Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alanscottwalker (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 11 August 2021 (→‎Statement by Alanscottwalker: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Hijiri88   1 August 2021 1/7/1
BrownHairedGirl   10 August 2021 1/1/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 29 May 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Hijiri88

Initiated by TOA The owner of all ☑️ at 17:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by The owner of all

Hijiri88 has engaged in violations of WP:HOUND and WP:BULLY. He claims that it is justified because of some contributions that I made that he believes are concerning. He has said he wants me to be blocked, and he has implied that I am a Nazi, by saying that I oppose an editor due to that editor's involvement in writing the essay WP:NONAZIS.

After 2 ANI threads in which he did not get his wish, Hijiri88 has continued to WP:HOUND me by focusing on my contributions and following me to pages that I have edited or contributed to discussion.

Me, him; Me, him; Me, him

Also, he has followed me to other discussions on Wikipedia My contribution Him following (Also added further links for the above cases) TOA The owner of all ☑️ 04:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 seems to think that if he follows me long enough, he'll be able to accumulate enough evidence to somehow get me banned from Wikipedia. (Edit to add: In fact, MjolnirPants seems to be encouraging him to do exactly that. [1] ) While I go to great lengths to avoid violating Wikipedia policy, it becomes more difficult if an editor is specifically looking for a way to get me banned. He is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding his efforts to get me blocked.

Hijiri88 has an extensive block log [2] as well as several active interaction bans [3], which shows that he does not seem to be capable of avoiding conflict with other editors.

Hijiri88's history does not show any recent contributions to US politics articles/talkpages other than pages that I have edited. [4] This is true for (1), (2), (3) articles. This is evidence that he does not normally edit US politics articles but instead follows me to such articles.
One more diff: [5]
Here is some "evidence of backsliding":
  • WP:BITING a newcomer by filing a frivolous SPI case on them [6]
  • Conflict with User:Nardog [7] [8]
  • WP:GRAVEDANCEs on Francis Schonken and describes his friends as "goons" [9]
  • Use of his talk page to make repeated PAs on other users [10]
  • Additionally, he treats an indef-block as a "temporary departure" [11], which could be evidence that, for whatever reason, community sanctions are ineffective.
03:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding MjolnirPants' statement: If "NONAZIS" is really supposed to mean "no right-wing editors", then maybe its title should be changed to reflect that. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88 claims to now be on a break (which, I should note, started after this arb request was already filed), but he was able to look through his history long enough to answer this question from another editor about an article: [12] TOA The owner of all ☑️ 22:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: The "Editor Interaction Analyser" tool has an indication of which among 2 users edited a page first. It shows that Hijiri88 had not participated in discussion or editing of any of those articles until he saw them in my contributions. [13] Regarding ANI, you are correct that the community had considered blocking me and saw fit to do nothing. However Hijiri88 won't let that issue go, he commented that he thinks my edits are offensive [14] and also suggesting that I am a white supremacist (he asserts that someone had been trying to login/hack his account and he suspects that it was me [by including it in a talk page section about me and saying it is related to "conservative" stuff, after I had described myself in the ANI discussion as a non-fascist conservative-leaning editor] [15], and elsewhere he said that he suspects that the person trying to login/hack his account is a white supremacist [16])

Statement by Hijiri88

Statement by 力

I don't see anything here. The ANI discussion don't support a pattern of hounding, and the community saw fit to do nothing. So long as all the edits are in the topic-area of American politics of the past 12 months, I don't see simply visiting the same page as hounding. The diffs given are single comments participating in talk-page polls regarding content. If there are no additional diffs to show bad activity, this should be closed quickly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the other diffs. The continuing commenting at User talk:MjolnirPants#I'd rather not post this to ANI, but... by Hijiri88 isn't a great look, but it's certainly not cause for an ARBCOM case. There's nothing else there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The additional diffs provided (as well as Hijiri's further comments on User talk:MjolnirPants) do suggest there may be a continuing issue that needs discussion. However I don't see why that should not first be community discussion at ANI. And if Hijiri really is going on a several-week WikiBreak, that discussion should probably be delayed until the break is over. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

This should be an obvious decline. It's premature and insufficient, vexatious litigation, and pot and kettle. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wugapodes' evidence, it seems to me that a relevant question is whether there is really anything new, since the unblock decision 11 months ago, that would prompt a case now. In other words, there would have to be meaningful evidence of backsliding, over a period of nearly a year, to justify a decision to undo the unblock decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per MPants' more detailed explanation, and contra something Wugapodes wrote, I'm pretty sure that the accusation of Nazism was made by ToA against Hijiri, on the flimsy basis of the numbers in Hijiri's username. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

The filer has a history of forum shopping and pursuing sanctions against editors they disagree with. They have previously filed an ANI request against Hijiri88 alleging that Hijiri "wants [The Owner of All] to be blocked".

The Owner of All has previously started a bogus 3RRN report against me that very nearly resulted in getting blocked themselves, then immediately after that, started an ANI discussing alleging incivility over me explaining WP's processes, during which they narrowly escaped a WP:BOOMERANG block.

After following me around for a bit, they showed up in another ANI thread, supporting sanctions against me for unsanctionable comments and followed that up with a senseless and dishonest proposal at VPP which was very clearly intended to be an end-run around their lack of success getting me sanctioned.

Note that the first link in the preceding paragraph is where TOA and Hijiri first interacted: When Hijiri noted that lots of POV-pushers have taken issue with my writing of WP:NONAZIS and come after me over it. TOA then accused Hijiri of being a Nazi over the "88" in his username, and after a drawn-out argument (during which TOA received no support from other editors), they started the thread in the very first link of my comment.

Worth noting is that this same editor has admitted to right-wing POV pushing and opposed an RfC candidate because they were not a fascist.

So I would strongly encourage ArbCom not to take this case, and I would ask that an individual admin (or a consensus of them) take a moment to reflect upon whether TOA is a net benefit to this project, and respond accordingly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Wugapode's statement here:

The filing dispute came about because Hijiri joined a dispute to which he was not named. Hijiri attempted to disparage TOA's editing based on their political beleifs, accused them of being a sockpuppet, and insinuated that TOA was a Nazi.

It is false to claim that Hijiri insinuated that TOA was a Nazi, when in fact, they directly stated that they thought it was possible that TOA's obsession with me was a result of me writing WP:NONAZIS, based on two additional diffs Hijiri provided. Diff. This is an accusation of right-wing POV pushing, not of being a Nazi.
TOA responded by strongly imply that Hijiri was a Nazi. Diff. Note that I can provide diffs of other editors agreeing that TOA was accusing Hijiri of being a Nazi.
I'd also add that there's nothing sanctionable about venting to a sympathetic editor. I think it's telling that that got a diff, while the actual actionable claims Wugapode made did not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes

I encourage the arbitration committee accept a case regarding Hijiri88 if not based on the original report, then based on Hijiri's continued pattern of disruption. Hijiri is currently subject to five interaction bans, two placed by the arbitration committee (see the 2015 case) and three placed by the community (Jan 2017, Jan 2019, Jan 2019 again). The older bans would be unremarkable if not for the continued imposition of IBANs and the repeated inability of Hijiri to abide by them.

Since 2013, Hijiri has been blocked for-cause 9 times. In 2013 Hijiri was blocked for violating an IBAN. In 2015 Hijiri was blocked for violating an IBAN. Hijiri was blocked a month later for another IBAN violation. Hijiri was blocked about a week later for threatening to initiate good article reassessments if an editor does not stop seeking administrative action against him. Hijiri was blocked two months later for BATTLEGROUND conduct on a Japanese history article (see 2015 ANI thread where Dennis Brown's close stated that "the threshold before a block just became very low and this is a last opportunity, the last piece of rope before very long blocks are used. We are collectively sick and tired of these drama filled reports. Either you learn to edit in a collaborative and collegiate fashion, or you will be denied the opportunity to edit at all."); ArbCom would later ban Hijiri from Japanese topics. In April 2016, Hijiri was blocked and then unblocked about a week later after committing to no longer gravedance; I want to point out that in the unblock appeal Hijiri stated "I've never received a civility block before, and if I received such a warning it must have been a long time ago, as I don't remember it". Hijiri was blocked again four months later for disruption at RfA and unblocked with the understanding that he would stay away. The block log is quiet for the next two years which would be a good sign that the preceding had brought about a more collaborative, less confrontational editing style, though in 2017 the community would impose another another IBAN.

