Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 16:42, 17 August 2021 (Statement by Deepfriedokra: wot Ivanvector sed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

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 that 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[1] to stir trouble on TRM's talk[2] 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[3]. (Note that AAW has been indef-blocked for this[4]. Why did SQL omit this crucial background?
  2. The BRFA page as SQL found it[5] contained two posts by TRM of pointless and irrelevant sniping at me. I had hatted[6] it after replying to TRM's first post,[7] but TRM removed the hat[8] and posted more snark[9]. 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[10] as boorish behaviout. This info was in my reply[11] to TRM, and since that reply was the prompt for SQL's first post on my talk[12], 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.[13] 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[14] 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[15] which prompted SQL to post on my talk. SQL appears to mean that they didn't even read my post before reproaching me.[16] --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[17] 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[18] to do for my comments about AAW. i asked above for evidence, but GN's reply below[19] contains several points;
    1. Repeatedly referring to TRM as a "troll" Correct: TRM's posts[20][21] 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[22] 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[23] to start a fight and SQL[24] 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 [25] (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: [26]. 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]

@El C: Regarding [27]. First, please note this was in reply to another editor who just above in that thread claimed that nobody has agreed with me during the original discussion (I don't believe other participants found your refutation convincing). I could think of no better reply than to ping people who did IMHO did find my arguments convincing and ask them whether they agreed with me or not (I don't think you should make a claim about other participants... let's ping those who I think more or less echoed my viewpoint, and let them have their own say). That said, few minutes after this, I did become concerned that this could be considered an accidental form of partisan canvassing (since the pings targeted only one side of the prior debate - although note I did not ask them to participate in the new discussion, just to directly reply about a claim made about them by another editor who mentioned them as a group but did not ping them), so to ensure balance, I pinged the rest of the participants, i.e., "the other side", to ensure everyone is invited to the DELREV: [28] (I didn't ping BHG as she was already very active in that discussion and I was trying to de-escalate and not to engage with her directly if I could avoid it). Anyway, adding my two diffs with pings, they went to pretty much everyone active in the original discussion, both people who did agree with me and those who didn't, so I'd think this should address any canvassing concerns? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 12 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]
Comment to Deepfriedokra: I agree with you about him. AAW/Chris.sherlock should be banned from Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Worm That Turned: The chronic problem with Chris Sherlock is that he is a model Wikipedian -- until he isn't. At which point the rest of the community is forced to come up to speed to deal with him. I happen to know more about his case that isn't public knowledge, & seeing that this case is about BHG & not Sherlock, if the ArbCom wants my input on those matters, email me & I will provide it in camera. (And I am content if it is not requested.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:51, 11 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: [29]
      • 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: [30]. 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 [31].
      • 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 [32].
      • 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"). [33]
      • 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 [34].
    • I tried again to explain why BHG's edits were disruptive. [35]
    • 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. [36]
    • BHG baselessly accuses me of harassment [37]
    • I asked BHG to rescind her accusation, and stated that I had done no such thing. [38]
    • 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. [39]
    • Not getting a reply from me at her talkpage, BHG started a thread at my talkpage [40].
    • I asked BHG to stop contacting me again. [41]
      • 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. [42]
      • 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. [43]
    • I'd had enough. I hung up a wikibreak/frustrated template, and nullrouted wikipedia. [44]
    • After being repeatedly asked to leave me alone, BHG felt the need to get the last word in. [45]
  • 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]
The committee, if it accepts does need to look into the block/unblock issue, since Llywrch (talk · contribs) comments suggest to me that all admins long and short need to be informed and deeply think about it (why does it happen, over and over, again; why don't (some) admins seem to know the repetitious gestalt of it is disturbing in the community; most importantly is the effect of Llwych's statement that when something happens to come to AN/I, blocking is somehow barred, so there is a free-for-all.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 12 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]

Take note, arbitrators. At this moment the community over at ANI, is coming to a solution on the matter-at-hand. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 11 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]

    • I'm concerned that Arbcom may vote to accept while the community is still working. Should we delete the guidance that says Arbcom is a last resort? To the arbs considering accepting, I would say:-
      1) I know nobody has yet stepped up to close an AN/I that's reached a clear consensus. This doesn't mean the community can't handle it; it merely means that closers for something like this are in understandably short supply.
      2) I know the community's remedy seems inadequate to you. That doesn't mean the community can't handle it; it means it's choosing to handle it differently from how Arbcom would handle it.
      3) The fact that the community takes five or seven days to deliberate doesn't mean Arbcom needs to open a multi-week case.
      It's right to decline the case unless and until every alternative has been exhausted.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

