This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

What are arbitors' expectations of involved parties using this talk page? Should we as involved parties, in this stage, limit ourselves to an absolute minimum, or should we actively partake in discussion? Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

My opinion: feedback from parties about the proposed decision can be helpful. Sometimes there will be discussion between parties and arbs (maybe the arb replies here, maybe the party replies to something an arb says on the proposed decision page). Discussion between parties is generally not helpful. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Arbcom members, thank you very much for your efforts, I appreciate the amount of thought you put into this. While this was an "interesting" experience, I hope not to return here any time soon. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49 Thanks, that's good to know. I intend to do no more contributions (as I try to be mindful of bludgeon), unless I see something really important missing, or if an arbitrator asks me specifically to explain something. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 04:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC) PS: Oops, sorry, I'll set up my own section here. It's still a bit confusing when and where to have your own section. (I wrote something about this in my feedback for future cases). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 04:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Robert McClenon may have a good point that XfD should be recognised as a Wikipedia:contentious topics area to which special restrictions should apply because they are so often disruptive. I gotta say that in the 15+ years I've been active on Wikipedia, I've never been in an ANI before, much less an ARC. And yet within 5 months of becoming active at CFD (February - June 2023), which has on the one hand been very interesting and at times a lot of fun, I also ended up in both an ANI and an ARC because of this Smallcat dispute. In the meantime, I also got into an unusual amount of tensions with other editors about deleting, merging, renaming or splitting categories or articles. I might have been called names and been insulted more times in these recent months at CfD, AfD, Requested Moves etc. than in all 15 years combined (but I might suffer from recentism bias because much of it has happened so recently). I should also acknowledge that it has tested my own communication skills to its limits. I deserve the warning that is being proposed, but I should have prevented that from being necessary in the first place. I understand why editors, myself included, can become so passionate about XfD, because the arguments may decide what is deleted and what is kept or renamed etc. and nobody wants someone else to "win" a discussion based on what they consider bad arguments. The frustration this creates is probably the reason why WP:CIVIL issues arise more easily in the XfD domain, and why behavioural policy and guidelines should be more strictly observed and enforced in places where such issues are more likely to arise. Good day, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I appreciate and second the gratitude @ RevelationDirect has expressed for the good work the Arbcom has done on this case. May I ask you what you mean with What frustrates me though, is not what was said about me in those places [the Workshop page, a User talk page, and a User draft evidence page] but that nothing was said about me on the formal Evidence page. I think at least a summary of BrownHairedGirl’s position there would have allowed for more holistic outcomes.? You are mentioned several times at the /Evidence page, but apparently not in connection to something you would have liked to have seen discussed? What would that have been? I hope that we as a whole, or I personally, have properly taken your role or perspective into account; for my part, I tried. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ RevelationDirect Thanks for clarifying! Could that be because you would have liked to have those accusations formally submitted with purported "evidence" (of which we haven't really seen any), and then formally refuted / disproven in the Workshop / Proposed decision, in order to formally clear your name? Not sure if that is what you're thinking, but if I were in your position, that feeling of "unfinished business" is what could be irking me right now. My guess is that BHG didn't have any actual evidence, or didn't want to formally submit it because it would be easily formally refuted / disproven and thus damage her name ( WP:BOOMERANG), and that the word-limit complaint was just an excuse. She had every reason and opportunity to formally submit it, and she didn't. Not even in her draft "evidence". If her draft "evidence" was all there was for proving you were part of a "tag team", it's pretty poor. I think you have adequately demonstrated her lack of proof and even eventual unwillingness to prove it in your /Evidence section. That speaks volumes.

Although many participants previously sympathised with BHG as a person, mostly for her past contributions, or supported some of her accusations against LL (which were often found to be correct!), I haven't seen anyone else actually believing her allegation that there was a tag team between anyone against anyone, much less the willingness to present any evidence to that effect (either on BHG's behalf, or their own behalf). Nobody else really seemed to take the allegation seriously. (At the ANI, I tried taking it seriously, but I found it to be a lot of hot air, and began sympathising more with you and the other two; I tried standing up for you, especially in the Workshop). If you Ctrl+F for the word "tag" on the /Evidence page, it's all about denying / refuting / disproving the accusation, and saying that such an accusation should never be made carelessly without the necessary evidence.

By the end of the case in the Proposed decision, "tag team" is only mentioned once more by Arbitrator Wugapodes. There, it is part of a long list of baseless accusations made by BHG that are damaging to the accused, but that the community has no reason to take seriously (in Wugapodes' view, mostly because it wastes time). I think you can rest assured that your name has de facto been cleared, although I understand that a (more) formal statement to that effect would be / have been nice. Your reputation (and that of the other two accused) has been questioned without good reason, but no formal rehabilitation has taken place yet. Would you perhaps like me to request the Arbcom to consider issuing such a statement? Again, not sure what you're looking for, but this is what I think you are thinking about. Good day, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comparison of Proposed remedies no. #3 and no. #6

• Reaction to Proposed decision statements so far On the whole I am quite satisfied with the proposals so far. In particular, I think I deserve the warning that has been proposed.

It just strikes me that Proposed remedies no. #1 and no. #4 ("banned") are worded identically, and no. #2 and no. #5 ("topic banned") are worded almost identically (although I believe there may be good reasons for different treatment of parties A and B in this respect), but no. #3 ("conduct restriction") and no. #6 ("admonished") are worded rather differently. Arbitrator @ Izno already commented that no. #6 should probably be reworded/rescoped to be a civility restriction of some sort off the bat, not an admonishment, thus implying it should be more like no. #3 ("conduct restriction").

The reason why this is important is that Arbitrators may be less likely to support no. #1 and no. #2 if they feel those are too harsh and no. #3 ("conduct restriction") will also suffice, while they may be more likely to support no. #4 and no. #5 if they feel no. #6 ("admonished") will be insufficient.

Given that both parties are under active WP:EDR already, and no. #3 proposes to strengthen the current editing restriction for party A, but no. #6 proposes to do nothing more than warn party B instead of also strengthening the current editing restriction for party B, the ultimate calculus of votes may become unbalanced if no. #6 is not reworded/rescoped to be more like no. #3 as Arbitrator Izno suggested. It may well be that Arbitrators on the whole believe party B is more in need of sanctioning than party A, but precisely that would be a good reason for making no. #6 (just about) as harsh as no. #3 (supported by 3 Arbitrators already, opposed by 1 as "insufficient") instead of a rather inconsequential admonishment as no. #6 is currently worded (currently supported by nobody, opposed by 1 as "insufficient", indirectly opposed by 1 (Izno) as not strongly worded enough).

Good day to all, and special thanks for the work the Arbitrators have done already. Your service to the community is appreciated. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Given subsequent developments, my comments about the wordings of proposed remedies no. #3 and #6 are no longer relevant. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 23:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

"BHG was right, but..."

I see several participants saying/implying "BHG was right about WP:SMALLCAT / other WP:PG, but was uncivil in explaining it to others". It's not that simple. FoF 1 (currently supported by 10/11 Arbitrators) states that "There has been an ongoing desire, never reaching consensus, to apply a strict numerical threshold for SmallCat (jc37 evidence). (...) reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions about other elements of the guideline, including the potential for growth and whether categories "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.""