The block log picks up again in 2019. The first is a self-requested block in response to a community imposed IBAN as part of a meatball:GoodBye that included attempted deletion of pages. Following the self-requested block, Hijiri was blocked again about 9 months later for "feuding" with another editor but was soon unblocked (see unblock discussion). Hijiri was blocked again, this time indefinitely, about 5 months later for making personal attacks resulting in a similar meatball:GoodBye exemplified at their retirement notice. Their talk page access was removed two months later for IBAN violations. Hijiri was unblocked about 11 months ago following an appeal and talk page discussion. I recommend reading the discussion as it includes !voting, appearances from previous characters in the above blocks detailing context, multiple editors discussing how much WP:ROPE remains, and whether Hijiri is a net positive or negative to the project.

The above is based on a cursory investigation from the block log and editing restrictions list. Given that the community has, since 2015, said we have limited patience left for Hijiri and still been unable to effectively prevent the need for repeated discussions and sanctions, does the committee believe the community can or will handle this most recent incident effectively if sent back to us? Given the history of action, do we believe that editors with less tenure will feel comfortable raising future concerns in public? 21:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Edited for length 02:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is best summed-up by Cullen: "[Hijiri] is highly intelligent and has proven to be capable of writing excellent content for the encyclopedia. I take that seriously. However, he has shown over and over again an inability to walk away from conflict, and instead dives into endless TLDR conflicts with a never ending variety of opponents." Since being unblocked, Hijiri has continued to bring up old disputes and start new ones.
The filing dispute came about because Hijiri joined a dispute to which he was not named. Hijiri attempted to disparage TOA's editing based on their political beleifs, accused them of being a sockpuppet, and insinuated that TOA was a Nazi. Regardless of opinions, "using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is forbidden by WP:NPA. This caused TOA to retaliate, and the situation spiraled. We would not be here if Hijiri had stayed away from a conflict that did not involve him. While the messenger is not ideal, the report is consistent with a continuing pattern, and it is because of the reporter's unpopular opinions that they have not been considered thoroughly. In the link provided by Power~enwiki, Hijiri openly admits to following editors around. That is textbook hounding.
Hijiri continues to engage in battleground conduct. In this discussion Hijiri begins to cast aspersions at the editor they disagree with saying "[Y]ou (deliberately?) distorted what I said in a second revert,...You then came onto the talk page and selectively picked pieces of my edit summaries...". Later Hijiri disengages and vents to MjolnirPants. Hijiri brings up previous disputes with an editor, claims another editor is harassing them, and complains about the agenda of non-native-English-speaking editors wanting pronunciation transcriptions.
As the committee previously accepted a case regarding Hijiri, the committee may revisit his conduct at any time per ArbPol. The committee should use that jurisdiction to consider (1) has the pattern of conduct sanctioned in 2015 been adequately resolved and (2) whether the remedies rescinded by motion have achieved their goals.
To briefly address some comments directed at me: I'm not convinced we need severe sanctions. Given the prior history, I believe we should take this seriously, not simply dismiss it out of hand because of who the reporting editor is or the immediate context. 02:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I note that TOA has turned up again in order to attempt to get Hijiri88 blocked. The last time was a month ago in an ANI filing [17]. I'll simply repeat User:Floquenbeam's comment from that ANI - "... you should know that my gut instinct was to page block you from ANI for, I don't know, 3 months or something. My quick current estimate of the level of responsibility for the recent interactions between the 3 of you being so unproductive: MP 5%, H88 15%, you 80%. Go work on an article or something". Sounds about right to me ... again. I suggest a one-way interaction ban. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I have two personal ideas about conduct in Wikipedia that might lead to opposite conclusions. First, I think, and I recognize that some other editors disagree, that ArbCom should sometimes review the record of editors who have long block logs. Sometimes these logs indicate that the community is divided, especially if the subject editor has been indefinitely blocked and then reinstated more than once. The subject editor has a long block log. They don't divide the community into supporters and opponents, but they do divide the community into opponents and those who think that they either are a net positive or may become a net positive. I agree with the filing editor that the subject editor seems to be unable to avoid conflicts.

Second, on the other hand, it is my opinion that, although hounding does occur, mistaken complaints of being hounded are far more common than actual hounding. Many such complaints are made by editors who do not understand the Wikipedia electronic office and cannot tolerate criticism. Other such complaints are by editors who do understand the Wikipedia environment, but cannot tolerate criticism anyway. Some such complaints are just used to confuse or distract. The editor who is filing this case has been around long enough to understand the Wikipedia environment. They do not make a real case of hounding or bullying, and they don't make much of an unreal case of hounding either (although unreal cases are at least as common as real cases).

I was about to recommend that ArbCom decline to accept this case as not even worth giving the subject editor a final warning. I have now read the statement by User:Wugapodes, who also refers to the long block log of Hijiri88. I will use my remaining 175 or so words to comment on any further statement by User:Wugapodes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments

I have read the case history as detailed by User:Wugapodes, and I am persuaded that ArbCom should accept the case, although a suspension until the editor returns may be in order. I am aware that my opinion is a minority opinion. This editor is a net negative to the community, and has been since at least 2015. There is the superficial appearance that the ArbCom and the community are dealing with this editor. However, this editor continues to find enemies; and apparently interaction bans are not sufficient at minimizing the damage. ArbCom should accept a suspended case about this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

Since I recused i guess i gotta comment here, just noting for the record that User:Hijiri88 has just been updated to indicate they are taking an immediate wikibreak of undetermined duration, but from the sound of it at least several months apparently a couple weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

I don't see anything here that rises to the level of an ArbCom case. If there are specific concerns about one (or the other, or both) of the parties, and if Wugapodes feels strongly enough about it, a community ban discussion/regular ANI discussion (depending on the severity of the offence) might be in order - but that, again, is well short of a full ArbCom case, and unless I see evidence that such steps have been attempted and that they have failed, I'm not convinced there's any reason to keep this going, here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

Ah, another vexatious attempt to settle a dispute of some sort with the machine gun of arbitration. It seems we're headed towards turning this down, and that's a great idea. I do want to inform Primefac that I'm about to manufacture a conflict with them so I can get my own arbitration case. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

This type of thing must be taken seriously; it's part of what makes Wikipedia a vicious place for editors. If this is as it looks TOA must be given some relief. But unless a broader sanction is being contemplated, IMO it looks like it needs an experienced admin to take a closer / confirming look and then place a 1 way iban rather than a full Arbcom case. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reyk

This complaint is frivolous and vexatious, and Hijiri88 having an infraction log longer and more confusing than a David Foster Wallace novel isn't enough to turn a vexatious complaint into a legitimate one. I suggest ArbCom decline this. Reyk YO! 12:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huggums537