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.[46] 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]
I reject the suggestion by some that the community needs to be given a chance to resolve this, that options have not been exhausted. This is not a new problem. Findings of fact from the last case found that BrownHairedGirl "repeatedly engaged in personal attacks" and other non-civil behavior. The last case also involved an overturned block. The same circumstances are repeated here. The ANI proposals are merely repackaging existing policies on civility and reversing admin actions (WP:RAAA) that were not already followed.—Bagumba (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

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

We have got arbs with impressive clerking experiences. We will be fine. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the committee to decline for now. ArbCom should not declare the community has been unable to handle it while it is still trying to do so. It would be specially inadvisable to accept it because you think ANI got it wrong. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:32, 16 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 [[47]] 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]

Arbitrators, as Mr Ernie notes at the WPO (though not in his statement here for some reason), Piotrus has blatantly canvassed the DRV, pinging only those editors who, like himself, had voted keep (DRV diff — I checked, one by one, how each of the editors pinged had voted, an account which verified Mr Ernie's claim). This is highly concerning, especially seeing as I, myself, had sanctioned Piotrus for canvassing back on Feb 1 2021 (AEL diff). It was admittedly quite a lenient sanction, for which I faced some criticism, criticism that in retrospect seems to have been rather warranted. In closing: I suck. El_C 19:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Ernie, indefs in general seem like an extreme outcome, but I'd concede that I have a tenuous grasp of the facts atm. As well, my sense is that TRM is at best a minor player here. As things stand, I'd be against adding him as a party to this case. But otherwise, I agree with you. El_C 20:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, okay, fair enough, I acknowledge that you tried to even the scales quickly enough. But I'm still concerned that it was even needed to begin with.
Still cool, RE: We have got arbs with impressive clerking experiences. And a clerk with impressive Arby's experience! (Why can't I stop poking Guerillero? Someone, please stop me!) El_C 15:46, 12 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]

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

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)

I've repeatedly stated that the committee should take all good faith administrator conduct cases. While the block-unblock is not the inciting incident here, it may be valuable to accept a case on that basis, though it may well not be worthwhile. For my view, I share the sentiment at User:DangerousPanda/Essays/OnCivility. There, Panda outlines a definition of incivility by which blocks may be tested: "a vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known would would cause offence". A block for civility can then be tested against this definition, and if the comment or conduct fits the definition in its entirety, the block should not be reversed. In my opinion, the conduct by BHG was indeed vexatious and should have reasonably been understood to cause offence. For that reason the unblock was improper. All that said though, I further agree with Panda who says: "[ArbCom] needs to emphasize the 4-stage test for civility blocks, and apply them equally across the board. Until then, the grey area causes confusion for all editors. Where there's grey areas there will indecision and poor decisions."
With that in mind, if the committee decides to take a case regardless of the ANI outcome, I believe the best scope would be to clarify expectations around civility blocks. Llywrch states "I'll admit that I did not know it was policy to first discuss an unblock with the blocking admin.... I promise not to reverse a block without consulting the involved admin again." I believe the promise is a sufficient resolution to the incident at hand, but it demonstrates a larger problem: it is notably not policy to first discuss an unblock with the blocking admin. This isn't to fault Llywrch, rather, I point out that there is a grey area between good practice and prohibited practice that harms our ability to uphold our fourth pillar. Because WP:WHEEL grants second-mover advantage, this grey area and confusion over best practice when unblocking ultimately functions as a way to hold power users to a lower standard of civility than others. Making blocks stick is harder than removing them even when completely justified because all it takes is one admin to allow an uncivil editor to keep going, and the rest of the corps can do nothing but watch until a community discussion resolves perhaps days later. This dynamic leads to administrators not blocking at all, or otherwise a single poor but good faith unblock can stonewall completely legitimate enforcement of WP:5P4. As Panda said: Where there's grey areas there will indecision and poor decisions. If ArbCom decides to take a case here, it should be to clarify this area and make clear to administrators the expectations around what constitutes wheel warring in the case of civility blocks. Any other scope, at this moment, will probably not be productive. 21:39, 11 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]

Since QEDK has referenced my request for a larger list of parties, I should probably elaborate on it a little bit. I've read some of the discussions between BHG and these other editors, but not every last one, and I don't particularly want to. I don't know if they've done anything wrong, and some, I am sure, have not, as they are typically very collegial. However, examining the behavior of all involved is necessary to put to bed any suggestions that other users were in any way responsible for this mess; conversely, if it turns out they do share some responsibility, ARBCOM should address that, out of fairness. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: and the others concerned that the Proposal 3 at ANI doesn't do more than restate policy: there are distinctions between the letter of policy and the proposal, as others have noted; but more importantly, the fact is that we do not enforce our civility policy where the behavior of experienced users is concerned, and the intent of that proposal is not so much to craft new policy for one user as to enable enforcement of policy we should, but do not, enforce. This isn't a state of affairs I'm happy about; If I had my own way we'd do a lot more to discourage bad behavior, not just through sanctions, but by de-escalation, and by not excusing and enabling bad behavior. But my feelings are largely irrelevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:16, 12 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.

