Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Primefac ( Talk) & SilkTork ( 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) I'm a little unclear on the exact claim against me since I seem to be an mascot of a WP:TAGTEAM rather than a full fledged member. I'm also unsure of how a meat puppet investigation works and how conclusive the results are. But there has been a repeated claim that I am under the improper influence of another editor and I would love to clear the air on that as part of the evidence phase of ArbComm. RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
BHG's allegations of a tag team
|
---|
Since at least 28 June 2023, but possibly earlier, ( 1: People by occupation in Northern Ireland nom by LL; 2: Irish trade unionists nom by Oculi; 3: BHG's talk page, BHG replying to Pppery, 4: again Irish trade unionists nom by Oculi), BrownHairedGirl (BHG) has repeatedly claimed, without providing evidence, that there is a "tag team" consisting of Laurel Lodged (LL) and Oculi which has allegedly been WP:HOUNDING her and "revenge-nominating" categories created by her for deletion. On 12:34, 30 June 2023, BHG still seemed unsure whether RevelationDirect was part of the alleged LL/Oculi "tag team", or just working for them in and "attacking" BHG on their behalf in practice: 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. She repeated this claim shortly after ( Diff), and again on 10:57, 2 July 2023 ( Diff). Although BHG stated at the ANI several times that she was "gathering evidence", so far, BHG has not provided any evidence for this supposed "tag team", prompting several other Wikipedians (including Dronebogus and me) to say she could be WP:Casting aspersions with each repetition of this claim without evidence. Just saying you're still working on gathering evidence for allegations is not an excuse for repeating them publicly without evidence. BHG did acknowledge that such claims require evidence, but not that she shouldn't repeatedly make such claims before providing evidence of those claims along with the claims themselves. (This is the very first piece of Evidence provided by QEDK: They [BHG] agree that their allegations are strong claims here: [BHG quote], but fail to submit diffs where such statements are proved). For their part, all three accused people have already denied the "tag team" allegations that BHG kept repeating without evidence (despite warnings not to per WP:ASPERSIONS):
In closing, evidence of any tag team whatsoever is still lacking. BHG has 3 more days to submit it. If she fails to do so, given that all three accused people have denied it, and others have warned that repetitive accusations without evidence amount to WP:ASPERSIONS, I believe BHG should be sanctioned for WP:ASPERSIONS. We cannot sit idly by while the reputation of three fellow Wikipedians is called into question for no good reason. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
Counter-evidence and possible explanation for misunderstanding
|
---|
Personally, I was surprised BHG never accused me of "being part of the tag team". As far as I can tell, merely agreeing with LL, Oculi and/or RD on merging certain Smallcats in the past several months is apparently sufficient "evidence" of a "tag team" according to BHG. Well, I did that a lot as well. And, I also disagreed a lot with them at other times, just like they often agreed and disagreed with each other, each for their own reasons. It's almost as if nothing suspicious is actually going on between us. If anything, I believe that the use of Twinkle, which sends automatic notifications to the creator of any category tagged for discussion, may have given an overwhelming impression on BHG's talk page. The automatic Twinkle notifications which BHG received from several editors (including LL, but also many others) in recent months may have been one of the things which really upset BHG over time. Given that LL and BHG have a history of disagreeing about the categorisation of Irish counties since at least 2013, I believe LL's automated 20 May 2023 Twinkle notifications about sportspeople by county in Ireland / Northern Ireland / the Republic of Ireland on BHG's talk page might have set the stage (although BHG didn't participate). But particularly after the fierce disagreement at the 13–20 June 2023 Expatriates CfM nominated by Oculi (where I first raised WP:CIVIL issues to BHG), Laurel Lodged's automatic Twinkles of 24 and 25 June 2023 about Irish police officers by county and some other Ireland-related categories may have severely upset BHG, just 4 days after nominator Oculi withdrew the Expatriates CfM. My current, tentative, humble conclusion is that BHG's allegation of there being some sort of "tag team" between LL and Oculi, and perhaps RD being a part of it, may have been an overreaction by BHG to an overwhelming amount of automatic Twinkle notifications by LL posted on her talk page about cats she had created. Given the fierce disagreement she had recently had with nom Oculi and long-time "adversary" LL, I believe BHG, while being – understandably – upset, may have jumped to incorrect conclusions about LL and Oculi teaming up by "tag-teaming" / "revenge-nominating" categories she had created after Oculi had to withdraw the Expatriates CfM nomination over her objections. It is only right now that I'm checking the history of BHG's talk page that I'm noticing this pattern, and that I think I see where this misunderstanding might have come from, and why BHG may have unintentionally emotionally overreacted to a spree of automated CfM nomination notifications by LL. (I do not believe said nomination by LL to have been in bad faith against BHG. But as I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure if LL should have been categorising anything to do with Irish counties given his WP:EDR on that very topic area. Whether that is a separate or connected question, I do not know). In all this, I am afraid that RevelationDirect accidentally got caught in the crossfire between BHG on the one hand and her perceived enemies (LL and Oculi), because RD supported their nominations, and agreed with me (from during the Expat CfM) that BHG should not be "threatening the closer". In doing so, RD said something ABF which she later apologised for, although BHG wasn't really satisfied with that apology. As far as I can tell, BHG and RD had previously joyfully cooperated at CFD, both were sad that they now found themselves in conflict with each other, did not understand why things had to be this way, but unfortunately could not find a way to reach agreement on BHG's talk page and elsewhere. With tensions increasing in multiple places between BHG and the four of us (and others), and BHG eventually alleging that RD must be in league with the supposed LL/Oculi tag team, RD appears to have seen no other option but to go for an ANI (and I think she made the right call). I think this overreaction is the best explanation for why BHG has mistakenly arrived at the conclusion that there was a tag team, which did not exist. After an already tense situation, BHG made a human mistake which all of us could have made if we had been in her position. Nevertheless, that does not justify repeatedly casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence, let alone ignoring calls to either provide evidence or retract the accusations. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
under the improper influence of another editor, let alone tat RevelationDirect is a "meatpuppet". See [1], where I wrote:
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..
to an overwhelming amount of automatic Twinkle notifications.
2) Since WP:ARBGUIDE#Workshop requires that "Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page." and these had none, I propose striking them. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2)
1)
2)
3)
4)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1) Discussion about the interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT guideline or about the necessity to change the guideline (as consensus may change) should be left to the community. Neither in the preliminary statements nor in the evidence there is any indication that the community can not or could not handle a content discussion about this matter. A broader discussion outside WP:CFD just has not happened (yet). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Help create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledgeand
Be part of a global community that will avoid bias and prejudice, and(the other two bullet points above it) is a UCoC violation as certainly that first bulletpoint is quite germane to the conduct in this case, and arguably so is the second. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
instead made up what SMALLCAT said) and also that editors are quoting only part of a sentence and by doing that they are changing the meaning of the sentence. And that this is how it violates the UCoC. I will need to look at the evidence that has been submitted on the evidence page again in light of that. I will also note that while the UCoC is universal, in previous situations where UCoC enforcement has been called for I have noted how enwiki has added
policies that take account of local and cultural context, while maintaining the [UCOC] criteria listed...as a minimum standard. I will need to think carefully, if I agree that there has been submitted evidence that demonstrates the issues you've identified, whether or not that is true in this case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Neither in the preliminary statements nor in the evidence there is any indication that the community can not or could not handle a content discussion about this matter, but that is demonstrably false: my draft evidence contains multiple discussions where Marcocapelle and other editors were in repeated denial about the content of WP:SMALLCAT, and where there was utter fury that BHG tried to uphold WP:SMALLCAT actually says. Even as late as yesterday, at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Category:Irish_astrophysicists, Marcocapelle commented [2] but chose not to strike his earlier !vote [3] in favour of a blatantly WP:SMALLCAT-defying nomination. These breaches of the UCoC are central to this case.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
not generally in favour of deletion of categories, a claim which is easily disproven. AFAICS, you have been the single most persistent supporter of Oculi's mass-scale SMALLCAT-defiance: see e.g. the table of 6 mass-CFDs at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case#Ignoring_SMALLCAT, and your dogged support of Oculi's SMALLCAT-defiance at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_13#Expatriates_A-G, and also your "merge" !vote at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Expatriates_2. Far from being
not generally in favour of deletion of categories, much of the recent devastating abuse of SMALLCAT relied on your support.
I could populate the category quite easily, and adds a search to demonstrate how it can be populated.
per WP:SMALLCAT.
I want to categorically lay down a marker that if a guideline has been abused by a small group of editors, ArbCom can absolutely issue remedies to fix thatis very welcome. Thank you for that clear assertion. However, it contradicts Silk Tork's comment of 17:53, 24 July 2023. It would be a good idea for the Arbs to make a joint statement on this. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
focusing on one part of SMALLCATis not a remotely fair way of describing what's been happening. Those nominations of the style "merge/delete 'cos it has only x number of articles" go way beyond selective quoting. They are denying everything except the first word of that 112-word guideline, and inverting its meaning. Even the 6-word headline says "Small with no potential for growth", so a delete-by-current-size rationale is clearly misrepresenting even those six words because it ignores potential for growth. WP:SMALLCAT is absolutely clear that current size alone is not sufficient grounds to merge or delete. For those who dont get the simple term "potential for growth" or the longer phrase "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", SMALLCAT explicitly says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories", yet thousands of categories have been merged/deleted by Oculi/Marcocapelle/RevelationDirect & co on grounds that are explicitly forbidden in SMALLCAT.
neither Arbcom nor any other forum on en.wp has any authority to cherrypick the WMF's UCoC. I just focused on the 3rd bullet point because that point was most directly relevant to Marcocapelle's motion; in doing so I didn't omit anything relevant to the motion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
if BHG was alleging that there were folks willfully misinterpreting the guideline to engineer a manufactured consensus... yes, that is precisely what I allege. Not only that, but they used that wilful misinterpratation to vindictively target my work.
For clarity, in response to @MJL's comment below "if BHG was alleging that there were folks willfully misinterpreting the guideline to engineer a manufactured consensus "... yes, that is precisely what I allege. Not only that, but they used that wilful misinterpratation to vindictively target my work. One instance is documented above, but there is lots more of it at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft_evidence_in_SmallCat_case.I'm having trouble following the evidence of willful misinterpretation and malice. If you are willing to put more work into this evidence, a concise section that provides logical evidence/proof of that without the need for inference on the part of the reader would be helpful. I'm running into a bit of a TLDR issue with your evidence. For example the demonstration of tag-teaming here:
At ANI, Oculi made a non-denial denial of tag-teaming with Laurel Lodged. The diff is unavailable, but at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134 posted at 11:13, 8 July 2023: search for the phrase "I am not particularly likely to tag team with Laurel Lodged".
Yet here on 21 June[31] Oculi overtly summons LL to some other dispute: "LL seems to be expending argumentative resources here that are needed elsewhere".
1) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
Now, on the merits, I will say that I chose to read your draft submission back when you emailed it to us. I did not read it as evidence, but rather I read it from the perspective of trying to evaluate whether the composition used words economically, and therefore whether not granting an extension would lead to important material being excised. At the very start you spend roughly 200 words explaining the history of SMALLCAT (information wholly available at the two links you give) and reiterating the content of the guideline (information available to anyone who reads the guideline central to this case). Further on you spend another 250-odd words on "Why this became a sprawling dispute" but provide us with a link to a single ANI discussion where your only commentary was "See also [ANI link], where none of them would even acknowledge what SMALLCAT actually says." I'm not going to go point-by-point; it suffices to show that the draft-as-written is not economical nor concise. I want to raise a counterfactual; imagine we did allow the unedited draft to be considered as evidence. Granted, it's difficult to view one's self from a disinterested perspective (it's why litigants are generally advised to have someone else represent them), but please try. Considering the concerns already in evidence regarding bludgeoning of process (e.g. Thryduulf's evidence), if that draft were to be in evidence, would it dispel or substantiate those concerns? I chose (and continue to choose) not to consider the draft as evidence, and therefore I choose to not answer that question. I believe our word limit procedures exist, in part, to limit the ability of parties to unintentionally harm their own case. That is a major factor in my opposition to an extension.This is why, speaking personally, I have not found your accusations that the process is rigged against you persuasive. I have privately, for the last 10 days, been trying to use our procedures for what I perceive to be your benefit. I have been urging other arbitrators to enforce our procedures (not even rigidly, we were willing to consider a request for up to 5 times the normal word limit) so that you will not submit something that will make you look bad to me and my colleagues without realizing; my argument was even quoted and sent to you as advice in our denial. Tangentially, the drafters of this case re-opened and extended the evidence phase in order to gather more evidence on a very serious (gendered and culturally specific) personal attack against you which might mitigate some of the issues raised against you.I say this, in part, because I want to make explicit how much work people are doing both on-wiki and behind the scenes to try and help you. One community member tried extracting relevant parts of your draft to submit (but later replaced), and recently another community member has offered to help edit the document to which you responded "I don't believe that it could be condensed that far [i.e., by half] without removing important parts of my case" ( diff). Editors I respect have submitted evidence showing the body of helpful work you can do when you stop digging (e.g. Tamzin's evidence; Pppery's evidence). In my ideal world we would be able to retain all those great contributions from you without needing to devote volunteer resources to resolving the latest conflict you find yourself in. You bring up that you've spent 100 hours on this case, but just an hour prior you rejected someone offering to literally do labor in your defence. How many hours, collectively, has the community spent on trying to find a way to keep you around? In previous disputes, how much time were other people devoting to your defense in order to insulate you from the workload (see User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned for a perspective on this phenomenon)? You bring up an accounting of your time, but your time is not the only time that counts when considering issues of fairness.If, after all of this, you still would like an extension to post your draft without edits, then there's not much else I can do to try and get you to reconsider. — Wug· a·po·des 08:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Genuinely, I think this request stems from a trap a lot of participants fall into: feeling the need to respond to everything on the assumption that arbitrators simply take claims for granted and diffs are just there for decoration. The diff is the context, and if things are being taken out of context, it should be sufficient to either say "read the diff" or present your own to give fuller context. There are times where that's not possible or the best response, but that's generally the stronger stuff that deserves an extended treatment. Failing to recognize this is, I think, the source of a lot of issues [...] where the minor points get picked up on. The word limits are not merely a way for us to limit how much we have to read: they are to force parties to prioritize their arguments and synthesize information rather than throwing everything at the wall and hoping things stick. Not only do I think allowing her to post a treatise would be annoying for us, I think it would be actively harmful to her if we let her. It may seem like letting her post what she wants in her own defense would be fair, but that's a shallow conception of fairness. Breaking (because 20k is well beyond bending) the rules so that she can post something we know will be generally useless and possibly incredibly harmful isn't, in my mind, in the interest of fairness. Similarly, it privileges fairness to her while largely ignoring how unfair it is for other participants who will now need to read and possibly respond to all of that. Even if we say 20k words takes 70 minutes to read (I believe that to be a bit low), that's over 22 person-hours spent reading alone (counting parties and arbs only). Is that a good use of our collective time or does it amount to a filibuster or distraction?
— Wugapodes, internal communication to the Arbitration Committee, 31 July 2023
humourLaurel Lodged's taunting of me, [12] ~14 hours after Laurel Lodged's "humour" sunk to naming a parody sex manual. [13]
a very hostile style of communication.
I disagree that he "denigrates". The two of you are often in disagreement, but Laurel generally keeps it civil, as he has done now. You'd better do the same
generally keeps it civil. See LL's non-apology apology at #Apology_from_Laurel_Lodged_to_BHG:
the many things that I have written over the years that caused offense, the worst (and least effective!) things were those that ridiculed her insights and skills.
accusing other people of being too sensitive is at least uncivil
Seconded[16] Marcocapelle's initial comment.
hijack), Marcocapelle accused me above [17] of
a very hostile style of communication. At ANI, Oculi accused me of creating a
a toxic atmosphere at cfd(see Oculi's post timestamped 11:13, 8 July 2023, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
hijackand an explanation of context as
BHG rabbit holeswas
WP:CIVILand
humour? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
methodsin relation to WP:SMALLCAT consisted of:
Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive, although editors acting in bad faith will be given far less if any leeway.I think it needs to be contextualized for this case, but of course the Committee is going to have to decide which principles they are applying here. I did realize that CIR would be a good example of well-intentioned disruption and understand better what is meant by this principle. —DIYeditor ( talk) 11:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The nominator has no obligation to make any attempt to populate any categories created by others. Again, the supporters include Marcocapelle & RevelationDirect. Whether we label this as a tag-team, as groupthink, or just as shared disregard for SMALLCAT, there is a pattern here.
Support I'm not even going to read this. I'm supporting because I just love the table.BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Strive towards accuracy and verifiability in all its work. You seem to hinge the argument on this and I don't see how it applies - that seems to be more about content than following technical rules for organizing Wikipedia (categories). I don't think anyone is alleged to have inserted false categorizations.
X, Y and Z editors were WP:POINTy [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
POINTiness:
X admits to being pointy in so and so deletion[1] by saying it was to teach me a lesson
Y is arguably pointy by doing so and so[2] which appears to be in retaliation by their own statements[3]
2) When multiple parties are involved in an ARBCOM case, the conduct of each party should be judged independently of the behaviour of another party.
BHG chooses not to provide evidence of undesirable conduct of other partiesand that the Arb's have stopped you from presenting the evidence you've prepared and want to present. As you noted in response to Wugapodes you have agency (which is my word to summarize the paragraph which begins "Wugapodes says..."). And you are using that agency to make a choice - that is that you need to submit all of your evidence or none. The choice the arbs have made has consequences, which includes your clear frustration and disillusionment, and your choice means someone can, accurately, say you've chosen not to present evidence against other parties.And, to further layout my thinking, this is where I'm struggling to adopt your thinking about the UCoC violations. Because if I accepted your framing about the UCoC bulletpoint, then I would have to equally say that your stating that something which is true (you've chosen to not present evidence) as false would be a UCoC violation. And I suspect you'd to tell me it's not a violation because this is another example of only a partial truth being presented (that your choice is caused by the Arbs decision). To which I would respond that the Arbs decision was caused by an unprecedented extension request and that is important context. To which you would respond... and on and on we'd go. Instead of all that, I find it easier to say that you made too strong of a statement - that what Marcocapelle wrote was false- in the cause of trying to contextualize the full situation. And given the full context of the situation (you're a party to a case before ArbCom and one who is frustrated with the arbitration process and disillunsioned by Wikipedia) I can understand that misstep for what it was. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
It's the Arbs who have chosen to stop me presenting itit was you telling Marcocapelle that what he wrote was
false. What Marcocapelle wrote was in fact true, but is from your perspective incomplete. That doesn't make it false. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Of course for this case this is related to the fact that BHG chooses not to provide evidence of undesirable conduct of other parties.
It's the Arbs who have chosen to stop me presenting it. I could of course have made a much longer reply to Marcocapelle to explain all the details, possibly something like the two paras above; but since I have repeatedly made that point in detail, I tried to keep my reply to Marcocapelle terse. Given the widespread practice of attacking longer replies as "bludgeoning", this leaves me with a further Hobson's choice: damned if I do, damned if I don't. And to add to the fun, my summarising gets labelled by an Arb as a possible UCoC violation.
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.
— from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog § Standards of editor behavior
2) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.
— from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § Bludgeoning (alt)
3) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.
— from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy § Battleground conduct
4) Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editors being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.
— from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § Repeated behavior
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
7) Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and guidelines, and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions.
dismiss a literal interpretation of WP:CIVIL as "wikilawyering". I dismissed as "offence-taking" a mention of WP:CIVIL in response to a reasoned objection, and I dismissed as wikilawyering NL's attempts to procedurally censor substantive discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
3) An editor who is provoked, harassed and/or attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themself to have been provked, harassed or attacked—whether on Wikipedia or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Wikipedia policy. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe.
Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with editors who appear to be reacting to being harassedor something to that effect. —DIYeditor ( talk) 12:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)editorswho have themselves breached acceptable standards in doing so
1) Wikipedia users, and groups of users can be fallible. Consensus in a given discussion may be at odds with one of the community at large. Editors should not pride themselves of their infallibility and be considerate of opinions other than their own.
1) Sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual threats, whether implied, alluded to, or explicitly directed at other editor are extremely detrimental to the environment of cooperating to build an encyclopedia. There should [can? will?] be no tolerance for acts of this nature on Wikipedia, particularly if appearing to intimidate or discourage another editor or editors. There should be robust action taken against any overt sexism or sexual harassment which might serve to discourage or intimidate another editor or editors.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DIYeditor ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Original text restored and updated 13:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. is not allowed.
(from
Wikipedia:Harassment)
Updated —DIYeditor ( talk) 03:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC) 13:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.Other possibly relevant policies such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment are more focussed on legal threats, or threats of off-wiki (physical) violence, neither of which seems applicable to this incident. (And for reasons I have outlined, I do not favour an approach of examining this as discrimination on the basis of sex/gender, because that is putting the characteristics of the complainant rather than the abusive behaviour of the suspect at the centre of the inquiry). (copypasted from Evidence talk comment 21:29, 10 August 2023). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Saying we will have zero tolerance for any sexism may have an accidental negative impact. Unconscious gender bias is widespread and exists even in women. To make a less sexist environment, we should all accept where we have bias and work to address it. If we say we have zero tolerance for any level of sexism (and I assume therefore bias) then that implies that someone will be banned for admitting it and that will incentivise editors away from admitting error. That will inhibit editors from acknowledging bias and creating an environment of equality.
I suggest we say we will take robust action where there is overt sexism or harassment but would caution away from zero tolerance policies about anything as they tend to be very clumsy policies that don't consider very mild accidental errors that many people (including equity-deserving people) make. CT55555(talk) 20:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
particularly if appearing to intimidate or discourage another editor or editorswhich maybe should be "intentionally" but I wasn't sure that made sense either. This was just my first reaction to the "brace yourself Bridget" for which I thought there should be some rule of thumb that would allow a block without any further warning should an admin see fit.
There should be robust action taken against any overt sexism or sexual harassment which might serve to discourage or intimidate another editor or editors? It was definitely not my intent that should someone reveal any arguably sexist belief or behavior they be blocked zero tolerance, because anyone could be the next on the chopping block under that... —DIYeditor ( talk) 21:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Why the sexual nature of threats of violence is important, not the characteristics of the complainant
|
---|
So far, as far as the words "sex-" and derivates such as "sexual" and "harassment" are concerned, the Index only contains:
My issue with no. #1 to #3, as well as Wikipedia:Harassment, are the words based on and on the basis of, and that it only includes (biological) "sex" or "sexual preference/orientation" of the complainant. But sexual harassment and sexual threats can be made by any person of any (biological) sex/gender (identity/expression)/sexual preference/orientation, and can be made against any person of any (biological) sex/gender (identity/expression)/sexual preference/orientation. Hypothetically, if both editor A and editor B are pansexual and have the same (biological) sex/gender (identity/expression), (for the sake of argument, let's say they are both cisgendered men), and they know this about each other, but A makes a sexual threat to B, then this is not a case of "discrimination" based on or on the basis of any of the characteristics involved. Those are irrelevant, because these are characteristics A and B share. The reason why A does something wrong has instead to do with a threat of violence, in this case sexual violence/ sexual assault. The sexual aspect is part of the nature of the threat of violence, not part of any of the characteristics of B. A could have made an identically worded sexual threat against anyone else, regardless of that other person's (biological) sex/gender (identity/expression)/sexual preference/orientation. My issue with no. #4 is that it actually affords way too much legal protection to the suspect against accusations of sexual harassment by the complainant. The provision that Therefore, I think we should recognise the sexual nature of the threat as sanctionable, and that we should not depend on the supposed discrimination of any of the characteristics of the complainant. This puts way too much focus on who/what/how the complainant is/thinks/feels instead of what ethical/criminal violation the suspect may have committed. The complainant shouldn't be put into a position where they need to explain what their characteristics are, and that they have therefore been discriminated against, especially if they prefer to keep those private (which is important in an online environment like Wikipedia). As no. #2 does say correctly, the reason for harassment of others is irrelevant: You (DIYeditor) appear to agree with this: I meant specifically cases where sexual harassment seems clear and intentional not just that if someone had some belief that others considered biased they should be sanctioned. You also appear to distinguish between sexual harassment as an intentional threat of violence against the complainant, regardless of the sex- or gender-related characteristics which the complainant might have which the suspect might somehow have discriminated against. |
2) It is necessary for editors to maintain competence in collaboration, cooperation, compromise, dispute resolution, and working with honest differences of opinion.
3) It is important, even if not technically required, to participate in administrative review of one's activities on Wikipedia when called upon to do so. "Stonewalling" a process is disruptive. The above principle about collaboration also applies to this.
1) Civility is one of the fundamental principles ( the five pillars) of Wikipedia. No quantity of constructive editing gives someone a licence to disrespect their fellow Wikipedians, even when they disagree, nor to assume bad faith.
1) Expectations and standards of conduct are developed by the community and reflected in policies and guidelines describing agreed-upon best practices that should be applied with reason and common sense.
2) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and to not engage in personal attacks.
and to not), for parallelism in corresponding clauses. I also think "engage in" seems more clear and potentially more neutral than
resort to. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
3) Wikipedia editors and readers are culturally diverse by virtue of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender or sexual orientation. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. Harassment of other editors for any reason will not be tolerated and is also grounds for blocking or other sanctions. - 2015-12
4) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on fellow editors, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion. - 2013-08
5) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. - 2021-09
6) Policy states: "All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so." The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
- from the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland final decision
1) The fact that BrownHairedGirl and Laurel Lodged, the two editors widely considered to be at the heart of this dispute, are both under active editing restrictions ( WP:EDR), but have repeatedly been found by multiple editors to have been WP:UNCIVIL during this dispute, as well as on several earlier occasions being uncivil (mostly BHG) or emptying categories out of process (only LL), without being sanctioned for it, demonstrates that there is an WP:EDR enforcement problem.
