Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk) & Primefac (Talk) & SilkTork (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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.

Detailed explanation of scope[edit]

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. For BrownHairedGirl (BHG), the Committee does not feel a need to re-examine or re-do work already completed by the 2020 Committee during the Portals case. As such, the Committee may consider the findings of fact from the Portals case in the decision of this case but any submitted evidence about BHG should be from after that case. Any evidence submitted about BHG which is from before that case may be summarily collapsed, removed, or otherwise addressed at the discretion of the arbitrators and clerks. While there is no prohibition for other named parties, the Committee reminds editors that the Committee may choose to disregard or give less weight to evidence that is not recent. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean any evidence submitted about other users dating from before the 2020 Arbcom Portals case (opened on 26 November 2019) shall also be inadmissible, or at least may be summarily collapsed, removed, or otherwise addressed at the discretion of the arbitrators and clerks as well? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw No. The last sentence discusses other parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Why should pre-26 November 2019 evidence about BHG be more easily disqualifiable than pre-26 November 2019 evidence about other users? If, hypothetically, BHG and User:Foo had a dispute about SMALLCAT on 01-01-2007 in which both parties were allegedly uncivil, may the evidence against BHG be summarily collapsed, removed etc. but the evidence against User:Foo may merely be disregard[ed] or give[n] less weight to by the Committee, but not be summarily collapsed, removed, or otherwise addressed at the discretion of the arbitrators and clerks? If so, why? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a hypothetical or do you have evidence? The reason for the prohibition is in the statement the Committee does not feel a need to re-examine or re-do work already completed by the 2020 Committee committee during the Portals case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have evidence – unrelated to the Portals case – dating from before 26 November 2019, which involves both BHG and other editors discussing categorisation. I am unsure whether it is going to be relevant to this case. But if I run the risk that the evidence about BHG will be summarily collapsed, removed, etc. but the evidence about other editors will not be summarily collapsed, removed, etc. when I believe both parties (to a greater or lesser extent) to be at fault, I will not be submitting such evidence. I am concerned that parties will not be treated equally if the evidence could possibly be selectively altered by arbitrators or clerks with the effect of favouring or disfavouring one party or the other. I hope you understand my concern. Perhaps the prohibition is only related to Portals case material, and not all pre-26 November 2019 material? If so, then my concerns are probably allayed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you email ArbCom the evidence and we can make a decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm thanks for the offer, but that seems even less attractive as an option to me. I think the evidence should be publicly examinable to all parties involved and all users interested, so that everyone can come to their own conclusions. If I email the evidence privately (which will also share my email address with all members of the Arbcom, apparently), I have even less control over ensuring that it will not be selectively altered per the stated prohibition. Right now I don't feel like submitting such evidence either publicly or privately.
But it's not just about me. If other people want to submit pre-26 November 2019 material (unrelated to the Portals case), edits by BHG should be qualifiable in a way that edits by others will also be. I think Arbcom should not be giving the impression that BHG might get a Get out of Jail Free card for all her pre-26 November 2019 edits while others won't. I think, to ensure fairness and equality for all, either all pre-26 November 2019 edits (particularly relating to categorisation) should be inadmissible as evidence, or it should all be admissible, except material relating to the Portals case. (Prohibiting Portals-case-related material sounds reasonable to me, to save Arbcom time and energy on re-hashing old discussions, and would seem the reason why the prohibition was instated in the first place).
For the record, I believe that the evidence will be a net positive in favour of BHG, and bring more balance to the evidence I have so far submitted (which is currently critical of BHG alone, although I do not believe certain others to be entirely blameless either). But I do not want any pre-26 November 2019 evidence critical of BHG that I might submit to be selectively altered per this prohibition. I hope you understand my concern. Incidentally, I will probably have to request a word limit extension if I do decide to submit this additional evidence, but that's a matter for later. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw I think I maybe miscommunicated, but in reading your reply that it ultimately wouldn't change your thinking. My suggestion to email the evidence was so arbs could make an informed decision about whether or not to grant you an exception. If granted the evidence would then be posted as per normal. ArbCom has already said that as of 2020 BrownHairedGirl has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying; labeling editors with opposing viewpoints to hers in portal matters as 'portalistas', which she defined as 'those editors who have engaged in misconduct to subvert the application of community consensus to portals'; and questioning the intelligence of those participating in portal edits and discussions with accusations of mendacity, 'Dunning–Kruger conduct', and being a 'low-skill group'. That is being accepted as fact as of 2020 in this case and so it is hardly a Get out of Jail Free card not extended to other parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, at the risk of posting something I shouldn't... suppose I submitted this link and went on to analyse it and several categorisation-related pre-26 November 2019 events (unrelated to the Portals case) which I think might be relevant, what guarantee will I have that whatever anti-BHG evidence I submit will be left intact for all to see, and will not be selectively altered per the prohibition, just like whatever anti-User:Foo evidence I submit will be left intact for all to see? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Never mind. I think DanCherek has already submitted enough evidence. I added my analysis at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#Analysis of evidence posted by User:DanCherek; that should suffice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Word and diff limits[edit]