El C I attempted to go and look behind the actual diffs reported by Piotrus in the ANI complaint, and what I saw there was disruptive behavior by Piotrus. Given his long history of canvassing, this stonewalling and bludgeoning of the deletion discussion and subsequent DRV was not taken well by BHG who made the comments we later saw at the ANI. The other episode Piotrus describes was entirely kicked off by AAW / CS. So while I agree with everyone here who says 2 wrongs don't make a right, without the first wrong there is not an opportunity to do another one. If this goes to a full case there will absolutely be evidence presented about Piotrus' behavior as well as AAW / CS (already indef'd) and TRM. Each one of these editors has been subject to a case and sanctions in the past and there's no way we get out of another case without new indefs, but it is fundamentally unfair to BHG to dump all of this on her. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@SoWhy and Beeblebrox: apologies for pinging when I think you should take the case, but that sanction is not quite a formalisation of the usual rules. In effect it's applying time-limited CBANs which move reverting the blocks in 2 ways: i) it moves reverting from "should" to "absolutely must not" ii) one aspect that SoWhy hasn't mentioned - it prevents the blocking admin from changing their mind/thinking that sufficient apology has been given. That isn't just formalisation of current policy and both of you, who I deeply respect, are likely aware of it, so I don't know why you said it rather than something like "is unlikely to change behaviour enough" Nosebagbear (talk) 08:04, 14 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]

Now that the ANI discussion has been closed with a clear decision, I propose that ARBCOM decline this case. Should problems arise in the enforcement of that decision (let us hope they do not), that would be a new issue based on new facts. Narky Blert (talk) 16:33, 16 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]

While proposal #3 at ANI still has consensus (for now), I no longer consider it to be an adequate response to such long-term, unapologetic incivility. This is a situation that the community is unable to resolve. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:06, 13 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 c) 11:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: The identity of the supposed unblockables that CaptainEek referred to (if any) was inferred by you - so if I may suggest, I think you're the one adding the labels here. I simply assumed it was a comment regarding most editors in this case request being unblockables, whether they have a proven history of the same or otherwise. Note that I have a high opinion of you either way but I *feel* like you're purposefully misconstruing what they said to make a point. --qedk (t c) 15:35, 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, being 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. ... [48], 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 Star Mississippi's 9 August 2021, 14:35 comment here: The behavior isn't going to change. ... There needs to be something that indicates the behavior needs 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) e: 21:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Guerillero‘s comment about nastiness, there seems to be obvious well-poisoning on this page that’s still not actioned. If a case is indeed opened, I really do think the arbitration conduct expectations need to be well enforced. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Exactly what Iridescent said.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that User:CaptainEek may not exactly be neutral on any resulting case when they are posting things like "there is a group of editors that do not get along with each other, and sometimes with others, and they are all unblockables.". Talk about labelling possible parties before the case even starts! Not the first time, either, although that was after a case. I'd suggest that they recuse. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

In all of my observations of BrownHairedGirl, particularly on her user talk page, she has an overly-forceful, toxic attitude to other users. BrownHairedGirl seems particularly to struggle with selecting the right level of intensity with which to oppose somebody else: it is rarely enough for her to make a counter-point or an opinion, as she also needs to see her adversary defeated, usually with insults and belittling. Sadly, her high activity levels mean that this behaviour is brought to bear on other people with regularity.

The conduct involved here is the sort that needs to be carefully analysed and evaluated in total. These are things that ArbCom is supposed to be designed to do. Other methods of community dispute resolution are unlikely to be able to deal with this sort of problem. Give a courteous delay (perhaps of a few more days) for the ANI thread to run out of steam, but then you should accept this request. If you don't, then BrownHairedGirl will get into more trouble, because there is an unaddressed problem here, as there has been for a long time. AGK (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

I think it's better to see the results of the ANI rather than accept a case at this time. If the restrictions implemented by the community do not work (like we see another block/fast unblock like this), then it can be case time. We can't always be the community's crutch- there is a pretty clear agreement that something needs to be done, so let's give them a chance with their remedy. I don't think there's any ADMINCOND concerns to really look at here; although the timing/length/whatever of GN's block can be argued, the block itself was not unreasonable and within admin discretion. While I think Llywrch's unblock was too hasty and GN should've been notified, I don't think it's even admonishment worthy and Llywrch notes above "[...] 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" and also says 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, which I think satisfies mine and others criticism of the unblock. There is no pattern of poor conduct from either admin here; in fact, I think they are two of our consistently better ones.