I've not kept up with any recent activities of Hijiri88, but was alerted to this discussion by a link in an unrelated discussion. I've personally been greatly impacted by previous conflict with Hijiri88. I think TOA has demonstrated some evidence of backsliding, but not enough for ArbCom. I agree with others this is vexatious, and TOA should just let it go before it gets out of hand. I also think that much of the "backsliding" is of equal blame to the newbies he finds conflict with (who don't yet fully understand the Wikipedified way of things) as much as it has to do with the infamous Hijiri bedside manner with newbies. Most people don't know Hijiri is pretty good on promises, if you can get him to make them, and this is an important character trait. I say this because he promised to avoid past conflicts at his indef discussion, and he hasn't bothered me one tiny little bit at all for at least a year now. (Since well before his indef discussion actually). In fact, there is evidence he intended to avoid past conflicts even before making that agreement because he could have commented at my unblock discussion, and chose not to do so. Maybe taking a break was a good move for him so he can remember his promises, and get back on track like he was first doing so well, and if he doesn't do that very soon, then we can always give him all the time he needs at some future point indefinitely. It takes a long time to get over lifelong editing habits, and we should account for that. I'm not saying free pass at all, but my own indef experience has made me more forgiving, and we should make room for improvement until it looks like the only thing that will work is a very long forced timeout. I'm sure he will think twice after this, and if not, the "indef block" option is always there for us to use if we need it. Hijiri, please refrain from biting any newbies even if you think they are wrong. I would also admonish newbies to get a clue, but that seems less practical and productive. Huggums537 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Hijiri88: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Hijiri88: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/7/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • I'm leaning towards a decline on this, as I'm not seeing much more than comments in which the two named parties are both editing. Yes, there have been some back-and-forths, but if we opened an ArbCom case for every pair of individuals who had opposing viewpoints disagreeing, I think even I would be named... Will wait for more diffs and comments from others before making a final decision. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still deciding, as Wugapodes has given me some things to consider, but I mostly wanted to comment @Drmies: bring it. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TL/DR: decline for now, but not because it should not happen.
    Subtle nuance is not kind to trinary yes/no/other decisions, so I am going to avoid bolding my specific decision but will add an executive summary above as my "short version". Like WTT, I believe a case against Hijiri88 will be taken up at some point by ArbCom, primarily because of the various issues presented (in particular, those from Wugapodes) and it does not appear that Hijiri88 has been able to overcome those problems. On those grounds alone (and from an "if not now, when?" perspective) we should accept this case and "get it over with" as they say. However, per Kevin and a few others I do not think this particular case presented by this particular editor is the appropriate catalyst to do so, as it would require a widening of the scope and potentially open the door for what I fear would be every diff from every time Hijiri88 was uncivil to someone else. Another issue to consider is the hiatus by Hijiri88, which would mean yet another "open this case until they decide to return and join in the process" mess, which anecdotally does not fare well for the accused. If we are going to open a case (which, again, I do think will happen if behaviours do not significantly change), I want it to be with all parties available to seriously discuss the matter(s) at hand.
    In the meantime, the normal community processes are still available for use in any potential sanctions and should continue to be used as necessary (per BDD, this is not a get out of jail free card). Primefac (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. There is nothing here requiring arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wugapodes: If a community member wishes to present a case on Hijiri88 that meets the Committee's standards for opening a case, I invite them to do so. But ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them; if the latter was our job, we would be really bad at it. This case request, with the statements and linked discussions on the record, does not present a good candidate for an arbitration case, which is why I am voting to decline. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wugapodes: I'll grant an additional 500 word extension, though I think this case request is not the right vehicle to present your thoughts. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The owner of all: You can also post another 500 words if needed (for a total of 1000). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading Wugapodes' statement the piece that's missing for me is a sign that the community needs ArbCom to step in to handle this. As they noted we've seen several new community sanctions since the last case and I don't see a repeated pattern of sanctions not "sticking". Further I don't see the kind of diffs that led to the most recent sanction (which always struck me as a sort of Death by cop anyway). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a couple comments in response to Primefac's thoughtful decline. First, I think when we've been asked I have been consistently on the "we should wait for people to participate". But participation is in WP:ARBPOL for a reason and our ability to give thoughtful delays is entirely contingent on the belief of the community and the arbs that this isn't being taken advantage of. Not saying it's happening here, just noting this as a general statement.
    Second, this is a good time for me to state something I hope everyone takes away from this: while ArbCom (seemingly) isn't going to do anything here this isn't Arbcom saying "nothing sanctionable has happened". Also, as I've noted that the allegations against recent conduct seem a little light on diffs for my taste so I'm also not saying "something sanctionable has happened". Since the community might handle this next I wanted to provide a nice diff for someone to use if either either claim is made in such a discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My gut instinct was to decline this case, it does appear that the problem is more with the filer. However, Wugapodes' statement does give me pause, it's rarely a good thing when the same individual keeps turning up at Arbcom - and yes, I'm also aware of the long block log / iban log. So there is clearly an underlying issue here and it isn't being dealt with by the community. I have no problem with the committee as a whole declining the case, but I, for one, believe we should Accept at this point. Scope would have to be considered as wider than this dispute, and the case would need to be suspended until Hijiri88's return. WormTT(talk) 08:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning decline, not because I don't see smoke here, but because I think it could be addressed elsewhere. Unfortunate that we probably won't be hearing from Hijiri himself in time. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline I've leaned further. I hope this is needless to say, but my decline is not a get out of jail free card for anyone. Just that at this stage, I don't see the need for arbitration. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. At this point, I see nothing that can't be handled by the community if required. As L235 said, if someone wants to make a case, they can still do so. Regards SoWhy 18:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as I don't see anything we need to step in to address. As Kevin says, we're in the deciding business, not in the investigation business. I am, however, looking forward with great glee to the upcoming Drmies/Primefac dustup. I'll take prop bets on my talk page. (What? There's no WP:ARBSCANTBETONSTUFF policy. Yet.) Katietalk 00:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl

Initiated by Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) at 14:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ritchie333

I've just come to the ANI thread referred to above, and my main thoughts are "I despair". I've attempted to digest what the problem is, and my conclusion is that there are perceived conduct issues with no clear and emerging consensus as to what to do. In particular, I note that BrownHairedGirl was blocked and then unblocked while discussion was still ongoing, both of which attracted criticism, and that Aussie Article Writer was indefinitely blocked as a tangential action (which appears to have consensus). So while I'd like to avoid Arbcom if at all possible, I think this is one of those cases where it is an intractable dispute of the kind we elect arbitrators to do.

I have chosen the parties by the following criteria - they started the above ANI thread, are the subject of the thread, or took administrative action as a consequence of the thread. I want to clarify that although I have disagreed with various issues with some of the above parties, I have no personal dispute with any of them, and am doing this because I am at a complete loss as to what else to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for this case to be closed as redundant if I can see evidence that the community can propose something on ANI that gathers a majority consensus; indeed, my original intention was to close the ANI thread with that. However, I can't see any consensus at this time, and previous experience has shown me that any further proposals are unlikely to gain traction there. There are enough strong feelings, not least over the block and the unblock, to give me no confidence that a compromise can be reached. I haven't added Aussie Article Writer to the list of parties because I don't see any objections to their indefinite block, and hence nothing (at least directly) under dispute. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I object to suggestions that The Rambling Man should be added as a case party. As BHG has said, they have made amends and resolved their conduct dispute without the need for anything else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I probably will not particpate in this case, for reasons that I will set out in full elsewhere, but in summary: my previous experience of arbitration (the portals case) is was it was structurally biased against the person being complained about, and the arbitrators made arbitrary and/or perverse decisions. Plus, I am fed up with several days of being the only person blamed for my responses to the malicious actions of others. I will just note some points about SQL's statement:

  1. At no point on their talk or in their statement here does SQL acknowledge that the entire episode was stoked by Aussie Article Writer(ex-Chris.sherlock), who repeatedly broke their 1-way IBAN with me[18] to stir trouble on TRM's talk[19] and elsewhere in relation to issues which which they had no other involvement. I specifically broke my disengagement with SQL to note that IBAN-breaching disruption[20]. (Note that AAW has been indef-blocked for this[21]. Why did SQL omit this crucial background?
  2. The BRFA page as SQL found it[22] contained two posts by TRM of pointless and irrelevant sniping at me. I had hatted[23] it after replying to TRM's first post,[24] but TRM removed the hat[25] and posted more snark[26]. Why did SQL write here that this was two editors having an argument about things unrelated to the BRFA at hand rather than acknowledging the reality that it was BHG being goaded by TRM (having been successfully provoked by AAW) and BHG repeatedly trying to stop the discussion?
  3. By the time SQL posted on my talk, they must have known that TRM's sniping at BRFA were about my oblique reference at BRFA (with no name) to TRM's conduct in discussing my AWB edits, which he himself had described[27] as boorish behaviout. This info was in my reply[28] to TRM, and since that reply was the prompt for SQL's first post on my talk[29], they should have been aware that this whole episode in fact TRM repeating his boorish behaviour and me trying to get back on topic.
  4. SQL's statement notes that they apologise to AAQ for mistaking identity.[30] Fair enough. But that means the only person who gets an apology from SQL is the IBAN-breaching troublemaker. That's bizarre.
  5. SQL has stated several times that they didn't want to get involved. However, they did choose to intervene, but have repeatedly rejected requests to examine the issue more thoroughly to rectify their serial misjudgements. We all make good-faith decisions in the moment which may not have the full facts, but SQL's stubborn persistence with a highly partial account is a WP:ADMINACCT issue.