In short:

• It's not just
  • "SMALLCAT was/is clear,"
  • "and BHG was right about SMALLCAT,"
  • "but explained it uncivilly".
• It's
  • "SMALLCAT was/is unclear,"
  • "BHG asserted her interpretation of SMALLCAT,"
  • "and asserted her interpretation uncivilly".

And reasonable editors can disagree with that interpretation. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

One great example is mentioned by Robert below: She was right about what the Portal guideline said (until it was discovered that it was not a guideline). I'm not saying this as a criticism of Robert; I'm happy he identified it as an issue. Similarly, BHG was capable of accurately quoting the text of the Smallcat guideline, but it was discovered that there was no consensus on how to interpret that text (FoF 1). So in some disputes, BHG wasn't even right in the first place, and her uncivil explanations weren't the only issue at hand. I hope that users who sympathised with her interpretations and points of view in the past (which actually included myself) will understand that, and not think of her as some sort of 'martyr of truth who was always right, but silenced for telling it like it is'. I readily understand the appeal for such a belief, but that's not how it was.

Speaking as a historian, I am regularly confronted with certain discrepancies between what the evidence of past events indicates what happened, and what modern memory culture remembers about what happened. Sometimes I read text I wrote like 20 years ago, and I almost can't believe I wrote that. But the text is staring me right in the face, and I know I was the author because that's my handwriting, or that email was sent from my address. My memory isn't always accurate. Human memory in general isn't always accurate. It's good to be aware of that. Good day to all, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 13:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

PS: I just discovered that BHG seems to be writing her own passio-like hagiography already, painting a picture of her heroic battle against the anti-intellectuals [who] are in control [and] persecute anyone who tries to challenge their incompetence. The fact that she uses the verb "to persecute" seems to indicate she does think of herself as a martyr of truth already, and her statement But I objected to the disruption, so I get banned. also aligns with the narrative I expected: ...but silenced for telling it like it is. It mostly lacks self-reflection or self-criticism, except possibly It was long past time for me to go. Maybe I should have stuck to my original decision to quit after the portals case in early 2020. Then again, that's not because she herself did anything wrong; she only blames herself that she should have recognised earlier that staying meant wasting huge amounts of the time and energy of competent editors like herself, which she blames on the anti-intellectuals. She closes the thought with: But OTOH, I think that it may be useful to historians of the Wikipedia project to see in the smallcat case a stark illustration of how vindictive anti-intellectualism took control. Maybe there's a low-budget mock-horror movie in the saga of Can't Read Six Words, But Want Revenge.

Funny as that may sound, this is exactly what I'm worried about: that some misguided memory cult will develop which will falsely claim BHG was always right, but silenced and persecute[d] for telling the truth. As an actual historian, I must call out that that's not how it was. Especially given that 10/11 Arbitrators also agree on Proposed Principle #3 "Being right isn't enough" (which is a good principle), we should be aware that this doesn't necessarily mean BHG actually was right. She wasn't. Finding of Fact #1 "Smallcat" demonstrates this with the agreement of the same 10/11 Arbitrators.

I'm saying this for posterity. I sincerely hope me saying this will not be considered bludgeoning, as I'm not trying to convince everyone in particular (everyone is entitled to their opinion, and the discussion is over), but to help the community in general. It comes from a genuine desire as a historian to help society learn the lessons of the past in order to better shape our future. If we mis-remember what happened in the past, we are vulnerable to making the same mistakes of the past all over again. As Arbitrator Wugapodes said: Nothing has changed in the last 3 years, we've just wasted more of our time. I would like to spare the community by warning for future mistakes and their potential negative consequences (e.g. wasting volunteer time and our human resources, as Wugapodes put it). That's the core responsibility of the historian.

As an aside, I also intend to provide the Arbcom some feedback about how ARC processes might be done better in the future for everyone's comfort, understanding, and goodwill. This process hasn't always been as smooth as it perhaps could have been, and I would like to make things easier for future participants and arbitrators alike. Hopefully it may be useful. Good day to all, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 15:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: I'm sure it varies by case based on member availability, but typically how long after the Workshop phase closes does the Proposed Decision phase begin? (Or is that hard to predict?) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 21:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks Cryptic, I missed that. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks to Cryptic. We did push the PD date with the last workshop extension and I expect the decision to be posted by end of day (UTC) Aug 23. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• I agree with @ Nederlandse Leeuw:'s comments above and @ Thryduulf:"s comment below] that it isn't about having the right or wrong interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT; the current text of the editing guideline just doesn't facilitate consensus. There's not even a numerical threshold for what counts as "small" in the first place. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you

Going to ANI and ArbComm for the first time has been a bit bewildering, especially since I looked at several other cases and they seemed very different from this one. I appreciate the time of the Committee members and other editors, most of whom I’m interacting with for the first time.

I made no recommendation for any proposed remedies because I really had no idea what to do here. I was hopeful early on that some of the Barkeep49’s questions might lead to a more nuanced outcome but I defer to the Committee’s judgement here. I really wish there was some way to turn back the clock so I could return to collegiate editing with all the involved parties; maybe a Wikipedia Time-Turner can be developed.

During this case, there was a lot said about me on the Workshop page, on a User talk page, and on a User draft evidence page. What frustrates me though, is not what was said about me in those places but that nothing was said about me on the formal Evidence page. I think at least a summary of BrownHairedGirl’s position there would have allowed for more holistic outcomes.

While I came here because of civility concerns not the underlying content dispute, I’ve been thinking a lot of about WP:SMALLCAT lately. The 1st finding of fact, @ Marcocapelle:’s evidence and the discussion that @ Jc37: started at OC talk were all helpful. There are a lot of smaller sized categories that should be deleted because they don’t aid reader navigation but some of those don’t meet the technical requirements of WP:SMALLCAT. If I could do things over, I would not have !voted any differently, but in a couple of nominations I would have instead cited WP:NARROWCAT, WP:WTAF, WP:BUILDER, and WP:OC generally. I’ll work on being more precise going forward with citing essays and editing guidelines.

By number of edits and years of service, I’m senior to a number of people at this discussion; but by interests and breadth of editing experience, I’m pretty provincial. I’m especially appreciative of @ Barkeep49, Primefac, and SilkTork: for the "XfD Editors reminded" proposed remedy. While not named there, I definitely see myself in that and the need to ensure I stay aligned with the broader project.

I’m an imperfect editor and I appreciate the guidance on how to be better going forward! - RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Nederlandse Leeuw: I specifically meant that I wish either a synopsis of BrownHairedGirl's draft evidence or the Diffs to prove a tag team had been submitted as formal evidence. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Nederlandse Leeuw: No, my first "clarification" must have missed the mark since I moved on from trying to get a formal exoneration. I don't wish BrownHairedGirl had contributed to the official Evidence page because I dreamed of turning things around on her; I think she could have potentially gotten a better outcome if she had actively participated with ArbComm. (FWIW, Laurel Lodged is just the opposite and would have been better off suspending all editing during the case.)

