to Support Claims of WP:TAGTEAM Meatpuppetry

1. “I agree that my claims of vindictive, disruptive bad-faith tag-teaming are strong claims, which require evidence. The collation of that evidence is a big job, and as I noted below I will present it later, when I have collated it. But I stand my assertion.” ( CDlink)
2. ... "That group have engaged in retaliation against me, vengefully trying to destroy my work. I have tons of evidence of this, and it would be helpful if you would withhold judgement until you have seen the evidence." ( Diff)
3. ... "And yes, I can produce evidence of the tag-teaming, which I will do if this as to be take to WP:DRV." ( Diff)
4. “I stand by my comments. It will take me several hours to collect all the evidence, but I will make a full response when I have do[n]e so.” … ( CDlink)
5. … “The new develoment has been LL's vindictive tag-teaming with Oculi, on which I am collecting diffs. That tag-teaming is a massive escalation.” ( CDlink)
6. … “I have to go out now, but when I return I will begin work on diff-farming to show both the extraordinary pattern of abuse of WP:SMALLCAT, and the way that LL and Oculi have been tag-teami[n]g in revenege for my challenges.” ( CDlink)
7. … “My diff-farming is more time-consuing than I had hoped, and it may now not be until tomorrow that I post the evidence.” ( CDlink)

Diffs to Support Claims of WP:TAGTEAM Meatpuppetry Have Yet To Arrive from BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl was encouraged to provide thos Diffs here and here.

1. [No Diffs to show]

After this ArbComm Opened, BrownHairedGirl Claims that Providing Diffs is Counterproductive

1. … “Editors who devote their time and energy on the wholly unproductive exercise of diff-farming and the vicious, poisonous game of quoting out of context which opened both the ANI and the RFAR.” ( Diff)
2. ... "There is an almighty drama of out of context quotation etc going on to blacken my name again." ... ( Diff)

I encourage reviewing the 7 sources for my Diffs to ensure proper context: 4 CFDs from June/July ( 1, 2, 3, 4), 2 Talk Pages ( 5 6), and ANI ( 7). A couple Diffs were later added from the Workshop page ( 8).

BrownHairedGirl Repeatedly Does not Assume Good Faith or Competency More Generally for CFD

1. “Oculi writes a pile of blatant falsehoods” … ( CDlink)
2. … “they continue after multiple corrections so that there is no posisbility whatsoever of the misrepresentations being good faith errors or oversights.” … ( CDlink)
3. … “When a nomination in made in clear bad faith, the closer needs to see that assertion in the main discussion.” ( CDlink)
4. "Aaaargh!This is not a matter of a 'different view'" [Emphasis in original] ( CDlink)
5. … “In over 40 years of adult life, much of it spent working on the edges of the dark and dirty world of politics, I thought I had witnessed far too much horrible behaviour. But have never before had such a close encounter with a concerted effort to invert reality” … ( CDlink)
6. ... "NL's logic reminds me of the Stalinist show trials. OMG! BHG uholds consensus!!! Mock her! Insult her! BAN HER" [Emphasis in original] ( CDlink)
7. … "Frankly, I am utterly sick of wasting time on your tedious obsession with so-called 'civility issues' while you evade the two issues of substance. That is a completely destructive approach, which is guaranteed to rig the discussion against anyone who objects to substantive misconduct, and to favor the miscreants." ... ( Diff, beginning)
8. BrownHairedGirl wrote a parable about me where I was a corrupt police officer ignoring violence against her. ( Same Diff, dialogue)
9. … “If there is the slightest whiff of any more attempts by you to weaponise WP:5P4 as you have dome above, then you will be permanently barred from my talk [page]." ( Same Diff, bottom)
10. ... "This is another vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination"... ( Diff)
11. ... "this is a rushed, vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" ... ( Diff)
12. "I don not believe that you a[r]e acting in good faith"... ( Diff)
13. … “you chose to act like someone of bad faith.” … ( CDlink)
14. ... "this vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" ... ( Diff)
15. ... "your sloppy, no- WP:BEFORE vindictive nomination." ... ( Diff)
16. ... "categorisation work is made unreasonably difficult. That appears to be the aim of LL@s stalking." ... ( Diff)
17. ... "it is quite invidious to propose to demolish my work"... ( Diff)
18. ... "it is extremely disruptive to misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT and to abuse it as a weapon to demolish categorisation" ... ( Diff)
19. ... "I will not accept the use of a malicious and unresearched CFD as a weapon to bully me" ... ( Diff)
20. ... "The problem here is is simply that this a malicious nomination" ... ( Diff)
21. ... "In my 17 years at CFD I have never before seen a nomination like his one: a bad faith nom targeting one editor" ... ( Diff)
22. ... "Your choice ... does not in any way suggest good faith" ... ( Diff)
23. "Utter nonsense. ... It's blindingly obvious that you are pontificating away with great certainty about how to do a task which you have never actually done." ... ( Diff)
24. "Utter nonsense, Marcocapelle." … ( Diff)
25. "That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking. When it comes the treatment of other editors, the real issue here is the attempt to demolish the categorisation work" ... ( Diff)
26. "Ah Marcocapelle, that's disingenuous." ... ( Diff)
27. ... "Please end the disruption by promptly withdrawing this nomination." ( Diff)
28. "I assume good faith until the assumption becomes untenable, as it has here." ... ( Diff)
29. "A goo[d] faith editor would at this stage withdraw the nomination, an[d] apologise" ... ( Diff)
30. Addendum from Workshop Page: ..."I see no way to avoid the conclusion that either you are not competent, or you are not acting in good faith." … ( Diff)