Unravelling just this one highly-misleading account has used up over an hour of time and most of my allotted words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • SQL's response[31] shows a troubling lack of WP:ADMINACCT. They still refuse to acknowledge that it was all stoked by an IBAN-breaching long-term disruptor, and they defend their failure to properly scrutinise the issue where they chose to intervene. I assume that both were good faith errors, but the refusal to reconsider further evidence is hard to see as good faith.
    This comment by SQL is bizarre: Point three: I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't dug into either of your talk pages, and I don't care to. There was no need to dig into anyone's talkpage histories. I noted above in my point three that this was all set out in my BRFA post[32] which prompted SQL to post on my talk. SQL appears to mean that they didn't even read my post before reproaching me.[33] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In relation to The Rambling Man (TRM), I hope that much weight will be placed on the fact that after a very unpleasant day of disagreement between us in June, TRM had made a kindof apology[34] and we had both moved on. I regard TRM's conduct at BRFA as a form of trolling, but once I became aware of AAW's role as the instigator of it, I recognised it entirely as the consequence of AAW having successfully reopened old wounds. So far as I am concerned, the dispute at BRFA between me and TRM was a supremely effective piece of calculated crisis-creation by AAW. The origins of this lie in the bizarre decision a few years ago to unban AAW/CS after nearly a decade of similar mischief. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeneralNotability: please provide quotes and diffs of the comments by me in relation to AAW which you find unacceptable. So far as I am concerned, I have accurately described his conduct, and I cannot defend myself unless you show the evidence to support your case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: blocked me after a threat[35] to do for my comments about AAW. i asked above for evidence, but GN's reply below[36] contains several points;
    1. Repeatedly referring to TRM as a "troll" Correct: TRM's posts[37][38] at BRFA (after being set up by AAW) were classic trolling. They added nothing to anyone understanding or assessment of the BRFA or its background:they were purely personal antagonism. Per the lead of m:What is a troll?, it "is often done to inflame or invite conflict". That is what happened here, which is why I described it as trolling.
    2. Doubling down on calling QEDK a "vile, gaslighting thug" last year.. That was a long multi-venue dispute arising from a BRFA authorisation error. I was responding to repeated personal attacked by QEDK, but GN shows no interest in examining the context of how I was goaded into a very harsh response.
    3. Her statement at ANI describe AAW exceptional talent for poisoning wn.wp. GN may not be familiar with AAW's history, but I have seen enough of it to justify my harsh comments if I have time and space. Note that this whole episode arises out of AAW breaching his IBAN to successfully stir trouble between me and SQL. Blocking me on trial for describing the appalling history of that menace is pure victimisation.
    4. This diff, suggesting that Piotrus was either lying about their credentials or intentionally misrepresenting facts to suit their agenda. That conveniently omits the fact that I was responding to an editor who had falsely accused me[39] of inventing a threat of possible future controversies,which he has not retracted.
    This is very wearing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deepfriedokra: so the fact that an IBANned mischief-maker successfully wound up TRM[40] to start a fight and SQL[41] to reproach me is evidence of my lack of ability to not get into fights? And the fact I am haven't yet given up defending myself against being blamed for this maliciously-manufactured storm is further evidence of my combative badness? Wow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: I believe that The Rambling Man should be a party to this, since he was weaponised by AAW. That vector for disruption needs Arbcom's attention, and TRM's explanation of his role would be an important part of helping to avoid similar manipulation in future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Being, in Ritchie333's classification, the one who "started the above ANI thread", that makes me a party to a potential ArbCom, the first time in a decade+ (IIRC) I had this dubious pleasure. Oh well :/ . There is very little I can add to my OP at ANI, which is already linked by Ritchie; for readers convenience I'll link my ANI op diff [42] (side note: heading was changed later by party I haven't identified and with no explanation I was made aware of).

Anyway, I am not overly familiar with BHG; the events of the past few days are my first interaction with her that I recall, which is why I consider myself still reasonably uninvolved (in the big picture here). By themselves, the few personal attacks BHG made against me, while problematic, do not, IMHO, warranted a rise to ArbCom level, and could have been easily resolved if BHG de-escalated by apologizing and refactring the few diffs (this didn't even had to go to ANI; I politely asked her to refactor and apologize on her talk page, in an attempt to de-escalate, only to be called a troll). Neither did she attempt to de-escalate at ANI; where instead she posted at least one more PA accusing me of trolling yet again: [43]. All that said, personally, I would still be fine with de-escalation, even now, if she would just apologize and refactor her comments.

Unfortunately, as I understand it, the situation is much more complicated than I realized at first, since apparently BHG has displayed similar behavior (violations of CIV/NPA/AGF/BATTLEGROUND) to a number of other parties over the course of many years (initially I just thought she might be having a few stressful days and I expected she would back down after being WP:TROUTed/warned by the community). Further, for various reasons, she seems to be considered one of the Wikipedia:Unblockables, which is why the ANI thread, after mulling around a few days, seems to have resulted in the ball being passed to the ArbCom - presumably since after the quick unblock, no single admin seems to be willing to take the heat of being the one to call the shot here.

For what it's worth, I think that the ideal outcome would be no blocks or bans one exchange for BHG recognizing that she has a behavioral problem, promising to fix it, and apologizing to editors she was rude towards. Since voicing my opinion on how likely it that is might run into AGF/ABF issues, I won't. But if BHG continues to claim she has done no wrong, a community-imposed sanction of some sort might be necessary. All things considered, I'd advocate relative leniency (no blocks), but the pattern of rude behavior and stubborn refusal to admit one was wrong needs to come to end. Some sort of civility restriction/topic ban from commenting about others, with the stick of escalating blocks to back it up, may be required here. In all honesty, Wikipedia has 20+ years of history, don't tell me we don't have a previously crafted tool to apply in such a situation? Surely they have been similar editors before (constructive most of the time, uncivil enough for this to be a recurring complaint, yet connected enough to end up in front of the ArbCom instead of getting a quick block at ANI (case study for comparison), who needed to be reminded, by the Committee, more or less harshly, that WP:CIV is a policy and even, supposedly, one of the five pillars of this project?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GeneralNotability

I gave BHG a week's block because, in my opinion, she was significantly violating our core civility policies. I specifically opted for a week because the diffs in the AN/I thread clearly showed that this was not a one-off occurrence, BHG has previously been the subject of an ArbCom case revolving around similar behavior, and overall she has been around long enough that I do not believe there is any excuse for that behavior. Llywrch unblocked BHG shortly after I issued my block; obviously I disagree with the unblock, but I knew going into this that it would be a contentious block and I do not plan to raise any sort of fuss about it.

In the AN/I thread, my initial block warning was predicated on blocking if BHG did not strike her comments about Aussie Article Writer. I acknowledge that when I blocked, I did not issue the block soley for those comments, but expanded it to general civility and PA problems against multiple editors (this was after reading more of the AN/I thread). This was a greater scope than I initially said I would block for, but since BHG failed to strike her comments I do not believe this can be considered "moving the goalposts".

DuncanHill (who may be involved enough in this case that they need to be added as a party) has implicitly accused me of administrative misconduct by failing to remove a personal attack that AAW made on their userpage against BHG (after DuncanHill pointed it out to me). I am generally reluctant to remove all but the most egregious and over-the-top personal attacks (that is, the sort that might need revdel or suppression). I would also like to quote from Snow Rise's response to the above diff: you keep bringing that point up as if, merely by virtue of being an admin aware of the issue, GN somehow inherited an affirmative obligation to personally clean up every aspect of another editor's disruption to the complete satisfaction of every observer. That's just not a reasonable complaint. That response eloquently covers how I feel about this accusation.

I recently blocked Aussie Article Writer (aka Chris.sherlock, aka Tbsdy) for repeatedly and flagrantly violating their one-way IBAN with BHG. I believe that if this case is accepted, AAW's actions toward BHG will be a significant locus of dispute.