Because of the perceived pattern of behavior, I may be requesting to exceed the prescribed limits for evidence but will hold off on doing so until I've drafted my list and can make a concrete request with specific numbers. Other involved parties also perceive patterns of behavior, so I would favor similar leeway for them should they make formal requests before I do. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee, particularly this Committee, has historically been quite willing to grant parties extensions for word and diff limits, especially if it's a singular request. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just submitted my evidence in stages, with addenda and corrections. I was happy to learn that as an involved party, I am entitled to 1000 words rather than 500 (I already struggled with that during the Preliminary Statements phase).
Just a question, I'm using https://www.countofwords.com/ to count my words as recommended, but should I count what can actually be read on display on the "Evidence" page (currently at 865), or the whole HTML text as found in the text editor, including all words in a URL not displayed on the page (currently at 1127)? Given the impossibility of getting diffs from the ANI page history, I'm ending up with a lot more HTML words than displayed words. And now I'm worried I've exceeded my word limit. Did I do it wrong? If so, how can I correct it?
Btw, isn't there a means to make it technically impossible for users to exceed their given word limit? We see that in online submission forms all the time, and Wikipedia edit summaries also have a character limit. But this ARC format seems to rely on the goodwill and self-policing of participants to observe the word limit. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rendered text. By my quick count you're at 807. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just submitted evidence. I have no idea how it compares with the limits on words etc and would like to apply for an increase (if nec) as I expect to add more. The table could perhaps go on a subpage. Oculi (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my estimation, you are at around 600 words and 53 diffs. As such, you still have more words and diffs that you can add before you hit the limit. As such, I would suggest seeing what else you want to submit and if it is a fair bit extra you could ask for an extension at that point. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz I've been asked to submit evidence by Barkeep49. I've done so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence#Example of BHG having productive disagreements with other editors (question from Arbcom). In my count, I am now at 1063 words, but I'm not sure what your count is? If I have exceeded the limit, may I hereby request an extension? If not, I'll try to abridge the evidence (though I think it is quite valuable to be on display in its entirety). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By my count you are at 971. As such, this should be under or close enough to the limit for it to be allowed. Therefore, as long as you don't need to add more evidence you are fine. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. I do not intend, or believe I will need, to submit more evidence at this time. On the other hand, is there a limit to how many words I may add in the Workshop? I've already commented a lot. As I wrote, I still feel responsible for having, in my understanding, set off a chain of events that led us to the ANI because I was (one of) the first to raise civility issues (14:48, 15 June 2023). I felt like I had to bring the process, that I thought I had put in motion, to a good conclusion.But now I know I must be careful not to badger/bludgeon, despite my best intentions to do my part into bringing this process to a good conclusion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz I added one more crucial piece of evidence that I missed previously. I think this is 971 + 28 words, so I've got 1 word to spare. Is this correct in your count? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As your section stands, it seems to be to be under the word count. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Pulling that together took longer than I had hoped but I now have a draft on my sandbox. I'm requesting my word limit be doubled to 2,000. (I'm under 100 for Diffs). I'll of course abide by any limit that is set. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would also favor BrownHairedGirl's limit being raised as well, obviously, since it would take more words to reply. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like an increased limit, too. I have added material a few moments ago and expect to add more as other editors contribute, with the deadline approaching. Oculi (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi how many extra words are you asking for? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is my present count? I would hope another 50% would suffice. Oculi (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My very rough count suggests 1200, so you'd be looking for 1800? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I would certainly hope 1800 would be enough. Oculi (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi your request is approved. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like BHG has still not submitted any evidence. Apart from submitting a preliminary statement and rejecting my apology in the workshop, she has been completely quiet during this case so far. Hasn't responded to LL's apology to her yet either. 3 days and a bit left to go. We'll see. I'm curious what she will say. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BHG and the clerks/ArbCom have been in communication about her evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee has been in correspondence with BHG regarding BHG's evidence submission, which I understand is currently being developed.
I will also note that there is an opportunity for parties and other participants to submit responses to evidence submissions in the form of analysis at the workshop.
Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is good to know. Additionally, is there any limit to how many words or how many times I may post at the Workshop? I'm trying not to flood the page. I have collapsed some of my sections because of this. I really don't want to be badgering or bludgeoning, I'm just trying to make valuable contributions. But I believe that all the things I post have added value to figuring out what happened, and where things might have gone wrong. My latest response about how automated Twinkle notifications may have played a role in the emergence of the dispute is something which I had so far overlooked, and nobody else seems to have addressed so far. I hope it will be taken into account, but I'm not sure if I'm posting more than I am allowed or supposed to. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: isaacl gave me some helpful advice. I'll try to limit my contributions further. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect your request is approved. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! RevelationDirect (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49:I have submitted more. How is the count now, and at what time do submissions close? Oculi (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi You are at around 1400 words and evidence is set to close at 23:59:59 UTC. Though based on your comment below there is a chance drafters give some extension. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished my submission, which will certainly have too many diffs. I would be grateful if this could be accepted as I need to pack and will be going offline imminently. Oculi (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: My word limite of 2,000 does not include the workshop, correct? (If it does, may I have an additional 500 for a total of 2500?) - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not include the workshop. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressed Diffs in ANI[edit]

Much of the history in the ANI discussion was suppressed, at least from non-admins like me. My understanding was that this was due to an issue in an unrelated nomination. That makes it harder to link to Diffs in this case though. Is there any way we could use a scalpel instead of a cleaver and unsuppress the edits for the that earlier ANI? (I have no idea how granular the tools are for doing so.)

If not, instead of a Diff, I used the following citation format: "(Diff suppressed, ANI timestamp 09:31, 7 July 2023)". Is that acceptable? - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can provide an annotated format like that, the Arbitrators can still cross-check the information is valid. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make our lives easier, Wikipedia:Convenient Discussions is a script that lets you link to specific comments in a way that other users will be able to use as well, even without the original diff. For example, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence#c-RevelationDirect-20230721132800-Suppressed_Diffs_in_ANI links to your comment on this page, and that link works even for those without the script. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the procedural guidance! - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect unfortunately the way the oversight tool works it's not possible to "use a scalpel instead of a cleaver", we can only suppress (and unsuppress) whole revisions. This means that every revision that contains supressable material must be suppressed, e.g. if an editor adds a potentially libellous BLP violation in revision 10 and it isn't removed until revision 20 then all of revisions 10-19 need to be suppressed, even if none of the intermediate edits were at all problematic (or even related). Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In hyper-theory land, someone who has both oversight and importupload privileges (a group that consists of only one person) could use importupload to reconstruct a synthetic history without the suppressed content. But that's a lot of work, and almost certainly is not going to be done. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DIYeditor: I've edited your evidence submission to include direct links to comments from ANI (Special:Diff/1168472061), for the convenience of arbitrators. If you have a problem with that, feel free to revert and let me know. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to section[edit]

Is a link to a cfd discussion such as this in the requisite format? — Oculi (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi a link like that can be submitted as evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken section[edit]

In Laurel_Lodged's evidence section, under the heading "Threats" is:

"If that guideline-flouting is upheld, then a DRV is the appropriate venue to review that."[35]

I don't see how a suggestion that DRV can be used to resolve a dispute can be characterized as a "threat". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly under "Assumed revenge / paranoia":

"It follows a series if[sic] unpleasant and/or hostile encounters with you since I challenged your huge nominations in which you offered no evidence of having done any WP:BEFORE, and where you ignored my calls for it to be provided."[49]

where is the "assumed revenge" in that statement? It seems more like a statement of factual chronology, albeit characterized by BHG's personal impression of it.