Note: Based on the context Beccaynr's and Valereee's provided, I'm striking two Diffs that were directed specifically at Laurel Lodged as an editor.- RevelationDirect ( talk) 05:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Engaging in a Substantive Discussion of SMALLCAT Did Not Stop the Incivility by BrownHairedGirl

Both myself and BrownHairedGirl grew frustrated by talking past each favoring discussions of civility and WP:SMALLCAT, respectively. Or, to put it more colorfully “ALL the scrutiny is placed on the complainant's wording, while the miscreant goes unreproached.” ( Diff, middle)

But, when we engaged in exactly that type of substantive discussion right here, there was some constructive dialogue but the incivility persisted:

1. ... "I am not obliged to sustain an assmption of good faith when someone repeatedly asserts that black is white." ( CDlink)
2. … “repeatedly winding up other editors by denying reality “ … ( Diff)
3. … “You make a balatantly false asertion here that our positions are similar. That sort of warping of history to paint me in a bad light is the complete opposite of WP:civility's requirement to ‘consideration and respect’” … ( CDlink)

CFD is Not Usually Contentious Beyond a Couple Editors

Readers of this ArbComm case might be forgiven for thinking that Categories For Discussion is interesting. It's pretty tame though:

1. BrownHairedGirl nominated a category I created and I supported deletion.
2. BrownHairedGirl supported my nom
3. LL supported BrownHasiredGirl’s nomination
4. Oculi nominated categories BrownhairedGirl created without objection.
5. BrownHairedGirl closed this nomination of mine.

WP:SMALLCAT is especially low stakes since I have no objection to recreating categories that exceed growth expectations.

Note: Based on the evidence provided by Beccaynr and Valereee, I updated this section header.- RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

A Prior Community Restriction for BrownHairedGirl Did Not Prevent Any of the Incivility Above

BrownHairedGirl was already under community restriction for incivility but that did not prevent or stop the incivility above:

1. Block log

I have never before (I think) presented evidence to an ArbCom case, so apologise in advance if there are rules or conventions I fail to follow. I had seen this case, drafted some evidence, but left it aside as I was unsure whether it was appropriate. I have today read BHG's statement on her talk page, but not yet read her draft evidence page linked from it, so am submitting this evidence uninfluenced by her draft evidence except insofar as she reminds us that this case is about a dispute over SMALLCAT.

As context, I have always found BHG an enthusiastic and collegial fellow-editor, though sometimes impatient with those who are unwilling to learn. I don't know her as a person but believe we have some things in common: long-established editors, female, from east of the Atlantic, and (probably) well above the much-cited average age of Wikipedians, and with a passion for accuracy, grammatical English, and connecting the encyclopedia - categories, redirects, dab pages etc. Because she edits vast numbers of pages in her major, useful, projects, she crops up on a lot of people's watchlists and, sadly, irritates some of those editors, leading to interactions which can escalate unconstructively.