If this is accepted, please don't drag it out, this will be a total headache. RexxS was draining enough. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 17:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

@SoWhy: The entire point of the currently-passing ANI restriction, as stated in its second sentence, is to forbid unblocks absent a positive consensus to do so. Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking for incivility says nothing of the sort. —Cryptic 19:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Waggers

I've been watching the ANI thread with interest but have not participated in it; I'm not involved in this latest spat but previously interacted with BHG around portals. ArbCom have already dealt with that so I don't intend to resurrect that discussion, only to testify to what many have said in the ANI thread: that BHG has a history of driving constructive editors away from Wikipedia. I am one such editor and am only now tentatively coming back to the project after being driven away over the portals ordeal two years ago, long before that ArbCom case was filed.

I urge Arbcom to take this case. Civility is not dependent on how productive one is as an editor, it's clear and hard line and BHG has well and truly crossed it multiple times now, yet appears to be WP:UNBLOCKABLE. The sanctions suggested at ANI are merely that we in future follow the policy that would have be applied to any "lesser" editor long ago. That's nowhere near sufficient, and only reinforces the idea that some editors are "above the law".

Regardless of quantity or quality of contributions, if someone can't be civil consistently then they can't be part of the Wikipedia community - it's one of our fundamental requirements. WaggersTALK 13:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

For any arbitrators who is waiting to see what actions the community may take, I urge them not to set a deadline. Determining consensus in a diverse, global community is difficult and requires patience. At present there is no ongoing behaviour requiring immediate action, so I feel the community should not feel an obligation to short-circuit the discussion process.

I also urge arbitrators not to accept a case out of a desire to provide guidance on the reversal of blocks. Examining the sequence of events in this particular instance is within scope of this case. However the community should be the impetus behind discussions on what broader guidance to provide, if it wishes. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bagumba that it is appropriate to consider the overall history of behaviour and resolution attempts in deciding to accept a case, beyond the immediate discussion on potential community actions. isaacl (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Barkeep49 that the total cost of community discussion goes beyond a word count and time spent. There are times when it is better to have more structured discussion with greater attention paid to moderating comments. That being said, unlike the view of another commenter, I feel the conversation at the incidents' noticeboard has largely avoided antagonism and vitriol (and thus has been less dramatic than some past vigourous discussions) as participants have generally not engaged in personal commentary about each other or speculation about their motives. As I've written previously about being respectful of others, editors can disagree vehemently or otherwise not get along and be frank in their opinions without belittling others. isaacl (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SmokeyJoe

This is unfortunate.

This mostly got out of control at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 4#Category:Political prisoners.

A root enabling problem was that, despite it being known and accepted that “DRV is not XfD2”, the DRV regurgitated the CfD with escalation. This could have been prevented, and could be prevented in the future, by things such as: (1) DRV clerking to limit contributions by involved participants that breach “not xfd2” or NPA, whether by refactoring or boxing; (2) an IBan to limit these editors talking about the other.

I think this ArbCom is premature to the ANI thread playing out.

After a history of being weak with civility, and of willingness to stray into governance, in 2020 ArbCom demonstrated a willingness for heavy handedness. If ArbCom now pushes further into governance, disregarding Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration, and declares itself to have the power to take over, that is a development of concern. Do not do that. The roof is not on fire. Let ANI deal with this.

Statement by Levivich

Arbcoms take weeks or months to arrive at a decision and that's with about a dozen arbs participating. There are far more editors participating in the ANI thread and it's only been open for mere days. It's far too soon for anyone to be making any determination about whether or not the community can handle this, or to be voting to accept or decline on that basis. There is no ongoing disruption, no urgency, let's be reasonable about how much time we give the community before throwing in the towel (as much time as it needs, and at least as much time as we give Arbcom). Levivich 13:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

Suggest pausing while this plays out at ANI. Worst case scenarios are:

  • Another 20,000 words and two weeks at ANI with no resolution in which case Arbcom can take it
  • Another 20,000 words and two weeks at ANI with a resolution that fails in which case this can get revisited with the problem more clearly confirmed and the "last chance" having been given and violated.