I really meant that as an aside though; what I need to focus on is raising the standards for my own editing. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ RevelationDirect: I'm no barkeep, but there's a timeline in the header right at the top of this page; it says "Proposed decision to be posted by 23 August 2023". The current arbcom's been pretty good about meeting its schedules. — Cryptic 22:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

To my recollection I've substantively edited WP:AE twice and made zero actions so far, so my interpretation doesn't matter much. But to me remedy 5 seems to say pretty unambiguously that Laurel Lodged can't add or remove category pages, not categories to or from other pages, what with the "moving, and renaming" part coming right after. Please make it explicit, especially if you don't end up banning outright. — Cryptic 04:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Reworded to be as explicit as possible. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Re the recent arb replies in MJL's section (Aside: gorram, this format is awkward. I understand why you don't want the parties to keep on fighting on the talk page all the way through a case, but is it really, really necessary for nonparties?). If you really want uninvolved people to submit evidence, give more feedback on it. I've submitted evidence to a fair number of arbitration cases, and workshop proposals to a few; the only feedback I've gotten is that sometimes the arbs cite it in the final decision, and sometimes the parties or other nonparties holler at me in the workshop or their own evidence.

I can't imagine being a party and having no idea which evidence the arbs are taking seriously and needs to be rebutted, and which would just be a waste of my very, very limited word- and diff-count. — Cryptic 02:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with that, and I felt a similar way when I've submitted evidence in the past (even earlier this year, when I recused from a case and was submitting evidence), and I think the committee has gotten better at differentiating what is useful vs. what isn't in recent times. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 03:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Why is there no finding of fact on the SMALLCAT-defying revenge nominations of my work by Oculi and Laurel Lodged ? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't see evidence or workshop proposals about that. What submitted evidence is there for this? Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ BrownHairedGirl it seems like you missed this question. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It's in User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case, and it was discussed at the workshop. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Category:Irish_astrophysicists was discussed at length. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

We have already stated elsewhere that your personal (i.e. not-posted-at-this-case) evidence was not being considered. Primefac ( talk) 08:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: re § Universal Code of Conduct. If a policy around part of the UCoC applies on en.wp, possibly adding more detail, then of course that en.wp policy should be applied.

So: what en.wp policy applies the UCoC requirement to "strive towards accuracy and verifiability? Where is that policy asserted in the proposed principles?

Unless the relevant en.wp policy is identified and applied, then this section seems to amount to a failure to uphold the UCoC . BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

WP:DE includes plenty of information about what happens when editors fail to honor the verifiability policy. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: If DE is the local implementation, then why is WP:DE not asserted in te findings as the local implementation of that part of UCoC, and applied to the disruption such as the CFD noms of Irish astrophysicists and PBO in Northern Ireland?

What's happening at Arbcom about those failures? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not asserted because, as that principle lays out, we focus on the enwiki policies and guidelines which do at least the minimum of what the UCoC asks of a community but do so in a manner that has local community support, takes into account local and cultural context, and in many cases, including DE, go beyond the minimum of the UCoC. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry, @ Barkeep49, but I still don't see anything in the proposals which applies that part of the UCoC to this case. Is it in some section that I have missed? Or are you telling me that local and cultural context doesn't attach much eight to "strive towards accuracy and verifiability"?

(I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying find out how the proposals address this). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The current FoF do not establish the same degree of misconduct with smallcats that you believe. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

At the Irish astrophysicists CFD, a category was deleted contrary to smallcat, even tho all the deleters were aware that their misuse of smallcat had been challenged. The nominator specifically acknowledged that it could be populated, but wanted it deleted to "educate" its creator (i.e BHG), from whom notification was withheld.

That's multiple layers of misconduct just in that one CFD; there were others.Are the Arbs really going to allow even that WP:POINTiness to go wholly unrebuked? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Re @ Barkeep49's comment [1] of 22:22, 22 August 2023 that the single most compelling diff - one so compelling it was largely (but not completely) responsible for us re-opening the evidence phase, was not mentioned or linked to despite the fact that it would have shown this targeting.

I presume that the diff referred to is LL's ugly "brace yourself Bridget" edit summary.

I disagree that it would have shown this targeting. It showed personal insult, but it not show the targeting of categories created by me, which was my main concern.

My User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case was focused on my main concern, which has throughout been about the damage done to the encyclopedia by SMALLCAT-defying deletions, and about the vindictive targeting of my work. Personal insults do not equate to arbitrary or vindictive deletion; tohe two may coincide, but they can exist independently.

In more than 4 decades of adult life, I have endured sexual assault, hate crime including arson of my home, discrimination which has damaged my livelihood, credible death threats, robbery, and a malicious allegation of fraud which triggered a police investigation (the police eventually apologised for taking the allegation seriously). Issues such as verbal abuse are routine and annoying, but minor compared with my physical safety. I have for various long periods in my life had some lo-level public prominence, and that always brings with it some degree of hostility, from insults to threats to abuse. I chose long ago not to let myself be distracted by that sort of noise: I learnt to focus on my goals, and to neither get dragged into the gutter nor waste energy trying to police the gutter.

Participating in Wikipedia is a bit similar, tho with the blessed shield of anonymity which keeps me physically safe. The rape threats I have gotten here are ugly but not scary.

I came to Wikipedia to build an encyclopaedia. I expected to find some people I didn't get on with, and some who behave terribly, and that has indeed been the case (most people are great, but there are always some who are not). But I have always stayed focused on my goal, which is to help build a encyclopedia. That's why my evidence focused on the attempts to damage the 'pedia, and esp on the revenge efforts to destroy some of my work. I have learnt to live with ugly noises, but if my work is going to be wrongly demolished, there is no point in being here. (If I had allowed myself to be put off by Laurel Lodged's decade of taunting I'd have left Wikipedia years ago.)

So I am very deeply saddened to see that even at Arbcom, at last one of the Arbs treats the ugly noise as way more significant than wilful damage to the 'pedia, of which I collected detailed evidence. That seems to me to be completely back-to-front: we are here to build a 'pedia, not to try to create some utopia in which people never express themselves in a way which somebody else dislikes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ Wugapodes says at 23:37, 22 August 2023 that in this case she alleges others are engaged in misconduct to subvert SMALLCAT. Absolutely true: I did allege that, and I still allege that. The evidence is at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case; the simplest, starkest example is at CFD : Irish astrophysicists. Why do some people seem to be unconcerned by that misconduct, but regard it as unacceptable to note and challenge the misconduct? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ BrownHairedGirl I don't know how else to explain to you that you don't get to be a jerk just because someone is wrong on the internet. If you refuse to accept that premise (which is a policy), then we simply will never see eye-to-eye on the matter. — Wug· a·po·des 07:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Wugapodes: on social media, the sole goal is to maintain a social space. But we are here to build an encyclopedia: our primary purpose is to create and maintain a work of knowledge. Facebook, Insta & Twitter have no objective to ""strive towards accuracy and verifiability", but it's at the core of what we do. That means we need to be able to challenge error, oppose damage, and engage in scholarly debate.

  It seems that deleting parts of the encyclopedia contrary to stable guideline is not-jerk, and vindictively targeting the objector's work is not-jerk; but that challenging the disruption is jerk.

  I dont buy that, and I don't agree that it's policy. WP:CIVIL requires that "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect", and deleting another editors work because they disagreed with you is not "consideration and respect".

  Telling an editor that mentioning the community's deletion review process is a "threat" or "intimidation" is not "consideration and respect".