I can give my opinions and impressions of this case if anybody wants, but for now I am just providing a summary of my actions as an admin. I would, however, like to close with one opinion. Civility is one of the pillars of our project, and two wrongs don't make a right - somebody being uncivil to me (or me perceiving them as being uncivil, at least) does not excuse me being uncivil to them. I am getting quite tired of us, as a community, failing to act on incivility of all sorts. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs, clerks: requesting a word limit extension (maybe another 500?) in order to respond to BHG's request and reply to Iridescent. Making the request publicly as asked (since I am subscribed to clerks-l). GeneralNotability (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you L235.
First, on what I perceive to be recent uncivil comments by BHG. I repeat that her comments toward AAW are not the only source of incivility that I see, and that I do not appreciate other editors reframing my block as an AAW vs BHG dispute.
  • Repeatedly referring to TRM as a "troll" (thoroughly discussed and linked in SQL's collapsed section)
  • Doubling down on calling QEDK a "vile, gaslighting thug" last year.
  • Her statement at ANI describe AAW exceptional talent for poisoning wn.wp has been developed over a decade of drama and malice. That goes beyond "simple statement of fact" and crosses into "personal attack" in my book. Other comments in that statement described AAW as spread[ing] poison and a menace. Same deal.
  • This diff, suggesting that Piotrus was either lying about their credentials or intentionally misrepresenting facts to suit their agenda.
  • Repeated accusations of other editors being "trolls" throughout the AN/I thread.
None of this excuses AAW's behavior toward of BrownHairedGirl and other editors, of course, nor any other editors who have acted uncivilly toward BHG. I expect the defense of BHG's comments will be "but they're true!" - no. They are clearly crossing the line with respect to civility, and any one of them could have been made respectfully and without the added opinion. I also expect a response to the effect of "the other editor was uncivil too!" Irrelevant. Our civility policies do not say "be civil unless the other person deserves it" or "be civil unless the other person was uncivil first".
Second, a brief comment on Iridescent and BrownHairedGirl's statements, which suggest that AAW has manipulated, baited, or otherwise induced others into causing this mess (a claim that was also made at AN/I and on my talkpage). This is a significant claim and one that requires significant evidence. I cannot speak for others, but I do not believe that AAW has in any way affected my decisions. Even if they had, the responsibility for how I have acted lies with me alone. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not BHG was "goaded" into a response does not absolve her of responsibility for her words. If other editors have harassed her or otherwise been uncivil, then that needs to be dealt with, but calling someone (for example) a "vile thug" was her decision. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Llywrch

I believe my involvement is limited to two secondary threads:

1. AAW's antagonistic relationship with BHG. Since his departure as Chris.Sherlock late last year, I have been loosely watching that user for reasons I'll omit for brevity's sake. Last weekend I was alerted that he had reignited a conflict with BHG. Before I had all of the facts assembled & took action, GeneralNotability issued him an indef block. With that action, I believe this chapter about him was closed. (I'll state that I also believe he will return to Wikipedia under another user name, so that business is not finished.)
2. I reversed the block on BHG because (a) the discussion about her behavior was still ongoing, & (b) from my experience with Wikipedia, issuing a block during a discussion effectively ends that discussion. In other words, when someone is sanctioned, all assume there's nothing further to discuss. There was still no a consensus about what to do, let alone what issue needs to be addressed. I'd like to add that I have not made up my own mind about this matter; the more I read, the more I find I need to take under consideration.
Further, I'll admit that I did not know it was policy to first discuss an unblock with the blocking admin. I've been around Wikipedia so long (I became an admin before many people here even joined Wikipedia) that I believe I've internalized the Tao of Wikipedia, & thus don't review policy pages when I'm confident what the right action should be. I promise not to reverse a block without consulting the involved admin again.

Here I'd like to add two tangential observations.

  • First, speaking as someone who has been here a long time, after a someone has been a volunteer for several years, blocks for a fixed period are no longer effective to protect the Wiki: the only recourse, I regret to say, is an indefinite block. Faced with a block for a few days or a few months, an experienced Wikipedian will simply wait it out, & return just as convinced they have been wronged & less likely to change their ways. But an indefinite block -- which by definition can last anywhere from say 10 minutes to 10 years -- this puts the burden on the sanctioned Wikipedian to admit they need to change their behavior before they return. Therefore even if action was needed against BHG, GeneralNotability's block of BHG is arguably not the best action.
  • Second, as I've alluded above, I've been here a long time. Almost 19 years, possibly longer than any other very active Wikipedian. (Using the Foundation's current definition of "very active".) Thus I appear to have set the record for the longest time anyone has gone without being named in an ArbCom case. Here's to hoping that this record is broken by countless more! (By this, I include anyone who is very active for 19+ years & never is haled before the ArbCom.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Mr Ernie: AAW/Chris.sherlock filed this request to the ArbCom on 11 July which he later withdrew. After the dust had settled, it occurred to me that by doing this he may broken the IBAN imposed on him to leave BHG alone. But no one said anything about that point, & knowing way more than I want about the backstory, I decided to let sleeping dogs lie. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SQL

History from my POV copied from ANI !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 16:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This started when I came to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 8. This was the page when I arrived: [44]
      • There appeared to be two editors (BHG (not pinging, BHG seemed not to want further contact from me - and I will respect that), and The Rambling Man) having an argument about things unrelated to the BRFA at hand. This can be very disruptive, and I felt that I was in a good position to stop it early on.
      • I went ahead and collapsed the argument: [45]. The message I left was "Arument between editors irrelevant to this request. Please take behavioral issues, accusations of trolling, and complaints of personal attacks to the appropriate venues.".
    • Immediately after, I was contacted by AAW and TRM [46].
      • I actually feel in hindsight that maybe I didn't do very well here. I was short with both of them, when I shouldn't have been. I also made a mistake and warned AAW that I had asked them not to comment on my talkpage. I was remembering the wrong editor from years ago. They've changed usernames so many times that I had a hard time keeping up. I apologized to them on thier talkpage, as one does when they've made a mistake [47].
      • It is worth noting that AAW and I have not really gotten along in the past - and I had opposed thier unblock a few years back.
    • Shortly after, BHG started editing the collapsed section to take a potshot at TRM (edit summary "reply to troll"). [48]
      • This is clearly disruptive to the BRFA, and is in my opinion a personal attack.
    • I left a message with BHG asking her to stop [49].
    • I tried again to explain why BHG's edits were disruptive. [50]
    • I tried again to explain that the reason I didn't leave messages for TRM was that they stopped at my request on the BRFA page. [51]
    • BHG baselessly accuses me of harassment [52]
    • I asked BHG to rescind her accusation, and stated that I had done no such thing. [53]
    • I informed BHG that I had no further desire to communicate until the false accusation of harassment had been retracted. I asked at this point that she stop pinging me. I was clearly watching the page, and did not require a ping with every message. [54]
    • Not getting a reply from me at her talkpage, BHG started a thread at my talkpage [55].
    • I asked BHG to stop contacting me again. [56]
      • I plainly stated "Leave me alone.", and indicated that I was starting to feel harassed.
    • BHG contacted me again, and indicated that she did not believe her baseless accusation of harassment was a PA. [57]
      • BHG claimed that I had gone "several rounds" at her. I was just trying to reply to her messages, until it appeared that no matter what I said, it would be twisted, and I would be attacked.
    • I ask again to be left alone. [58]
    • I'd had enough. I hung up a wikibreak/frustrated template, and nullrouted wikipedia. [59]
    • After being repeatedly asked to leave me alone, BHG felt the need to get the last word in. [60]
  • None of the above changes this one simple fact. Once you have been asked to stop communicating with another editor - you should stop. To do otherwise is clearly harassment.

I'm way over my allotted words. If the clerks, or arbs need to cut something - please cut this.

I'd like to respond to BHG.

  1. Point one: I hadn't seen anything of the sort. The fact that I included a permalink of the page as I found it wasn't a mistake. That was how the page looked when I got there.
  2. Point two: The page was the way it was when I got there. I didn't see any reason why I should need to paw through the history. It appeared that two editors were disrupting a BRFA, and I set out to try to stop the disruption. No one argues about the content of the page.
  3. Point three: I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't dug into either of your talk pages, and I didn't have a reason to at the time. I was trying to curb both of your disruption of the BRFA process, and nothing more.
  4. Point four: Yeah, I apologized. It comes with admitting you've made a mistake.
  5. Point five: I answered your questions as best I could per ADMINACCT. Once you started hurling abuse at me, I was no longer willing to discuss the matter.