Vs another 500,000 words and two months at Arbcom with a possible overkill-at-this-point-with-no-"last chance"-having-been-offered solution North8000 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, a scenario under both is solving the problem.North8000 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: You are right, there is a cost to waiting. I was already thinking of striking my comments thinking that perhaps I shouldn't weigh in either way on this. I think that your comment solidifies that thought and I'm going to strike my comment. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

I urge the Committee not to take this case until the ANI thread has played itself out - there are a number of proposals being considered, and by ANI standards the debate is proving productive. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LaundryPizza03

Rundown of the proposals thus far in the ANI:

  1. Ban from making multiple replies per editor per discussion: Opposed for missing the point (making personal attacks, which could happen in the first reply) and potentially interfering with constructive back-and-forth discussion.
  2. Ban from reinstating comments by other editors removed as personal attacks: Already covered by WP:NPA.
  3. Civility restriction: The proposal with the most support so far, though some question why it's not redundant to WP:CIVIL policy.
  4. Ban from commenting on the behavior and motivations of editors, except in fora concerning user conduct: Some users said this proposal is unenforcably vague. ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) pointed out that a similar restriction imposed against Pasdecomplot (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Pasdecomplot was ineffective and culminated in an indef block about 3 months into the intended 6-month term, after two prior blocks for violating the same restriction.
  5. Authorization of discretionary interaction bans: Opposed as a bandage treatment for a persistent problem with user conduct, which would be better resolved with a block. BHG often targets personal attacks at specific editors with whom she disagrees, like her toxic behavior toward Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) in the Portals case. Withdrawn by the proposer, MJL (talk · contribs).
  6. 3-month ban from commenting on other users' behavior anywhere but at dispute resolution: Intended to be a clearer version of (4). Some users said that the term of this proposal is too short, and I asked for clarification about which noticeboards are covered by the exception.

At the very end of the discussion, users asked for closure with enactment of (3), which doesn't do much by itself, and complained that there is now an excess of low-quality proposals. Hence, this case will be needed to settle the madness. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TRM

Although I'm quoted as part of this whole disaster, and therefore reluctant to even get involved, I am completely bemused that members of Arbcom are voting to accept a case when there's a clear consensus within the community to make their own solution. If Arbcom are now suddenly able to circumvent the community and make judgements that are somehow "better" or "more knowledgeable" than the community that elected them, I would like to see that enshrined in policy, e.g. "regardless of whether the community are able to find a solution, Arbcom will still act because they apparently know better". I think several hundred of us wouldn't have voted in Arbcom elections if we knew that Arbcom were thinking about riding roughshod over the community when they are trying their best to arrive at a solution, and, indeed, getting close to it. And making suggestions that the community can't agree, simply because no-one has closed that ANI discussion yet, is really bad form. As evidenced by the complete recusal of every clerk, this situation reaches out and touches a lot of the community. We need to find one uninvolved admin to close to the ANI. Perhaps Arbcom could help find that individual rather than attempt to become supervisors who ignore the fact the community is doing its best to address this and see how it goes thereafter. Note: I realise that one or two members of the committee have notably rejected the case on this premise, but those who have accepted need to rethink what Arbcom is here for, not to supervote over the community, that's for sure. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 I appreciate your moderate approach here and please note, for what it's worth, that I really was wholeheartedly disappointed and completely let down by the members of Arbcom who have already accepted the case. I also acknowledge that your reluctance to highlight the ANI discussion for closure is the right thing to do. What we don't need is a confusion between "not reaching a conclusion" and "not being able to find someone to close the ANI". Some of Arbcom are doing the right thing here, and it's vital to remember that Arbcom work for the community, not the other way round. Any circumvention of the community by Arbcom here will be a total and utter destruction of what Arbcom are here to do. I appreciate your comment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

For information, I have closed the ANI thread. [49] As stated there, I offer no opinion on whether an arbitration case is necessary to further resolve the matter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amakuru

The ANI discussion was closed at 05:58 this morning, with what looks like a reasonable closing resolution. There seems little reason therefore for ArbCom to come along and open the whole can of worms again, when the community has successfully resolved the issue for the time being. I suggest a speedy decline all around, and we can move on with our lives. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Civility is a prime problem on Wikipedia with little enforcement. I've had offline interactions with BHG who was gracious enough to point out some hostile/aggressive off-wiki actions regarding me. While we disagreed on substance, she was indeed helpful as well.

All that said, this is a prime opportunity to unequivocally enhance WP:CIVIL to the sanctioning level of so many other articles and prevent hostility/promote collegiality. It does not look as if this case will be accepted, but I hope ArbCom takes the next chance to bolster WP:CIVILITY. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I don't much care whether this is accepted or not, it really won't make an impact in the childish schoolyard slapfights that keep happening here. With that in mind I didn't really read many of the statements here, but what Herostratus wrote a few sections up (edit: it was removed, but I'm referring to this) encapsulates the real problem: the widespread attitude that the reporter deserved to be attacked, and so there should be no consequences for their attackers.