  Quoting an assertion but editing out the stated reason for the assertion is not "consideration and respect". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: In your comment on remedy 1, you can avoid some possible confusion by adding a couple of quotation marks. I believe you mean to refer to BHG's "use of 'gaslighting'" (meaning that she overuses the word as an accusation against others), rather than her "use of gaslighting" (which could be read to mean that she engages in the technique herself). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I don't perceive a need to discuss "constitutional" issues relating to the UCOC in this case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Were we writing on a blank slate, I think I'd agree with you. But we just heard and decided a case in which we enacted a principle like the one under discussion, and with that context, I think it is appropriate for us to reaffirm the principle that we enacted, which, in the context of this case, still is helpful in responding to points that have been made by parties to this case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that only encourages the spaghetti at the wall that happened here. We didn't even need to come to a consensus that there wasn't merit to accusations that we had misunderstood or misapplied the UCOC. That is different from the previous case. If this is to be an evergreen principle, it really should be trotted out only when we think there's a merit to the UCOC argument. Izno ( talk) 23:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hm, I don't know, the principle to me rejects the UCoC argument. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Principle #9 - Universal Code of Conduct

I said this in a different case that the UCoC was called upon, but I disagree with any principle, finding of fact, or remedy in any case being based upon the UCoC. My reading of the current wording of WP:CONEXCEPT suggests that while the Foundation has the power to themselves enforce the UCoC, through office actions and similar, they don't have the authority to grant local admins the power to enforce it or otherwise require it be treated as policy on enwiki. Thus, if ARBCOM wishes to rely on it in their cases, or if they believe admins should rely on it generally, I strongly encourage them to open an RfC as an enabling act for it.

Of course, as ARBCOM also exists under CONEXCEPT they may choose to base their decisions on anything they like - WP:PAG's, the UCoC, or even one of the Constitutions of the Soviet Union, but I don't think such a decision would be productive nor would it have impact on how the UCoC applies outside of ARBCOM. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The point of principle 9 is that we don't need to "rely" on the UCoC, because enwiki policy in itself satisfies the requirements of the UCoC. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

FOF #8 - Nederlandse Leeuw

Wugapodes, I fully agree that would be a more productive use of WMF funds than a lot of things that the WMF spends money on. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Remedy #9 - XfD Editors reminded

I really like this remedy and congratulate whomever drafted it, particularly the second sentence. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that one was a group effort of round-tabling the best wording. Primefac ( talk) 08:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

(Stand-alone aside) - To the arbs, and specifically whomever drafted this: Wow. - jc37 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Per comments about #9, that was a big part of why WP:OC was created. At the time the same things were being repeatedly re-argued. And certain patterns and types of things were emerging. And kudos to the arbs for really seeming to have a pretty good grasp of the current and past situational environment at cfd, and how that tends to work. - jc37 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Per items about LL - As I had noted, I wasn't looking at the evidence presented, and am really surprised to hear that was going on. It seems that by personally, generally, selectively, avoiding certain discussions on certain topics that BHG contributed to, I missed out on all of that. I guess the comment I did see, did turn out to be an indicator of something more problematic. - jc37 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Per a "broadly construed" category topic ban. (For the drafters, and whomever else) - If you would like to remove some ambiguity, I would suggest making clear about the dual nature of categories: that they are both a page, as well as a technical feature which displays groupings of pages. So something like:

The user is indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories. In addition to discussing categories and their maintenance, this includes – but is not limited to – editing a category page; editing any page to add or remove that page to or from a category; editing a page to use template transclusion (or other technical means) to add or remove a page to or from a category; or editing or modifying a category page through performing a logged editorial action such as moving; or any other direct or indirect method of adding or removing a page to or from a category. The user is not prohibited from adding their userpage to a category, within the guidelines listed at WP:USERCAT.

I's a bit wordy, but I think it's less ambiguous. - jc37 09:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I apologize - I probably should have pinged the drafters: Barkeep49, Primefac, and SilkTork. I hope this helps. - jc37 10:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think brevity is its own clarity and trying to be overprescriptive has its own dangers (as NYB will remind people). Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Barkeep49 - While I don't disagree with your point, I do think the way it's phrased will cause issues later. At the bare minimum, please, change the word "articles" to "pages". I think that at least should help. - jc37 14:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Barkeep49 (and whomever else) - I'm seeing comments about "spaces" - article-space, etc. And that leads directly into part of why I am suggesting changing the wording to "pages". Categories don't work like regular edits. If you want to edit an article, you directly edit it and the edit shows in article-space edit history, etc. But with categories, if you want to add a page to a category, you don't edit category-space, you edit article space. Or you edit template-space (maybe it's an infobox, or an article maintenance tag, or something for bot tracking). You can even add a category by adding a template (or other transclusion) to a page, - including talk pages - without ever editing category-space or template-space! Or how about draft-space, or how about images/file-space? That's a whole new rabbit-hole of transclusion of a different type. (Or, for that matter, the complexities of portal-space.) Or any number of other ways in which one can categorise, including adding cats to other cats. And if one were to want to rack up a lot of edits, using automated tools (or even a bot) on one's account can get you a LOT of edits, if that's your goal. One quick and easy way - Just start implementing renaming categories (for example) that have 10,000+ members, and then typo, and do it again. And suddenly, wow, you appear to have so many articlespace edits, as well as edits throughout all the other spaces. So trying to limit work on categories to a particular namespace is just setting up headaches for people in the future to try to figure stuff out, and that's without talking about potential gaming the system possibilities. And note, my concern isn't about LL directly, it's that arbcom seems to be re-using phrasing, so trying to get it right when it comes to a "category topic ban", or at least "better" is the goal. Especially if the community decides to use this as a template for a community topic ban for anyone in the future. - jc37 21:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Based upon current voting, it looks like changing the text from articles to pages is apparently moot. - jc37 04:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I find remedy 5 wanting in clarity. What does "directly" mean (and not mean)? Is it meant to limit it to editing [[Category:...]] directly and exclude categories inserted through transclusion? If you're under this topic ban, are you allowed to, say, create a page with [[Category:...]] in its source? Or are "adding" and "removing" meant to refer to creation and deletion of category pages themselves? Nardog ( talk) 03:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The placement of some maintenance tags also adds categories. That was what was intended to be still permitted by "directly". Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

In other words to Barkeep, yes, changing a page's [[Category:...]] is the intended target of the remedy. We didn't consider the "new article" case. Not sure if we want to chase that down the way. Izno ( talk) 03:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I thought about a new article. For me that is directly adding them because new articles can (and do) get published without categories. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, so the "I'm not sure" is more at the obvious next step to that of whether we should allow new articles (or "substantively improved" or "written by") as in the shape of some previous remedies is a desirable exception. Izno ( talk) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

In principle 2, change "this is done in repeatedly" to "this is done repeatedly"; in 3, "where it preferable" to "where it is preferable"; in 9, the second occurrence of "Universal Code of Conduct" to "UCoC" (as in the rest of the statement). Nardog ( talk) 15:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Done. Izno ( talk) 23:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Am I being anal, or does the second comma in the sentence The August 16, 2021, community restriction is rescinded in remedy 3 throw everyone off? I couldn't find the relevant MoS but pretty sure we omit the closing parenthetical comma when it's part of a noun phrase (another solution is to just use the DMY format, which also happens to be the MW default). Nardog ( talk) 16:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

MOS:DATE provides that when using the MDY format, A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

That section doesn't mention when the date is attributive. But the omission seems intentional as we're undecided about this. CMoS17 (§5.83) says: If a full month-day-year date is used, then a comma is sometimes considered necessary both before and after the year {the May 27, 2016, ceremonies}. But this construction is awkward because the adjective (which is forward looking) contains two commas (which are backward looking); the construction is therefore best avoided {commencement ceremonies on May 27, 2016}. (See Garner quoted here for a more descriptive account.) So my recommendation would be to either switch to DMY or avoid this construction altogether. Nardog ( talk) 17:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49 and Dreamy Jazz: This comment has not been moved but simply been removed. Nardog ( talk) 16:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

As stated in the edit summary, I think the intention by Barkeep was simply to remove instead of move because it duplicated a comment left in their section. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Correct. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

FoF 3 should have DanCherek for DanCharek.