Statement by Alanscottwalker

I unfortunately happened to see ANI and also despaired, hoping my not participating would help me to forget. Yes, more than the usual despair when reading ANI. But this is not ANI, it is technical process review -- and what looks like demanding a choice with, 'liar about yourself' -- is not the place for that, if anywhere, especially given the past Arbitration case. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The community -- well if others in the community decide like me, the only choice is for the community to not enter that AN/I to do anything there, in 12 hours or ever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also, think Procrastinating Reader's post below is worth several looks. I also do not see how AAW has any relation to many of the issues.
On a sperate issue, I hope whoever closes the ANI, likes to read deeply, long and tedious work -- in particular, it is very hard to find or see what comments are responding to whatever the Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) proposal is, perhaps those in the discussion (or an administrator) can make that clearer for those who are not? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

Reject this case, as it's premature. Allow the community more time to iron out a solution. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheresNoTime

Perhaps it was naive to think attempting to mediate early on in that ANI thread was going to yield anything useful. It's clear that the community cannot resolve this one, so AC should accept it and do what they do best. To think, so much drama could have been avoided if we were just a bit more civil, and a bit more willing to step back and apologise... ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if this does become a case, I think AC should review the administrative actions of Llywrch - that unblock was entirely out of process and caused yet more drama. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

This is premature and ought to be rejected, since there's a decent chance the whole thing can be resolved with a "we'll both agree to stay away from each other". If it is accepted, then TBSDY should be a party and Arbcom needs to make a decision to grasp the nettle and either formally ban him in all his incarnations, or formally agree that he has officially sanctioned license to act as some kind of Wikipedia Court Jester. The root cause of this latest trainwreck isn't the currently-named parties arguing, it's TBSDY trying to stir up fights between them and succeeding. ‑ Iridescent 15:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S Marshall

There's no secret material here, nothing of the kind we need Arbcom to help us with: it's all on-wiki. You should let the community deal with it, unless it becomes obvious that we can't. That's not at all obvious right now.

I view BHG's desysopping in the portals case as overly harsh: it's on S Marshall's top 5 list of Worst Arbcom Decisions Ever. If this ends up as a case before you, please be better.—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

  • Good grief. Enough already. I suppose I could avert the ArbCom case by indeffing BHG as the outcome at ANI and I see AAW already indeffed. Endorse that. The shear, way over the top combativeness is depressing. And disgusting. And overdue for a remedy. This lack of ability to not get into fights, and to continue to engage when it is time to disengage is just beyond depressing. Or I could just leave it for y'all. Sheesh --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting Special:Contributions/Tbsdy_lives was blocked by Beeblebrox for being User:Aussie Article Writer. Thank you for that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please do take this case. per Bagumba I can't block BHG on my own-- it would be wheel warring. Clearly, the community is too divided and BHG too popular ( I used to like her too.) for ArbCom to not take this. That is, whoever does not recuse. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost forgot. ArbCom should site ban AAW or whatever nick they use. When I say enough already, that does double for AAW. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llywrch: I cannot say loudly enough that allowing Aussie Article Writer (aka Chris.sherlock, aka Tbsdy) back was a mistake that needs to be remedied permanently by ArbCom. And I will grant BHG's point that w/o AAW, we mightn't be here now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank ArbCom for subsuming AAW's block. An actual formal ban would be better, but one cannot have everything. While AAW contributed constructively in some ways, their toxic personality makes them a net negative. Similarly, BHG is a great contributor, but her interpersonal skills are lacking. She made a pledge in her now deleted draft RFA. I urge her to internalize it and use it to guide her interactions. I ask ArbCom to adopt by motion something based on proposals 3 & 4 in the ANI thread, to more solidly codify them. The problem noted by GeneralNotability and Bagumba of popular unblockables remains. These remedies are better than nothing in this instance. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I again find myself in agreement with @S Marshall:-- "BHG's desysopping in the portals case as overly harsh". Perhaps if an action plan directed at root causes had been adopted instead, we would not be here now. Now is the chance to remedy that as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ProcrastinatingReader: Well said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bagumba

I encourage Arbcom to accept this case. The community will not resolve this per Star Mississippi's observation at ANI: Like other veteran editors and former admins, BrownHairedGirl is nearly unblockable. A regular editor would have long been sanctioned for far less. Part of why she was desysopped was behavior toward others, and that hasn't improved in the intervening time.[61] A look at BrownHairedGirl's block history shows NPA blocks quickly being overturned. WP:WHEELWAR prevents "righting" this, and hours/days later, WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE renders a re-block "unnecessary". BrownHairedGirl's statement above is pretty much contrary to WP:NOTTHEM, and ignores their own history. One of the findings of fact from the Portal case was "BrownHairedGirl's conduct during arbitration", when one should at least be on their best behavior, even if just for show. It didn't happened then. There is no indication that it will change organically now.—Bagumba (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage acceptance of the case, even if the community takes action at ANI. The bigger community problem is that we need to jump through hoops and hurdles for some WP:UNBLOCKABLEs in the first place. Admins honoring WP:WHEEL have their hands tied when quick reversals happen, whether it was inadvertent or WP:BEANS.—Bagumba (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

Please wait a day or two. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi

Never done this before, so pardon any missteps. Commenting simply because Bagumba cited me in their section (thank you) and I'm not sure whether that means I should. Reiterating what I said at ANI, BHG is virtually unblockable and folks who weren't former admins would have been blocked for far less. Whether the current instance of behavior is triggered by a now-indeffed possible sock (timeline isn't clear as to whether Tbsdy was socking-not whether he was involved), my further comment at ANI "IBANs are one thing..., but when it's multiple people, I don't think an IBAN will solve anything. There needs to be something that indicates the behavior needs to change" still holds true. When it's one person coming up against multiple others, we can't IBAN everyone. Apologies for the lack of dif, my comment remains at [[62]] but there was some oversight so I can't link to the edit. It looks like there are too many recusals already, but it's clear from ANI and here that something has to change. Star Mississippi 17:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

I urge ArbCom to accept this intractable matter. Also, Clerk notes: recuse, recuse, recuse, recuse, recuse, preemptive get off my lawn! It's like it writes itself. El_C 18:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Whatever ArbCom does, a lot of people are going to be made very, very upset. There's no easy way out of this. I suppose that's why we elect them to bear the slings and arrows of the community. --WaltCip-(talk) 18:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Not necessarily true. ArbCom could theoretically choose, as a result of evidence gathered, to escalate AAW's block from an indef to a site ban, or add additional topic/IBANs that would remain in force even after an indef may be lifted.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it some thought, and I believe an ArbCom case would be a good idea after all. Besides the question of unblockability, there's a larger question of civility that needs to be answered here, which is whether or not the community has or should have the capability to litigate these matters. The assumption that it would be redundant to the ANI at this point assumes that ArbCom would attempt to pass sanctions that override or render useless the community-led sanctions on BHG that we were able to create. But that is not an entirely valid assumption, as I am sure the arbitrators are able to take a nuanced-enough view on the matter to incorporate the sanctions as a finding-of-fact rather than delete them from the outset. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Focusing away from the distinction (or lack thereof) between block and ban for a moment: My point about instituting additional global topic/IBANs that take force after an indef is lifted is the more salient point at hand here. An IBAN between AAW and BHG would be a good start. We have seen that ArbCom can and will lift blocks/bans following private deliberations between blocker and blockee, and we've also seen that AAW is a product of multiple recreated accounts, each of which had been allowed to go on quietly for a while. Comprehensive sanctions should follow the user even after editing privileges are restored. Having them in place now prevents having to come up with ad hoc restrictions later. WaltCip-(talk) 12:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