As I read it, and someone can correct me if I've read this wrong, the Wikipedia:Civility policy states that "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". I think I read it pretty closely (I used Ctrl-F and everything) but I didn't see anywhere that the policy suggested anything like "editors should gang up on anyone who crosses them" or "editors should respond to incivility with even worse incivility, and should put aside any constructive editing and just relentlessly escalate until they are either declared the 'winner' or are blocked". It must be in there somewhere, though, since that's what everyone seems to think is the right approach. Maybe it's actually not in the policy, in which case I encourage the community to update it (policies are supposed to reflect actual practice, rather than being prescriptive). Or maybe someone needs to write Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a gladiator arena.

Or to put it a different way: I don't think anyone can pretend that we don't all see it's the same very small group of "valuable contributors" who are always in the middle of these fights. What exactly is the "value" in that? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC) edited 16:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero's warning below expertly (though inadvertently) highlights the problem here: that the well is already so poisoned that someone felt it necessary to preemptively warn everyone against further incivility. To abuse the metaphor: you can't warn the well to not be poisoned, the poison just gets more concentrated the more the water boils off. At some point the well needs to be drained. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nardog

I echo Ivanvector and quote from WP:BATTLEGROUND:

If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind.

10:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

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 <2/8/1>

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]
    @WaltCip: are you suggesting we make the iban between AAW and BHG 2-way? There is already a 1-way iban and this committee has already reminded AAW (as WTT notes below) that the restriction follows them as a person not the account. If that is what you're suggesting, I could see that as a possibility in a full case where everything can be considered in depth and context. However, I am a no on doing it outside a case and a no on investigating BHG & AAW (as opposed to the ancillary pieces of that dispute) as a compelling reason to open a case. AAW is ArbCom blocked and has the 1-way ban. In order for AAW to rejoin our community he will need to demonstrate that he will respect this iBAN and I have seen no compelling evidence to date that suggests that BHG went out of her way to poke AAW. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that we are potentially 1 accept away from opening the case under net four. I think we're already a day past when the ANI thread could have reasonably been closed. The longer the thread sits there at this point, the more I see a sign that the community cannot fully handle this. So if there's someone qualified, uninvolved, and prepared to close the ANI thread now would be the time. Otherwise what will be a difficult decision for me on whether or not to accept the case becomes an easy one. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @North8000: I agree that there is still the potential for the community to handle this (otherwise I'd have accepted) and in a best case scenario the community gives itself a new tool that helps make these situations easier in the future. However, I disagree that 2 weeks and thousands of words is the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that we lose some number of productive editors as the dispute sits in limbo or that it spreads in new directions making it further sprawling. There is a cost to waiting. For me it's not so great so as to not do it, but think it important to acknowledge it's there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: I thought about listing the close on CR (which I see was done yesterday) but decided that might be seen as inappropriate pressure from ArbCom. So instead, when it seemed like we were getting close to having enough votes to accept I made the statement above as my personal attempt to try to get someone to close. I worry that actions beyond comments here might be seen as handpicking a closer, interfering with the community process, or otherwise result in an undermining or usurpation of a community process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ANI has been closed. Thanks to Seraphimblade for the close. The close looks like it has a fair summary statement and imposes a community supported sanction that is reasonable. A few comments on the issues brought up:
      1. I really am hopeful that the restriction that passed works for the community as a whole, including BHG. However, I also hope that if it is used again it more resembles DS where the imposing administrator could reverse themselves or accept an appeal. I think that will be fairer to users placed under this sanction and provides consistency among enforcement mechanisms which is its own kind of fairness.
      2. I appreciate the reflection on policy and guidelines offered by Llywrch. I hope all administrators take a moment to (once again) refresh themselves on these pieces; I know I have.
      3. Despite my concerns about an inability for the imposing administrator to accept an appeal or revert their block, I am ready to respect the community consensus by enforcing it from an ArbCom perspective. This means I am prepared, if necessary (which of course I hope it won't be), to desysop, including under level 2 procedures an administrator who reverses a block without appropriate community consensus.
      4. I sincerely hope that will not be necessary and just as sincerely hope that the restriction will never be used. I cannot state that enough because of my respect for all involved in this and my desire for BHG, Piotr, TRM, SQL, Llywrch, General Notability, and QEDK to help us productively continue to build our encyclopedia. However, if this community restriction doesn't work, for whatever reason, I will be ready, fairly quickly, to accept a case request about this topic in the future. May I never have to consider it.