FoF 5 maybe should have SmallCat for SmallCats in both instances. FoF 1 should probably similarly be titled SmallCat rather than Smallcat.

Really grateful to see Principle 6 and especially Principle 3. Thank you for that. Folly Mox ( talk) 05:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Fixed, thanks. Primefac ( talk) 08:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It would perhaps be good to see a FoF and a Principle related to conduct during the arbitration case. In particular, the apologies drama, the word limit drama, and the 'gamesmanship' of posting significant updates immediately before the end of phases (leaving arbs an unpalatable choice between an extension or not letting people respond).

The case management rules are there for a reason and participants are expected to conduct themselves in a way that facilitates arbs' understanding of the case and is conducive to an effective resolution. 94.11.59.33 ( talk) 07:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Extensions are cheap and not particularly unpalatable to me, especially when the submission of evidence late in the game makes it a desirable factor (i.e. where we have an obvious excuse to use to extend a case that isn't "we were tardy").

That said, I agree with your intent overall and was a bit puzzled myself the usual "case behavior is important" principle didn't make an appearance. It's not ultimately a big deal to me, because what's there is enough. Izno ( talk) 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

My first thought on reading principle 6 is that it omits mention of the length of comments - a two 500-word additions to a discussion can be as problematic as a dozen smaller ones. 09:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Like the IP above me, I am slightly surprised at the lack of a finding regarding conduct during the case. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thirdly, I agree with Izno about the problem with BHG not being CFD specifically - in additions to the whole Portals issue, evidence was presented regarding her conduct regarding RM, BRFA, ANI, DRV, and the Signpost (at least). Per other evidence, when she is civil, engages with other editors as equals and with decorum she is a valuable editor, including at CFD so I'm not convinced a topic ban from CFD is appropriate (although one for SmallCat specifically may be justified). If she isn't banned completely, or if such a ban is successfully appealed, I think the conduct restriction will (hopefully) do most of the required heavy lifting required. A remedy that allows for her to be banned from specific discussions and/or specific topics for 3-12 months (with appeal only at AE) could also be helpful. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Regarding BHG's bludgeoning, perhaps restricting her to a maximum of 500 words in any discussion that doesn't by default have a longer word limit (except on her own talk page?) with uninvolved administrators being allowed to grant extensions of up to 500 words on explicit request. Sorry I didn't think of this during the workshop phase. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I unintentionally incorporated your idea here regarding a word limit into my CFD TBAN alternative. As for the other suggested remedy, there's probably merit to that suggestion.

(I had only half-read this comment before making my proposal today.) Izno ( talk) 23:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Regarding the suggested category ban for LL, I think it's worth clarifying which of the following actions are explicitly allowed or not allowed:

• Directly placing adding or removing a category on a page (i.e. using the [[Category:...]] markup, or indirectly via Visual editor or a tool e.g. HotCat or AWB)
• Adding a template whose primary purpose is to categorise (e.g. stub templates)
• Adding a template whose purpose includes categorisation (e.g. {{ Use British English}})
• Adding a template that incidentally categorises (e.g. {{ Citation needed}})
• Reverting obvious vandalism that impacted categories. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

To avoid issues regarding enforcement in future, perhaps it would be worth (after the conclusion of this case) amending the standard provision to include language along the lines of "Except where noted in a specific remedy or additional enforcement provision" (or some variation that explicitly allows there may not be such)? Thryduulf ( talk) 00:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I do have to take issue with most of what Robert McClenon says - this is not a simple case of BHG was right but uncivil. There is no single clearly right answer regarding SMALLCAT, and she was wrong about a lot regarding portals (where Robert's behaviour was on a par with BHG's much of the time, and I sincerely regret not posting more evidence of that in that case). I strongly urge everyone to read and take to heart Barkeep's comment on remedy 1, especially More often one of the following outcomes happened: BHG got her way on the merits, BHG got her way because the other person gave up trying to keep up with all of BHG's replies and points, BHG got her way because the other person gave up because they grew tired of dealing with her incivility, or BHG didn't get her way because she was the only person (or one of a very small group) who thought something which caused her to work overtime to try and convince everyone else they were wrong. the outcome of a given situation being BHG's favoured outcome is not a reliable indicator that this was the correct outcome on the merits. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

There's several references to a "Bridget" edit summary. To help those reading along, could you turn those into links to the diff? RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence § Brace yourself, Bridget. I will let individual Arbs link to that in their comments should they so choose. Primefac ( talk) 14:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Firstly, I am a big supporter of this PD - I think it's clear, includes its reasoning, and proposes reasonable actions for where we are. I'm slightly confused about the different enforcement clause, but will wait on answers to 'podes' (hmm, two apostrophes) comment.
• That lets me skip to principle #9. This too, is appreciably better phrased than its predecessor. To the tune that even if it fails here on the merits, I think it would be a good, rare, principle amendment to that case as an improvement to that phrasing.

I had a relatively brief, but good, discussion with Izno on that case's talk page. I think Izno is probably correct that in the question of "outgoing doxxing" (posting wiki info elsewhere) we probably don't meet the formal text. I'm suspicious that no-one can meet the formal language on OUTING because to do so would aggressively impair combatting various problems. It seems more an example of poor writing rather than planned extreme meaning.

Outside of that, I think the case of "are our PAGs sufficient to make compliance with them also compliance with the UCOC" is a yes. The Community could do an RfC to come to that conclusion but it's also within arbcom's scope to come to the same conclusion if only (formally) for their use.