I urge the committee to give the community more time at ANI to resolve this. Paul August ☎ 18:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a review of admin tools is needed here. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly endorse everything ProcrastinatingReader has said below. I will add that, however likely it may be that the emerging ANI remedy will succeed in resolving this, it is very important that we give this a try. The issue of how to deal with otherwise productive editors who are chronically uncivil is a significant problem. It is something that the community needs to figure out. Paul August ☎ 13:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I think that, for the moment, it's a good strategy to wait a few days to see whether or not the community can deal with this. But in the event that the community is unable to do so, ArbCom will need to accept this, because the situation is a serious one. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes (BHG)

Since filing and since most statements have been made, Vanamonde has suggested restrictions which are viable and have early support. I believe waiting is the correct decision at this point. I want to note that there may be value in reviewing the use of administrator tools here and not simply the conduct of BHG. 18:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93

I, too, ask that the committee give ANI a little more time to handle this. We've seen a few new proposals today; I just made a couple; others may come up with more inventive options. If we've failed to come to any consensus in a couple more days, I think ARBCOM should look at this. I'm not convinced a full case is needed; you could dispose of this by motion; but for the sake of closure, the behavior of all of those substantively involved (BHG, AAW, QEDK, TRM, Piotrus, DuncanHill, GeneralNotability, and Llywrch) should be examined. I don't necessarily think they all did something wrong; many did not; but there's been enough people suggesting that they did for ARBCOM to look into it if the community does not. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Celestina007

I was rather shocked to see a case filed here (simultaneously) with the report still being at ANI, I believe this to be premature (please no disrespect none whatsoever to Ritchie333) but I do not believe the ANI has come to an impasse (it may be headed there) but until that becomes an actuality I urge AC not to accept this(at the moment) and let the ANI run its course. I also want to note that there isn’t any cogent reason to review the actions of both GeneralNotability & Llywrch as both did what they thought to be in the best interest of the collaborative project. Generally speaking, anyone pushing for that course of action is adding fuel to a non existent “fire” this whole episode is already a big enough distraction and honestly is doing a major disservice to the community. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Procedural query did Arbcom know that AAW was Chris.sherlock and somehow permit the sock to stick around? I'm re-reading the CS unblock request from September 2019 and I note the many users expressing concern that Chris must only use one account. I want to highlight Iridescent's comment there that this editor rightfully earned a well-deserved reputation as a vicious and aggressive bully. The fact that they were allowed to stay under a new account and kick this episode off is particularly sad because of how avoidable it was. I am willing to overlook BHG's responses in light of the abuse they have taken from that editor. Anyways, if this case is accepted it will be very personal, quite ugly, and take place in a room filled with fans and shit. I would suggest Arbcom clearly define the scope and time frame.

Statement by Nosebagbear

I am going to note that currently proposal 3 on the ANI thread clearly has consensus. However, it's purely a forward looking motion, and in the absence of a specific ANI consensus by COP tomorrow, either that no further action is specifically warranted, or a direct sanction, ARBCOM should still take the case. I also feel that the case should consider whether the unblock of BHG was warranted, rather than taking it to ANI. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to @Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs:, in some respects that true (though I would note that it absolutely is not true across the board), and if this were a single time event than trouts everywhere might suffice with an assumption that a step back would heal the issue. But the timeline would indicate that that would not be the case. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Games of the World

I urge the committee to take this case. BHG repeatedly calls people trolls and nasty trolls amongst other things just for disagreeing with her. She gets rea personal real quick and I remember the last Chris drama she made some seriously disgusting comments which she was not punished for, would not retract and then called me a troll for daring to challenge her. She is acting like an unblockable - always the same people who appear when she creates a drama. Enough is enough. The proposal of escalating blocks is laughable as she should have gone a long time ago. Games of the world (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Narky Blert

I have no dog in this fight.

I suggest that ARBCOM delay their decision on whether to accept or decline this case for a day or so. It seems possible that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Piotrus' concerns about User:BrownHairedGirl (which was recently reported to NASA by Voyager 2 as being visible from its current location) may yet result in a community consensus, which would make ARBCOM involvement (doubtless to their relief) supererogatory (a word I've long wanted to use) - though I'm not holding my breath.

Some general observations. (1) If ARBCOM does accept a case, I recommend an industrial-grade wood-forest discrimination filter. (2) WP:5P4 is non-negotiable. (3) I commend the wise rhetorical question of a modern philosopher to every Wikipedian. Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

I'm conflicted on the question of whether ArbCom should take this case. On the one hand, there is a proposal at ANI which (for now) has clear community support, even if some of the support isn't very enthusiastic. This proposal is probably the best and last hope for the community to resolve the situation. On the other hand, I'm doubtful that even the proposal at ANI will be enough to stop these recurrent volleys of personal attacks. If a very public desysop didn't solve the issue, can we really be confident that escalating blocks will do the trick? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

I have a lot of respect for Ritchie so don't take pride in saying this but yeah I would have to agree with others above this should be rejected as 2 proposals have so far gained uniramous supports so if ANI can deal with it then we really don't need a case. –Davey2010Talk 22:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also just checked the timestamps and see this was filed 4 and a half hours before the first ANI proposal was made - I can understand the filing as it did indeed look like the ANI thread was going nowhere so Ritchie cannot be blamed for doing what I would percieve to be the right thing at the time. Just felt this needed to be said. –Davey2010Talk 22:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilorv

To ArbCom: I won't pretend to understand the full details of the case, but anything said/done by BHG that has anything even remotely to do with AAW should be considered an action made under heavily mitigating circumstances, as BHG seems to be accurate in her description of AAW as a troll who has harassed a large number of people including her, and long-term harassment takes a much bigger toll than any of the individual diffs may imply or than the situation may indicate from the outside.

To BHG: my primary association with your username is that I enjoyed working with you at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland/archive1#Comments by Bilorv, and that any sanctions here would be disappointing as something that infringes on someone clearly capable of excellent work. Everything I say here is no doubt something you, someone more experienced than me, knows already. DRV is not fair. ANI is not fair. ArbCom is not fair. Nothing on this site is fair. If you dig your heels in—"I will not stop using the word 'troll' because I mean this exact definition"; "my behaviour broke no rules because of the extenuating circumstances"; "correcting mistakes is not bludgeoning" etc.—it is only yourself who will suffer. Sometimes you need to just let someone else have the last word when a discussion generates more heat than light. Sometimes correcting falsehoods—even false assertions made about your character—is actually counterproductive, because everyone who sees clearly will be able to tell for themselves that the assertions are false, but no-one reads a thread that indents its way off the screen. Those who insist on getting fair treatment are invariably driven off the site, and we lose their talents. Those who think our mission and their talents are more important than the injustices committed against them are the ones who survive. — Bilorv (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

I don't have a horse in this race either, but it appears clear to me (from the existence of an unreadably long dramaboard thread; from previous enforcement actions which were just as quickly reverted) the community has so far not been able to resolve this issue. The current ANI developments seem to be an attempt to enforce away some of the obvious symptoms of WP:UNBLOCKABLE. Whether they'll be effective or not is another issue, but given that they basically already sum up to restatements of widely accepted standards, I'm not sure. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (BHG and others)

This dispute is both like and unlike Hijiri88, but I think that both cases rise to the need for ArbCom hearing. I am aware that Hijiri88 is about to be declined. In both cases, there is complex controversy surrounding an experienced editor, and, in my opinion, the community has not been able to resolve the controversy. Proposing a large number of competing proposals is not necessarily an indication that the community can deal with BHG, but perhaps that the controversy surrounding her and other editors has fragmented the community. I think that Hijiri88 is a net negative and that BrownHairedGirl is a net positive. She is, among other things, an expert on the esoteric topic of categories. (She is right and the community is wrong about Category:Political prisoners, but ArbCom is not a content forum.)

What BrownHairedGirl was sanctioned for in the Portals case is essentially the same as what she has been sanctioned for in this case, making conduct allegations in language that are so strong as to be incompatible with civil discourse, involving allegations of bad faith, which rise to the level of a personal attack. In the Portals case, the most serious issue was that she said that another editor was lying. There are at least two elements to a charge of lying, that the person made statements that were untrue, and that the person knew that their statements were untrue. BHG was inferring malicious intent, and should not have said it, even if it was true. In this case, BHG has accused editors of trolling and of gaslighting. Those are allegations of malicious intent, and she should not use such language, even if she believes it to be true, even if it is true.