And if "Paranoia" is meant to describe BHG, that's a clear personal attack and @Laurel Lodged: should strike it immediately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some place I should post these objections other than on this talk page? Is this appropriate material for the workshop? (I've never been quite sure what's supposed to go there.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken It seems like this is really Analysis? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Thanks, I will reformulate the material and post it there. What do you think about "Paranoia" being a PA? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will discuss with the other drafters but traditionally named parties are extended more leeway than other editors because they have something at stake. So understanding that this diff is thought of by LL as Assumed revenge / paranoia informs me about LL in addition to BHG. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken I thought the same thing. I posted to their talk page, as mine had been commented on by an Arb for similar reasons. Seemed better than even including it here because maybe LL would remedy those concerns before it sets in... —DIYeditor (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just saw your comment and added my suggestion that it be withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlandse Leeuw section[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: I'm sorry, you're right. This is my first ARC, I'm not used to this format in which we are supposed to only comment in our own sections. I'm glad Barkeep49 moved my comment to analysis. I'm happy that these rules even exist, to keep involved parties and different types of comments separate. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should DIYeditor's 18:25, 23 July 2023 comment then also be moved to their own section? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no expectation that editors only post to their own section on the evidence talk page (where we are now). I think @Beyond My Ken might be getting this confused with the Proposed Decision talk page where everyone does get their own section. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Well, I still think moving my comment to analysis was a good move of yours, thanks. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to all, I could swear that rule applied to all talk pages here. Live and learn! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha it's alright! I'm also still learning how all of this here works. At any rate, I hope my analysis was helpful for understanding what RD, LL and I meant by "intimidating/threatening" the closer. LL provided no context, so misunderstanding what he meant was, well, understandable. Haha. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I would like to make an apology to one of the involved parties for something I said. Where should I post that? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#General discussion under "Comment by parties"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 I posted it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#Apology from Nederlandse Leeuw to BrownHairedGirl. If this is the incorrect place to do so, please tell me where to put it instead. Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably fine. If it needs to be moved myself or another drafter will let you know. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 Thanks! I really hope this helps de-escalating the tensions and moving this process forward. It is easy to point out what others do wrong. It is harder to recognise your own faults and admit them, but I felt that I had to do so, and this seemed to be the best way and place. I hope she appreciates it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not... . I'm afraid I've done all I can for now in direct communication with BHG during this ARC. At least I tried. It genuinely makes me sad. But I do not regret raising the WP:CIVIL issue. I believe it was the right thing to do. And I still do. We need to see this case through to a proper end. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#Analysis of apologies. It's a little long, but I think it serves to provide important insights in understanding the role which apologies play in the various interactions between Wikipedians. At first I really didn't understand why BHG rejected my sincere and carefully worded apology. I thought about it for several days. Now, I think I do. The pattern fits when compared to her rejection of RD's apology and the role she thinks apologies play in general, which seems to differ sharply from how pretty much everyone else here thinks about apologies.
Combined with the importance BHG gives to the public acknowledgement of her own personal interpretation of policies and guidelines being correct (mostly those relevant to categorisation and deletion, such as WP:SMALLCAT and WP:BEFORE) over the importance of being WP:CIVIL (which seems to have little or no importance to BHG, based on what she writes about it herself), I think I've now pieced together a bigger picture that may help us understand what has been going on. If I made a mistake or missed anything important, I stand to be corrected, and I am open for constructive feedback. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Where would you like me to answer your questions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop#Questions/Commenst from Arbitrations? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By submitting evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence#Example of BHG having productive disagreements with other editors (question from Arbcom). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Never mind; I should stop posting my thoughts if they aren't relevant to the process. Sorry.] Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where else to post this, but I'll just keep to my own section. User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Withdrawal from the SmallCat case (Diff) initially struck me as yet another strange move, but given the Evidence presented by Trainsandotherthings, I think this another case of BHG WP:FORUMSHOPPING. When the Expatriates CfM discussion didn't seem to go her way, she seemed to threaten a DRV. When the ANI didn't seem to go her way, she seemed to insist on an RfC. Now that the ARC isn't going her apparent way, she seems to be questioning the very authority and competence of the Arbcom by invoking the UCOC. It seems like she's always looking for yet another forum to try, until she can get enough people to agree with her point of view... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for myself, I think this is a relatively ungenerous interpretation of those events. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) "I don't know where else to post this," I suppose you could just not post it anywhere, since it comes of as smug and annoying.--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: Your text Fayenatic posted this note to BHG: [1] has the same diff as the previous I saw that and posted here: [2]; I presume the former URL to be a copy error? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think I fixed it.
I wasn't planning on pasting them here, but re-reading the last line of this: "Your replies (or lack thereof) may form part of my evidence.", convinced me that I probably should. - jc37 07:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DanCherek[edit]

@SilkTork: (this is a reply to your query here, I wasn't exactly sure where I was supposed to respond) Thanks for asking. No, it was not my intention to suggest that BrownHairedGirl's actions were malevolent. Instead, the idea was that if BrownHairedGirl was accusing other editors of gaslighting in accordance with Wiktionary's definition, then she would have been alleging that those other editors were acting with malevolence. All that being said, that part was not particularly important to my evidence – it was initially intended for anyone unfamiliar with the term – so I have gone ahead and struck the definition and replaced it with a simple wikilink to Wiktionary (diff), which should suffice. Thanks also for your invitation to submit analysis of the evidence. I will try do to so when I get a chance. DanCherek (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DanCherek. Agree, these pages are not helpfully set out. I don't fully understand them myself. And I did mean to say "Are you suggesting that BHG was accusing others of being malevolent?", but it came out wrong. I'll amend that now. SilkTork (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense. I've submitted some analysis at Workshop § Analysis of evidence posted by User:DanCherek. DanCherek (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon's Section[edit]