    With that said, I decline to accept this case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing Barkeep on all points above. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the ANI closes as anything but no consensus, I'm inclined to decline and see whether the community-imposed remedy can work. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline Some of my colleagues arguments for accepting even in case of a close were giving me second thoughts, but I'm now again (cautiously) hopeful that the community has found a way forward that does not (currently) require arbitration. I'm sympathetic to those who would like to see ArbCom stand behind a sanction like this, either for BHG or generally, but let's see how things play out from here. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, echo Barkeep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GeneralNotability: Extra 500 words granted. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also granting a 500-word extension, for a total of 1000 words, for BrownHairedGirl and SQL. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Barkeep49: I have no objection to listing SQL and The Rambling Man as parties to this case request. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm watching the ANI thread but am currently still inclined to accept this case. Accepting a case does not imply that sanctions are necessary. The two potential advantages of ArbCom review over community resolution: (1) the complex and long-term issues could benefit from analysis that may be better performed by this committee than at dramaboards, and (2) this case request involves a dispute between administrators on whether BHG should be blocked, with a block and rapid unblock (like the November 2019 NPA block), and potential ADMINCOND disputes are best resolved by this committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not as optimistic as my colleagues but this request is on the path to being declined. If these or related issues recur, I will be inclined to accept a case request, even one that occurs soon and without any further noticeboard discussions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SQL, the timeline of the BRCABRFA 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]
As has been pointed out, the civility policy can be interpreted (and enforced) differently by different people. There is a reluctance at times to sanction established editors for conduct issues. What the vote at ANI does is establish a clear consensus that an editor has a problem and that this needs to be dealt with if it recurs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 13 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]
    Thanks Llywrch. It was the community that unblocked him and I believe the committee took the right steps here. The committee has now subsumed the last block, which again I believe it the right option - it gives Chris Sherlock a single point of contact, and in the event that some future committee does accept a possibility of return, it can be passed to the community in a structured way. IF you want to send any information to the committee, I'm sure it can be kept for future reference. WormTT(talk) 16:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to say, I'm struggling with this case request. Many of the parties have been previous parties to Arbcom cases, and the behaviour here is similar to that mentioned those previous cases. So in theory, we should follow up. However, the community is coming together to make a decision on parties involved in the incident. It may not be the "right" decision - certainly not everyone will be happy with it - however, it is formed through our consensus building techniques. I'm not happy to over-rule the community in this case. Yes, we might be back here in a few months, so be it. For now - decline WormTT(talk) 11:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like others, waiting a couple more days before voting on acceptance. I spent time last night reading the above, the ANI discussion, and related threads and my overall reaction is one of frustration and sadness because so much of this escalation was avoidable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer if editors could avoid any further medical analogies, especially ones that involve the digestive tract and are posted before I've had breakfast. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've allowed a couple of days for further discussion above and on ANI, and read through everything again. This is not a frivolous case request, and those urging acceptance make some valid points, but on balance I come out the other way:
      • Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) (and the other accounts associated with that individual) are now both ArbCom-blocked and community-banned. There is nothing more for us to do with respect to him.
      • BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs), and more specifically her level of civility, have been discussed extensively both here and at ANI. I believe, and I think others believe, that her level of knowledge and dedication to the project, especially but not only regarding categories and categorization, are superior. It is also clear that BHG was harassed by an interaction-banned and now wholly-banned editor. Nonetheless, from the above and from the ANI discussion, I hope BHG can now accept that many editors hope she can tone down the occasional level of name-calling, even when she strongly believes she is in the right and that someone on the other side is hopelessly misguided. In a given dispute, another editor may disagree with BHG, and BHG may think that editor is missing her points or even is completely clueless—yet that editor may nonetheless be acting in good faith and need not be classified as a "thug," a troll, a gaslighter, or the like. Even in the most contentious arguments, it is almost always unhelpful to accuse other editors of being these things, regardless of the merits of the arguments. But I do not believe a lengthy arbitration case is necessary to reinforce this message, given how many others have already sought to send it.
      • There is no need for arbitration regarding Piotrus (talk · contribs). My personal opinion is that in the "political prisoners category" DRV, he seemed to talk past a key point that BHG was making (which was an important and valid point, even if it might have been outweighed by other also valid points). That was a matter to be addressed in the DRV, though, and a long way from needing an arbitration case.
      • As personal but strong advice, I urge both BHG and Piotrus to recognize that diminishing returns can set in by, say, the tenth reiteration of the same point in the same discussion. At some point it is needful to let others have their say. (I say this despite the beam in mine own eye; I can recall several occasions when I should have heeded this myself, and I understand that there are rare occasions for exceptions.)
      • The involvement of The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) here was peripheral—which is just as well, as I'm recused from matters relating to him.
      • Some people have framed this as an admin-conduct case, asking whether either the initial block of BHG or the quick unblock of her were so out-of-process as to constitute misuse of tools. In my view, both the block and unblock were debatable, but neither rises to the level of misconduct that could warrant a case, at least not absent evidence that the same admin had a prior history of questionable actions, of which there is none. Whether and when a single admin should block or unblock an editor who is the subject of an ongoing ANI thread is, in general terms, a policy question. It may seem unusual that 20 years into the project there is still disagreement as to some basics of blocking and unblocking policy, but that is the situation—and it may always remain the situation, as no written policy can ever anticipate every situation that might arise. And as is often said, ArbCom is not supposed to write or change policy. Of course, as a practical matter, ArbCom can and does create admin-conduct policy, at least in the operational sense of "if you do X you are at risk of being desysopped," but the actions in this case are a long way from calling for that. And while we've occasionally accepted a case in order to outline our perception of "best practices" rather than sanction anyone, I don't find this to be a good candidate for that sort of case either.
      • I've considered the other arguments that have been offered for accepting a case, though I haven't discussed all of them for reasons of length.
      • My overall reaction is that once the source of the initial problems here was resolved, the ANI thread itself became the source of increased bitterness and infighting. This is the wiki equivalent of iatrogenic disease and we need increased efforts to avoid it. Sometimes I wish someone had the ability to temporary-hat or redflag a thread, which would simply put it on hold for 24 or 72 hours, thereby allowing the parties to dissipate their anger and regain their sense of proportion. Of course, that won't work on Wikipedia as the arguing will simply shift to whether the hatting or flagging was within policy or not, and we'll all be off to the races again. But it's a nice daydream of one means by which I might have spent my Sunday afternoon doing something other than writing this.
      • Bottom line, decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I would vote to accept. While the ANI discussion is still ongoing, it seems unlikely to result in anything but what is already policy. At this moment, the only proposal there that seems to enjoy majority consensus is subjecting BHG to escalating blocks which is already possible for civility violations (seeWikipedia:Civility#Blocking for incivility). Deepfriedokra's band-aid metaphor appears apt. I just worry there won't be any clerks left with all those recusals. Regards SoWhy 13:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cryptic: WP:RAAA already says "administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged." The proposed remedy would indeed be a bit stricter than that but then again, the current rule already would lead to the same result if applied consequently. Regards SoWhy 20:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I always endeavor to be able to admit when I was wrong and it appears that I was. I didn't expect the ANI thread to go anywhere based on the many times I have seen such discussions fail to end in any useful result but happily, it actually did. Echoing my colleague Newyorkbrad, who, as always, put it far more eloquently than I ever could, I now think we should decline this request. Regards SoWhy 15:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept As SoWhy points out above, the only thing that is going to come out of that ANI thread is to formalize that already existing policies apply to one specific person. That doesn't do anything, and something clearly needs to be done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reconsidering my position here. One of the instigators of this whole issue has already been thoroughly kicked off the project and is no longer welcome here. One of the other named parties is clearly going to be under the microscope for civil behavior for some time. I'm not sure anyone else did anything that rises to the level of needing a committee to deal with it. This is not a solid decline, but I now feel I may have rushed to accept it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further reflection and re-examining the situation, I'm not convinced a case here would accomplish much, per my above comments. Decline. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With apologies for the delay (I could have sworn I added this a few days ago when it first popped up) I am also waiting on a few threads to close (or get close to it). Primefac (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing any good way out of this. "The community should try to sort this out" is technically the point we are at, given the ANI thread, but as has been mentioned above this might not actually solve the problem, especially if the ANI comes to no consensus or solid conclusion. Even if it does, and the sanctions do not stick, do we revisit this issue in six months? If we step in now, two of the main players leading up to this case will not be participating; one because of an indefinite block and one because they have indicated they are simply not going to participate. Additionally, it potentially moots the ANI thread (which has already seen significant participation) and drags it out for another month or two. I am still not sure which side of this I am sitting on, but what I thought was going to be a light-internet holiday is turning out to be a no-internet holiday, so I am going to abstain from giving an opinion at this point in time; if the case request is still open when I return I will of course reevaluate things. Primefac (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, mainly per Newyorkbrad. The key issue in this case request is BrownHairedGirl's habitual incivility, and I am willing to wait and see what effect the new restriction will have – partly because it's an idea I supported at the previous case, and partly because I have no desire to go through that process again just to belabour the point. Simply put, persistent incivility, such as name-calling, belittling insults, and personal attacks, is behaviour not compatible with editing a collaborative encyclopedia. – bradv🍁 15:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]