ArbCom should accept this case with a scope that extends beyond BHG at least to the scope of her allegations. She has usually been right about content and has often been right about conduct, and ArbCom should not tolerate trolling or gaslighting, nor personal attacks of trolling and gaslighting. BrownHairedGirl is a positive asset to the community, and needs to be encouraged to contribute to the encyclopedia. Trolls need to be sanctioned. Gaslighters need to be site-banned.

There is at least one more matter that ArbCom should consider, and that is policies and guidelines concerning conduct during deletion discussions. This dispute arose from a contentious Deletion Review which, in my opinion, involved bludgeoning and sealioning. ArbCom should consider whether the discretionary sanctions that are in effect for the Manual of Style need to be expanded to deletion discussions. Deletion is a subject about which some editors can be as passionate as other editors are about their nationalistic war.

ArbCom should accept this case, and should consider, at least: personal attacks by User:BrownHairedGirl; conduct in the Category:Political prisoners deletion discussion; trolling and gaslighting; the need for remedies for disruptive editing in deletion discussions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

I see that Vanamonde93 and a couple of other editors have mentioned (I imply no malintent on their part) that all editors related to conduct disputes with BHG should have their behaviour investigated. I am agreeable to having my prior conduct investigated thoroughly, whether that does or does not require adding me as a party. I believe I had tried my best to follow WP:ADMINACCT and WP:BOTPOL then and have no objections. I also appreciate the effort that Primefac had put then into understanding all prevailing points in the dispute to arrive to an amicable solution, even if it did not ultimately work out.

Since I was first pinged to the discussion by @ProcrastinatingReader: (really appreciate it, thank you) I have been in a moral dilemma wondering if it would be ethically right for me to make a comment regarding this incident, since any objective opinion I might have will definitely be construed as tainted due to historical events, but I believe it's only fair for the committee to draw their independent conclusions; I have always been a thorough believer in the power of the community to enforce our own rules, however that has never worked (and at this point, I have no faith that we ever will) with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. That's all I have to say. In any case, it's been a while and I would like to wish everyone the best. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

What worries me are comments such as I believe that The Rambling Man should be a party to this, since he was weaponised by AAW., so the fact that an IBANned mischief-maker successfully wound up, blamed for this maliciously-manufactured storm, and (in response to a request by ST47 to address the other issues) you words here are very civil, but you are doing something very uncivil. ... [63], etc etc. It suggests that BHG still doesn't understand why editors are concerned. If a random editor wrote similar responses in an unblock request, it would almost certainly be declined with a short "WP:NOTTHEM. Your appeal should focus on how your disruption will stop going forward." We expect editors with 20 edits and a week registered to follow this concept; BHG is a former admin.

I don't understand the storyline of CS/AAW allegedly being the mastermind plotting behind-the-scenes to instigate all of these events. Was CS/AAW secretly pulling the strings when QEDK was named a "vile thug"? And what did it have to do with Piotrus? It feels like either an obfuscation or a deflection. And more alarming are the comments from others defending this position. There's no justification for those diffs, and nobody should be tripping over themselves to try justify them.

I'm glad the community is trying something at ANI. Vanamonde93 has drafted a promising concept and it will be exciting to see how that plays out, as we continue to look for new ways to deal with incivility (especially community-led ways). However, I'm reminded of two comments at ANI; this: The editors above suggesting an apology and retraction from BHG are going to be disppointed. She has never retracted or apologized for anything, and when asked, she has always said that she stands by her words. and this: The behavior isn't going to change. ... Those are consistent with what we see here. As such, although I supported the ANI remedy (since it's better than the status quo), I am not hopeful it will work, which means we're just kicking the can down the road.

An ArbCom case may be what's necessary here. But regardless of whether the solution happens at ArbCom or at ANI, it is important to show that these issues will be taken seriously and dealt with effectively. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

BrownHairedGirl: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I would like to preemptively warn everyone above (and those who have yet to comment) that I am going to take a dim view to incivility, well poisoning, gratuitous mud slinging, and general nastiness. If a clerk or functionary feels that you have crossed the line, you will receive a singular warning. After that you will be placed on "email everything you would like to say to arbcom-en" status. I hope that this will move smoothly, but my experience as a clerk and arb over the past decade makes me think that this needs to be laid out from the beginning for this case. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • As I noted at the ANI thread, I've been watching closely. For me there is clearly a level of complexity to the dispute that rises to the level of ArbCom. The only thing that is stopping me from already voting to accept is that the ANI thread may still produce an outcome which could show the community is able to address the issue, despite its complexity. My guess is that with-in the next 12 hours it will become clear whether or not that thread will lead to an outcome, though the filing of this case may short circuit the community's ability ability to do so (and this is no knock against Ritchie filing this now). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also just note that I see SQL and The Rambling Man as parties to this case given their involvement in incidents that have been heavily discussed in the ANI thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm encouraged by the progress made at ANI since the case request was filed. So I don't anticipate voting to accept or decline for the next couple of days to give ANI time. Given my overall faith in the community and preference for community rather than ArbCom resolution to issues, I hope a case will not be necessary. However, I do want to make one thing clear: if we take this case I see the incident with Piotr at DRV as independent of the Chris Sherlock stuff, from which arguably the SQL/TRM incident flowed and without which the block / unblock wouldn't have happened. I also see the QEDK dispute as separate; it is long enough ago that I am not sure QEDK needs to be a party to the case given the already large scope this case may have but this is a weakly held opinion. If it does appear that we will decline the case, I will (re)review the diffs offered and give a couple of thoughts about some of the issues that causing some editors to urge us to accept despite the current status of ANI. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deepfriedokra: ArbCom has already assumed responsibility for AAW's block; that action would have happened about when it did regardless of whether or not this case was filed. @WaltCip: functionally I am not seeing a difference between an ArbCom block and an ArbCom ban in this instance. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing Barkeep on all points above. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, echo Barkeep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SQL, the timeline of the BRCA and subsequent stuff is helpful. Thanks. I too am watching the ANI thread and am hopeful that some consensus can be reached. Not optimistic, but hopeful. Holding until that's resolved one way or another. Katietalk 16:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept The ANI thread has generated already one of the longest, most intractable, and drama filled threads I've ever seen. I have little hope that ANI will find consensus, given the current state of things. This is the job that ArbCom exists to do. In adding parties, I agree with SQL, Rambling Man, and furthermore suggest DuncanHill, though I am aware they may be on Wiki-Break. The committee was actually already discussing Chris Sherlock, but as a committee it obviously takes some time to finalize decisions. Thus as we have just assumed Chris Sherlock/AAW's block, I see no benefit in having them as a party. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with ANI looking like it might pass a sanction, I still think we should take this. A sanction passed to avoid a case or do something, anything, is perhaps not well thought out. I for one remain highly skeptical that a simple civility restriction on BHG will solve the issue when there are so many other players. The remedy as crafted in the ANI thread does not solve the fundamental problems: there is a group of editors that do not get along with each other, and sometimes with others, and they are all unblockables. I fail to see how the ANI remedy would actually get enforced when we can't even agree if BHG's current actions were incivility or not, or if BHG was even at fault. Even if BHG were not a party, we still have a contested admin action that I'd like to say some words on. Also, WaltCip makes a valid point about passing more comprehensive sanctions against Chris.Sherlock, and so I could accept making them a party. All in all, it very much seems like case material. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting and seeing at this point, but I have to admit I don't really see what would be a productive outcome of a case here. No party here is covering themselves with glory, and everyone involved is a long-term contributor who should know better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning decline at this point after look at latest developments at AN/I as there seems to be solidifying support for some form of sanctions developing and the arbitration committee has taken over AAW's block. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Ernie AAW informed Arbcom that they were Chris Sherlock at the beginning of July - we responded that he needed link the accounts, that we didn't endorse the account change, and he would have to adhere strictly to any sanctions. His response - However, beyond that, I personally took him at his word that the other accounts were no longer available to him. The Chris Sherlock account and the TBSDY accounts were not under blocks, nor was he under a single account restriction. Up to that point, he had been editing quietly and well. I considered that blocking the AAW account would be counter productive, as they would simply create a new account and not inform us. WormTT(talk) 07:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1038262385"