Answering User:SilkTork – Yes, I am recommending that ArbCom define deletion discussions as a contentious topic, so that the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement can impose sanctions on editors who engage in battleground editing in deletion discussions. The community has at least twice punted dealing with editors who disrupt deletion discussion to ArbCom, so ArbCom needs to run with the football. The community has shown that it either cannot or will not or does not want to deal with editors who make deletion discussions troublesome, so ArbCom should authorize administrators to impose sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am of weak opposition to this, I agree with the last statement but I'm not fully confident that making them a sanction area is the right way to resolve this i.e. "inherently contentious" != "sanction eligibility". Editors should be free to opine without running the risk of what construes as battleground behaviour, for e.g. at what point do we decide that an article creator is not allowed to defend their creation? Seems like a slippery slope to me, that said, per my agreement to the last statement, the community has historically been unable to deal with uncivil editors in deletion discussions, it's just that it personally doesn't sit right with me to make XfDs a sanction area. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add to what qedk said: disputes at CFD are rare, we can have entire weeks without any serious disputes about anything. But they do happen. Even when they do, most editors are able to deal with their frustrations civilly, and will accept it if their side "loses" the argument. I've been in that position countless times since February 2023 (when I first became really active at CFD), and at most I will post a 500-word essay about why I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong (honestly, I do need to train being more concise ), but I won't use a single swearword or a single name-calling or insult. I'll accept the closure. For the very few editors who are unable to constrain themselves, however, sanctioning does seem to be rare, and I believe the civility guideline needs to be enforced more tightly than it currently is. (Categorisation guideline reform might help, too, but that's a topic for after this ARC is over). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just putting out there that I find Robert's evidence out of scope. Unlike in the deletion discussions case we have not indicated we want to take a broader look at CfD, let alone all XfD. Obviously SilkTork is more open to this kind of evidence so I'm discussing behind the scenes with him and Primefac but I want to put this out there now so that others don't put forward such evidence until the drafters make a decision about this (and perhaps revise the scope accordingly). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find the observation interesting, though - as I indicated above - I feel that evidence is best confined to conduct of the parties rather than discussion around aspects of SmallCat. I feel that further discussion of Robert McClenon's suggestion would be worthwhile, but not on these case pages. Robert McClenon, would you consider collapsing your observation, and opening a discussion on the matter elsewhere? SilkTork (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed by this action, although unfortunately not surprised. ArbCom is continuing to kick the can down the road. There will be another case in a year or two involving either tendentious editing or personal attacks in deletion. This case illustrates the problem well, in that the same editor is attacking other editors in CFD, just as she did in MFD four years ago. She is correct on the merits, because the problem here is that the other editors have only read a few words of the small category guideline and think that they understand it, and the portal advocates had only read a few words of the portal guideline and thought that they understood it. But being right on the merits does not justify incivility, and this illustrates the contentiousness of deletion discussions. I understand that ArbCom has chosen only to address the immediate problem, incivility in small category discussions, and not the underlying problem, the contentiousness of deletion discussions. I am in the minority. There will be another case later. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robert: as one of the drafters of the deletion decision, we were very willing to go large. I think if you'd wanted to bring in CfD evidence there we'd have seriously considered it even if it was technically out of scope. We very much did not want to kick the can down the road. And truthfully, the remedies which we passed there - the farthest ranging of which was an RfC process that failed - felt like the most that the evidence we had could justify. In fact it wasn't clear to some arbs that the evidence could have been justified. So if the can got kicked down the road there - and an argument can be made it was - I would suggest the cause isn't only on ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor contribution: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 26#European people by country. TL;DR someone accidentally emptied a category out of process and it took myself and another Wikipedian a lot of time to find out who it was, and we both initially blamed the wrong person. Smallcat and emptying out of process are not the same but related issues that are amongst the most frequent sources of disputes at CFD. Future policy/guideline reform should look into this. For my part, I wrote an essay about it a few days ago: User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process (ECOOP). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Question

Are comments on this page supposed to be sectioned with a section for each non-arbitrator, and replies from the arbitrators, or other editors allowed to discuss back-and-forth? I thought that discussion was sectioned, but see that another editor is posting in my section as well as their own. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BMK had this also confusion so you're not the only veteran editor with that question but this page is not sectioned. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion is understandable. Might be helpful to state this explicitly in "Behaviour on this page" in future cases?
@Robert McClenon I was hoping to constructively contribute to the points you made about potential future CFD reform. Nevertheless, if my comments here bother you in some way, I'm prepared to move them to "my section", no worries. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the record:[edit]