• On the aspect of UCOC & CONEXCEPT, well. That's a feisty one in the making. Whether it's worth necessary having its own principle I'm not quite sure. Given there is discussion on why it should apply to us at all, if we will have a UCOC principle, I guess we should specifically encourage noting both CONEXCEPT and the failings of the BOT in failing to seek a community ratification. Arbcom does make comment on conduct policy creation, just normally en-wiki's, so it wouldn't be fundamentally bizarre to say so. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Clarity changes - could be read as contradicting itself Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I believe that BHG's community-imposed editing restriction could have worked, if only it had been enforced. I (and others) share responsible for this failure. Such a restriction (such as proposed remedy 3) could still work. But perhaps we would have more confidence in such a remedy provided some admin(s) were to make a public commitment to conscientiously enforce it. I would be willing to do this. Paul August ☎ 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Honestly, good stuff, I would also suggest additional FoFs w.r.t. conduct during and preceding a case. I also think proposed remedy 2.3.3 BrownHairedGirl conduct restriction is moot, as it has been proven to be insufficient - tinkering the parameters do not change the fundamental nature of the issue at hand. We have already established with FoF 2.2.4 that it is an ineffective solution. qedk ( t 愛 c) 15:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

We know that cases cause people stress and that this stress can cause them to act differently. For instance for one party (who I won't name) I found that they bludgeoned during some of their participation during the case. But as there was no real evidence of this in other discussions it did not feel worth noting. I'm not sure what a BHG conduct during the case FoF gets us. All of the conduct that has been identified as troubling exists outside of this case and is included in a FoF already. Ping to Thryduulf who also raised this concern (as did the IP). Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

My viewpoint would be two-pronged, one is that being stressed is not an excuse for any kind of behaviour, if anything it's added context. At the end of the day, there is no requirement to participate on-wiki, and we should be fostering the best environment possible, at all times. I also imply participating (such as replying civilly / incivilly or bludgeoning) and presence (i.e. whether a participant is quite visible or not at all) as part of conduct. I definitely understand why participants can behave erratically (not saying that was the case here) but it has no bearing on the actual actions of the participants themselves, and we should separate the two whenever possible. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 16:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Circumstances like stress do not excuse behavior, but they do explain it. This is an important distinction for me. Fundamentally, what we're interested in is making sure poor behavior does not repeat. If we can identify an explanation for a behavior that gives us confidence it is unlikely to happen again, then the preventative aspects of our interventions do not need to be as severe since the problem is self-limiting. A focus on actions separated from why the happened, I think, puts us in a worse position for understanding how to best prevent them in the future. — Wug· a·po·des 19:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Principle #9 - Universal Code of Conduct

Some of the Arbitrator's comments in opposition are very hard to understand. The UCoC is policy on the English Wikipedia because it is part of the English Wikipedia:Terms of Use, an English Wikipedia policy with legal considerations, as set down in English Wikipedia:List of policies. The only way to not be bound by the UCoC as an editor or administrator or arbitrator on this website is to stop (or never begin) writing anything on this website, nor contributing on this website, at all. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm incredibly glad to see my evidence was in some ways helpful for this committee in making their decisions in regards to the proposed Findings of Fact. Going into this case, I was incredibly worried that this was going to lead to an outcome where one party's conduct was not sufficiently examined, but that didn't happen here.
Regardless of the final outcome for the remaining parties, I am incredibly grateful for the excellent work done here by Arbcom and the other clerks. This was not an easy case to manage. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 20:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'll just note that one reason this worked is that we had a large number of non-party editors submitting relevant evidence. When that happens I feel like the process works its best. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with Barkeep that having more editors participating makes this stuff easier. I know that there is sometimes a felt social pressure against submitting evidence-- I hope cases like this can encourage more confidence. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 02:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Regarding this comment's suggestion of an editing restriction that limits contributions to articles only: without the ability to engage in content-related discussions, editors cannot be a full participant in the writing process. This significantly hampers collaboration among interested parties. I have difficulty envisioning scenarios where this would be workable for all editors involved. isaacl ( talk) 20:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Regarding this proposed remedy: note the difficulties in collaboration will be borne by all involved editors, as they will have to navigate the restrictions in order to work productively with the restricted editor. This may include having to copy comments from one permitted venue to another (WikiProjects typically hold discussions on their associated talk pages), or moving discussion to atypical venues to accommodate the restricted editor. I appreciate the proposal opening a larger set of available venues, but I still feel it imposes a significant burden on the community to manage. isaacl ( talk) 21:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I am happy to add a ban on proxying, as I had been looking to prevent "may copy it to work [productively] with" also. This is deliberately a draconian "edit mainspace and only mainspace" and "respond to concerns about behavior" kind of restriction just shy of "total ban". Izno ( talk) 21:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

When the restricted editor is one whose viewpoint is sought by others, which is the basic reason why such an elaborate set of restrictions would be contemplated, then the involved editors will do their best to respect the spirit of the restrictions while still enabling the restricted editor to contribute as much as allowed. Yes, more conditions can be layered on to try to avoid breaches of the restrictions, but that still means all involved editors will be taking on additional effort to make collaboration as fruitful as possible. isaacl ( talk) 21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BHG

Wish there were a better solution to this. She doesn't seem amenable to working something out anyway, or to changing anything.

LL

Looks like LL realized that [2] was the final nail in the coffin and showed true colors [3] [4] as an exit statement. I'd like to see a stronger and specific wording about bias harassment in 2) Decorum or a separate Principle about it because I have really never seen something so shocking as "brace yourself Bridget" on Wikipedia, even among all the trolls and abusers who are not even regular editors. That's beyond the pale.

—DIYeditor ( talk) 22:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Banedon not sure what your level of English knowledge is so I will be blunt and explain in detail about "brace yourself Bridget" - bearing in mind I was not familiar with this phrase before this case myself. "Brace yourself" is what you say to someone when there is going to be an violent accident (if literal) or an shocking surprise (if figurative). "Bridget" is a stereotypical Irish female name. Apparently this phrase is some sort of running cultural joke in Ireland (self-deprecating I guess?) about marital sex. Basically, from my understanding, this clearly means "prepare yourself, you are about to get fucked, and it might be rough or hurt." LL has said other offensive things but this is so far over the line, in that it seemed to be directed at another editor, that a site ban is a minimum response to it. This is far beyond saying something off color or expressing a disruptive opinion (which LL has also done). —DIYeditor ( talk) 05:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

RE: BHG CBAN-- Sadly needed and overdue. The Community gave every opportunity.

RE:LL CBAN-- The sooner the better.

RE: Both-- Incredibly toxic. Their behavior dragged down the entire project. The Community needs to act sooner and more strongly in ejecting toxic individuals. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 23:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

XfD as a CTOP, as proposed by Robert, is a tempting idea. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 09:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Personally speaking, I would vastly prefer the community decide whether it wishes to designate XfDs as contentious topics through an RfC. Decisions on what to include or exclude from the encyclopedia cut to the very core of editorial discretion, and the case format traditional to ArbCom is, I think, poorly suited for the kind of policy debate. We would, essentially, be modifying the deletion process, and that's not something to be done lightly or without a broad range of community feedback and compromise. Personally, I think it's an interesting idea, but with my arbitrator hat on, I can't imagine a situation in which I would feel sufficient evidence had justified designating XfD a CTOP over solely placing individual restrictions. — Wug· a·po·des 21:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