1) Wikipedians are expected to assume good faith, but not everyone acts in good faith, and even when acting in good faith can do harm. One of the harms that can be done is unsubstantiated claims of malfeasance by another editor. It can be difficult to rebut a claim which does not provide the evidence which is believed to support the claim, whether or not it is grounded in reality, a misinterpretation of reality or is simply in the mind of the beholder.
To reduce the adverse effects of such claims, when an editor claims malfeasance by another editor, they must, in the same edit, provide the evidence supporting that claim, which they consider necessary and sufficient to uphold that claim as made in that edit. Failure to provide any such evidence is prima facie evidence of bad faith on the part of the claimant and may be sanctioned. Failure to provide sufficient and convincing evidence may result in the claim being repudiated, and the claimant may be warned or reprimanded. Methods of providing such evidence include quotes, diffs and links. Direct quotes must provide sufficient context as may be necessary to avoid misrepresentation and must be linked to the original source if reasonably practicable.
Comment: This may be improved, but hopefully the general idea is conveyed. Please point out any unintended consequences that may arise. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
1) One or more of the parties made unsupported claims of malfeasance against others.
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} No specific suggestions.
This would be a new behavioural expectation and it would not be reasonable to apply it retrospectively. It would apply to all Wikipedians in future communications on-wiki. It would probably have to go through RfC to have any validity as a guideline, but it may be within Arbcom's remit to impose it as a remedy in specific cases.
1) Failure to comply nay be enforced by a warning, followed by a topic ban (or partial block? never used one, so not sure how they work.) from the areas in which the remedy is contravened. I suggest the period starts with 24 hours and is doubled with each consecutive enforcement.
These proposed findings of fact coincide with the section headers of my evidence section originally submitted on 1 August 2023. (The title of #3 has been changed to reflect past tense.) Each proposed finding contains evidence from the Evidence page, as required by WP:ARBGUIDE#Workshop. While I think there are other potential findings, as an involved editor, I’m limiting mine to the ones where I was directly involved with at CFD. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
1) On the Evidence page, there is clear indication that BrownHairedGirl repeatedly makes claims of Tag Team Meatpuppetry in the wild outside of the dispute resolution process.
2) On the Evidence page, there is clear evidence that BrownHairedGirl repeatedly promises to back up claims of Tag Team Meatpuppetry and that such evidence would come at least partly in the form of Diffs.
3) No Diffs or other evidence to support these claims of Tag Team Meatpuppetry were ever submitted to the Evidence page by BrownHairedGirl.
After promising to provide her own Diffs above, BrownHairedGirl began rethinking whether Diffs were a meaningful form of evidence. Based on her subsequent comments on the Workshop page, I don’t think this proposed finding is controversial.
5) On the Evidence page, it is documented in great detail that neither good faith nor competency are assumed by BrownHairedGirl when engaging with other editors at CFD. jc37, and
6) On the Evidence page, it is documented that discussing the underlying content dispute about SMALLCAT did not stop the incivility from BrownHairedGirl.
7) On the Evidence page, it is documented that Categories for Discussion is not usually a contentious place beyond a couple editors.
misuse of a guideline may continue unchallenged for some time) Policies and guidelines are intended to be descriptive of community consensus, which is determined by the outcomes of relevant discussions. If discussions repeatedly reach consensus different to those documented in guidelines then it's likely the guidelines are out of date. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
8) On the Evidence page, it is documented that the community restriction based on BrownHairedGirl’s prior incivility did not work in practice.
1) The Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct applies at all times to all editors, as a legal condition of use of WMF websites, including the English-language Wikipedia. No editor, admin or arbitrator is permitted to disregard the UCoC.
2) Editors are required by the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) to "strive towards accuracy and verifiability" in all their work on Wikipedia.
3) Editors are human, and therefore fallible. Editors may in good faith make errors in which their assertions in articles or in discussions are inaccurate or verifiable. However, when they spot errors in their work or are notified by others of such errors, editors are required by the UCoC to strive to correct their errors and to not repeat them.
4) When an editor is notified of an inaccuracy, repeating that inaccuracy is a breach of the UCoC, and hence a form disruption.
1) Thrydulf's evidence at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence#BRFA_for_BHGbot9 is misleading because it is incomplete. After disagreeing with Headbomb at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9, BHG asked for a second opinion: see
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9 #Other_views_sought. Instead of allowing that to happen, Headbomb piled on and ignored the guidelines I cited i support of my view. Headbomb then closed the BRFA before any other input happened, so i asked BAG to review it: see
Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 16#BHGbot_9_review_sought. Sadly, BAG piled on both support Headbomb's prevention of further input, an in support of Headbomb's odd view that for some reason we should retain the big banner {{
Cleanup bare URLs}} tag on a page where the only URL which could be counted as bare is one which has already been tagged for removal or replacement. That is contrary to the
WP:CLEANUPTAG guidance: "If an article has many problems, tag only the highest priority issues" and "Don't insert tags that are similar or redundant".
Since the guidance was on my side, I ran the same code as an ordinary
WP:AWB job (without a bot flag) on thousands of articles, and there were no objection from anyone except Headbomb. He raised the issue at
Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Bot_request_process, where he got no support; his two RFCs were speedily closed. Headbomb then appealed the speedy close of the RFCs: see
WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive345#Closure review: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Mass addition of Cleanup bare URLs template, where nobody supported re-opening. See also
Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Two_Bot-related_RFCs_at_Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_71#Mass_addition_of_Cleanup_bare_URLs_template, where I note Headbomb's aggression at another venue: accusing me of kneecaping
Citation bot. The problem throughout all this was that a) Headbomb's aggressive disregard of
WP:CLEANUPTAG went unchallenged by BAG, and b) there is no venue to appeal a BAG decision other than to BAG, even when the task has proven uncontroversial. I was saddened and upset by that drama, and am saddened that again BAG's failure to restrain Headbomb and support a stable guideline is cited as some failure by me. I did a big and uncontroversial cleanup job, but got monstered for it.
2) WP:SMALLCAT is explicitly restricted to categories which are "Small with no potential for growth", and there is an exemption for categories which are "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
3) A nomination to delete a category per WP:SMALLCAT must therefore include an assessment of whether it as "potential for growth", and whether it is part of "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
4) Oculi and Laurel Lodged repeatedly nominated categories for merger or deletion on the basis of misrepsentations of SMALLCAT, by ignoring both potential for growth and whether the categories were part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. They continued to do so even after being notified of their errors.
5) Marcocapelle, and RevelationDirect continued to support CFD nominations which misrepresented SMALLCAT, even after being notified of their error.
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
The first set of diffs in the evidence from DanCherek is from an incidents' noticeboard discussion on talk thread formatting from March 2020, after an edit war between RexxS and BrownHairedGirl. For a description of the technical details of the disagreement, see my previous analysis of this discussion. The exhibited behaviour in the incidents' noticeboard thread from both disputing parties was frustrating, as they focused narrowly on repeating their own arguments and did not try to understand the other person's point of view. The level of loud accusations set in a larger typeface size by BrownHairedGirl was extreme, though, and not conducive to resolving the dispute. isaacl ( talk) 04:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
1. Under the heading "Threats", Laurel_Lodged posted this comment by BHG:
This does not appear to me to be a "threat" of any kind, it appears to be a suggestion then WP:Deletion review (DRV) can be used to resolve a dispute. Floating a suggestion to use a regular Wikipedia process is inherently not threatening.
2. Similarly, in the same edit, under the heading "Assumed revenge / paranoia" is quoted:
I am at a loss to see the "assumed revenge" in that statement. It seems more like a statement of factual chronology, albeit characterized by BHG's personal impression of it. Furthermore, describing it as "paranoia" on BHG's part is perilously close to being a personal attack, as statements do not have paranoia, people do. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, in my words, "sort of 'intimidating' the closer"
|
---|
|
This comment about BrownHairedGirl's "mindset" is not acceptable. Laurel Lodged also made an inappropriate remark about BrownHairedGirl's mental health at ANI; it was redacted as a personal attack and he was warned by an administrator that further comments like that would be met with a block (see my evidence). Making the statement quoted above, dripping with hyperbole ("reeling in horror"; "the mindset that could commit such an act"), on an arbitration case page suggests that the warning was not effective. DanCherek ( talk) 23:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)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.
. I have nearly a page of type written notes about those diffs in fact. However, this observation felt like something useful to note publicly at this point in time. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)MyAn observation is that...
Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks, she may be blocked first for twelve hours and then for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. (...). Indefinite.
Laurel Lodged is placed under an editing restriction from adding, removing or altering the names or significance of Irish counties (...) Indefinite. Can be removed after 2013-12-20.
BHG to LL at the Irish police officers by county CfM
|
---|
|
[LL recognizes] the importance of being WP:CIVIL. There isn't any evidence to support that statement. He had to be warned twice by Black Kite about his incivility before finally disengaging. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
realistic potential for growthin the 2020 and 2023 discussions.
realistic potential for growthis a subjective standard so different editors are going to reach different conclusions on how to apply in a given instance but that doesn't make any of them wrong. What am I missing?
unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization schemewhich I don't see any attempt to explain how it would not apply in that discussion. The only one who notes the broader implications is Liz with her comment about other recent CfD. Have any of the parties addressed this somewhere (and if it was in the ANI thread that preceded this case, apologies as despite having read that three times already, there's so much going on there that it's possible this detail didn't stick). Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
a large overall accepted sub-categorization schemeactually is, anyone can claim anything is part of such a scheme and thus claim SMALLCAT doesn't apply and the nomination is invalid. That means this text is worthless. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Me trying to understand it
|
---|
At the time it was still a proposed guideline. It was put together through unilateral actions of several editors (including Dugwiki, jc37, Tim!, Circeus and others) making it up as they went along, sometimes reverting each other and almost edit-warring in the process. There was
virtually no talk page discussion (just Dugwiki making two comments explaining their own edits). (To be fair, that is how many early policies and guidelines were made; whatever stuck became customary law. It's only later that amendments were formally proposed and voted on, but per
WP:PGCHANGE a lot can still be
WP:BOLDly amended). Most disagreements in Dec 2006 about SMALLCAT were apparently exactly about examples of what |
a large overall accepted sub-categorization schemewhen people stopped unilaterally changing it and reverting each other, and up until this day there is disagreement about how to interpret it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
a large overall accepted sub-categorization schemephrase in particular).
a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, and saying amongst other things These cats are indeed part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (...).
a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, but differently than BHG did.
This Petscan search finds 3,824 categories whose title includes the phrase "emigrants to". That number is now down to 3742, but it's still very large, and arguably huge.
disignenuous. The overall scheme is of people who migrated between any pair of over 200 countries, of which almost 150 are represented in the set of nominated categories, but Marcocapelle misrepresented the context -- just as he has repeatedly supported misrepresentations of SMALLCAT.
@ Editor B Mind explaining how you are not guilty of the exact [allegations] you are willing to condemn Editor C for? Please do so without violating the Tu quoque fallacy yourself. - Editor A
It was alleged at the ARC that Laurel Lodged will just ignore and otherwise attempt to wait out disputes involving them.So my answer stands that LL had been explicitly asked to disengage from the discussion by B, C and D. Then E, F and G tagged him to ask further questions and he answered once, but even that resulted in a negative response from other people who had demanded him to disengage, so yeah. It's difficult, you can't please everyone simultaneously, I guess. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 20:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that refusing to continue to communicate at MJL's objection to being misgendered is part of the pattern. For the record, I follow the Golden Rule (i.e. all instances of "he/him" in law are assumed to also mean "she/her"). No. Assuming maleness is not okay. It doesn't help our goals. I've been assumed to be male by multiple other editors who've addressed me as sir, Mr., dude, bro...I try to politely correct the misapprehension and brush off the annoyance, but yeah. It's not very welcoming, and we should encourage people to address other editors by their preferred pronouns. If you don't want to bother with that, just call everyone they/them, very few people object to that.
@ Laurel Lodged, FFR: instead of treating people as you'd like to be treated, maybe try treating them as they'd like to be treated. You may like to be assumed male. I don't. Valereee ( talk) 18:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
his/her/theiras if
hisis even an option for someone who just told you they aren't male.
RevelationDirect's comments on an earlier draft of the evidence
|
---|
Note: BrownHairedGirl posted draft evidence on her user page from which Marcocapelle reposted excerpts on the official ArbComm evidence page.
|
sort of 'intimidating' the closer;
the sheer scale of this nomination makes it impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill WP:SMALLCAT which is for "Small with no potential for growth". You addressed neither the nomination's failure to respect anyting other than the first word of SMALLCAT not the impossibility of believing that the nominator had checked potential for growth. Instead of asking why I made that assertion, you went stright to attacking me for making it. If you want to resolve a dispute, the way to respnd to an assertion that seems problematic is to ask for explanation; that way, the dialoge may reach agreement. But instead, you adopted the dispute-escalation path of adding an extra layer of dispute, over whether I assumed bad faith.
impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill WP:SMALLCAT.
09:54, 7 July 2023
in the archive
WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#BrownHairedGirl's_lack_of_civility_in_CFD). That was dispute escalation, and your replies escalated it further. You continued to try to frame it all a he-said/she-said dispute, while repeatedly failing to engage with the very simple core point: that Oculi's nomination at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G wholly misrepresented SMALLCAT by ignoring all of the 100+ word guideline apart from its first word "small". Instead, in that long discussion between us at ANI, you repeatedly demanded that I either recuse myself from all SMALLCAT-related discussions, or be topic-banned from them.intimidation; they actually doubled down on it, even tho they knew that RevelationDirect had already issued a very belated and disappointingly terse apology.
People can link to whatever they want. That doesn't make it suddenly part of evidence that is considered.In emails on behalf of Arbcom, Barkeep49 repeatedly defended the contextomy of diff-farming, inisisting that "the diff is the context". (No: a diff shows only a small fragment of the immediately-preceding discussion; the context is often much wider). I like Barkeep, but these Arbcom decisions which Barkeep has conveyed with great courtesy are not good.
I have published my draft evidence at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case, but Barkeep49 stated today that this will not be considered as evidence [...] So, whether by design or by error or by over-zealous application of precedent, I have already been stitched up.You have not been "stitched up", you are just being held to the same standards as everybody else: Evidence must be presented on the evidence page. This has been explicitly stated more than once, including in the formal notification on your talk page when the case opened:
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence.
Meanwhile, issues wholly unrelated to SMALLCAT are permitted on the evidence page (e.g. by Thryduulf)The scope of this case is not the SMALLCAT dispute but, as stated on every case page, it is
conduct of named parties. The detailed explanation of the scope, linked from every page of this case, states
While the case is entitled "SmallCat dispute" because it was that dispute which spurred the case, the Arbitration Committee will be taking a comprehensive look at the conduct of the named parties including, but not limited to, small categories.Thryduulf ( talk) 11:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
My thanks to @ Nederlandse Leeuw: for reminding me of my obligations in common charity. A better Christian than I would not have needed such a reminder. For how can I expect justice in this case whilst denying what is right and just in the case of BHG? Matthew 5:23–24 seems to be pertinent. What I say now is not done in the hope that it will influence the outcome of this case; I have a fair idea already of the direction that the decision will go. Rather I do so because it is the right thing do, and BHG, while not without sin herself, is still a person with feelings - feelings that my actions have hurt. So then, I have written things to @ BrownHairedGirl: and about BHG that cannot fail to have hurt her. While baiting — probably mutual baiting — was involved that might explain some of those things, it is irrelevant nor can it ever serve as a real excuse. I ought to have avoided the temptation to be sarcastic and to use mockery to undermine her arguments; in failing to rise above these base urgings, I caused her hurt. Above all, of the many things that I have written over the years that caused offense, the worst (and least effective!) things were those that ridiculed her insights and skills. Everybody is aware of her skills. No. They were written to touch on what I knew to be her weakest point - her vanity and pride in her skills. It mattered little that what I wrote was inaccurate or not really worked out; the point was that I knew in advance that the barb would drive home. In that knowledge lies the offence and my guilt. I apologise for causing the hurt. It was wrong. I promise to not offend in this way again. I offer this promise whether or not it is reciprocated. It is also offered in the sad self-awareness that I may be unable to resist future provocations, despite best intentions. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes, including BHG. Therefore, we cannot assume BHG's interpretation of policies and guidelines to always be right etc. Therefore, I think this approach is untenable, because BHG does not have a monopoly on interpreting policies and guidelines (certainly not so long and heavily contested as SMALLCAT; I refer to jc37's Evidence on that). Nor is she in a position to demand an apology of anyone who disagrees with her interpretation of policies and guidelines, nor do I think it is justified to accuse anyone of acting in bad faith if they don't.
critical of particularly the Catholic Church and the Pope. This intrusion and misrepresentation reinforces my desire to disengage from NL. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
deplorable behaviourfor demonstrating a solution to the problems; and posted at rant [50] comparing me with a Roman Emperor (see the edit summary
Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Note that 7 years later, LL drew attention to their 2016 disruption in an attempt to disrupt a productive collaboration at WT:IRELAND: details at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case#2023:_TFD_2016_revisited.
what I knew to be her weakest point - her vanity and pride in her skills, and warns that LL won't actally stop. They
may be unable to resist future provocations, despite best intentions. That tries to justify their behaviour as due to "provocation" by what LL described as my
insights and skills.
insights and skillsof editors should be valued rather than treated as a vice which provokes attack. LL's resentment of the skills of others is a fundamental hostility to the goals of Wikipedia.
Such editors have a romantic attachment to the former local government area and have been consistent in pursuing their nostalgic editing over the years. Their fallback conceit in pursuit of "Dublinia Irridenta" is that, while the administrative entity was abolished, the county remains, in some ghostly form, in the hearts and minds of all true Dubliners.
While irridentists would like to cling to the uber-nationalist notion of "32 counties" and "A nation once again", that just is not the case
Let's not go down BHG rabbit holes
That sounds like an attempt to de-ligitimise the entire Category:Emigrants from former countries tree structure., and accuses me of
trying to hijack this nom
It's my anointed role in Wiki to make BHG sighand repeats the allegation that my ALT1 proposal is an
attempt to de-ligitimise the entire Category:Emigrants from former countries tree structure.
brace yourself Bridget, an apparent attempt to mock me for being an Irish woman. (It appears to refer to this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brace-Yourself-Bridget-Official-Manual/dp/0312094302)
LL tries to keep some humour in this discussion and you take it far too seriously. Of course I take it seriously! The discussion is part of building an encyclopedia, which is serious work. Editors want to engage in taunting games should induge that tanting urge somewhere other than in an encyclopedic project. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: I submitted some evidence of LL ignoring a dispute involving him. I have a little over 100 words left, so I'll ask if it would also be helpful to provide a history of LL emptying categories out of process? I wouldn't need an extension for that, but I don't want to waste time providing evidence for something the committee isn't particularly interested in looking at. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I also crossed the line with WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF with this second half of this edit ( Diff). I have stricken it & retracted it ( Diff) and separately apologized on BrownHairedGirl's talk page ( Diff). Her response to that apology seemes reasonable to me.
I regret the comment and am embarrassed by how long it was up before I struck it. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Detailed explanation of what I think
|
---|
|
intiimdation(Nederlandse Leeuw, diff]) or a
threat(RevelationDirect, diff]). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I hope that the closer will do their WP:NOTAVOTE job and discard all the !votes which flagrantly ignore the guidelines.
Please can you therefore hold off implementing any close to allow the DRV to happen first. In other words, I outline the starkness of the choice, the issues likely to need a deletion review, and asked the closer not so set the bots to work until the issue had been finally resolved. Note that when an AFD is closed as delete, each deleted article can be restored with one action; but implementing a CFD merge requires a bot to not just delete each category page, but also to engage in a lot of hard-to-revert edits to every article in each category. In this case, there would have been about 1,000 actions to revert if the close was overturned after the bot had gotten to work, and in my experience of doing that job, it involves many hours work for whoever implements the overturn. The work is made much harder by the fact that even after the minimum 7 days for a deletion review, many articles will have been edited further, which often prevents the use of tools such as rollback or undo. I have log exerience of fiding multiple articles where it takes several minutes to restore just the one article. very closer of a CFD (or any other XFD or RM) should be aware at all times that their close may be reviewed at Deletion review or Move review, so the noting of that possibility adds nothing new: DRV is always part of the environment for any closer. Therefore a mention of a possible deletion review cannot in any way
create a hostile work environment(as Nederlandse Leeuw claimed) for any closer who understands the basic point that any XFD/RM close may be reviewed. What does
create a hostile work environmentis Nederlandse Leeuw's ABF decision to smear as
intimidationa request to the closer to allow any deletion review to have the option of overturning a close without many hours of avoidable clerical works (see WP:FAIT), and to bully me into not using the community's long-stablished procedures for reviewing the weighing of consensus.
intimidationwas in fact NL trying to intimidate BHG for upholding the consensus-building process against editors such as NL who radically misrepresent a short, simple, stable guideline.
My overall thesis is that, rather than providing evidence at dispute resolution, BrownHairedGirl was sprinkling accusations of misconduct against me and others in the wild where they can't be addressed. In other words, BrownHairedGirl should have filed an ANI against me for WP:TAGTEAM meatpuppetry or whatever and provided her evidence right up front that I could then respond to. BrownHairedGirl continues to make it challenging to get at the root of the issue with her pattern of engagement here at ArbComm:
Rather than BrownHairedGirl providing clear evidence against me on the Evidence page, I continue to have to shadow box vague claims. This makes it hard to defend myself because I’m not sure if I’m Laurel Lodged’s meatpuppet, or his mascot, just under his spell somehow, or what. That’s why I begged BrownHairedGirl to use her allotted evidence against me specifically ( Diff). When I tried my best to summarize the vague accusations, my edit was labeled as a ... "straw man" .... ( Diff).
Rather than engaging with this case under the set rules, BrownHairedGirl focuses on critiquing ArbComm. ( Diff) It’s a little difficult to hear how unfair it is that ArbComm only allotted BrownHairedGirl 5,000 words of evidence while I make do with 2,000. I still made no objection to her 20,000 word request though ( Diff).
Rather than distilling her ideas onto the Evidence page, BrownHairedGirl repeatedly points to her much longer draft evidence on her user page ( Diff). But that page has more blow-by-blow retellings and reiterations of earlier claims than it does evidence. When a summary of this was briefly entered into evidence, I only needed a short reply to refute it. ( Diff) I still have no objection to formally including this draft evidence.
Rather than respond to the specific Diffs I placed on the Evidence page about her, BrownHairedGirl raises epistemological questions about the nature of quotes in general. ( Diff) My Diffs do indeed quote very narrowly to stay within my word count limits but I added ellipses (…) before and after quotes to make it clear they were pulled from larger conversations. I also provided the links to the original discussions and encourage that they be reviewed in their entirety. ( CDlink)
Rather than disputing my central thesis at this Workshop, BrownHairedGirl seems to brag about it: ..."My direct challenges to those abuses brought a prompt end to the tag-teaming and to the vindictive, SMALLCAT-defying nominations." ( Diff) (The full conversation is above) Making accusations in the wild to shut down dialogue is why I came to ArbComm in the first place, not because of SMALLCAT.
Barkeep49 assured me that ArbComm handles evaluating behavior during the case so, if this analysis is outside my purview, go ahead and collapse it or delete it entirely. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
only needed a short reply to refute it, i.e. to refute my allegation of tag-teaming. But they took only one part of my wider evidence, and RD's claimed refutation [62] refutes nothing. The fact that LL an Oculi disagreed there is not evidence that they didn't collude elsewhere, even if only a my-enemy's-enemy basis.
Rather than respond to the specific Diffs I placed on the Evidence page about her, BrownHairedGirl raises epistemological questions about the nature of quotes in general. False: I did indeed raise important epistemological questions about the nature of quotes, but that is a supplement to the detailed evidence at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case#RevelationDirect_quote_mining, where I have written a detailed exposure and analysis of RevelationDirect's use of the propaganda tactic of quote-mining. That section alone would take up almost all of the highest extended word count on offer from Arbcom, which is one of the main reasons I don't accept the limit: I'd have to either omit that crucial evidence or omit early everything else.
My direct challenges to those abuses brought a prompt end to the tag-teaming and to the vindictive, SMALLCAT-defying nominations. RD still seems to think that there is something bad about ending such abuses.
accusations in the wild to shut down dialogue: they were challenges to an abuse of process which needed to be made at the CFD, so that other participants and (crucially) the closer would be aware that was a significant dispute about the nature of the nomination, an they were backed by evidence which RD chose ignore in favour of quote-mining where they painstakingly edited my posts to remove anything that explained why I made those allegations, even removing parts of sentences (see User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case#RevelationDirect_quote_mining). Far from BHG trying to
to shut down dialogue, it was RD who repeatedly tried to shut down dialogue, both at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 25#People_by_occupation_in_Northern_Ireland (see e.g. [63]) and on my talk, when they insisted that we do not discuss substance. [64], but instead focus on "civility issues".
The reason that RD came to ANI and then Arbcom is that they preferred quote-mining to manufacture civility complaints, especially I do not agree with "manufacture". The complaints are very real and the issue is that BHG does not want to talk about them. In addition, RD has been totally transparant about shortening the quotes to what is relevant for WP:CIVILITY, so it does not make sense to suggest something bad happened. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Primefac ( Talk) & SilkTork ( 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) I'm a little unclear on the exact claim against me since I seem to be an mascot of a WP:TAGTEAM rather than a full fledged member. I'm also unsure of how a meat puppet investigation works and how conclusive the results are. But there has been a repeated claim that I am under the improper influence of another editor and I would love to clear the air on that as part of the evidence phase of ArbComm. RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
BHG's allegations of a tag team
|
---|
Since at least 28 June 2023, but possibly earlier, ( 1: People by occupation in Northern Ireland nom by LL; 2: Irish trade unionists nom by Oculi; 3: BHG's talk page, BHG replying to Pppery, 4: again Irish trade unionists nom by Oculi), BrownHairedGirl (BHG) has repeatedly claimed, without providing evidence, that there is a "tag team" consisting of Laurel Lodged (LL) and Oculi which has allegedly been WP:HOUNDING her and "revenge-nominating" categories created by her for deletion. On 12:34, 30 June 2023, BHG still seemed unsure whether RevelationDirect was part of the alleged LL/Oculi "tag team", or just working for them in and "attacking" BHG on their behalf in practice: 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. She repeated this claim shortly after ( Diff), and again on 10:57, 2 July 2023 ( Diff). Although BHG stated at the ANI several times that she was "gathering evidence", so far, BHG has not provided any evidence for this supposed "tag team", prompting several other Wikipedians (including Dronebogus and me) to say she could be WP:Casting aspersions with each repetition of this claim without evidence. Just saying you're still working on gathering evidence for allegations is not an excuse for repeating them publicly without evidence. BHG did acknowledge that such claims require evidence, but not that she shouldn't repeatedly make such claims before providing evidence of those claims along with the claims themselves. (This is the very first piece of Evidence provided by QEDK: They [BHG] agree that their allegations are strong claims here: [BHG quote], but fail to submit diffs where such statements are proved). For their part, all three accused people have already denied the "tag team" allegations that BHG kept repeating without evidence (despite warnings not to per WP:ASPERSIONS):
In closing, evidence of any tag team whatsoever is still lacking. BHG has 3 more days to submit it. If she fails to do so, given that all three accused people have denied it, and others have warned that repetitive accusations without evidence amount to WP:ASPERSIONS, I believe BHG should be sanctioned for WP:ASPERSIONS. We cannot sit idly by while the reputation of three fellow Wikipedians is called into question for no good reason. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
Counter-evidence and possible explanation for misunderstanding
|
---|
Personally, I was surprised BHG never accused me of "being part of the tag team". As far as I can tell, merely agreeing with LL, Oculi and/or RD on merging certain Smallcats in the past several months is apparently sufficient "evidence" of a "tag team" according to BHG. Well, I did that a lot as well. And, I also disagreed a lot with them at other times, just like they often agreed and disagreed with each other, each for their own reasons. It's almost as if nothing suspicious is actually going on between us. If anything, I believe that the use of Twinkle, which sends automatic notifications to the creator of any category tagged for discussion, may have given an overwhelming impression on BHG's talk page. The automatic Twinkle notifications which BHG received from several editors (including LL, but also many others) in recent months may have been one of the things which really upset BHG over time. Given that LL and BHG have a history of disagreeing about the categorisation of Irish counties since at least 2013, I believe LL's automated 20 May 2023 Twinkle notifications about sportspeople by county in Ireland / Northern Ireland / the Republic of Ireland on BHG's talk page might have set the stage (although BHG didn't participate). But particularly after the fierce disagreement at the 13–20 June 2023 Expatriates CfM nominated by Oculi (where I first raised WP:CIVIL issues to BHG), Laurel Lodged's automatic Twinkles of 24 and 25 June 2023 about Irish police officers by county and some other Ireland-related categories may have severely upset BHG, just 4 days after nominator Oculi withdrew the Expatriates CfM. My current, tentative, humble conclusion is that BHG's allegation of there being some sort of "tag team" between LL and Oculi, and perhaps RD being a part of it, may have been an overreaction by BHG to an overwhelming amount of automatic Twinkle notifications by LL posted on her talk page about cats she had created. Given the fierce disagreement she had recently had with nom Oculi and long-time "adversary" LL, I believe BHG, while being – understandably – upset, may have jumped to incorrect conclusions about LL and Oculi teaming up by "tag-teaming" / "revenge-nominating" categories she had created after Oculi had to withdraw the Expatriates CfM nomination over her objections. It is only right now that I'm checking the history of BHG's talk page that I'm noticing this pattern, and that I think I see where this misunderstanding might have come from, and why BHG may have unintentionally emotionally overreacted to a spree of automated CfM nomination notifications by LL. (I do not believe said nomination by LL to have been in bad faith against BHG. But as I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure if LL should have been categorising anything to do with Irish counties given his WP:EDR on that very topic area. Whether that is a separate or connected question, I do not know). In all this, I am afraid that RevelationDirect accidentally got caught in the crossfire between BHG on the one hand and her perceived enemies (LL and Oculi), because RD supported their nominations, and agreed with me (from during the Expat CfM) that BHG should not be "threatening the closer". In doing so, RD said something ABF which she later apologised for, although BHG wasn't really satisfied with that apology. As far as I can tell, BHG and RD had previously joyfully cooperated at CFD, both were sad that they now found themselves in conflict with each other, did not understand why things had to be this way, but unfortunately could not find a way to reach agreement on BHG's talk page and elsewhere. With tensions increasing in multiple places between BHG and the four of us (and others), and BHG eventually alleging that RD must be in league with the supposed LL/Oculi tag team, RD appears to have seen no other option but to go for an ANI (and I think she made the right call). I think this overreaction is the best explanation for why BHG has mistakenly arrived at the conclusion that there was a tag team, which did not exist. After an already tense situation, BHG made a human mistake which all of us could have made if we had been in her position. Nevertheless, that does not justify repeatedly casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence, let alone ignoring calls to either provide evidence or retract the accusations. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
under the improper influence of another editor, let alone tat RevelationDirect is a "meatpuppet". See [1], where I wrote:
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..
to an overwhelming amount of automatic Twinkle notifications.
2) Since WP:ARBGUIDE#Workshop requires that "Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page." and these had none, I propose striking them. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2)
1)
2)
3)
4)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1) Discussion about the interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT guideline or about the necessity to change the guideline (as consensus may change) should be left to the community. Neither in the preliminary statements nor in the evidence there is any indication that the community can not or could not handle a content discussion about this matter. A broader discussion outside WP:CFD just has not happened (yet). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Help create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledgeand
Be part of a global community that will avoid bias and prejudice, and(the other two bullet points above it) is a UCoC violation as certainly that first bulletpoint is quite germane to the conduct in this case, and arguably so is the second. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
instead made up what SMALLCAT said) and also that editors are quoting only part of a sentence and by doing that they are changing the meaning of the sentence. And that this is how it violates the UCoC. I will need to look at the evidence that has been submitted on the evidence page again in light of that. I will also note that while the UCoC is universal, in previous situations where UCoC enforcement has been called for I have noted how enwiki has added
policies that take account of local and cultural context, while maintaining the [UCOC] criteria listed...as a minimum standard. I will need to think carefully, if I agree that there has been submitted evidence that demonstrates the issues you've identified, whether or not that is true in this case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Neither in the preliminary statements nor in the evidence there is any indication that the community can not or could not handle a content discussion about this matter, but that is demonstrably false: my draft evidence contains multiple discussions where Marcocapelle and other editors were in repeated denial about the content of WP:SMALLCAT, and where there was utter fury that BHG tried to uphold WP:SMALLCAT actually says. Even as late as yesterday, at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Category:Irish_astrophysicists, Marcocapelle commented [2] but chose not to strike his earlier !vote [3] in favour of a blatantly WP:SMALLCAT-defying nomination. These breaches of the UCoC are central to this case.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
not generally in favour of deletion of categories, a claim which is easily disproven. AFAICS, you have been the single most persistent supporter of Oculi's mass-scale SMALLCAT-defiance: see e.g. the table of 6 mass-CFDs at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case#Ignoring_SMALLCAT, and your dogged support of Oculi's SMALLCAT-defiance at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_13#Expatriates_A-G, and also your "merge" !vote at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Expatriates_2. Far from being
not generally in favour of deletion of categories, much of the recent devastating abuse of SMALLCAT relied on your support.
I could populate the category quite easily, and adds a search to demonstrate how it can be populated.
per WP:SMALLCAT.
I want to categorically lay down a marker that if a guideline has been abused by a small group of editors, ArbCom can absolutely issue remedies to fix thatis very welcome. Thank you for that clear assertion. However, it contradicts Silk Tork's comment of 17:53, 24 July 2023. It would be a good idea for the Arbs to make a joint statement on this. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
focusing on one part of SMALLCATis not a remotely fair way of describing what's been happening. Those nominations of the style "merge/delete 'cos it has only x number of articles" go way beyond selective quoting. They are denying everything except the first word of that 112-word guideline, and inverting its meaning. Even the 6-word headline says "Small with no potential for growth", so a delete-by-current-size rationale is clearly misrepresenting even those six words because it ignores potential for growth. WP:SMALLCAT is absolutely clear that current size alone is not sufficient grounds to merge or delete. For those who dont get the simple term "potential for growth" or the longer phrase "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", SMALLCAT explicitly says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories", yet thousands of categories have been merged/deleted by Oculi/Marcocapelle/RevelationDirect & co on grounds that are explicitly forbidden in SMALLCAT.
neither Arbcom nor any other forum on en.wp has any authority to cherrypick the WMF's UCoC. I just focused on the 3rd bullet point because that point was most directly relevant to Marcocapelle's motion; in doing so I didn't omit anything relevant to the motion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
if BHG was alleging that there were folks willfully misinterpreting the guideline to engineer a manufactured consensus... yes, that is precisely what I allege. Not only that, but they used that wilful misinterpratation to vindictively target my work.
For clarity, in response to @MJL's comment below "if BHG was alleging that there were folks willfully misinterpreting the guideline to engineer a manufactured consensus "... yes, that is precisely what I allege. Not only that, but they used that wilful misinterpratation to vindictively target my work. One instance is documented above, but there is lots more of it at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft_evidence_in_SmallCat_case.I'm having trouble following the evidence of willful misinterpretation and malice. If you are willing to put more work into this evidence, a concise section that provides logical evidence/proof of that without the need for inference on the part of the reader would be helpful. I'm running into a bit of a TLDR issue with your evidence. For example the demonstration of tag-teaming here:
At ANI, Oculi made a non-denial denial of tag-teaming with Laurel Lodged. The diff is unavailable, but at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134 posted at 11:13, 8 July 2023: search for the phrase "I am not particularly likely to tag team with Laurel Lodged".
Yet here on 21 June[31] Oculi overtly summons LL to some other dispute: "LL seems to be expending argumentative resources here that are needed elsewhere".
1) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.
Now, on the merits, I will say that I chose to read your draft submission back when you emailed it to us. I did not read it as evidence, but rather I read it from the perspective of trying to evaluate whether the composition used words economically, and therefore whether not granting an extension would lead to important material being excised. At the very start you spend roughly 200 words explaining the history of SMALLCAT (information wholly available at the two links you give) and reiterating the content of the guideline (information available to anyone who reads the guideline central to this case). Further on you spend another 250-odd words on "Why this became a sprawling dispute" but provide us with a link to a single ANI discussion where your only commentary was "See also [ANI link], where none of them would even acknowledge what SMALLCAT actually says." I'm not going to go point-by-point; it suffices to show that the draft-as-written is not economical nor concise. I want to raise a counterfactual; imagine we did allow the unedited draft to be considered as evidence. Granted, it's difficult to view one's self from a disinterested perspective (it's why litigants are generally advised to have someone else represent them), but please try. Considering the concerns already in evidence regarding bludgeoning of process (e.g. Thryduulf's evidence), if that draft were to be in evidence, would it dispel or substantiate those concerns? I chose (and continue to choose) not to consider the draft as evidence, and therefore I choose to not answer that question. I believe our word limit procedures exist, in part, to limit the ability of parties to unintentionally harm their own case. That is a major factor in my opposition to an extension.This is why, speaking personally, I have not found your accusations that the process is rigged against you persuasive. I have privately, for the last 10 days, been trying to use our procedures for what I perceive to be your benefit. I have been urging other arbitrators to enforce our procedures (not even rigidly, we were willing to consider a request for up to 5 times the normal word limit) so that you will not submit something that will make you look bad to me and my colleagues without realizing; my argument was even quoted and sent to you as advice in our denial. Tangentially, the drafters of this case re-opened and extended the evidence phase in order to gather more evidence on a very serious (gendered and culturally specific) personal attack against you which might mitigate some of the issues raised against you.I say this, in part, because I want to make explicit how much work people are doing both on-wiki and behind the scenes to try and help you. One community member tried extracting relevant parts of your draft to submit (but later replaced), and recently another community member has offered to help edit the document to which you responded "I don't believe that it could be condensed that far [i.e., by half] without removing important parts of my case" ( diff). Editors I respect have submitted evidence showing the body of helpful work you can do when you stop digging (e.g. Tamzin's evidence; Pppery's evidence). In my ideal world we would be able to retain all those great contributions from you without needing to devote volunteer resources to resolving the latest conflict you find yourself in. You bring up that you've spent 100 hours on this case, but just an hour prior you rejected someone offering to literally do labor in your defence. How many hours, collectively, has the community spent on trying to find a way to keep you around? In previous disputes, how much time were other people devoting to your defense in order to insulate you from the workload (see User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned for a perspective on this phenomenon)? You bring up an accounting of your time, but your time is not the only time that counts when considering issues of fairness.If, after all of this, you still would like an extension to post your draft without edits, then there's not much else I can do to try and get you to reconsider. — Wug· a·po·des 08:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Genuinely, I think this request stems from a trap a lot of participants fall into: feeling the need to respond to everything on the assumption that arbitrators simply take claims for granted and diffs are just there for decoration. The diff is the context, and if things are being taken out of context, it should be sufficient to either say "read the diff" or present your own to give fuller context. There are times where that's not possible or the best response, but that's generally the stronger stuff that deserves an extended treatment. Failing to recognize this is, I think, the source of a lot of issues [...] where the minor points get picked up on. The word limits are not merely a way for us to limit how much we have to read: they are to force parties to prioritize their arguments and synthesize information rather than throwing everything at the wall and hoping things stick. Not only do I think allowing her to post a treatise would be annoying for us, I think it would be actively harmful to her if we let her. It may seem like letting her post what she wants in her own defense would be fair, but that's a shallow conception of fairness. Breaking (because 20k is well beyond bending) the rules so that she can post something we know will be generally useless and possibly incredibly harmful isn't, in my mind, in the interest of fairness. Similarly, it privileges fairness to her while largely ignoring how unfair it is for other participants who will now need to read and possibly respond to all of that. Even if we say 20k words takes 70 minutes to read (I believe that to be a bit low), that's over 22 person-hours spent reading alone (counting parties and arbs only). Is that a good use of our collective time or does it amount to a filibuster or distraction?
— Wugapodes, internal communication to the Arbitration Committee, 31 July 2023
humourLaurel Lodged's taunting of me, [12] ~14 hours after Laurel Lodged's "humour" sunk to naming a parody sex manual. [13]
a very hostile style of communication.
I disagree that he "denigrates". The two of you are often in disagreement, but Laurel generally keeps it civil, as he has done now. You'd better do the same
generally keeps it civil. See LL's non-apology apology at #Apology_from_Laurel_Lodged_to_BHG:
the many things that I have written over the years that caused offense, the worst (and least effective!) things were those that ridiculed her insights and skills.
accusing other people of being too sensitive is at least uncivil
Seconded[16] Marcocapelle's initial comment.
hijack), Marcocapelle accused me above [17] of
a very hostile style of communication. At ANI, Oculi accused me of creating a
a toxic atmosphere at cfd(see Oculi's post timestamped 11:13, 8 July 2023, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#The core issue of WP:SMALLCAT). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
hijackand an explanation of context as
BHG rabbit holeswas
WP:CIVILand
humour? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
methodsin relation to WP:SMALLCAT consisted of:
Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive, although editors acting in bad faith will be given far less if any leeway.I think it needs to be contextualized for this case, but of course the Committee is going to have to decide which principles they are applying here. I did realize that CIR would be a good example of well-intentioned disruption and understand better what is meant by this principle. —DIYeditor ( talk) 11:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The nominator has no obligation to make any attempt to populate any categories created by others. Again, the supporters include Marcocapelle & RevelationDirect. Whether we label this as a tag-team, as groupthink, or just as shared disregard for SMALLCAT, there is a pattern here.
Support I'm not even going to read this. I'm supporting because I just love the table.BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Strive towards accuracy and verifiability in all its work. You seem to hinge the argument on this and I don't see how it applies - that seems to be more about content than following technical rules for organizing Wikipedia (categories). I don't think anyone is alleged to have inserted false categorizations.
X, Y and Z editors were WP:POINTy [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
POINTiness:
X admits to being pointy in so and so deletion[1] by saying it was to teach me a lesson
Y is arguably pointy by doing so and so[2] which appears to be in retaliation by their own statements[3]
2) When multiple parties are involved in an ARBCOM case, the conduct of each party should be judged independently of the behaviour of another party.
BHG chooses not to provide evidence of undesirable conduct of other partiesand that the Arb's have stopped you from presenting the evidence you've prepared and want to present. As you noted in response to Wugapodes you have agency (which is my word to summarize the paragraph which begins "Wugapodes says..."). And you are using that agency to make a choice - that is that you need to submit all of your evidence or none. The choice the arbs have made has consequences, which includes your clear frustration and disillusionment, and your choice means someone can, accurately, say you've chosen not to present evidence against other parties.And, to further layout my thinking, this is where I'm struggling to adopt your thinking about the UCoC violations. Because if I accepted your framing about the UCoC bulletpoint, then I would have to equally say that your stating that something which is true (you've chosen to not present evidence) as false would be a UCoC violation. And I suspect you'd to tell me it's not a violation because this is another example of only a partial truth being presented (that your choice is caused by the Arbs decision). To which I would respond that the Arbs decision was caused by an unprecedented extension request and that is important context. To which you would respond... and on and on we'd go. Instead of all that, I find it easier to say that you made too strong of a statement - that what Marcocapelle wrote was false- in the cause of trying to contextualize the full situation. And given the full context of the situation (you're a party to a case before ArbCom and one who is frustrated with the arbitration process and disillunsioned by Wikipedia) I can understand that misstep for what it was. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
It's the Arbs who have chosen to stop me presenting itit was you telling Marcocapelle that what he wrote was
false. What Marcocapelle wrote was in fact true, but is from your perspective incomplete. That doesn't make it false. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Of course for this case this is related to the fact that BHG chooses not to provide evidence of undesirable conduct of other parties.
It's the Arbs who have chosen to stop me presenting it. I could of course have made a much longer reply to Marcocapelle to explain all the details, possibly something like the two paras above; but since I have repeatedly made that point in detail, I tried to keep my reply to Marcocapelle terse. Given the widespread practice of attacking longer replies as "bludgeoning", this leaves me with a further Hobson's choice: damned if I do, damned if I don't. And to add to the fun, my summarising gets labelled by an Arb as a possible UCoC violation.
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.
— from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog § Standards of editor behavior
2) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.
— from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § Bludgeoning (alt)
3) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.
— from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy § Battleground conduct
4) Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editors being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.
— from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § Repeated behavior
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
7) Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and guidelines, and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions.
dismiss a literal interpretation of WP:CIVIL as "wikilawyering". I dismissed as "offence-taking" a mention of WP:CIVIL in response to a reasoned objection, and I dismissed as wikilawyering NL's attempts to procedurally censor substantive discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
3) An editor who is provoked, harassed and/or attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themself to have been provked, harassed or attacked—whether on Wikipedia or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Wikipedia policy. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe.
Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with editors who appear to be reacting to being harassedor something to that effect. —DIYeditor ( talk) 12:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)editorswho have themselves breached acceptable standards in doing so
1) Wikipedia users, and groups of users can be fallible. Consensus in a given discussion may be at odds with one of the community at large. Editors should not pride themselves of their infallibility and be considerate of opinions other than their own.
1) Sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual threats, whether implied, alluded to, or explicitly directed at other editor are extremely detrimental to the environment of cooperating to build an encyclopedia. There should [can? will?] be no tolerance for acts of this nature on Wikipedia, particularly if appearing to intimidate or discourage another editor or editors. There should be robust action taken against any overt sexism or sexual harassment which might serve to discourage or intimidate another editor or editors.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DIYeditor ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Original text restored and updated 13:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. is not allowed.
(from
Wikipedia:Harassment)
Updated —DIYeditor ( talk) 03:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC) 13:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.Other possibly relevant policies such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment are more focussed on legal threats, or threats of off-wiki (physical) violence, neither of which seems applicable to this incident. (And for reasons I have outlined, I do not favour an approach of examining this as discrimination on the basis of sex/gender, because that is putting the characteristics of the complainant rather than the abusive behaviour of the suspect at the centre of the inquiry). (copypasted from Evidence talk comment 21:29, 10 August 2023). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Saying we will have zero tolerance for any sexism may have an accidental negative impact. Unconscious gender bias is widespread and exists even in women. To make a less sexist environment, we should all accept where we have bias and work to address it. If we say we have zero tolerance for any level of sexism (and I assume therefore bias) then that implies that someone will be banned for admitting it and that will incentivise editors away from admitting error. That will inhibit editors from acknowledging bias and creating an environment of equality.
I suggest we say we will take robust action where there is overt sexism or harassment but would caution away from zero tolerance policies about anything as they tend to be very clumsy policies that don't consider very mild accidental errors that many people (including equity-deserving people) make. CT55555(talk) 20:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
particularly if appearing to intimidate or discourage another editor or editorswhich maybe should be "intentionally" but I wasn't sure that made sense either. This was just my first reaction to the "brace yourself Bridget" for which I thought there should be some rule of thumb that would allow a block without any further warning should an admin see fit.
There should be robust action taken against any overt sexism or sexual harassment which might serve to discourage or intimidate another editor or editors? It was definitely not my intent that should someone reveal any arguably sexist belief or behavior they be blocked zero tolerance, because anyone could be the next on the chopping block under that... —DIYeditor ( talk) 21:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Why the sexual nature of threats of violence is important, not the characteristics of the complainant
|
---|
So far, as far as the words "sex-" and derivates such as "sexual" and "harassment" are concerned, the Index only contains:
My issue with no. #1 to #3, as well as Wikipedia:Harassment, are the words based on and on the basis of, and that it only includes (biological) "sex" or "sexual preference/orientation" of the complainant. But sexual harassment and sexual threats can be made by any person of any (biological) sex/gender (identity/expression)/sexual preference/orientation, and can be made against any person of any (biological) sex/gender (identity/expression)/sexual preference/orientation. Hypothetically, if both editor A and editor B are pansexual and have the same (biological) sex/gender (identity/expression), (for the sake of argument, let's say they are both cisgendered men), and they know this about each other, but A makes a sexual threat to B, then this is not a case of "discrimination" based on or on the basis of any of the characteristics involved. Those are irrelevant, because these are characteristics A and B share. The reason why A does something wrong has instead to do with a threat of violence, in this case sexual violence/ sexual assault. The sexual aspect is part of the nature of the threat of violence, not part of any of the characteristics of B. A could have made an identically worded sexual threat against anyone else, regardless of that other person's (biological) sex/gender (identity/expression)/sexual preference/orientation. My issue with no. #4 is that it actually affords way too much legal protection to the suspect against accusations of sexual harassment by the complainant. The provision that Therefore, I think we should recognise the sexual nature of the threat as sanctionable, and that we should not depend on the supposed discrimination of any of the characteristics of the complainant. This puts way too much focus on who/what/how the complainant is/thinks/feels instead of what ethical/criminal violation the suspect may have committed. The complainant shouldn't be put into a position where they need to explain what their characteristics are, and that they have therefore been discriminated against, especially if they prefer to keep those private (which is important in an online environment like Wikipedia). As no. #2 does say correctly, the reason for harassment of others is irrelevant: You (DIYeditor) appear to agree with this: I meant specifically cases where sexual harassment seems clear and intentional not just that if someone had some belief that others considered biased they should be sanctioned. You also appear to distinguish between sexual harassment as an intentional threat of violence against the complainant, regardless of the sex- or gender-related characteristics which the complainant might have which the suspect might somehow have discriminated against. |
2) It is necessary for editors to maintain competence in collaboration, cooperation, compromise, dispute resolution, and working with honest differences of opinion.
3) It is important, even if not technically required, to participate in administrative review of one's activities on Wikipedia when called upon to do so. "Stonewalling" a process is disruptive. The above principle about collaboration also applies to this.
1) Civility is one of the fundamental principles ( the five pillars) of Wikipedia. No quantity of constructive editing gives someone a licence to disrespect their fellow Wikipedians, even when they disagree, nor to assume bad faith.
1) Expectations and standards of conduct are developed by the community and reflected in policies and guidelines describing agreed-upon best practices that should be applied with reason and common sense.
2) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and to not engage in personal attacks.
and to not), for parallelism in corresponding clauses. I also think "engage in" seems more clear and potentially more neutral than
resort to. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
3) Wikipedia editors and readers are culturally diverse by virtue of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender or sexual orientation. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. Harassment of other editors for any reason will not be tolerated and is also grounds for blocking or other sanctions. - 2015-12
4) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on fellow editors, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion. - 2013-08
5) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. - 2021-09
6) Policy states: "All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so." The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
- from the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland final decision
1) The fact that BrownHairedGirl and Laurel Lodged, the two editors widely considered to be at the heart of this dispute, are both under active editing restrictions ( WP:EDR), but have repeatedly been found by multiple editors to have been WP:UNCIVIL during this dispute, as well as on several earlier occasions being uncivil (mostly BHG) or emptying categories out of process (only LL), without being sanctioned for it, demonstrates that there is an WP:EDR enforcement problem.