User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Withdrawal from the SmallCat case * Pppery * it has begun... 14:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find this a disappointing outcome, and very unreasonable on BHG's part. She wrote to us to request an unprecedented 20,000 words in evidence. The standard amount is 1,000. I'm not sure that we've ever granted more than 2,500. But after much hemming and hawing, and BHG's repeated insistence, we granted her 5,000, with an explanation that less is more, and thus she should try to keep it smaller. But she still balks, and alleges that we're not allowing her to make her case. But why should BHG get to break the rules to such an absurd extent? If we grant her 20k words, why not grant that to every named participant? At that point, why even have a word limit? For those who think that 20k words is not a lot, or who are thinking "wow, how Kafkaesque", I remind you that Kafka's Metamorphosis, a novella, clocks in at about 21,000 words. Nothing in BHG's evidence (which yes, she did email the full length version of to us) convinces me that she needs a novella's worth of writing to achieve.
BHG then goes on to invoke the UCOC and alleges that we are giving the case a prejudicial framing by not deciding the meaning of SMALLCAT. That fundamentally misunderstands ArbCom's role. While the WSJ once called us Wikipedia's Supreme Court, our job is conduct, not content. We are not the final divine interpreters of policy. The most I could I see us doing with SMALLCAT is ordering an RfC, so that the Community can decide what it really means. Wikipedia's policy is decided bottom up, not top down. Further, I reject the attempt to use vague phrases in the UCOC to achieve wildly unrelated outcomes, and disagree that we're somehow breaking the UCOC by sticking to our conduct mandate.
Ultimately, we have tried to be more than accommodating to BHG, but she will not budge. Perhaps saddest of all, BHG has failed to understand that a thousand well written words can achieve more than a million. The point of ArbCom's word limits is not to make the lives of the Arbs easier. It is to force participants to be intentional and focus on the true nexus of the problem. Instead, BHG takes a scattershot approach and hopes something sticks. That is exactly the opposite of what Arbitration is supposed to achieve. I hope BHG decides to submit some evidence and participate, but just as we have compromised, she must as well—compromise is a two way street. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to take strong exception to something you've written @CaptainEek. ArbCom has no role to play in deciding content. ArbCom cannot create policy. However, we are able to create binding and final interpretations of policy. WP:ARBPOL says The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced and so I think we can act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (to quote another part of ARBPOL). We can chose to delegate this authority, or say it is better done by the community, but we absolutely are the final (though not divine) interpreters of policy when misconduct has reached the point that it justifies a case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point Barkeep, and well taken. But I still must admit I'm hesitant for us to say "this is what SMALLCAT means, and the community will follow our pronouncement," which is I think what BHG is expecting us to do. Maybe we will, and I agree that we have that right. But just because we can doesn't mean we should. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too have no idea whether we will choose to interpret SMALLCAT. But, per my comments on the Workshop yesterday, I don't think we should be ruling it out at this point. Because if one of the parties in this case is going around getting that guideline wrong consistently it would absolutely be disruptive enough in my view that the party would need some kind of remedy; perhaps only a reminder/warning/admonishment or perhaps something stronger like a TBAN. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My position broadly aligns with Barkeep's, but may go even a bit further: every time we resolve a conduct dispute, we are implicitly rendering an interpretation of relevant policy and norms, and we don't shy away from that (which I think is evident from the way we have resolved cases in the past). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with that but would point to the use of principles where we more explicitly and generally layout policy/guideline interpretations before applying that to specific editors/situations. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up to the value of short statements: imo, Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address is one of the best speeches ever given, and is a mere 701 words. Or his Gettysburg address, at a mere 271 words. Less is more. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what happens now? Can an involved party just 'withdraw' from a case? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I hope BHG reconsiders this choice as I think we will make a better decision with her participation than without it. But either way the case goes ahead. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's good to know. Is it somehow "out of order" or "out of process" to be still submitting her "draft evidence" exceeding the offered word limit in her userspace at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case? It seems to be circumventing the rules we must all abide by, outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence, in particular: You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What she has posted in her userspace is not going to be considered as part of this process and so the rules of the process don't apply. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Considering it contains a lot of accusations and allegations against several parties involved, myself included, is the page still sanctionable for possible violations such as WP:ASPERSIONS? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment that page is permitted by WP:POLEMIC. I suppose you could pull quotes from it and submit it against BHG but I would personally not be all that inclined to grant you an extension merely to post evidence from that page. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, thanks for pointing that out. I presume permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner expires after the conclusion of this case? That seems reasonable. Oh no, I'm not thinking about submitting additional evidence from BHG's draft page, don't worry. If the page gets deleted after the case I'm fine. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely moot now, but I would not have objected to the requested 20,000 word limit. I agree that, at some point, the length becomes self defeating so shorter is better for involved parties. But it also takes more words to defend yourself than it takes to make the initial claim. (In any case, I hope BrownHairedGirl reconsiders.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been quite awhile ago (and I don't recall the specifics), but this isn't the first time someone provided evidence as a sub-page, somewhere.
If an editor did that, and could divide it to clearly delineate the content issues from the coduct issues, while still providing context, it probably would not be much of an issue. I trust that arbitrators know how to look at a page of links and decide what they think is relevant. Sometimes, in a large case, with several participants, or when there is a long period of time to cover, it may be necessiitated.
I think this issue here is, well, the over-arching issue here. That BHG seems to be conflating in the content issue with conduct. Hitting submit or publish doesn't necessarily make something a conduct issue. She seems to see this as: if she can be proven "right" in the content part of this, then the conduct will be considered justified. So from that perspective, the content argument would seem important to the person to try to explain. That the "heat" level continued to rise among the various parties has made this less clear, I think (and I wasn't following this as it happened - with some exceptions, I tend to avoid cfd threads on certain topics if I see her name).
So I dunno. In a way, I think that sub-page could be seen as evidence in and of itself of one of the issues at hand. - jc37 07:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't the first time someone provided evidence as a sub-page, somewhere. That may be, but as I pointed out: You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format. And while WP:POLEMIC does allow The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process (...) provided it will be used in a timely manner, Barkeep49 has already said that What she has posted in her userspace is not going to be considered as part of this process. Therefore, arbitrators [looking] at a page of links and decide what they think is relevant will not be happening in this ARC in relation to that draft in her userspace. So I think we should emphase the "preparing for" bit; it's a draft / note to self for BHG personally, which is fine for the duration of the ARC.
Otherwise I agree that BHG is conflating content and conduct, but I've made that point sufficiently already. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The conduct issue is the repeated misrepresentation of a short, simple and stable guideline, which continued long after the error was demonstrated. The UCoC requires all editors to "strive towards accuracy and verifiability", and repeatedly misrepresenting SMALLCAT is a breach of that requirement. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extension request[edit]

@Barkeep49: I have finished drafting my evidence. I'll need an extension of at least 300 additional words. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

300 word extension granted. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DIYeditor extension[edit]

Barkeep49 I am not sure how word count is tallied (like if it includes signatures, link numbers, and such) but I think to include the evidence of LL's apology on the Workshop page (if that is subject to being included at all or if the committee will already consider that) I would need approx. 550 words total with a more liberal count of the words as I see it. I would like to add: LL "apology" indicates the goading will not stop: LL issued a backhanded "apology"[link] indicating BHG's character flaws that lead to LL being unable to stop provoking her. LL frames this as a "Christian" apology, apparently a core element of which being listing the sins of the person one is "apologizing" to. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor Personally I count headers but not signatures and so I have you around 350 words so no extension is needed to add those 2 sentences. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct location for responding to draft evidence[edit]

I wrote a short reply to BrownHairedGirl's draft evidence that she shared informally. Content wise my comments would fit perfectly in the Analysis of Evidence section of the Workshop page. But, I'm replying to something that is not formal evidence and I would still have the word count left to place it under my Evidence section instead. I'm still mulling over whether it's helpful though.