As I may have mentioned, I find AfD in particular too toxic to participate in and avoid it. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 15:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Moved from a different section to enforce sectioned discussion. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't like the comma after the year. Breaks up the flow. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 16:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Regarding the imposed-from-on-high-by-bureaucrats Code of Conduct, I see it as a lot of unneeded, confusing, and sometimes self-contradictory verbiage. However, if the conduct of LL and BHG did not violate it, I cannot imagine what would. It is good that we cleaned our own house via our elected ArbCom ourselves. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 15:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Watching from a distance, I think ArbCom handled the case well, and the PD is a good one. As for various complex sanctions that are being considered as alternatives to site bans, don't. (As I remember being said by others in previous cases, once we get to where a bunch of restrictions are all necessary, it's really better to just ban.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The "complex" remedy I've presented is not an alternative in my book, it is additive. Especially given the currently-passing ban remedy. Izno ( talk) 23:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I see, so you see it as applying in the event of a successful appeal of the site ban. Understood. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Future ArbComs don't need to take our remedies for granted of course, but at least getting it in public was important to me to give an idea of a potential way back at a later date. Thryduulf's "an uninvolved admin can levy a topic ban ad hoc as an AE action" above is another decent one that I'm still mulling over proposing formally, also to get on paper. Izno ( talk) 23:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Despite having been on the receiving end of BHG's incivility, if I were an Arb and not recused, I'd likely still vote for "conduct restriction" over a total ban. N-th chance, arguably, but... well, I guess there is still WP:OFFER to consider in a year, plus, there are other wiki projects. Commons (where there are many messy categories) or such can surely benefit from her activity, particularly if she takes lessons from here to heart, finally, and uses her time at Commons wisely to build a case for the future OFFER here. Bottom line, we would all surely like to see a reformed editor rather than see them gone. Whether this is possible, of course... time will tell. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

First, I will restate (since restating this once is not bludgeoning) that I think that ArbCom failed to address an underlying issue, which is that deletion debates should be a contentious topic because some editors are consistently uncivil and disruptive in deletion discussions. There will be another case involving conduct in deletion in one to two years. This was the third in the past six years. The Portals case was the first, since it was really about deletion of portals. There will be another case sometime.

Second, I would like to express strong support for principle 3, "Being right isn't enough". BrownHairedGirl was technically right in all of the arguments about small categories, but was uncivil and unpleasant, which is one reason why other editors were not paying attention to her. This was also true in most of the Portal deletion discussions. She was right about what the Portal guideline said (until it was discovered that it was not a guideline). She was right about which portals needed deleting, but would have been more likely to make a case to the community if she had focused on reasoned argument rather than insulting another editor. She should not have said that another editor was lying, even if they were making incorrect statements of fact. The principle needs to be given a shortcut to make it easier to cite in the future.

Third, this was a very unpleasant case, although all arbitration cases are unpleasant because bad behavior is unpleasant. Maybe the unpleasantness had the side benefit that it made it obvious what the remedies had to be, so that the case is being resolved more quickly than usual.

Fourth, I am sad to see BHG sent off, but I agree that she left ArbCom no choice. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I know you believe that Robert, but I am not sure that the evidence supports your assertion beyond the surface. I saw no underlying evidence that CfD is broken and in need of CTOP as an ongoing concern. Obviously we only considered a limited subset of evidence in this instance, but I think it's telling that two people who were party to this case, and clearly involved in the dispute, had no FoF entered against them. Further, one of the other parties who does has an FoF has it for comments made outside of CfD. This suggests to me that it was possible to be a part of this dispute and not even veer into disruptive territory. And as I noted to you on the evidence talk page, in the case where the committee was ready to take the broadest look possible at XfD, Conduct in deletion-related editing, the evidence to impose CTOP was lacking compared to the way it was present in Infoboxes, for instance, or the more typical CTOP areas like Iranian politics. If you can present a well supported case, which for me would have to go beyond the "Portals, Conduct, Smallcat" you're presenting here, that there is evidence of the sort that CTOP has proven effective and/or necessary at handling I would encourage you to submit it either at ARCA as an amendment to Conduct in deletion-related editing or at ARC as a new case request. As someone who has spent real time "working" AfD (as both participant and closer) and who has spent dozens of more hours as an arb examining in great depth AfD and CfD discussions I'm not there yet. But I am very willing to change my mind and I hope rather than merely asserting it you, or someone else, puts the evidence together because that was what didn't happen at Conduct in deletion related editing. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

User:Barkeep49: I think that you and I are using different standards for when to label a topic as contentious. You are saying that CFD is not broken. I agree. It was semi-broken until ArbCom unbroke it by banning two editors. The community was not able to resolve the toxicity at CFD, and had to ask ArbCom to handle the case. Earlier, the community could not resolve the disputes about conduct of editors in AFD discussions, and the case had to be dealt with by ArbCom. I don't think that AFD was broken, although maybe some deletion discussions that toxic editors took part in were broken. Likewise, earlier, the community was unable to resolve the toxicity of Portal deletion discussions, and ArbCom had to intervene. I will comment that the Portals case was an illustration of the Super Mario effect. BHG was Super Mario, and was desysopped. So I agree that in each of the three deletion cases, ArbCom has been able to resolve the controversy. If ArbCom is saying that they are ready to handle the next deletion dispute in a year, then occasional arbitration cases are an alternative to delegating that authority to Arbitration Enforcement. If ArbCom is ready to handle occasional deletion disputes, then that is what will happen. Maybe ArbCom has decided that it is willing to handle disruptive conduct itself.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Who knows what next year's ArbCom will be like (maybe you'll even be on it and help to shape it) but I think the three ArbComs I've been a member of have all shown a willingness to do it, as did the ArbCom before me (which handled Portals). Since at least half of ArbCom will be staying next year there's a good chance that will also be true of next year's committee. But I also want to point out that admin already had authority similar to what CTOP grants in regards to BHG and yet here we are. This, and frankly the analysis you offer in the comment I'm replying to, makes me consider that idea it's entirely possible the nature of conflict that arises at XfD plays to the strengths of ArbCom (deliberate and comprehensive reviews, rather than decision making off of a few diffs) and so cases are in fact the right way of handling it. I will have to give more thought to this idea. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that we are in agreement, first, that sometimes deletion discussions are troubled by editors whose conduct is disruptive or problematic, and that the community is not always able to resolve these problems, and the community should not be expected to resolve these problems. Someone needs to wield a hammer. The only real question is whether ArbCom is ready to wield the hammer itself through its quasi-judicial process, or whether ArbCom should delegate the hammer to Arbitration Enforcement, as it does in cases of nationalism. If ArbCom is willing to hear and act on these cases, then I agree that the contentious topic delegation procedure is not necessary. At least, I think that we may have agreement there. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I am not sad to see BHG go. Her conduct has been unbecoming for years. No matter how much good work she has done, she has seriously harmed the encyclopedia with her argumentative nature. I wish this had happened back in October. Piotrus' comments above make me shudder for where BHG will land next, and the problems they will have keeping her behavior in check. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I feel pity that she could not see that her conduct is the issue, regardless of her belief in being right about SmallCat. I hope she takes the time to get right with herself and the world. I fear she won't and will only use this as fuel to increase her animosity and will funnel it elsewhere. Banning was the right decision; she left us no other option. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not a party to this case but almost certainly would have been a party in the Portals case had I been active at the time, and we're all aware of the similarities between the two so I've been watching this one with interest. First, I think it's clear that the committee were right to accept this case. While BHG's behaviour was fairly well known, there's a strong chance LL's conduct would not have come to light any time soon without it.

In response to @ Barkeep49's comments about how useful it is to have input from non-parties, perhaps I could have contributed more and I apologise for not doing so; I'll keep an eye on future cases to see where I can add an "outside view" where appropriate. However I don't think I would have uncovered any further evidence or provided any additional insight that would have significantly changed the outcome of this case.