Smallcat appears to be being misinterpreted

WP:SMALLCAT previously redirected to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth, and this section was split on 17 July 2023 to form Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth. The title is significant.

A group of categories were nominated for deletion/merging on 25 June 2023, on the grounds that "Per WP:SmallCat since each of these has less than 4 members."

SMALLCAT makes no mention of any numeric limit, and the only categories it deprecates ("Avoid ...") are those which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" (its examples include Category:Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor), and even then it makes exceptions for categories which are "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". The second, clarificatory, paragraph goes on to point out "a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time."

The categories being proposed for merging in that CfD were a group of cats relating to Northern Ireland, such as Category:Geneticists from Northern Ireland. Clearly, this is not a category which "will never have more than a few members": it is open-ended, and we can assume that there will be future notable geneticists from Northern Ireland. It has "potential for growth".

But even if, implausibly, the study of genetics in the country had ceased so that the group was not going to expand, it is part of a large accepted sub-categorization scheme: it sits alongside Category:English geneticists, Category:Scottish geneticists, and Category:Welsh geneticists as child categories of Category:British geneticists, itself a child of Category:Geneticists by nationality.

Thus SMALLCAT provides no basis on which to nominate this and similar categories for merging/deletion. I contributed to the CfD discussion on 25 June, before things started to escalate, to oppose the merger of those categories which were clearly part of existing hierarchies (basically, those where there were already English, Scottish and/or Welsh parallel categories) and said I was neutral about the others where there might be other factors to consider.

The misinterpretation of SMALLCAT is a key part of the context of this case. Pam D 14:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Grown practice

I have blanked all previous content in order to address a point of view on WP:SMALLCAT that has not been discussed before.

The practice to nominate categories per WP:SMALLCAT without (explicitly) discussing the potential for growth and focusing on the currently available articles exists for many years, and I probably contributed to that development myself.

For example here [105] I nominated Category:World Day for Prayer without explicitly considering that perhaps some day in the future different articles for every year might emerge. This is a nomination of no less than five years ago and two completely different editors than the editors who are now involved in this ARBCOM case supported the nomination, while none objected. The discussion was closed as delete [106].

Guideline vs grown practice

The WP:OCAT guideline in general, and WP:SMALLCAT in particular, focus on completely and permanently undesirable categories and have therefore very strict thresholds.

The practice that I was talking about before is not based on WP:SMALLCAT but until very recently I always imagined that it was sufficiently in the spirit of WP:SMALLCAT. Now I have come to realize that the beforementioned practice is very different from WP:SMALLCAT in two very important aspects:

1. It is not about completely and permanently undesirable categories. As RevelationDirect often adds, there is no objection to recreate the nominated category in a later stage. Occasionally I add this too and I think this is good practice.
2. It is generally not about deletion, but about merger to parent categories, i.e. without loss of data. So the effect is far less harmful.

In other words, we developed a new and very different criterion without realizing it was new and different. And with "we" I mean most regular contributors at WP:CFD.

Now I don't think there is an objection to developing new criteria per se. The unfortunate thing here is - and I can only speak for myself now - that I wasn't sufficiently aware that it was new. I guess nobody was. In retrospect we should have laid down something about this grown practice, but that just has not happened.

I also - still - think that it is not bad practice, which I may elaborate on at another occasion, but in retrospect my references to WP:SMALLCAT in CfD discussions were often inaccurate.

As more of a side note I also want to mention that "realistic potential for growth" in WP:SMALLCAT is very subjective. The guideline itself gives three examples of which the third however is very questionable. Why would Category:Schools in Elmira, New York have no realistic potential for growth? The place can grow in size, and/or it can acquire a concentration of schools for some reason or another. So how should we objectively determine whether there is realistic potential for growth, and how much growth/how fast growth is required? Again, this is just a side note, because it has to do with WP:SMALLCAT itself, not with the grown practice.

State funerals RM

At Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022, a multiple article RM she initiated, BHG bludgeoned the discussion (the discussion needs to be seen as a whole for context) to the extent the closer noted she was responsible for 62% of the text on this page. Please consider that such "domination of the speaker's platform" in future requested move discussions may be considered a civility violation.. This is despite being advised by, at least, Davethorpe (multiple times) and Mr Serjeant Buzfuz explicitly, and H. Carver, Matilda Maniac and Bearcat (without using the word) that she was (giving the impression of) bludgeoning. Her first (I think) response was to deny it had any relevance because it is not a policy: As to policy: WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, not a guideline, let alone a policy. It has no standing.. The thread starting at 23:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC) and continues until 18:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC) is a good example of BHG not differentiating between "interpretations of policy different to mine" and "lack of understanding of policy".

In the same discussion other editors comment on BHG's edits thus:

• some of your responses here come across as unnecessarily antagonistic. [107]
• rapidly repl[ying] to posts that Oppose with statements implying ignorance, or now flagrant defiance [...] you are coming across as wielding a large weapon to immediately shoot down views contrarian to you own, instead of perhaps reading and absorbing [...] A cycle of Oppose / Shoot / Oppose / Shoot / Support / Support / Oppose / Shoot, with comments such as ". . . all your non-policy ideas are simply a waste of your time and everyone else's time" is far from constructive debate from such a senior editor. [108]
• Well, I'm not playing the "I take ownership of your strawman or else the communication breakdown is my fault" game either. [emphasis in original] [109]
• And I'm asking you to explain why, out of the literally dozens of people who've expressed opposition to your proposal, you opted to single me out as if I were somehow uniquely deserving of a troutslap. And this is not the first time you've opted to single me out for special criticism as if I were some special kind of stupid who needed some special kind of badgering reeducation, either — so I really think I deserve to know why you go straight to "attack Bearcat while leaving other people who agree with him alone" every damn time we find ourselves on the opposite side of anything. [emphasis in original] [110]
• This feels unnecessarily aggressive, I think it would be worth revising this to include your disagreements with Bearcat's points without the broader attacks on Bearcat themself, particularly given the editing restriction at WP:EDRC "Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks [...] [111]

After UtherSRG closed the discussion as "not moved" BHG quickly went to their talk page, and left multiple badgering comments reiterating her interpretation, until UtherSRG reopened it. [ Permalink to section].

BRFA for BHGbot9

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9 was declined with the reasoning There is a lots of potential for good bot work to be done here, but this task cannot be approved as is. This come from both from the lack of demonstrated consensus for a bot to remove valid {{ Cleanup bare URLs}}, to the lack of willingness of the operator to limit the scope of the bot to obviously non-controversial edits (over several months of the BRFA being open), and the general WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on display here. [...]. (No specific diffs because it's most helpful to read the whole discussion in context). Thryduulf ( talk) 23:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It was pointed out on my talk page that while rejection was clearly the consensus of all BAG members who commented, the specific wording including the characterisation of "battleground mentality", was written by Headbomb who was heavily involved in the discussion and thus not neutral. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Laurel Lodged, Marcocapelle, and Oculi conduct toward BrownHairedGirl (and "brace yourself Bridget" incident)

• On 19 June 2023, during a CfD, Laurel Lodged (LL) uses the phrase "brace yourself Bridget" in an edit summary for a comment including, "It's my anointed role in Wiki to make BHG sigh" and "Brace yourselves for more sighing and possibly worse." [112]; BHG's reply includes "Sigh." and describing part of LL's comment as "irrelevant hot air maliciously false allegations, and is explicit about their desire to troll me." [113]; on 20 June, Marcocapelle replies to BHG, "The latter is an unfair assessment, imho. LL tries to keep some humour in this discussion and you take it far too seriously." [114]; on 20 June, Oculi replies beneath Marcocapelle's comment, "Seconded." [115]; BHG then replies to Marcocapelle, including "it's fine to be humorous, so long as it's done without trying to denigrate the person to whom you are replying." [116]; Marcocapelle disagrees LL "denigrates", says LL is now and generally civil, and tells BHG, "You'd better do the same." [117]; after BHG's reply [118], TadejM comments, including, "Please note that assuming good faith is still the expected behaviour and that accusing other people of being too sensitive is at least uncivil." [119] with the edit summary, "admin's comment re behaviour".