But, if I decided to share it, where is the correct location? (Or would this be improper?) - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about this so if one of hte other drafters disagrees with me, what they say goes. But I would say there is no correct spot to respond to draft evidence. Draft evidence is not evidence and is thus not part of this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a drafter, but I fully agree that there should be no engagement with the draft evidence. If parties could skirt length rules simply by putting evidence in their userspace, that would make a mockery of the Arb process. I will not be considering the draft evidence. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was concerned that the draft evidence would be informally considered. Since that's not the case, I'll discard my draft response. Thanks for the guidance! - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had similar concerns so I understand that you ask this question, RD. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I see that you have created your own evidence section a short time ago. It appears that you have simply copypasted BHG's draft evidence, with some "pick[ing] and choos[ing] what I think is most relevant in her defense" and some "editorial comment". I'm not sure why you did this, rather that posting your own evidence. Arbitrators have already said that What she has posted in her userspace is not going to be considered as part of this process, and there should be no engagement with the draft evidence. It also appears to far exceed the word limit of 1,000 words (which can only be extended if requested and granted by the Arbcom). So I'm not sure what you are doing, and if you know it yourself? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 and Dreamy Jazz: I take no position on Marcocapelle placing an extract of BrownHairedGirl draft evidence under their own section, I'm obviously way too involved and defer to ArbComm. (I've consistently supported increasing word counts for other editors though and do so now with Marcocapelle though.) But given this development, I reiterate my earlier question: is it now appropriate for me to provide some short analysis on Workshop page? - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: first of all, see comment of Nederlandse Leeuw above, is what I have done allowed at all? And if the answer is yes, may I request an extension of number of words? In my opinion (and people may have a different opinion about it, of course) continuing this case without BHG being heard is quite useless. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle BHG is allowed to be heard, but should comply to the same rules as all other parties involved. She must submit evidence in [her] own section, using the prescribed format. If she chooses not to do that before the Evidence phase closes, that is too bad. Posting draft evidence in her userspace is allowed only for the purpose of "preparing for" a dispute resolution per WP:POLEMIC; it cannot be used or cited in the dispute resolution itself. (She has already attempted the break these rules by referring to it in the Workshop under your motion.) I understand that you want her to be heard, but you do not have to submit evidence on her behalf if she refuses to comply with the rules herself in order to do so, specifically the word limit. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If BHG doesn't submit evidence in the Evidence section before the time limit expires, that's essentially exercising her right to remain silent. She cannot "withdraw", as she claims; arbitrator Barkeep49 clarified that she can't: No. I hope BHG reconsiders this choice as I think we will make a better decision with her participation than without it. But either way the case goes ahead. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC). So she could potentially be sanctioned "in absentia", as it were (though that concept may be difficult to apply online). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle I saw your evidence before looking at my pings. As such, because I knew no extension had been granted, I cut down the evidence submission to just about 1000 words. In doing that, I thought that choosing to paste parts of BHG's evidence was a bold move but not one against the rules. So there's that. Is your request for extension merely to include the parts which I have, for the moment, removed? If so I expect that extension would be granted. If you're hoping for a longer extension please say exactly how many words (and if necessary how many diffs) you are requesting and provide some justification/explanation for that request. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Would BrownHairedGirl and other editors also be allowed to add additional excerpts from the draft evidence, up to their allotted word counts? - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl can of course change her mind and submit evidence. Parties are granted more leeway for participation. I am unsure how I feel (let alone how the other drafters would feel) if other editors started proxying for BHG. This includes the fact that BHG has been quite explicit that this was unfinished work so it wouldn't even necessarily reflect her true thinking. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: thank you. My initial summary of BHG's page must have been below 3000 words and 200 diffs, is it possible to get that amount of space? It is difficult enough to choose which parts are most relevant to this case from someone else's perspective. Also I may want to add a little bit on my own behalf. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Your original post was approximately 2300 words and I while I haven't counted the specific number of diffs it was right around, or just over, 100. Is that the only extension you are requesting? If so I expect that this would be granted. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: you got me doubting whether it is wise to proceed this by mentioning "it wouldn't even necessarily reflect her true thinking". Ideally I would only submit the diffs but that would become totally uninterpretable for the committee, wouldn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We had people do diffs with no wording during a recent case and it made things really hard. Some understanding of why we're looking at a diff is very helpful and at times necessary. This does not contradict the idea expressed to BHG, that the context around a diff can be ascertained from the diff rather than needing to be explained in depth (what she refers to as contextomy). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The context around a diff may include text not included in the the immediately-preceding text which is shown in the diff, and it may include text from other pages, sometimes many other pages. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I echo these sentiments. It is also far too late for me to respond as I am off on holiday tomorrow and am certainly not going to waste any time logging into wikipedia. I didn't see the bit which says: feel free to copy and paste whatever you like into evidence. Oculi (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how Marcocapelle's effort to give BrownHairedGirl a voice in the Evidence page is handled, she has already posted the link to User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case 3 times on the Workshop page and another editor posted it a 4th time to question some of that evidence. I assume both editors were unaware of this discussion so it may be worthwhile for ArbComm to consider providing guidance on the Workshop page. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was obviously not unaware. People can link to whatever they want. That doesn't make it suddenly part of evidence that is considered. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I think I had misunderstood between what was to be considered versus what was allowed on the page. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I must admit to being a little flustered with the lengthy draft evidence and to what extent I should reply to it. (Although I expect that's a normal feeling for an involved party at ArbComm!) Since Marcocapelle placed excerpts in official evidence, I posted a brief analysis right here. I meant for the italicized explanation I put at the top of that section to be neutral but please make sure I succeeded and reword as appropraite. I'll be out today but feel to move or remove that analysis if appropriate. (And thanks for your patience with my many questions!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NL extension[edit]

@Barkeep49 I would like to request an extension of 500 words. It is about what we have been discussing in the Workshop, namely, interpretation. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw you want 500 more words to present new evidence? Because participation in the Workshop/Analysis doesn't have the strict word limit of evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 I know, but surely evidence submitted here has higher value than evidence submitted there? It is not necessarily new evidence, it is a new analysis for why disagreements about interpretation of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline have led to WP:UNCIVIL conduct. This should arguably have been at the centre of the Evidence, but apart from me, nobody is talking about the link between disagreements about interpretation and misconduct in the Evidence section. I'm worried that this will get lost in the next phase if I do not post it now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for extension is granted. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 Thanks! Posted. Am I still within my new 1,500 word limit? If not, I'll try to rely more on diffs than full sentences to cut it down (although I prefer nuance and context over diffs). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence closes 4 August 2023[edit]

The Casenav above says Evidence closes 4 August 2023. Does that mean this submission, dated 12:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC), was no longer allowed? (No prejudice against contributor or contribution in question; this is purely about the timestamp). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that time limit. I'll let Barkeep (or whomever) decide rather than remove it myself. Seems a shame if this bit cannot be considered by the committee. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence presented after the page has been formally closed is never accepted, but some leeway is usually given for evidence presented after the deadline but before the formal close. If there are discussions ongoing regarding BHG submitting her evidence then it may be that the clerks have been told to hold off closing for the time being. Regardless, I would suggest everyone treat the evidence page as closed going forwards unless and until we hear differently. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully some last minute agreement can be reached to submit that evidence! - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was ambiguous it is OK and can stay. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it looked like there was going to be a substantial last minute piece of evidence by a party, the drafters had agreed an extension would be productive. That didn't happen and so things were left in limbo. After discussing this with Primefac, I have now closed the evidence phase. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that didn't work out. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

make a short addition[edit]