1) Wikipedians are expected to assume good faith, but not everyone acts in good faith, and even when acting in good faith can do harm. One of the harms that can be done is unsubstantiated claims of malfeasance by another editor. It can be difficult to rebut a claim which does not provide the evidence which is believed to support the claim, whether or not it is grounded in reality, a misinterpretation of reality or is simply in the mind of the beholder.
To reduce the adverse effects of such claims, when an editor claims malfeasance by another editor, they must, in the same edit, provide the evidence supporting that claim, which they consider necessary and sufficient to uphold that claim as made in that edit. Failure to provide any such evidence is prima facie evidence of bad faith on the part of the claimant and may be sanctioned. Failure to provide sufficient and convincing evidence may result in the claim being repudiated, and the claimant may be warned or reprimanded. Methods of providing such evidence include quotes, diffs and links. Direct quotes must provide sufficient context as may be necessary to avoid misrepresentation and must be linked to the original source if reasonably practicable.
Comment: This may be improved, but hopefully the general idea is conveyed. Please point out any unintended consequences that may arise. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
1) One or more of the parties made unsupported claims of malfeasance against others.
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} No specific suggestions.
This would be a new behavioural expectation and it would not be reasonable to apply it retrospectively. It would apply to all Wikipedians in future communications on-wiki. It would probably have to go through RfC to have any validity as a guideline, but it may be within Arbcom's remit to impose it as a remedy in specific cases.
1) Failure to comply nay be enforced by a warning, followed by a topic ban (or partial block? never used one, so not sure how they work.) from the areas in which the remedy is contravened. I suggest the period starts with 24 hours and is doubled with each consecutive enforcement.
These proposed findings of fact coincide with the section headers of my evidence section originally submitted on 1 August 2023. (The title of #3 has been changed to reflect past tense.) Each proposed finding contains evidence from the Evidence page, as required by WP:ARBGUIDE#Workshop. While I think there are other potential findings, as an involved editor, I’m limiting mine to the ones where I was directly involved with at CFD. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
1) On the Evidence page, there is clear indication that BrownHairedGirl repeatedly makes claims of Tag Team Meatpuppetry in the wild outside of the dispute resolution process.
2) On the Evidence page, there is clear evidence that BrownHairedGirl repeatedly promises to back up claims of Tag Team Meatpuppetry and that such evidence would come at least partly in the form of Diffs.
3) No Diffs or other evidence to support these claims of Tag Team Meatpuppetry were ever submitted to the Evidence page by BrownHairedGirl.
After promising to provide her own Diffs above, BrownHairedGirl began rethinking whether Diffs were a meaningful form of evidence. Based on her subsequent comments on the Workshop page, I don’t think this proposed finding is controversial.
5) On the Evidence page, it is documented in great detail that neither good faith nor competency are assumed by BrownHairedGirl when engaging with other editors at CFD. jc37, and
6) On the Evidence page, it is documented that discussing the underlying content dispute about SMALLCAT did not stop the incivility from BrownHairedGirl.
7) On the Evidence page, it is documented that Categories for Discussion is not usually a contentious place beyond a couple editors.
misuse of a guideline may continue unchallenged for some time) Policies and guidelines are intended to be descriptive of community consensus, which is determined by the outcomes of relevant discussions. If discussions repeatedly reach consensus different to those documented in guidelines then it's likely the guidelines are out of date. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
8) On the Evidence page, it is documented that the community restriction based on BrownHairedGirl’s prior incivility did not work in practice.
1) The Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct applies at all times to all editors, as a legal condition of use of WMF websites, including the English-language Wikipedia. No editor, admin or arbitrator is permitted to disregard the UCoC.
2) Editors are required by the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) to "strive towards accuracy and verifiability" in all their work on Wikipedia.
3) Editors are human, and therefore fallible. Editors may in good faith make errors in which their assertions in articles or in discussions are inaccurate or verifiable. However, when they spot errors in their work or are notified by others of such errors, editors are required by the UCoC to strive to correct their errors and to not repeat them.
4) When an editor is notified of an inaccuracy, repeating that inaccuracy is a breach of the UCoC, and hence a form disruption.
1) Thrydulf's evidence at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence#BRFA_for_BHGbot9 is misleading because it is incomplete. After disagreeing with Headbomb at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9, BHG asked for a second opinion: see
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 9 #Other_views_sought. Instead of allowing that to happen, Headbomb piled on and ignored the guidelines I cited i support of my view. Headbomb then closed the BRFA before any other input happened, so i asked BAG to review it: see
Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 16#BHGbot_9_review_sought. Sadly, BAG piled on both support Headbomb's prevention of further input, an in support of Headbomb's odd view that for some reason we should retain the big banner {{
Cleanup bare URLs}} tag on a page where the only URL which could be counted as bare is one which has already been tagged for removal or replacement. That is contrary to the
WP:CLEANUPTAG guidance: "If an article has many problems, tag only the highest priority issues" and "Don't insert tags that are similar or redundant".
Since the guidance was on my side, I ran the same code as an ordinary
WP:AWB job (without a bot flag) on thousands of articles, and there were no objection from anyone except Headbomb. He raised the issue at
Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Bot_request_process, where he got no support; his two RFCs were speedily closed. Headbomb then appealed the speedy close of the RFCs: see
WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive345#Closure review: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Mass addition of Cleanup bare URLs template, where nobody supported re-opening. See also
Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Two_Bot-related_RFCs_at_Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_71#Mass_addition_of_Cleanup_bare_URLs_template, where I note Headbomb's aggression at another venue: accusing me of kneecaping
Citation bot. The problem throughout all this was that a) Headbomb's aggressive disregard of
WP:CLEANUPTAG went unchallenged by BAG, and b) there is no venue to appeal a BAG decision other than to BAG, even when the task has proven uncontroversial. I was saddened and upset by that drama, and am saddened that again BAG's failure to restrain Headbomb and support a stable guideline is cited as some failure by me. I did a big and uncontroversial cleanup job, but got monstered for it.
2) WP:SMALLCAT is explicitly restricted to categories which are "Small with no potential for growth", and there is an exemption for categories which are "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
3) A nomination to delete a category per WP:SMALLCAT must therefore include an assessment of whether it as "potential for growth", and whether it is part of "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
4) Oculi and Laurel Lodged repeatedly nominated categories for merger or deletion on the basis of misrepsentations of SMALLCAT, by ignoring both potential for growth and whether the categories were part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. They continued to do so even after being notified of their errors.
5) Marcocapelle, and RevelationDirect continued to support CFD nominations which misrepresented SMALLCAT, even after being notified of their error.
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
The first set of diffs in the evidence from DanCherek is from an incidents' noticeboard discussion on talk thread formatting from March 2020, after an edit war between RexxS and BrownHairedGirl. For a description of the technical details of the disagreement, see my previous analysis of this discussion. The exhibited behaviour in the incidents' noticeboard thread from both disputing parties was frustrating, as they focused narrowly on repeating their own arguments and did not try to understand the other person's point of view. The level of loud accusations set in a larger typeface size by BrownHairedGirl was extreme, though, and not conducive to resolving the dispute. isaacl ( talk) 04:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
1. Under the heading "Threats", Laurel_Lodged posted this comment by BHG:
This does not appear to me to be a "threat" of any kind, it appears to be a suggestion then WP:Deletion review (DRV) can be used to resolve a dispute. Floating a suggestion to use a regular Wikipedia process is inherently not threatening.
2. Similarly, in the same edit, under the heading "Assumed revenge / paranoia" is quoted:
I am at a loss to see the "assumed revenge" in that statement. It seems more like a statement of factual chronology, albeit characterized by BHG's personal impression of it. Furthermore, describing it as "paranoia" on BHG's part is perilously close to being a personal attack, as statements do not have paranoia, people do. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, in my words, "sort of 'intimidating' the closer"
|
---|
|
This comment about BrownHairedGirl's "mindset" is not acceptable. Laurel Lodged also made an inappropriate remark about BrownHairedGirl's mental health at ANI; it was redacted as a personal attack and he was warned by an administrator that further comments like that would be met with a block (see my evidence). Making the statement quoted above, dripping with hyperbole ("reeling in horror"; "the mindset that could commit such an act"), on an arbitration case page suggests that the warning was not effective. DanCherek ( talk) 23:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)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.
. I have nearly a page of type written notes about those diffs in fact. However, this observation felt like something useful to note publicly at this point in time. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)MyAn observation is that...
Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks, she may be blocked first for twelve hours and then for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. (...). Indefinite.
Laurel Lodged is placed under an editing restriction from adding, removing or altering the names or significance of Irish counties (...) Indefinite. Can be removed after 2013-12-20.
BHG to LL at the Irish police officers by county CfM
|
---|
|
[LL recognizes] the importance of being WP:CIVIL. There isn't any evidence to support that statement. He had to be warned twice by Black Kite about his incivility before finally disengaging. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 17:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
realistic potential for growthin the 2020 and 2023 discussions.
realistic potential for growthis a subjective standard so different editors are going to reach different conclusions on how to apply in a given instance but that doesn't make any of them wrong. What am I missing?
unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization schemewhich I don't see any attempt to explain how it would not apply in that discussion. The only one who notes the broader implications is Liz with her comment about other recent CfD. Have any of the parties addressed this somewhere (and if it was in the ANI thread that preceded this case, apologies as despite having read that three times already, there's so much going on there that it's possible this detail didn't stick). Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
a large overall accepted sub-categorization schemeactually is, anyone can claim anything is part of such a scheme and thus claim SMALLCAT doesn't apply and the nomination is invalid. That means this text is worthless. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Me trying to understand it
|
---|
At the time it was still a proposed guideline. It was put together through unilateral actions of several editors (including Dugwiki, jc37, Tim!, Circeus and others) making it up as they went along, sometimes reverting each other and almost edit-warring in the process. There was
virtually no talk page discussion (just Dugwiki making two comments explaining their own edits). (To be fair, that is how many early policies and guidelines were made; whatever stuck became customary law. It's only later that amendments were formally proposed and voted on, but per
WP:PGCHANGE a lot can still be
WP:BOLDly amended). Most disagreements in Dec 2006 about SMALLCAT were apparently exactly about examples of what |
a large overall accepted sub-categorization schemewhen people stopped unilaterally changing it and reverting each other, and up until this day there is disagreement about how to interpret it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
a large overall accepted sub-categorization schemephrase in particular).
a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, and saying amongst other things These cats are indeed part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (...).
a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, but differently than BHG did.
This Petscan search finds 3,824 categories whose title includes the phrase "emigrants to". That number is now down to 3742, but it's still very large, and arguably huge.
disignenuous. The overall scheme is of people who migrated between any pair of over 200 countries, of which almost 150 are represented in the set of nominated categories, but Marcocapelle misrepresented the context -- just as he has repeatedly supported misrepresentations of SMALLCAT.
@ Editor B Mind explaining how you are not guilty of the exact [allegations] you are willing to condemn Editor C for? Please do so without violating the Tu quoque fallacy yourself. - Editor A
It was alleged at the ARC that Laurel Lodged will just ignore and otherwise attempt to wait out disputes involving them.So my answer stands that LL had been explicitly asked to disengage from the discussion by B, C and D. Then E, F and G tagged him to ask further questions and he answered once, but even that resulted in a negative response from other people who had demanded him to disengage, so yeah. It's difficult, you can't please everyone simultaneously, I guess. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 20:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that refusing to continue to communicate at MJL's objection to being misgendered is part of the pattern. For the record, I follow the Golden Rule (i.e. all instances of "he/him" in law are assumed to also mean "she/her"). No. Assuming maleness is not okay. It doesn't help our goals. I've been assumed to be male by multiple other editors who've addressed me as sir, Mr., dude, bro...I try to politely correct the misapprehension and brush off the annoyance, but yeah. It's not very welcoming, and we should encourage people to address other editors by their preferred pronouns. If you don't want to bother with that, just call everyone they/them, very few people object to that.
@ Laurel Lodged, FFR: instead of treating people as you'd like to be treated, maybe try treating them as they'd like to be treated. You may like to be assumed male. I don't. Valereee ( talk) 18:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
his/her/theiras if
hisis even an option for someone who just told you they aren't male.
RevelationDirect's comments on an earlier draft of the evidence
|
---|
Note: BrownHairedGirl posted draft evidence on her user page from which Marcocapelle reposted excerpts on the official ArbComm evidence page.
|
sort of 'intimidating' the closer;
the sheer scale of this nomination makes it impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill WP:SMALLCAT which is for "Small with no potential for growth". You addressed neither the nomination's failure to respect anyting other than the first word of SMALLCAT not the impossibility of believing that the nominator had checked potential for growth. Instead of asking why I made that assertion, you went stright to attacking me for making it. If you want to resolve a dispute, the way to respnd to an assertion that seems problematic is to ask for explanation; that way, the dialoge may reach agreement. But instead, you adopted the dispute-escalation path of adding an extra layer of dispute, over whether I assumed bad faith.
impossible to believe that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill WP:SMALLCAT.