Laurel Lodged statement on his conduct toward BrownHairedGirl

• On 30 July 2023, LL comments in the Workshop with the heading "Apology from Laurel_Lodged to BHG"; LL refers to BHG as having "feelings that my actions have hurt"; mentions "baiting — probably mutual baiting"; "be[ing] sarcastic and [using] mockery to undermine her arguments"; "ridiculed her insights and skills"; "written to touch on what I knew to be her weakest point - her vanity and pride in her skills"; "what I wrote was inaccurate or not really worked out"; "I knew in advance that the barb would drive home"; "I promise to not offend in this way again [...] in the sad self-awareness that I may be unable to resist future provocations". [120]

Laurel Lodged in a discussion about individual vs. community standards of conduct

• On 28 July 2023, as part of a comment in the Workshop section "Analysis of evidence posted by User:Valereee", Valereee states, "Assuming maleness is not okay. It doesn't help our goals" in response to a prior statement by LL [121]; LL posts a response [122]; MJL replies to LL [123].

BHG behaves incivilly and assumes bad faith (Category:Political prisoners)

I'd just like to look at a single discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 4#Category:Political prisoners. BHG made twenty-nine comments in this discussion. They include (again, just in this single DRV involving a single category) the following:

• This blatant misrepresentation of the close is disruptive ( [124])
• That is thoroughly disingenuous ( [125])
• Your choice to label it as a straw man displays a deep contempt for facts which do not suit your agenda ( [126])
• I am alarmed by your obstinate and aggressive rejection of those two simple points of fact, because that degree of denialism seems to me to be explicable in one of only two ways: a) that your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand that the central dividing issue of a dispute is a POV issue; b) that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. Which is it, [non-party]? ( [127])
• More disingenuousness ( [128])
• There are plenty of sources in the articles, which could read if you were interested in the facts....you are using a series of evasion tactics to avoid answering the question of hpow that decision can be made in a NPOV way when opinion is clearly divided between major camps, and you have repeatedly misreprsented the balance of opinion on such cases as one of mainstream views versus fringe. You are pushing a POV, and denying reality ( [129])
• You advocate throwing NPOV out of the window, and asserting as unqualified fact the POV of one side ( [130])
• you are back playing your old switch-and-evade game, and using your usual sleazy, gaslighting technique of bogus allegations. I am not going to play your game....For whatever reason, you are engaged in a bizarre form of historical denialism in which you use a succession of WP:GAMINing techniques to deny the well-documented facts that there are many high-profile cases where a dispute over political status was central to their notability. The only Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT here is your sustained and disgustingly ill-mannered attempts to deny that reality. ( [131])
• More nonsense...your claim...is based either on a failure to read the article, or on outright deceit....I am disgusted by your mailicious smears ( [132])
• a bunch of partisan POV-pushers led my [non-party] are demontrating an active hostility to actually learning about the topic, and want to detablise the coverage by ignoring WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and instead assert one view as fact. That's not just contemptuous of policy; it's contemptuous of history and of those editors from many diffrent pespectives who actually know the history and are not willing to unbalance en.wp's NPOV coverage. ( [133])

Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl bludgeoned a discussion regarding a Signpost article in January 2022

The Signpost article and its associated discussion can be found here. To summarize: an article created during a Wiki Ed course was nominated at AfD, where consensus overwhelmingly favored deletion. Out of frustration, the course's instructor made a tweet that several editors interpreted as canvassing. The editor who nominated the article for deletion, who happened to be a minor, faced harassment after attempting to explain the applicable policies and why the article was being deleted. BrownHairedGirl made sixteen comments in the resulting discussion, some of which I've quoted here:

• 03:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC): As I wrote above at more length, I think it is thoroughly wrong for someone as young as 15 to be taking the lead on removing content from an encyclopedia. I am saddened but unsurprised to see that the response to that complaint is determined offence-taking.
• 01:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• 03:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• 04:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

At 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC) another editor left a templated warning against personal attacks on BrownHairedGirl's talk page.

• 03:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC): Drop that nasty little game fast, please [...] When you choose to attack someone's else judgement on the basis of such basic errors, please have the decency and integrity to apologise for your errors rather coming here to post a templated warning which should you should have directed at yourself.

Concerns regarding BrownHairedGirl's conduct were raised at an ANI thread, which was closed with no action. It's worth noting that these events transpired while BrownHairedGirl was subject to the civility restriction, but she was not formally sanctioned as a result of this incident. — SamX [ talk · contribs 17:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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