I'd like to add a short clarification (just a few words) of the meaning and history of "Brace yourself Bridget". Valereee (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not go in the analysis of evidence section of the Workshop? Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would though like to make one tiny copyedit to my evidence: was (giving the impression of bludgeoning) should be was (giving the impression of) bludgeoning. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not analysis, as it's not actually in Evidence? There's a bare mention of it with no context? Totally willing to step back if others think what's there is enough, but to me it looks like what's in evidence is "Calling BHG 'Bridget' is mocking her'" while I'm arguing there's much more there. Valereee (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I were still on the Committee I would want the "Bridget" edit summary explained, particularly by LL as the person who made it. Some preliminary Googling suggests it's fairly appalling. The taunting of BHG in that edit itself, particularly the first and last numbered points, also fails to impress. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I included it because it looked like BHG wouldn't be presenting any evidence for herself and it seemed like a major point to be considered, but I don't have personal knowledge of what kind of implication this has beyond what was already said on the Workshop page, not to mention that I was running out of words and didn't want to risk it being trimmed, and running out of energy to be honest. I figured the best thing to do was put it there and let the committee decide for itself what it seems to mean and how someone might reasonably take it. I can't mind read the intent of LL nor do I have enough context to say with much authority what was going on there. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is under any obligation to submit evidence on behalf of someone else who has been perfectly capable to do so themselves, provided that the latter comply with the same requirements we all had to comply to, such as word limit. Marcocapelle had tried to do so with the best intentions, but thought better of it after the discussion above revealed several issues with that, primarily word limit, which is why an arbitrator already had to cut down its size before Marco retracted it altogether. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even as other editors make 50+ additions to the page? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: I think decency would create some obligation to say something about this "brace yourself Bridget" once it was known. It is potentially one of the most offensive things I've seen one established editor say to another, if not the most offensive, as far as I understand the context. BHG indicated this Case was causing her undue stress and that she wouldn't be able to participate further so to leave it unmentioned would be a disservice to the entire process.
I'm not sure what the committee would say, but if I understand the intent of your comment, I don't think it would count toward a party's word limit if someone else decided to give evidence that had entirely or in part been brought to light by that party. I gave evidence about you which I was already aware of which BHG highlighted on this page, and about LL in a similar way. That's my evidence, BHG could choose to leave it at that, repeat it, or offer her own explanation of it. That's not us working in unison to circumvent the word limit, although where the line on that would be I can't say. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DIYeditor I'm sorry, my comment of 06:13, 6 August 2023 was not directed at you at all. It was a general comment expressing some frustration about certain procedures either not being clearly written down, or certain participants not following them appropriately, sometimes simply because the procedures weren't clear to them and they make unintentional mistakes that aren't a big deal (I myself also made several relatively minor procedural errors throughout this process). In your case you Didn't realize that time limit. As said I had No prejudice against contributor or contribution in question; it's not a big deal to me. The unclarity of the time limit is one of the things I intend to mention in my feedback, as well as a clearer indication in which exceptional circumstances evidence may sometimes still be submitted in the Evidence section after the time limit has expired. It would create more legal certainty for everyone.
For my part, I have just examined the origin and meaning of the phase "Brace yourself, Bridget", and how it is applied in practice. The way Laurel Lodged wrote it in his edit summary of 16:32, 19 June 2023, in an Ireland-related CfR started by LL on 16 June 2023 (so after significant tensions had already happened at the Expatriates CfM the day before), and LL had already said several things belittling BHG in the same CfR, I fully acknowledge that the "Brace yourself Bridget" comment in the edit summary is really inappropriate, offensive, and mocking. To be completely honest, one might even interpret it as an indirect rape threat / rape joke if all context and circumstances are considered. If so, that is absolutely unacceptable! Even if it wasn't intended like that, it could be readily interpreted like that. It's not funny or clever at all in the given circumstances. Laurel Lodged should have been aware of this, and never written it. I think this is sanctionable, and something to be seriously looked at. This evidence is so important that I don't mind if it didn't formally comply with the time limit. The Arbcom made a decision to accept it (also because they hadn't formally closed the Evidence phase yet awaiting a potential substantial last minute piece of evidence), and I think that was a good decision. I'm not questioning it.
I hope that clears things up. Sorry again, my comment was unhelpful, probably in the wrong place, and I probably didn't even need to post it at all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think IAR comes into play here. The arbs can treat anything they want as evidence. Including anything said on this talk page...
Even if the evidence page is "closed", I would think that "late appearing" evidence - if deemed appeopriate - would not be ignored merely because a certain arbitrary "phase" has concluded. - jc37 07:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rules explicitly allow the drafting arbs to adjust case phases as they see fit, and for parties to petition for changes to the timetable and structure. So rather than IAR add evidence after that phase has been closed, doing what Valereee has done is the correct course of action. Having seen the reply to my earlier comment, I agree that what is proposed to be added is evidence not analysis. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence re-opened[edit]

The evidence phase has been re-opened. Both the evidence and workshop phases will now close at 23:59 (UTC) on 13 August. At this particular point in time the drafters do not expect other phases will need to be extended to accommodate this change, but if necessary we will make that announcement. This extension of the evidence phase is to allow participants to provide further clarification to any statements that require it, as well as answer questions from Arbitrators if necessary. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Will the involved parties be notified? - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By posting this notice in three different locations, it is generally assumed that parties to this case will see said notice. I do not recall notifying parties for similar announcements in past cases, though I may be mistaken. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac That is good to know. But I really think you should ping all parties involved. I hadn't seen this yet until I just happened to see it on my Watchlist, almost 3 hours later. Please inform all involved parties that the Evidence phase has been re-opened, it is in the interests of all of us to know. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I'm very supportive of the extension for evidence since I assume that means an arrangement has been made for BrownHairedGirl to submit evidence, which is critical from my perspective for a successful ArbComm outcome. (Thank you for whatever negotiation opened the door to that outcome.) Depending on when that evidence from BrownHairedGirl is submitted, I would look a day to draft a response to her evidence and place it in the Analysis section of the Workshop page. I'm requesting we push the Workshop page out 1 day (unless you have reason to believe that BHG's evidence will be submitted well before the due date.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incorrect assumption. This was done based on the discussion in the topic above "make a short addition" (sic) and based on some internal factors among the drafters. BHG had indicated pretty clearly that she needs certain conditions to post her evidence and since she's stated those are non-negotiable it doesn't look like her posting evidence will happen. Which, as I've noted elsewhere, is something I wish were not the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Thank you for the clarification, the extension still seems totally appropriate but I'm sorry to hear that my speculation was incorrect. If evidence is submitted by BrownHairedGirl, I would ask for a day to respond in the Workshop at that time. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"brace yourself Bridget"[edit]

@DIYeditor and Beccaynr: I don't really have a dog in this fight, but for those Wikipedians not of Irish heritage, it might be worth noting that "brace yourself Bridget" is a phrase best-known as the punchline to the setup "What's the definition of Irish foreplay?" (a fan-favorite bawdy joke on the Irish American side of my family). I can't tell if that's a context that's being missed here, or one that people are taking for granted others will get. Or maybe there's something I'm missing and it has some other connotation. (The dirty joke is what comes up first in Google results, but there is also a band with that name—although it's presumably also named after the joke.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on one level, it's the punchline to a rather facile joke. On another level? Well, why would Bridget need to brace herself? Because she's about to get ******, that's why. Which was presumably the meaning LL was going for. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why I have taken the interpretation that this was meant as a rape threat / rape "joke", which should be sanctioned. DIYeditor, CT55555 and I have agreed on a proposed principle to examine it as Sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual threats, (...). See the Workshop for more details. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I wasn't saying it's "only a joke". My point was to explain the reference, for those—I'm guessing most people without exposure to Irish culture—who might think it's simply "brace yourself" followed by an alliterative feminine name, along the lines of "No way, José" (rhyming, not alliteration, but you get the idea). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the idiom and appreciate the context. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also unaware. It wasn't until the afternoon of 6 August when I looked the phrase up in various contexts, and then at the context in which LL used it against BHG that I fully understood the implications and why several people here said it was "extremely offensive", but (for now understandable reasons) preferred not to say more explicitly what it was about. I hope those people don't mind too much that I have made it explicit in order for other people to understand what we're talking about here. I also believe that the non-Irish people in the CfD discussion (Marcocapelle and Oculi) were unaware of its meaning, and thus didn't realise how offensive and threatening it could be in the given circumstances. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin The sexual meaning has been explicitly discussed at least twice on these pages if not three times. I'm not sure what would be the right way to put that into evidence. I'm running up against my word limit personally. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin, thank you for your comment - I am not currently planning to add evidence on the issue you describe; I am in the process of developing further evidence to potentially add on other issues. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, it's often extended: "Brace yourself, Bridget, this might get rough". It's a joke about marital rape that was part of a comedy act decades ago. Back when Jackie Gleason used to wave his fist in a big circle while saying to his wife, "One of these days, Alice, pow! Straight to the moon!" Because she'd, you know, backtalked him. Funny stuff. Valereee (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey! Didn't know that context either. Horrific. Glad that our ideas about what is considered to be "funny" have been changing in recent decades. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse it somewhat overshadows the rest of this case, to my mind anyway. It's a tangent but I think as you suggested this sets the standard for what is clearly sexual harassment. I'm curious to see Laurel Lodged offer an explanation, but after the "apology" I am really not too eager to read any such explanation to be honest. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. When I suggested Laurel to remove unhelpful comments, he often did so, and when I suggested him to make this apology, he did. Laurel made this apology on my suggestion, and while I welcomed it initially, I'm... less than satisfied with it, considering its contents, how it was received (I'm not saying my own apology was perfect, far from it, but its reception hasn't been nearly as negative), and what else I have learnt since... While I agree with him that BHG has engaged in incivility, LL hasn't exactly been the best example of civility himself, and that record is longer than the past few months. I have also run into some examples of him repeatedly trying to empty categories out of process in order to have them deleted when he didn't get his way in a deletion/renaming/merging discussion (especially about years in Austria). I like working with him on categorisation, but there are certain things I cannot tolerate. Certain things other people should also not tolerate me doing or saying. In certain areas or with certain people, LL should perhaps just be prevented from again and again crossing the lines of acceptable conduct by making it impossible for him to do so (e.g. IBANs), or by escalatory sanctions in certain content areas (topicbans/temporary blocks, to which he is no stranger). It is then up to him if he values working with anyone on Wikipedia amicably, or throw away his editing privileges one by one due to an inability to follow the rules. I very much hope the former, but we must be realistic if this behaviour does not improve. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: For arbitration purposes, I think the "brace yourself Bridget" incidident in context, which we seek to examine through your proposed principle of Sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual threats, (...), may be sanctionable per WP:UNCIVIL: 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). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Newyorkbrad that LL should be asked to explain this by ArbComm. (And I also agree with DIYeditor, that the explanation may be difficult to read.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just struck two of my Diffs in evidence that were directed specifically at LL as an editor since they're more understandable to me now given this context. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the diff

I got that link from Valereee's evidence.

I keep looking at it, and my read is that LL was saying that as a warning to themself and/or to everyone else - that they need to "brace themselves" for BHG's next "whatever". ("Sighing"?)

But in reading others' comments it seems like people are reading it as if LL was saying this to BHG.

Anyway, either way, I would definitely agree that (based upon what's been said about that phrase) that it's pretty inappropriate to say, regardless. - jc37 19:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37, to be clear, I'm not arguing that LL definitely intended offense. I think it's possible they weren't familiar with the background of the term. The issue for me is that because of the history of baiting, it's a concern. Valereee (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I haven't delved too deeply in the whole back-n-forth of even just that thread yet, but even with just a cursory glance, I think one could see that it does look like both of them were ramping each other up. The rhetorical back-n-forth and baiting from each side, was seemingly ongoing. - jc37 23:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Additional Word Count[edit]

@Barkeep49: I am requesting an additional 500 words for evidence (for an a total of 2,500). This is to document what I perceive as an extension of the pattern of not assuming good faith or competency, this time at the Workshop page. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the evidence is only to document behavior during the case, there's no need. Arbs are actively aware of what happens during the case and it can (and is) considered even without any evidence. This is noted in the "Behaviour on this page" statement found on most case pages. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did add one two Diffs from the Workshop that I thought was especially important, but kept within my earlier 2,000 word limit. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA for BHGbot9[edit]

@Thryduulf: write ... was written by Headbomb who was heavily involved in the discussion and thus not neutral.


"Involved" and "Not neutral" is a really nonsensical description of my role here. I'm part of the BAG and completely uninvolved/COI free or whatever you want to call this. My job as a BAG member is literally to "be involved" and judge whether or not tasks can be approved under WP:BOTPOL, under which bot operators must be able to address issues in a civil manner per WP:BOTCOMM. Here, the bot both failed to behave as the community would expect, and an operator with WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is unfit to operate bot tasks. I also note my closure was unanimously endorsed by other BAG members and every other person that opined.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that @Headbomb, I was unaware of that review. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More