09:54, 7 July 2023
in the archive
WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#BrownHairedGirl's_lack_of_civility_in_CFD). That was dispute escalation, and your replies escalated it further. You continued to try to frame it all a he-said/she-said dispute, while repeatedly failing to engage with the very simple core point: that Oculi's nomination at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G wholly misrepresented SMALLCAT by ignoring all of the 100+ word guideline apart from its first word "small". Instead, in that long discussion between us at ANI, you repeatedly demanded that I either recuse myself from all SMALLCAT-related discussions, or be topic-banned from them.intimidation; they actually doubled down on it, even tho they knew that RevelationDirect had already issued a very belated and disappointingly terse apology.
People can link to whatever they want. That doesn't make it suddenly part of evidence that is considered.In emails on behalf of Arbcom, Barkeep49 repeatedly defended the contextomy of diff-farming, inisisting that "the diff is the context". (No: a diff shows only a small fragment of the immediately-preceding discussion; the context is often much wider). I like Barkeep, but these Arbcom decisions which Barkeep has conveyed with great courtesy are not good.
I have published my draft evidence at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case, but Barkeep49 stated today that this will not be considered as evidence [...] So, whether by design or by error or by over-zealous application of precedent, I have already been stitched up.You have not been "stitched up", you are just being held to the same standards as everybody else: Evidence must be presented on the evidence page. This has been explicitly stated more than once, including in the formal notification on your talk page when the case opened:
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence.
Meanwhile, issues wholly unrelated to SMALLCAT are permitted on the evidence page (e.g. by Thryduulf)The scope of this case is not the SMALLCAT dispute but, as stated on every case page, it is
conduct of named parties. The detailed explanation of the scope, linked from every page of this case, states
While the case is entitled "SmallCat dispute" because it was that dispute which spurred the case, the Arbitration Committee will be taking a comprehensive look at the conduct of the named parties including, but not limited to, small categories.Thryduulf ( talk) 11:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
My thanks to @ Nederlandse Leeuw: for reminding me of my obligations in common charity. A better Christian than I would not have needed such a reminder. For how can I expect justice in this case whilst denying what is right and just in the case of BHG? Matthew 5:23–24 seems to be pertinent. What I say now is not done in the hope that it will influence the outcome of this case; I have a fair idea already of the direction that the decision will go. Rather I do so because it is the right thing do, and BHG, while not without sin herself, is still a person with feelings - feelings that my actions have hurt. So then, I have written things to @ BrownHairedGirl: and about BHG that cannot fail to have hurt her. While baiting — probably mutual baiting — was involved that might explain some of those things, it is irrelevant nor can it ever serve as a real excuse. I ought to have avoided the temptation to be sarcastic and to use mockery to undermine her arguments; in failing to rise above these base urgings, I caused her hurt. Above all, of the many things that I have written over the years that caused offense, the worst (and least effective!) things were those that ridiculed her insights and skills. Everybody is aware of her skills. No. They were written to touch on what I knew to be her weakest point - her vanity and pride in her skills. It mattered little that what I wrote was inaccurate or not really worked out; the point was that I knew in advance that the barb would drive home. In that knowledge lies the offence and my guilt. I apologise for causing the hurt. It was wrong. I promise to not offend in this way again. I offer this promise whether or not it is reciprocated. It is also offered in the sad self-awareness that I may be unable to resist future provocations, despite best intentions. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes, including BHG. Therefore, we cannot assume BHG's interpretation of policies and guidelines to always be right etc. Therefore, I think this approach is untenable, because BHG does not have a monopoly on interpreting policies and guidelines (certainly not so long and heavily contested as SMALLCAT; I refer to jc37's Evidence on that). Nor is she in a position to demand an apology of anyone who disagrees with her interpretation of policies and guidelines, nor do I think it is justified to accuse anyone of acting in bad faith if they don't.
critical of particularly the Catholic Church and the Pope. This intrusion and misrepresentation reinforces my desire to disengage from NL. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
deplorable behaviourfor demonstrating a solution to the problems; and posted at rant [50] comparing me with a Roman Emperor (see the edit summary
Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Note that 7 years later, LL drew attention to their 2016 disruption in an attempt to disrupt a productive collaboration at WT:IRELAND: details at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case#2023:_TFD_2016_revisited.
what I knew to be her weakest point - her vanity and pride in her skills, and warns that LL won't actally stop. They
may be unable to resist future provocations, despite best intentions. That tries to justify their behaviour as due to "provocation" by what LL described as my
insights and skills.
insights and skillsof editors should be valued rather than treated as a vice which provokes attack. LL's resentment of the skills of others is a fundamental hostility to the goals of Wikipedia.
Such editors have a romantic attachment to the former local government area and have been consistent in pursuing their nostalgic editing over the years. Their fallback conceit in pursuit of "Dublinia Irridenta" is that, while the administrative entity was abolished, the county remains, in some ghostly form, in the hearts and minds of all true Dubliners.
While irridentists would like to cling to the uber-nationalist notion of "32 counties" and "A nation once again", that just is not the case
Let's not go down BHG rabbit holes
That sounds like an attempt to de-ligitimise the entire Category:Emigrants from former countries tree structure., and accuses me of
trying to hijack this nom
It's my anointed role in Wiki to make BHG sighand repeats the allegation that my ALT1 proposal is an
attempt to de-ligitimise the entire Category:Emigrants from former countries tree structure.
brace yourself Bridget, an apparent attempt to mock me for being an Irish woman. (It appears to refer to this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brace-Yourself-Bridget-Official-Manual/dp/0312094302)
LL tries to keep some humour in this discussion and you take it far too seriously. Of course I take it seriously! The discussion is part of building an encyclopedia, which is serious work. Editors want to engage in taunting games should induge that tanting urge somewhere other than in an encyclopedic project. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: I submitted some evidence of LL ignoring a dispute involving him. I have a little over 100 words left, so I'll ask if it would also be helpful to provide a history of LL emptying categories out of process? I wouldn't need an extension for that, but I don't want to waste time providing evidence for something the committee isn't particularly interested in looking at. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I also crossed the line with WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF with this second half of this edit ( Diff). I have stricken it & retracted it ( Diff) and separately apologized on BrownHairedGirl's talk page ( Diff). Her response to that apology seemes reasonable to me.
I regret the comment and am embarrassed by how long it was up before I struck it. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Detailed explanation of what I think
|
---|
|
intiimdation(Nederlandse Leeuw, diff]) or a
threat(RevelationDirect, diff]). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I hope that the closer will do their WP:NOTAVOTE job and discard all the !votes which flagrantly ignore the guidelines.
Please can you therefore hold off implementing any close to allow the DRV to happen first. In other words, I outline the starkness of the choice, the issues likely to need a deletion review, and asked the closer not so set the bots to work until the issue had been finally resolved. Note that when an AFD is closed as delete, each deleted article can be restored with one action; but implementing a CFD merge requires a bot to not just delete each category page, but also to engage in a lot of hard-to-revert edits to every article in each category. In this case, there would have been about 1,000 actions to revert if the close was overturned after the bot had gotten to work, and in my experience of doing that job, it involves many hours work for whoever implements the overturn. The work is made much harder by the fact that even after the minimum 7 days for a deletion review, many articles will have been edited further, which often prevents the use of tools such as rollback or undo. I have log exerience of fiding multiple articles where it takes several minutes to restore just the one article. very closer of a CFD (or any other XFD or RM) should be aware at all times that their close may be reviewed at Deletion review or Move review, so the noting of that possibility adds nothing new: DRV is always part of the environment for any closer. Therefore a mention of a possible deletion review cannot in any way
create a hostile work environment(as Nederlandse Leeuw claimed) for any closer who understands the basic point that any XFD/RM close may be reviewed. What does
create a hostile work environmentis Nederlandse Leeuw's ABF decision to smear as
intimidationa request to the closer to allow any deletion review to have the option of overturning a close without many hours of avoidable clerical works (see WP:FAIT), and to bully me into not using the community's long-stablished procedures for reviewing the weighing of consensus.
intimidationwas in fact NL trying to intimidate BHG for upholding the consensus-building process against editors such as NL who radically misrepresent a short, simple, stable guideline.
My overall thesis is that, rather than providing evidence at dispute resolution, BrownHairedGirl was sprinkling accusations of misconduct against me and others in the wild where they can't be addressed. In other words, BrownHairedGirl should have filed an ANI against me for WP:TAGTEAM meatpuppetry or whatever and provided her evidence right up front that I could then respond to. BrownHairedGirl continues to make it challenging to get at the root of the issue with her pattern of engagement here at ArbComm:
Rather than BrownHairedGirl providing clear evidence against me on the Evidence page, I continue to have to shadow box vague claims. This makes it hard to defend myself because I’m not sure if I’m Laurel Lodged’s meatpuppet, or his mascot, just under his spell somehow, or what. That’s why I begged BrownHairedGirl to use her allotted evidence against me specifically ( Diff). When I tried my best to summarize the vague accusations, my edit was labeled as a ... "straw man" .... ( Diff).
Rather than engaging with this case under the set rules, BrownHairedGirl focuses on critiquing ArbComm. ( Diff) It’s a little difficult to hear how unfair it is that ArbComm only allotted BrownHairedGirl 5,000 words of evidence while I make do with 2,000. I still made no objection to her 20,000 word request though ( Diff).
Rather than distilling her ideas onto the Evidence page, BrownHairedGirl repeatedly points to her much longer draft evidence on her user page ( Diff). But that page has more blow-by-blow retellings and reiterations of earlier claims than it does evidence. When a summary of this was briefly entered into evidence, I only needed a short reply to refute it. ( Diff) I still have no objection to formally including this draft evidence.
Rather than respond to the specific Diffs I placed on the Evidence page about her, BrownHairedGirl raises epistemological questions about the nature of quotes in general. ( Diff) My Diffs do indeed quote very narrowly to stay within my word count limits but I added ellipses (…) before and after quotes to make it clear they were pulled from larger conversations. I also provided the links to the original discussions and encourage that they be reviewed in their entirety. ( CDlink)
Rather than disputing my central thesis at this Workshop, BrownHairedGirl seems to brag about it: ..."My direct challenges to those abuses brought a prompt end to the tag-teaming and to the vindictive, SMALLCAT-defying nominations." ( Diff) (The full conversation is above) Making accusations in the wild to shut down dialogue is why I came to ArbComm in the first place, not because of SMALLCAT.
Barkeep49 assured me that ArbComm handles evaluating behavior during the case so, if this analysis is outside my purview, go ahead and collapse it or delete it entirely. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
only needed a short reply to refute it, i.e. to refute my allegation of tag-teaming. But they took only one part of my wider evidence, and RD's claimed refutation [62] refutes nothing. The fact that LL an Oculi disagreed there is not evidence that they didn't collude elsewhere, even if only a my-enemy's-enemy basis.
Rather than respond to the specific Diffs I placed on the Evidence page about her, BrownHairedGirl raises epistemological questions about the nature of quotes in general. False: I did indeed raise important epistemological questions about the nature of quotes, but that is a supplement to the detailed evidence at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case#RevelationDirect_quote_mining, where I have written a detailed exposure and analysis of RevelationDirect's use of the propaganda tactic of quote-mining. That section alone would take up almost all of the highest extended word count on offer from Arbcom, which is one of the main reasons I don't accept the limit: I'd have to either omit that crucial evidence or omit early everything else.
My direct challenges to those abuses brought a prompt end to the tag-teaming and to the vindictive, SMALLCAT-defying nominations. RD still seems to think that there is something bad about ending such abuses.
accusations in the wild to shut down dialogue: they were challenges to an abuse of process which needed to be made at the CFD, so that other participants and (crucially) the closer would be aware that was a significant dispute about the nature of the nomination, an they were backed by evidence which RD chose ignore in favour of quote-mining where they painstakingly edited my posts to remove anything that explained why I made those allegations, even removing parts of sentences (see User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case#RevelationDirect_quote_mining). Far from BHG trying to
to shut down dialogue, it was RD who repeatedly tried to shut down dialogue, both at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 25#People_by_occupation_in_Northern_Ireland (see e.g. [63]) and on my talk, when they insisted that we do not discuss substance. [64], but instead focus on "civility issues".
The reason that RD came to ANI and then Arbcom is that they preferred quote-mining to manufacture civility complaints, especially I do not agree with "manufacture". The complaints are very real and the issue is that BHG does not want to talk about them. In addition, RD has been totally transparant about shortening the quotes to what is relevant for WP:CIVILITY, so it does not make sense to suggest something bad happened. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)