While I'm apologising, I recognise that I somewhat jumped the gun in by suggesting a proposed remedy within my preliminary statement, so I apologise for that too. Although it looks like ArbCom has reached the same conclusion, it was absolutely right that the case proceeded methodically, thoroughly, fairly and without any bias or preconceptions so that we can all have confidence in the proposed decisions.

On the PD itself, although site bans now have enough votes to pass for both BHG and LL, I understand that the alternative remedies are still being considered as potential fall-back positions that might be used in the event of a successful appeal. On that note I echo some of committee's comments (and those from other commenters) about the need to keep the remedies simple. Like @ Izno, I think @ Thryduulf's 500-word limit suggestion is a good one but I'm not sure how practical it would be to enforce. Waggers TALK 11:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Participation is a community effort. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes quite. TBH I've been quite busy IRL over this period so didn't find much time for collating evidence, and other community members did a brilliant job. But "leaving it to others" is not the Wikipedia way, so I'll try to take more of an active interest and participate more in future cases. Thanks again to everyone who has worked on this case. Waggers TALK 14:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I was one of the drafters of the Portals decision. Until you've served on the Arbitration Committee and have drafted one of these PDs, it's difficult to grok how intense and time-consuming it is. Well done to the drafters in this case.

I did not foresee how the Portals case would play out when I started reading the evidence there, almost four years ago now. It was not what I thought it was going into the draft. The evidence was clear, however, and I'm sorrier than I can say that BHG's continued bad behavior has led to the results here.

I think we all have problems to some degree seeing ourselves with clarity. We believe ourselves to be better or worse or more proficient or less able than we really are. There are those, however, who will always see themselves as the victim, the underdog who simply must bite back because they felt someone bit them first. I have a couple of these folks in my family, and one of them needs that grievance mentality in order to... survive, I'd say. Maybe BHG is that way, maybe not. In the end, for this community, there's too much energy being used to feed her sense of persecution, and it's time for us to show her the door. I hope she finds peace and contentment in her future endeavors. Katie ^talk 16:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Well said as always Katie. It's weird to me that that was my first case on this stint on the committee and the possibility exists that this will be my last case as an arbitrator. Or not, September is right around the corner after all. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

(in response to Piotrus)

Wouldn't that just move the wars and disruption to that venue and be a net negative? Commons is relatively peaceful and not used to the sort of behaviour that has been established in the FoF in this case. Orderinchaos 02:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think this ultimately is the right decision. Countless editors have been driven off Wikipedia by this person over a period of years, unfortunately somewhat enabled by a coterie of supporters with varying degrees of social and structural power. We focus so much on how an individual contributes but forget how many would contribute if not for them - and I am not just thinking of this individual or this case, but plenty of others I've seen in my 18 years here. Back in the days when we had a very vibrant and active community this would have been better handled by the community itself, but in the present it's been necessary for ArbCom to stand up, and I appreciate the clarity, transparency and courage of the arbitrators demonstrated in this case. Orderinchaos 03:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

1. What does "Brace Me Bridget" mean? It sounds like a meaningless/incoherent phrase to me, so I assume there must be some insinuation that's not obvious.
2. I'm kind of surprised to see a site ban proposed instead of what looks like the obvious alternative: escalating blocks. Block for one month, then three months, then six months, etc., if violations keep happening. What is wrong with this option?
3. Is Arbcom sending the message that this level of incivility is good enough for a site ban? There've been other productive editors who've had similarly controversial civility issues in the past. Is Arbcom suggesting they will consider those cases if filed, with a site ban as a possible outcome? Banedon ( talk) 05:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Just saw Primefac's link above suggesting that this is a typo, and should be "Brace yourself Bridget". I would suggest writing this & its implication as a finding of fact then, since it is not obvious. At one point I actually thought it meant BHG's real name is Bridget, which would kind of make sense, given that the first letter of BHG's is 'B' ... Banedon ( talk) 05:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• DIYeditor That's why I wrote above that I would suggest writing this & its implication as a finding of fact. When I see 'brace yourself', my first thought is 'oh no we're about to crash'. It's not obvious. Furthermore, I'd get confirmation from e.g. WP:IRELAND if this actually carries that implication, because 1) it's not obvious, and 2) are we sure this is what is meant? I once played this game which kept censoring me when I typed "ding dong", and it took me a long time to figure out why the sound of bells could be offensive. Banedon ( talk) 06:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Googling the phrase provided all the context anyone could want, up to and including a book about sex in Ireland by that name. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

1. "Brace yourself, Bridget". Banedon, I am an Irish editor, and as I and others have already attested on talk pages associated with this case, the phrase "Brace yourself, Bridget", does indeed carry highly offensive connotations, as outlined so eloquently by DIYeditor, above. LL and BHG are both Irish; there's no doubt that LL both knew exactly what he was saying, and how it would be interpreted.
2. UCoC. Apparently this stands for "Universal Code of Conduct", and we have one now? Who knew?! While I might have seen the phrase UCoC around the project, once or twice (maybe? I'm not sure?), I found out about the fact that we're all supposed to abide by this code from this case. If this is really supposed to be a Universal Code of Conduct (for en.wp? for all wikiprojects?), then... maybe people should be told? Maybe - and hear me out, I know this sounds crazy - have people vote to accept a wording and then agree to the UCoC? Or did I completely miss this happening (which is quite possible!) I mean, every time I hit the 'Publish' button, I am agreeing with the statement that "(you...) agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Social media, entertainment and financial sites all occasionally change their Ts&Cs, and invariably inform their users. Maybe I was informed, and just hit delete on an email, but I genuinely don't think so?
3. Smallcat. The arbitrators seem to have completely ignored the original issue in this case - categories that were small were/are being deleted, even though they were not categories that were "small with no potential for growth." At least, no remedy has been proposed. Unless 9) is supposed to be that remedy? A "reminder" is hardly going to work with people who failed to understand or acknowledge that "small" is not the same as "small with no potential for growth." BHG's frustration was perfectly understandable. It's especially galling to see a participant above now claim that the one finding of fact actually to do directly with Smallcat supports their case - it doesn't!
4. Arbcom. BHG raised a very salient point about Arbcom - in a case of "one against many", as this case became, and where word limits are imposed on evidence, it becomes a manifestly unfair process. Multiple editors can stay under their word limits, both to present their own defence and quote-mine someone else's contributions to WP. But the "one" does not then get a fair opportunity to defend themselves against multiple others, because "arbitrary word limit." It's the difference between "equality" and "equity", best illustrated by the image on this page. I don't know what the solution is, but there surely must be a fairer way of dealing with this sort of situation? Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

   I share your concern about equity of process in a one against many situation. Fortunately that fear didn't play out in this case. When I analyzed the evidence during the time we were considering BHG's extension request, it was roughly 40% against BHG, 15% positive about BHG, and 45% towards the other parties. The evidence has tilted some since then but I am guessing if anything it's towards the other parties given that a lot of the later evidence involved them while the BHG evidence was generally entered earlier. And obviously if BHG had chosen to take us up on our offer to have more that 2x as many words as any other individual party that would have helped to balance further, but she chose to not do so. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply