Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision

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

Case clerks: Guerillero (Talk) & CodeLyoko (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: KrakatoaKatie (Talk) & Mkdw (Talk) & Bradv (Talk)

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

PD timeline

Please be advised that Proposed Decisions may be posted at a later date and contingent on whether the incoming 2020 Arbitration Committee members will have enough time to review the evidence and workshop material as well as provide their feedback and contributions on any proposed decisions. Thank you, Mkdw ^talk 20:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Proposed Decision talkpages are limited to statements on the PD page itself & therefore general discussion is restricted. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, threaded discussion is allowed unless the PD talk page has a notice stating otherwise. The choice between "threading" and "sectioning" is made by the committee. In this case and on this page, users are not being required to confine comments to a statement. AGK ■ 13:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As I don't think it's been mentioned, and you don't hear this enough, thank you to the drafting arbs for meeting the PD target date and to all the others for being swift with your votes. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconded, but I hope those still considering a few issues won't rush. The right decision tomorrow is better than a hasty one today. Certes (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Injunction

We should treat every editor like a responsible adult until they prove need for other arrangements. Are there any diffs showing troublesome edits after BHG and NA1k posted their statements? If they have already desisted, there’s no need for any injunction. If there are diffs, please add a few representative ones to the injunction for clarity. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with @Jehochman's point about the lack of ongoing problems to require restraint. This injunction seems to be pre-emptive rather than preventive.

I also want to note to KrakatoaKatie and AGK that I do an ongoing maintenance task in respect of portals, viz cleaning up links to portals. This has two parts:

1. An ongoing job of handling the trickle of newly-created links to deleted or non-existent portals, as tracked in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals and its subcats. This usually involves about 20 edits per week, and it's rare for any of them to be in the portal namespace.
2. Cleaning up links after a portal is deleted. This involves me leaving a note at the MFD about a proposed remedy for the links, e,g. this[1] at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Isle of Wight; or see WT:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lighthouses, where I opened a discussion after closure. I then remove or update the backlinks as proposed, by:
   • Manually editing the links from Template and Portal namespace
   • Using my bot BHGbot (see WP:BRFA/BHGbot 4) to handle the links from article, category and draft namespaces; and manually cleaning up any exceptions which the bot didn't handle

I have done this for about 4 months, and have used the bot since it was approved[2] on 1 November following this discussion. This work has been uncontroversial, apart from one objection by an IP at Template talk:Star Wars#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_November_2019. If the injunction was implemented as proposed, it would directly ban this work by preventing me leaving my notes at MFD about the proposed cleanup, and I think that unless there was a clear exception for doing the actual cleanup, I would have to cease that rather than risk straying into a grey zone.

So I would prefer that the injunction was not implemented ... but if it, then please clarify whether backlink cleanup is included within its terms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment to the panel. I strongly agree that it should be made clear that cleaning up backlinks following portal deletion is not enjoined. Frankly, this is an arduous task, and BHG is, quite commendably, the only Wikipedian who does this with regularity. If it doesn't get done we are left with large numbers of redlinks in the templates that introduce portal links to pages. This is not a task that has anything to do with whether the portals should or should not exist, but merely reflects whether a portal deletion has occurred. BD2412 T 16:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

A strictly technical reading of the injunction as written does not seem to prohibit fixing backlinks to portals as long as no portal: space edits were required, though BHG would not be able to participate in a discussion about the activity, which could present an editorial impediment if the edits were called into question (also the target would have to be pre-determined). Unclear whether this would violate the spirit of the injunction. –xeno^talk 18:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree with BHG's assertion that there are "no ongoing problems"; there are only no ongoing problems with NA1k as the latter is currently not editing very much. Basically, User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace was a fairly reasonable discussion with people from all sides talking about portals (not about each other) in a comparatively productive way until BHG came in and started personalising the debate, with this comment about Moxy that made Moxy leave. There's also attacks on Bermicourt that are unnecessary personal. BHG has at the same time not yet participated in the main discussions on "purpose of portals" or "criteria for portals" on that page. Anyway, to address BHG's other point: her removal/replacement of backlinks is indeed usually not problematic at all. At the same time, it not something particularly urgent, as the standard portal linking templates automatically hide links to deleted portals, only causing an entry in a hidden maintenance category. —Kusma (t·c) 10:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Kusma: that reply to Moxy was my umpteenth attempt to point Moxy towards taking the issue where a place where the issue could actually be resolved one way or the other, rather seeking workarounds.

As to Bermicourt, that was not an attack. I was yet another request by me for Bermicoyurt to desist from the batlefield conduct and misrepresentation which he has engaged in for 7 months. I noted the problem in my statement on this case: Bermicourt has repeatedly misrepresented one-by-one scrutiny at MFD as "mass deletion" (see e.g. April at WT:WPPORT. It is just the latest part of a consistent and vocal assumption of bad faith by Bermicourt. See e.g. some of Bermicourt's contribs to MFDs: This is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus, This proposals is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus, This proposal is just another part of the ongoing campaign by editors to delete virtually all portals in defiance of the community consensus, This is simply part of a campaign to remove most if not all portals which goes against the spirit of the community consensus on portals.

I specifically raised this battlefield conduct with the discussion's host as a problem[3], and I am appalled to find that my objection to is labelled as a personalised attack. Bermicourt's continuation of this conduct even onto a page whose intro says "it needs to be conducted in a calm, rational, civil way" led me to start making notes to draft a request to add Bermicourt as a party to this case.

As to my alleged non-participation elsewhere ... I went to that section with Moxy because I was pinged there by KK87.[4] Kusma is trying to criticise me for following a ping.

I have't responded to the other sections mentioned by Kusma, because I believe that the discussion has happened out of sequence, and I have specifically noted thatthis whole page is nearly all detail, with the underlying assumptions mostly unexamined. Sorry, but I am not going to discuss the criteria for anything while the purpose and goals remain undiscussed.

So I am very disappointed by Kusma's post here. It is not in any way a fair representation of my limited involvement on Scottywong's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Scottywong set up that page trying to discuss everything one at at a time and from the ground up (well, except for the "should we delete all portals" question, as that has been asked and answered more than once in recent times), and invited you personally via a talk page post here. Scottywong tried really hard to make us discuss things in sequence, but some extra discussion happened on the side (partly also my fault). In any case, the question of purpose of portals was the first one we discussed. —Kusma (t·c) 15:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma: when Scotty invited me, I was to up my ears in the ANI case, and associated drama. I thought it was a good idea, didn't participate immediately because I was overloaded.

And when I did respond, it was to a ping. And for that you came here to criticise me. This is absurd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This is our main problem - the editor not aware of their actions of always taking a combative stance being seen as disruptive by others.--Moxy 🍁 16:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, you have repeatedly raised the same technical issue (the non-display of portal links in mobile views, along with other navigational elements such as categories & navboxes also excluded from mobile view) in multiple venues where it cannot be resolved. You have raised it in multiple MFDs (where it is off-topic), and you have raised in multiple discussions at WT:WPPORT, and you have raised it in a guidelines discussion where it can also not be resolved. You even previously attacked me for not implementing your preference, even tho there is no consensus for your change: see your comment[5] with the edit summary omg how can you be taken seriously?. You use an hostile edit summary like that in clear breach of [WP:SUMMARYNO]], yet you come here to accuse me of being disruptive by asking yet again that if you want a change to the mobile interface, then the way to do so is to raise your proposed interface change with those who maintain the mobile interface.

Your definition of disruptive appears to amount to "asking that decisions be made by consensus in the proper venue". If disagreement about trying to uphold consensus-decision making is "combative", then the WP:Consensus policy is unworkable. You asked me to break WP:WB rules by implementing your unilateral demand, yet you call me combative and disruptive? Wow.---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

PS Moxy's conduct is illustrated by this comment accusing me of [6]pointless unhelpful crap talk, and his failure to respond to my request[7] to strike that personal attack. It's bizarre to be accused of being combative by an editor who won't even strike a post which contains nothing but an insult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Arguing the substance of a dispute here is likely to cause an injunction to be enacted. The relevant question is do you, the proposed subjects of the injunction, agree to avoid contentious edits and bickering elsewhere for the duration of the case? Or is a bright line rule needed to keep the peace? Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  Responding to the initial question, injunctions by their nature are passed before the committee has evaluated the nature and extent of ongoing problems. The standard to be met by a proposed injunction is therefore that there may be a problem caused if certain things are allowed to keep happening while proceedings are underway. In this case, I was satisfied that we could keep seeing unhelpful edits to MfDs, portals-related discussion, and some portals themselves if the specified users were not directed to temporarily stop editing those areas. I also agreed with the implicit point of the injunction, that stemming these edits would be preferable to allowing some good edits and some bad to take place.

  The discussion above does not seem to have changed the information that was available to the committee when this injunction was first proposed. While I welcome any additional questions, I have for these reasons not amended by vote to support the injunction and voting upon the injunction will carry on. AGK ■ 18:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: in view of Moxy's comments above, and the diffs I have posted I have posted of Moxy's previous conduct, please can you extend the proposed injunction to include Moxy? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I will raise the issue with colleagues and one of us will in the first place propose any further injunctions required (or explain why none are being proposed). AGK ■ 18:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Having not consulted colleagues, I still do not think a further injunction is required. In response to the first injunction, BrownHairedGirl requested we examine a number of additional diffs showing edits by Moxy. To the extent that unhelpful conduct may have been exhibited in those diffs, it would be quelled by the effect of the existing proposed injunction. In brief, all interpersonal conduct, whether or not it was disruptive, was directed towards BHG. The first proposed injunction would prevent those circumstances from reoccurring and there is consequently no immediate benefit to imposing additional interim measures at this time. AGK ■ 10:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: I am surprised and troubled by that logic. It appears to be saying that if an editor is the subject to attacks from a number of editors, then the remedy is to exclude the target rather than the attacker. I hope that I have misunderstood you, because that sounds like a tag team's charter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I am saying precisely what I wrote, and nothing else. The problem was the need to stop background disrupting while the arbitration process runs its course. The injunction stops that problem. AGK ■ 13:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: If that's the case, then surely an assessment should be made of whether the problem is one disruptor, or a pile-on against one editor who espouses a viewpoint which others dislike? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100 percent Brown pushed me over the edge (as they have done with multiple other editors and continue to do so . I also agree my reply was unwarranted. But the difference is I have disengaged communicating with Brown and have no conflict elsewhere....where Brown is still personalizing everything with a righteous attitude and is unable to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. They should not be surprised that their recommendations are ignored by the majority. Perfect candidate for a clean start in my view. I acknowledge my wording may have been harsh at times but I have moved on.. and amended my slight in behavior.... this is something Brown needs to do.--Moxy 🍁 21:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Awaiting the decision

I suspect we'll be hearing soon, from the arbitrators. These things start slowly, but when they do start, it's rather rapid. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by BrownHairedGirl

Overall, I am very disappointed by this proposed decision. I will add comment on parts of the decision in sections below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

6 BrownHairedGirl

The doesn't even try to distinguish between an assumption of bad faith, and observation of evidence of bad faith. As one example among many, it doesn't even note mention how at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport, NA1K cited[8] a guideline which had been demoted at their request before the actions in question, claiming that it is a schema for advisement, which is just a verbose synonym for "guideline". That's clear attempt to game the system.

This proposed finding doesn't even consider the possibility that these criticisms were true, even though solid evidence was provided in support of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The context of that quote by Northamerica1000 is "While WP:POG is now a failed proposal, it is still utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions, as per WP:COMMONSENSE," which does not hide the fact that the guideline was not adopted. You responded to that comment by saying "NA1K is either an idiot or a liar or both" and calling him "deeply stupid" and "mendacious". The finding of fact here refers to your personal attacks, which are not justified by any actual or perceived inaccuracies in his comment. It is also worth mentioning that NA1K then struck the offending line in response. – bradv🍁 19:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv, yes NA1K did acknowledged the delisting, but NA1K was still trying to have their cake and eat it. They wanted the guideline delisted in toto because they didn't like some parts of it and hadn't built consensus to change the bits they didn't like (there were numerous failed proposals at WT:POG), but NA1k was now trying to claim that the document as a whole still had standing as [words which equate to "guideline"]. What on earth is the point of delisting a guideline if you still cite it in support? That makes a mockery of the whole distinction between proposal and accepted guideline. And note that NA!K made the same assertion, almost verbatim, and 4 separate MFDs.

If this had been a one-off episode, then my response would have been completely disproportionate. But it came after many months of NA1K gaming the system by cherrypicking guidelines, and failing to respond tho repeated requests to stop doing so. That is why I lost my temper and used direct, harsh language to describe conduct where, if I was less riled, I could have used other phases to describe the sneakiness involved. This repeated disruption of consensus-building discussions by use of gaming techniques is a form of baiting, but the proposed decision takes no account of that.

Note too that this was in the context of a discussion of a portal which had been converted by NA1K to a black box format which impeded scrutiny. It was only at MFD that NA1K produced a linked list of the articles they had chosen, which were then readily evident be a massive breach of NPOV. NA1K's sophistry over the ex-guideline was being used in defence of their stealthy breach of a core policy.

Those of us who tried in 2019 to actually subject portals to scrutiny over their quality had to wade through months of this sort of bluster and obfuscation, as small core of portal enthusiasts tried every trick imaginable to deflect scrutiny of the abysmal state of most of portals. That is evident at the ~1100 portal MFDs last year, yet to seems to me that Arbcom is showing no interest at all in the depth and persistence of those gaming techniques, and is instead concerned only that objections to the sustained gaming techniques were too harshly worded.

If Arbcom holds to this approach, it will set a horrible precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

8 Northamerica1000 made edits to many portals, which BrownHairedGirl reverted with Twinkle

This section misudertsands or misrepresents the facts of those events. It fails to note that:

1. even though NA1K was v well aware of the highly controversial nature of portals, they undertook was a mass unilateral restructuring and repopulating of dozens portals without prior notification to (let alone discussion with) the WP:WPPORT or to any of the relevant topical WikiProjects.
2. the format which NA1K chose placed a huge barrier to scrutiny of the portals, because it longer provided a visible linked list of the selected articles
3. despite the high barrier which NA1K had placed in the way of scrutiny, I spent several hours examining each two of the portals which NA1K had reworked, and had produced clear evidence of their very poor quality (see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana and WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Djibouti). Later analysis showed poor quality in other portals reworked by NA1K: see e.g. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport, where NA1K had ignored WP:NPOV, or Australia[9].
4. the edit summary which I used in those reverts was "Revert undiscussed change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed". The facts are that:
   • there was no discussion or notification of NA1K's plan to restructure and repopulate dozens of portals
   • in some cases, NA1K had left a notification on the talk page of some of the portals, which I missed (my bad), but a) those talk page messages did not try to explain the criteria used in selection, did not list what articles had been added even tho format used by NA1K meant that there was no longer a visible linked list of the selected articles; b) the notifications were posted only to the talk pages of the portals, which have few watchers, rather than to the topical WikiProjects which would be much more likely to attract editors with expertise in the topic. NA1K himself had eloquently dismissed the pointlessness of such notices[10]: The talk page for the portal has received no discussion at all, and consists entirely of notices. BHG's addition of a bunch of hoops to jump through for an unused talk page would be fine for a well-read portal, but this portal has not been maintained in years, and again, there's no discussion on the talk page at all. Collaboration is great and desired, but there has to actually be a potential for collaboration to occur.
5. That NA1K had previously demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to explain, let alone meaningfully discuss, how they chose articles for listing in a portal, asserting only that[11] I assessed these articles relative to their suitability for this portal ... which conveys precisely nothing.

In summary, this proposed finding seems to ignore most of the relevant facts, and leaves me wondering how carefully Arbcom scrutinised the history. If passed, it would have the perverse effect of condemning me for trying to undo an attempt to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, which seems to be a very bad precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

These look like good-faith attempts to improve the portals. I don't see why these bold edits would be against policy, nor how they would justify the responses quoted in the finding of fact. – bradv🍁 19:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: if those "improvements" were made in good faith, then they were WP:RECKLESS. NA1K continued to rebuild these portals without wider discussion or notification, even after the problems had been described in detail at two MFDs which led to the deletion of the portals concerned. Continuing down the same path of widespread, under-notified, controversial edits in a highly controversial area (which portals are) showed no regard for consensus.

As to BRD, I reverted per WP:BRD, and that was greeted with an almighty shitstorm at ANI from NA1K, Moxy and the rest of the defenders of poor-quality portals. Yet in every single case where the reverted portals were analysed id detail, huge flaws were found ... and they were not detected moire readily because of NA1K's use of a "black box" format.

NA1K's responses at that ANI thread underlined the WP:FAITACCOMPLI intent. They ignored my repeated offers to collaborate on an RFC to consider the issue of "black box" portals, and complained that a one-by-one examination examination of each portal would be too time-consuming, because there so many portals involved. That all adds up to a perfect FAITACCOMPLI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

9 BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals

This proposed finding is very odd BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion.

1. it conflates two separate types of action: MFD nominations (which don't require admin tools), and deletions (which do require admin tools).
2. I made about over 400 MFD nominations of portals, the vast majority of which resulted in deletion. So far as I can recall, none of them was overturned at DRV. My nominations were mostly the result of very detailed research, which I documented in detail, to help other editors check my analysis.
   Note too that I challenged flaws (such as error of fact or inappropriate bundling) in other MFD nominations, leading to me getting sustaibed abuse from Legacypac.
   If ArbCom finds any fault in my making MFD nominations after careful analysis, they should spell out exactly what that fault is. But as it stands, this proposed finding appears to treat making well-researched MFD nominations as a form of misconduct, which would be a new development that would require a rewriting of all XFD guidelines.
3. The portal pages which I deleted were all pursuant to deletion policy, i.e, they all either met speedy deletion criteria or were pursuant to an MFD decision mostly deleting the sub-pages of portals which had been deleted at MFD). I am not aware of any allegation that any one of these deletions was outside policy, and the proposed finding does not identify any claimed breach of policy.

So this proposed finding seems to me to amount to condemning me for acting in good faith, within policy, wit unusually high diligece, without any single alleged breach ... and then label this as misuse of admin tools. That seems Kafkaesque.

If Arbcom really wants to pursue this, then please at least produce some evidence of actual wrongdoing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• @Beeblebrox: I appreciate your comment,[12] but I am puzzled by your comment that I may have technically violated WP:INVOLVED. My understanding of INVOLVED has been that it does not debar implementing a consensus. If I am wrong about that understanding, then I have violated INVOLVED many thousands of times elsewhere, e.g, in listing at WP:CFDS actions determined by the non-admin closer of a discussion to which I was a party, or in assisting a closer implementing a technically complex close (note that I have done so for many closes where I disagreed with the close). My interpretation has always been that I should not exercise discretion in an issue where I was involved, but that implementing an XFD close by deleting pages which were missed by the closer is not an exercise of discretion.

If I am wrong in any of this policy matter, then it would be helpful for Arbcom to clarify policy, because I am sure I am far from the only one getting it wrong: e.g. WT:CFDW#NACs should carry a clear warning that an admin may not assist in implemeting a third-party closure of a discussion to which they were a party. A statement of principle would be appropriate.

Also, please note that NA1K nominated some portals at MFD, and also deleted many many pages in portal space. If Arbcom sees fit to note my actions with apparent intent to censure, then I can see no reason to refrain from apply the same criticism of NA1K, whose most recent set of 500 deletions[13] includes 244 portalspace pages. Sauce for the goose etc.

I remain very sad that five Arbs have supported this proposed finding, without any indication that they have identified any single instance in which the actions cited were contrary to policy. This does not boost my confidence in the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally tend to take a very strict interpretation of the involved admin policy, probaby stricter than most, in order to help guide my own actions. I find things simply work out better when one puts their admin tools entirely off the table if there is even a hint of involvement, and there was certainly more than a hint of it with you and portals. It is by no means a perfect policy with exceedingly clear boundaries, which is why I said "may" and "technically". Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, Beeblebrox. I used to take that very strict interpretation, but my experience over the last decade has been that as the number of admins decline, strict interpretation impedes uncontroversial performance of tasks which require the mop. That's why I put in my time to help with the clerical tasks of cleaning up after decisions which were properly made by uninvolved closers, and which in many cases had languished without being fully implemented. As below, I am happy to accept that at least some arbs favour a strict interpretation, and I will happy to follow that guidance from now on.

However, I don't think that strict interpretation reflects recent accepted practice, which is why I feel aggrieved that it is being applied here. And if it is to be applied, then it needs to be clearly stated as a principle so that other admins acting in good faith don't find themselves accused of abuse, as I have been. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• @KrakatoaKatie: your comment of 23:20, 23 January 2020[14] We made a table (well, Bradv made a table of a query, which I viewed) of BHG's deletion log in the Portal: namespace.

Was any similar analysis made of NA1K's hundreds of portal namespace deletions? If not, why not? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We didn't really need a table because there aren't hundreds. From May 2019 to present, NA1K has deleted the main and subpages of five portals: Nishapur, Sailing, Bulgarian Empire, Paralympic Games, and Paralympics. Each was deleted as the result of an individual MFD in which NA1K neither participated nor made the nomination. NA1K was the closer only. (In addition, there were two examples of subpages of portals that were tagged for CSD G7 or blanked by their authors.) By contrast, you have deleted the main and subpages of over one hundred portals, more than ten times the number of portals and portal subpages deleted by NA1K. You accidentally deleted Portal:Colorado in error when you meant to delete Portal:Color. Fine. Maybe you were going too fast – everyone makes mistakes, and it's not an unfixable error. However, there are examples of you nominating, closing the MFD, and deleting the portals which you nominated. As I said at the FoF, and I want to be clear to everyone who's reading this, that's not sinister or an accusation of bad faith – the user who created/recreated those portals assented to deletion at the MFDs. But you don't have to do those deletions. You're the nominator, and you need to make your case and step away from it. Your part is done once you nominate it. You also did the deletions at a couple of MFDs that Jo-Jo Eumerus closed as delete but didn't follow through with the actual deletion for some reason – again, you don't need to do those deletions. It's unseemly and it's bad practice. You're too close to this issue. You're not hearing what these dozens and dozens of editors and admins are telling you about your conduct here. You have a great dedication to this project and I admire your work elsewhere, but in this particular area, you need to stand back now. Katie^talk 01:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: so just to be clear, the only instance which you can identify where I acted improperly was an accidental deletion which I undid ten minutes later?

And the rest is correctly implementing closes where the decider hadn't followed through, or implementing a creator's assent to deletion?

In the case of the closes of Bermicourt's assents, several of them were partly moved by Bermicourt, leaving a huge mess which it took ages to unravel. I thought I was doing others a favour by completing the move, rather than leaving it as a broken mess when there is severe shortage of admins.

There's the crucial thing. Nobody objected at the time to any of this work I which I undertook in good faith to implement decisions. The objections arose only here at ArbCom, when some editors were looking for rocks to hurl.

I understand and accept your advice that it would have been better for me to step back and leave that clerical work undone. That's fair enough. It was not my understanding of accepted practice as admin numbers have declined and backlogs have built up, but I am v happy to accept and follow your guidance that it is better not be seen to be anywhere near this. (I do, however stand by my point that if this is Arbcom's view, it should assert that as a principle to guide admins working in the many areas of Wikipedia where admin the shortage leaves backlogs, e.g at CFD).

But I feel seriously aggrieved that this is cited as evidence of sanctionable misconduct, when I acted in good faith doing what I thought were uncontroversial clerical tasks ("the mop"), without any objection at the time, and which you agree were all substantially correct actions (apart from that one promptly-fixed oops out of 2,000 actions). It feels utterly invidious to be charged with abusing my admin tools in these circumstances, when you seem to agree there is no suggestion of my having used the tools to advance my viewpoint. It could all be paraphrased as "you know that long slog clerical task which you undertook for ages without any objection from anyone, and all of which was correct? Never mind that nobody told you there was a problem; you're fired for working hard and accurately in good faith". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

PS @KrakatoaKatie you note that NA1K closed some portal MFDs. In other words, they exercised admin discretion to close discussions on portals, where they were one of the main protagonists in a broad controversy. Yet I note that you offer no criticism of that as WP:INVOLVED. This doesn't seem consistent with the strict view you take of INVOLVED, and which DGG says[15] I consider it extends not just to involvement with the editor, but to involvement with the topic. (both interpreted reasonably). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a back-and-forth with you in a game of 'what about NA1K' except to say that if you cannot tell the difference between not participating in an MFD at all except to administratively close it, versus nominating a page, closing the discussion, and then deleting the page, that's a serious problem. It's a bad look for you to do that. It raises questions about your impartiality as an admin, and that's what the FoF is about. It's saying that we see it, we recognize it, and we don't like it. But that's not why I and the others are voting for these remedies. It's about your conduct. We are here in large part because of your conduct, and your insults, and your bludgeoning walls of text just like the wall of text on this page. We came into this fully expecting to have to untangle a web of misconduct on the parts of multiple people, which is why I proposed that temporary injunction, and that is not what we found after almost two months of investigation. I'm sorry you can't see the problems, but they have been pointed out to you over the course of many months and many thousands of kB of text. I suggest regardless of what the final decision is that you take some time away from this issue, then come back and read these pages with a clear head and eye, and try to understand how and why your comments and insults and accusations have hurt people. That's all I have to say. Katie^talk 17:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@User:KrakatoaKatie, I think there is some confusion here o a point of fact. I don't question your good faith, but you are describing a situation which I honestly do not recognise and which I would always try to avoid. So far as I am aware, the only instances in which I might be seen to have been nominating a page, closing the discussion, and then deleting the page was in a few cases where the creator Bermicourt had already moved the page to a new location in project space; in other words, the portal was not deleted, so I was not the deleter. However, in most of those cases, the non-admin move had left behind redirects to clean up, and it was redirects which I deleted as housekeeping.

I understand your reasons for not wanting a back-and-forth, but it would be very helpful if you could provide some pointers to which portals were involved so that I can see the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie and Beeblebrox, this is a mistake. I participated/observed portal MfDs, and in most cases (and potentially all), the MfD closer was happier that BHG would execute the actual portal deletion as it is complex and messy (e.g thousands of sub-pages and links). I can provide the diffs if needed of such closers asking BHG to do that, but also pinging BD2412, who would know this. Far from being any kind of abuse of tools, it was BHG desire to ensure the job of a portal deletion did not leave a mess (which earlier ones, were). I never saw BHG (or NA1K for the avoidance of doubt), EVER, reach for admin tools at MfD in a way that was inappropriate or breach of INVOLVED. Incivility, yes, definitely, but abuse of tools, no, definitely not. Britishfinance (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As another (former) regular participant in portal MfDs, I concur. BHG was often asked to perform deletions and other tasks arising out of the many thousands of deleted portals. I never remember anyone ever complaining about BHG's use of tools in any way–maybe I'm wrong about that, but this Arbcom case is the first time I've ever seen this accusation. I was one of many editors who post messages of thanks and barnstars on BHG's talk page for this work. To say that someone is involved when they do a task they were asked to do, which few are competent to do and basically no one else was willing to do, seems highly unfair. I don't think there is any grounds for alleging any abuse of tools by BHG (and I don't think there is grounds for a desysop either, per KnowledgeKid and BF's comments). I'd encourage arbs to reconsider this evidence, finding, and remedy. – Levivich 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I don't doubt that what you say is true, but it is almost never the right move for the nominator to also be the one deleting the nominated items. Also please note that there is no finding that BHG abused or misused the tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

While I don't doubt the incivility (there were many examples, and it was very unfair to NA1K), one of the elements that never came out in this case, is that BHG did an incredible amount of work clearing up some very poor parts of portal space. Some of the stuff we were !voting on at MfD was really sad to see (and I really don't think portal-space is going to last anyway). Some MfD closers really didn't understand how to fully delete a portal (which can take a lot of time), and it ultimately became left to BHG to do it. I think that it is a strange irony of where this case has gone, that one of the things she did as an important service to Wikipedia, is re-cast as an offense? That is an incorrect finding and I wonder if ArbCom went through 30 of the past portal MfDs (as per my advice at the submission stage) to see what happened - you would have seen at many of those MfDs, BHG being asked to do execute the deletion by the closer. Britishfinance (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you're seeing something that simply isn't there. We're not saying that she abused the tools. At the end of the day (as some of the other arbs have noted) this FoF isn't really very important as it does describe events that provably did occur, but is not among the reasons sanctions are being supported. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, regardless of the weight attached to a finding of fact, having a dubious finding of fact is not a good thing. I am very disappointed by this, especially since Katie alleges specific breaches which she has not identified to me in a way which allows me (or others) to check them. I think that there is a misunderstanding there, but since I haven't seen the evidence I am unable to clear it up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, then you should take it out as it is misleading, and starts to give an impression ArbCom has not really understood portal MfDs? I understand and appreciate what you are saying, but in the future, people are going to reference FOF #9 as evidence of tool admin abuse when it was the opposite (but that will be lost). Britishfinance (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If FOF 9 is not among the reasons sanctions are being supported, then why is it there at all? :-) I don't imagine Arbcom's intent in FOF 9 is to congratulate BHG for deleting over 2000 portal pages and nominating dozens of portals for deletion (small detail, but it's 100s of noms, not dozens). Clearly this is meant as a criticism? And I'm just saying: she's being criticized for doing something that editors asked her to do, others weren't able/willing to do, and nobody had previously complained about her doing. It just seems odd, at least without identifying specific deletions. Maybe it's because I'm thinking of a different set of deletions than the ones that arbs are looking at. It just doesn't seem like the basis of FOF 9, nor the relevance of FOF 9, are adequately explained in the PD as it stands now. – Levivich 19:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't simply remove it as it has already been voted on, but I am forced to agree that a fair point has been made both here and in NYB's remarks on the PD itself, and I know I did not cinsider this as part of the reason I support sanctions, so I have stricken my vote and moved to oppose. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Since I have been pinged to this discussion, I will affirm without reservation that I have reviewed BHG's administrative actions, and so far as I am aware, none of the deletions engaged in by BHG was a misuse of admin tools. Every one of them was strictly in accordance with policy and consensus where discussions were involved. I can also confirm, having deleted several portals myself pursuant to MfD closes, that the number of deletions in portal situations is substantially inflated by the network of subpages typically involved with portal construction, which can easily include dozens of components to be deleted to remove a single portal. BD2412 T 02:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Portals are complex and there was a lot of cruft in portal namespace, for instance subpages of pages long since deleted, redirects to non-existing pages and so on. I find it very odd to consider such trivial speedy deletions something that makes admins involved... they're just something too tedious for most admins to do.

It's also questionable to compare how involved two persons were, or how much they used their admin tools in a dispute, on the basis of the deletion log in a dispute where only one side wants deletion. You'd need to use some other measure, for instance blocks or MfD closures (I think neither user made any, right?), rollback or whatever.

When I scan the proposed log link I can only find trivial speedy deletions made necessary by other admins' technically incomplete deletions. The only exception is Portal:Thuringia which was a portal moved by its own creator/maintainer, and an admin was needed to correctly move all subpages; the redirect inversion is listed as deletion but I don't think any page was actually deleted. The title saying that portals were deleted is also incorrect; pages in portal namespace were deleted, but not a single portal I could find. It would be helpful if Bradv, or whoever worked on that table, made at least one example that they consider a clearly involved deletion. Then, some arbitrator may want to provide suggestions on how other admins may wish to conduct themselves in future similar situations, because it would seem now that it's dangerous for an admin to provide technical assistance to other admins and users when especially expert and active in a certain area which happens to be in dispute. Nemo 10:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nemo. I agree with your point about this approach making it dangerous for admins who know an area to provide technical assistance. That will lead to admins withdrawing such assistance, which will impede the community's ability to cleanup problems even where there is duely-weighed consensus on the actions required.

I also thank Nemo for asking the Arbs to provide even one specific example of what they consider to be an INVOLVED deletion. I made the same request twice yesterday (to @Beeblebrox and KrakatoaKatie, and would welcome an answer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, @BD2412. That point on numbers is important, though I think you under-state the scale of the issue.

Once the automated spam-portals had been cleared, the rest of the deleted portals nearly all involved content-forked sub-pages. That model not only had a separate sub-page for each DYK item, each selected article, each quote, each picture etc ... but also formatting and listing sub-pages. So such portals except the still-born had at least twenty sub-pages, most had several dozens, and some had hundreds (I recall one deleted portal which had over 700 sub-pages). I just reviewed my deletion log, and note this non-exhaustive list of examples where I used my admin tools for the clerical task of deleting the sub-pages after an uninvolved admin had closed the discussion and deleted only the portal's main page:

• MFD:Portal:Atheism: 167 subpages
• MFD:Portal:Finger Lakes (2nd nomination): 103 subpages
• MFD:Portal:National Basketball League (Australia): 96 subpages
• MFD:Portal:Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex: 82 subpages
• MFD:Performer portals: 180 subpages of 4 portals, including 101 subpages of Portal:The Clash
• MFD:Portal:Java: 75 subpages

That's 804 subpages from just 6 discussions.

Note that some portals also had thickets of sub-cats to hold the forests of sub-pages

• MFD:Portal:Uttar Pradesh: 42 categories deleted by BHG

The Rube Goldberg machine structure of these content-forked, multi-subpage portals was a core factor in the whole portals dispute:

1. It made maintenance of these portals extremely difficult, so that once the initial creator's enthusiasm had worn off, anyone else wanting to maintain the portal had a mountain to climb to review what was there
2. It created a massive vulnerability to vandalism, because there was no way to watchlist all these subpages without adding each of them individually to one's watchlist. Only the low viewing rates kept the vandalism levels low (I encountered abut 3 cases of undetected vandalism)
3. Assessing the portal's quality became a huge task; it often took me three hours to evaluate a single portal.
4. An MFD nomination which adequately described the state of the portal in a way which was easy for others to verify was necessarily lengthy (many of mine exceeded a screenful), leading to "wall of text" complaints even when the nom was carefully formatted with paras and bullet points etc.
5. The MFD closer had a mountain of detail to review, which often prompted a lengthy debate
6. If the discussion was closed as delete, the clerical burden of implementing it was exceptionally high, unsurprisingly, not all closing admins shouldered call of that burden.

I accept that some arbs prefer a strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, and I repeat my commitment to observe that in future. But I remain concerned that a big mistake is being made here. In pursuit of platonic ideals of perfect process, strict interpretations have the unintended side-effect of raising the already high barriers to clearing entrenched problems such as the ~1,000 long-term-rotted portals deleted in 2019, or the 4,200 automated spam portals where a few editors succeeded in preventing speedy deletion, thereby requiring many hundreds of hours of editors' time for individual discussion.

I think that the arbs who favour strict interpretation have given insufficient weight to the policy WP:NOTBURO, which says "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles." We seem to be slipping away from that principle, and I hope that Arbs and/or the community will reconsider their strict interpretation in this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

11 BrownHairedGirl's conduct during arbitration

There are two assertions in this proposed finding:

1. BrownHairedGirl violated this injunction by discussing an MfD in which she had participated.
   Not true: the edit in question[16] was a comment on the temporary injunction. It was a response to a comment on my talk relating to the ArbCom case. It was not part of a substantive discussion about portals, nor was it an attempt to turn the discussion in that direction.
   AFAICS, there is no allegation that I violated the injunction in any other way. So I am being condemned for noting that the injunction had what seems to me to be an undesirable consequence for the community: the removal from portal discussions of the only editor who did the detailed checking to reveal that the portal was in fact spam. Editors may disagree with my observation, but it is a very long stretch to claim that that it was a breach of the injunction.
   Note that in the discussion above at §Injunction I took great care to clarify the scope, and that I took a broad interpretation of it by ceasing to run WP:BRFA/BHGbot 4, when I had't got clear guidance on whether the bot would beach the injunction. In other words, I tried to stay well clear of trouble ... and find it bizarre that one comment on my talk about another effect of the injunction would be taken as a breach. This seems to turn the temporary injunction into some sort of equivalent of a super-injunctions in English law, where the existence of the injunction may not be mentioned.
2. BrownHairedGirl also used arbitration case talk pages to insult and belittle other parties in the case. The edit cited[17] as the basis for this finding relates to discussion of the case.. My comments there are all supported by evidence, either at the evidence page, the statement of case, or elsewhere. Those comments address one of the substantive problems in this dispute, and it is a gross denial of natural justice to condemn someone for mentioning issues for they have provided evidence. If evidenced problems with an editor's competence cannot be discussed at ArbCom, then where on earth can they be discussed?

This proposed finding seems to be based on very unsound principles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:

1. Your edit remarked to another user that the portal is pure spam, and sent them two links. You breached the injunction against "engaging in discussions about portals", a fact that appears to continue escaping you.
2. Criticising edits is vital to Wikipedia's success, and permissible at arbitration. The finding documented a tendency to "insult and belittle", whether you did so while imparting legitimate criticism. Misconduct is not justified by doing a legitimate thing alongside it. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

AGK ■ 11:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@AGK: Thanks for the reply.

1. I don't accept that description of my comment. It was clearly about the barring of analysis of portals, rather than about the substance of the portal. I cite that example only for illustration.
   I remain despondent that the proposed decision attaches no weight whatsoever to my sustained role in analysis of the quality of portals, and the fact that my analyses were overwhelmingly accepted at MFD. ArbCom has chosen in its findings of fact to solely look for faults. Nowhere in the findings is there any mention, for example, of the fact that my several days work of analysing the thousands automated portals resulted in two mass deletions of such portals (one, and two), for which the first one had there had overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout. Those two MFDs resolved an issue which the community had been unable to resolve in hugely lengthy discussions at (I think) WP:AN, and which had instead become the subject of a torrent of fractious individual discussions.
2. I continue to find that principle very troubling. Arbitration is about conduct, no content. If there is evidence that a contributor has repeatedly disrupted Wikipedia by displaying a lack of the skills needed to perform the tasks they undertake, and has not recognised their own limitations, then a failure to address that fact leaves the problems unresolved, to the detriment of proposed principle #1: that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a social club; it is a collaborative project to build a high-encyclopedia, and progress towards that goal is not assisted when the feelings of serially incompetent editors are given absolute privilege over problems of the quality of reader-facing pages or the gaming of consensus-building. I remain alarmed that the focus of ArbCom continues to be on whether such criticism was worded appropriately, rather than on the substantive pattern of problems which was identified with evidence. That is to my mind a dangerously inverted set of priorities. It seems to me that ArbCom is in the process of choosing path which leaves the community without remedy for those problems, and to send a clear message that editors who try to challenge those problems with be punished for failings in process to the exclusion of substance.

I will of course unconditionally accept and abide by whatever rulings ArbCom makes, for as a long as I participate in Wikipedia. But this choice of priorities, this focus on the form of criticism to the almost total exclusion of its substantive merits, leaves me with a growing feeling of deep sadness that Wikipedia is fundamentally losing its way, by focusing on process to the exclusion of product. Regardless of the outcome of this process, I find that I am losing my faith in the community's commitment to actually producing an encyclopedia. When the community's ultimate conduct-governing body chooses not to acknowledge that there is a problem with the conduct and/or competence of a prolific editor who can describe their criteria for selecting content for a reader-facing page only by the circular comment I assessed these articles relative to their suitability for this portal, then my view is that the process looks more like a discussion forum or a social club than encyclopedia-building. I find that very very sad, because it's not what I thought I was devoting so much of my time to for the last 14 years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The comment at 18:31, 28 January 2020[18] by Mkdw is a repetition of a choice to sanction me for stating my case. The evidence for the assertions I made there is in my evidence section. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

12 No misconduct by Northamerica1000

This extraordinary. It seems that ArbCom is untroubled by the evidence that NA1K:

• repeatedly misrepresented the content of a guideline, by cherrypicking it to exclude the crucial part of the sentence (that's WP:PLAYPOLICY item 3)
• consistently failed to acknowledge their errors
• started depopulating a tracking category because they claimed it was used by "deletionists"
• gamed the system by proposing de-listing of a guideline, and then after it was deleted cited in support of contested actions they had taken after its delisting, claiming that it was still a a schema for advisement, which is just a fancy synonym for "guideline"
• disrupted several MFDs by misusing statistics
• gamed the system by engaging in mass, stealthy reconstructions of portals to a "black box" which impeded scrutiny, which they subsequently defended as not stealthy because they left notices on some of the portal-talk pages ... even though NA1K had himself eloquently dismissed the woeful inadequacy of such notices[19]: The talk page for the portal has received no discussion at all, and consists entirely of notices. BHG's addition of a bunch of hoops to jump through for an unused talk page would be fine for a well-read portal, but this portal has not been maintained in years, and again, there's no discussion on the talk page at all. Collaboration is great and desired, but there has to actually be a potential for collaboration to occur.
• stealthily rebuilt these portals to such a poor quality that in the case of all which were subject to detailed scrutiny, it was agreed that there overwhelming flaws were found:
  1. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport: even NA1K agreed that the result of NA1K's work was to create a massive beach of NPOV, although they used the passive voiced to evade responsibility
  2. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana: abysmal selection of articles, portal deleted
  3. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Djibouti: abysmal selection of articles, portal deleted
  4. Portal talk:Australia, where nearly all of my analysis of the poor quality was eventually accepted begrudgingly

... and yet complete denial by NA1K that there was any problem with either their their stealthy WP:FAITACCOMPLI, or with the skill level displayed.

If Arbcom really chooses to find that none of that is problematic conduct worthy of censure, then it will be setting a terrible precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed remedies 1

I note that this proposed ban for me from portals is open-ended (but subject to appeal), rather than bring time-limited. That seems unusually draconian, esp if as per proposed finding #11, Arcom interprets engaging in discussions about portals to exclude any mention of them.

Substantively, it seems extraordinary to wholly exclude from this topic an editor whose analysis of hundreds of individual portals has been accepted at hundreds of unappealed MFDs (including thousands of spam portals deleted by an exceptionally broad consensus at mass MFDs one, and two), esp when that editor was often the only one to identify problems (for one example among many, see MFD:Portal:Painting[20]). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl desysopped

@DGG: I am puzzled by your comment of 22:56, 23 January 2020[21] about "involvement", which I resume refers to alleged misuse of admin tools. However, after screwing up once (maybe twice) in my early years as an admin (2007 I think) I have take great care to avoid WP:INVOLVED, and I have yet to see any clear identification of any action by me which breached WP:INVOLVED.
Please can you identify even one such action, and explain how you believe it breached INVOLVED? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Casliber: I note your comment of 01:38, 24 January 2020[22] that the reverting amounts to hounding in part.

Procedurally, I find it odd that this cited as grounds of action, when there is no finding of fact that there was hounding.

Substantively, I am horrified by that accusation. The crucial element of WP:HOUNDING is "apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor". As I have explained repeatedly, I reverted those edits per WP:BRD because I believed (and still believe) that the edits I reverted amounted in effect to a sneaky WP:FAITACCOMPLI in which widespread controversial changes were being made without consensus, contrary to WP:RECKLESS; that the methodology used impeded scrutiny of the changes made; and that if the edits were scrutinised, they were likely to reveal the quality problems which had already been demonstrated whenever they were scrutinised. Note that only such two such portals were scrutinised post-facto, and in each case my concerns were shown to be both well-founded, and – mostly accepted by NA1K.

If good faith attempts to address WP:FAITACCOMPLI-creation by applying WP:BRD to edits which were subsequently agreed to be problematic are to labelled as a form of harassment, then a structural bias is created where BRD is unworkable and an editor with legitimate quality concerns gets smeared as an abuser. That's appalling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are involved to a significant degree with portals , and there seems to be agreement that you were very heavily involved, and heavily involved in arguing for a particular way of handling them, you not be using admin tools in that area. I consider this is the case even if you use them correctly, because it tends to intimidate others. Not everyone will agree that involved extends to area as well as people, though our principles in this case should be making this clear that it does indeed apply,. There have been very few recent cases of admins using their authority to persecute individuals because they dislike them, but I think it's mch more of a problem for an admin to use their authority to bias even unintentionally decisions on a subject or on policy. What would people have thought if I had attempted to close the SCHOOLS RFC?

Admins have the responsibility not only of not acting wrongly, but of having good judgement. I don't think it's a crime to not have good judgment in things that concern oneself, and I certainly don't think the less of you or any other admin in ta similar position, but it can if not used carefully be incompatible with adminship. The actual evaluation of the need to desysop is a matter of degree, and difficult to determine, and would require not just me saying so, but a majority vote of the 15 arbs here. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: your analogy which closing an RFC is misplaced. The only circumstances in which in closed a portal MFD where where the portal's creator had already unilaterally implemented the proposed action. That is a very different matter to exercising admin discretion, as in an RFC closure, or indeed as in NA1K's closure of MFDs despite heavily involved in the area.

The rest was all clerical work implementing decisions made by an uninvolved closer, and they were wholly uncontroversial. I remain very disappointed that some arbs fail to note that distinction between clerical work with admin tools exercising admin discretion.

As noted elsewhere on this page, I fully accept the advice that the clerical work may have looked bad, and should be avoided. But you haven't identified any single instance in which your genuine bias concerns about closure decisions apply to my actions. And however hard you look, I doubt you will find one, because I took very great care to do only clerical work, which I believed (apparently wrongly) was an acceptable way of sharing the workload of the diminishing pool of admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs: very little evidence was presented with serious issues about BHG's conduct outside the portal dispute to demonstrate a clear pattern of detrimental behaviors. It's worth noting that the scope of this case was the portals dispute, not the conduct of BHG across the project. It is thus not possible to infer evidence of absence (of issues with BHG's conduct outside portals) from absence of evidence. I stumbled across a couple of instances of substandard (but not egregiously substandard) behaviour from BHG when I looking for something else. I chose not to present that evidence as it was nothing to do with portals (it was about the relative prominence of British and Irish roads in primary topic discussions), from a very long time ago (at least 10 years), and the main issues were caused by an editor who has (afaicr) had absolutely nothing to do with this dispute (their only edit to the portal namespace was in 2009) (my conduct in at least one of those instances was also not perfect but that's not a reason I chose not to present the evidence). I've had very little interaction with BHG outside of portals so I simply don't know whether there is or is not evidence of serious issues with BHG's conduct outside this dispute, I'm simply noting that if there is it may not have been presented in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf and David Fuchs: I have been an admin for nearly 14 years, and have performed over 1.6 million edits. I have for example, closed many thousands of discussions. So I would be very surprised if in that time I had made no misjudgements, and I can think of some which in hindsight I would have done differently. However, the community has mechanisms to review individual admin actions when they happen (e.g. DRV, block reviews), so I would hope that if anyone wants to review the record of any admin that they would do so not in search of infallibility, but to check whether there is an unresolved pattern of errors or an unacceptably high incidence thereof. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• I would please reconsider the desysop of BrownHairedGirl. The proposed remedy of her being prohibited from masking any portal related edits should be enough here. Outside of this one area she makes good arguments and is a net positive in helping others. I think we have all been there when ones personal desire gets in the way of the bigger picture and would have no problem with a desysop if she is disruptive in other areas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Knowledgekid87: I understand where you are coming from but can you also explain why we should accept admins being disruptive in one area if they are not in others? If I stole from Walmart, should I not be prosecuted for it because I didn't steal from Target or Kohl's or any other store? Regards SoWhy 14:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  It is clear from the other proposed punishments that we are not being accepting of a disruptive admin. Losing the ability to edit one topic area is a big deal emotionally and mentally, BHG will now be closely watched in my opinion and has a "history" now. She has proven though that she can edit constructively in other areas and has performed helpful admin actions. I just don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater here... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• @AGK: wrote at There is good reason to think BrownHairedGirl will experience, time after time, the same difficulties that she did in acting correctly in this dispute. Leaving the rights in place would clearly leave a problem unresolved and desysopping is the only appropriate action.

This dispute has been going on for ten about ten months. If AGK's proposition was correct, then the same problems would have arisen elsewhere. But they haven't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Then, BrownHairedGirl, I expect you to establish that this problem is constrained to portals and will never be repeated. That onus is on you. You have said here that "Oh, I have never posed a problem before, so AGK should conclude that I never will again." I cannot get behind that. AGK ■ 16:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@AGK: how could I establish that other than by what I have done already? i.e. a) pointing to the fact that this problem has not occurred before; b) noting during the ~10 months of this dispute it did not occur anywhere else, even tho in that period I was very active elsewhere and performed approximately 500,000 edits; c) that all my evidence and commentary has noted that the issues I encountered in my experience unique in portals place; d) giving the assurances I have already given to accept ArbCom's instructions?

I don't see what else I could do to show to establish that the problem is constrained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• BHG, when a bunch of experienced users determine that you are in the wrong, even if you don't believe them yet, it's a good idea to say something like, "OK, I accept that I have lost perspective on this issue and agree to step away from it for a good long time, and if I ever go back into this area I will be very careful to stop if I get into future conflict, and seek advice." Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am with Knowledgekid87. BHG has +1 million edits and +10 years as an admin – if she was a problematic admin, at this level of productivity, it would have flashed up a long time ago. BHG lost her perspective regarding portals and the outcome was inevitable, however, it should be noted that she did a huge amount of work cleaning up a lot of poor stuff in portal space, which she took on almost single-handedly over months, and perhaps led to her losing said perspective. BHG is an admin who does a high amount of admin actions – for example, it was noted in Finding #9 that: BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals – but that is because closing admins would ask BHG to physically execute the deletion of a completed portal MfD, because it is complicated, time-consuming and messy (and if not done properly, leaves an even greater mess). She did not "close" her portal MfDs. No doubt that if BHG takes nothing from this ArbCom case and continues the form that got her here, then the follow-up case will be swifter and would be a desyop, however, I do think that a "broader view" of BHG's value to the project and past conduct (portals aside), is merited. Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That assumes that people cannot change (for the better or worse). But that is not what life tells us. An admin can perform their tasks without problems for years before snapping one day and doing something stupid (cf. Ricky81682). They might also have been a problem for years without anyone noticing (cf. User:Edgar181). Additionally, and this is admittedly something I have also considered, BHG has given us no reason to assume that she has understood that her approach was problematic at all. Regards SoWhy 18:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes SoWhy, but there are many permutations of behavior. However, I think it harsh to get executed at a first serious offense (and this was serious, no doubt), and to assume the last decade of ultra-high productivity was meaningless because BHG has now changed? One of the great findings of this case (if not the finding), is that INCIVILITY is not acceptable, not only when one thinks they are right, but even if one is right. That should be put in BOLD CAPS on WP:5P4. The risk of BHG's future incivility is an easy risk for ArbCom to manage, as it was so blunt (and easy to detect). However, given BHG's history of good work, I think it is a risk that ArbCom should consider taking, and would show BHG the "humanity" she should have shown NA1K. Britishfinance (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: on your first point, I repeat that the portals dispute has raged for about 10 months, and in that time the problems have not appeared elsewhere. So the notion that I have somehow changed for the worse doesn't really stand up. This was all a product of unique circumstances.

On your second point, with respect, I think that you are missing a crucial nuance. When consensus is reached on a matter, editors are required to uphold that consensus. They are not required to agree with the consensus, and may express that disagreement in appropriate fora (within bounds, not rolling it out at very individual discussion).

My view here is very similar. I continue to believe that the problems which I identified were genuine, and that it was appropriate for the good of Wikipedia to raise those problems. I am concerned that ArbCom does not share my priorities, and am particularly disappointed that raising those evidenced concerns in the course of proceedings is in itself being held against me. I thought that ArbCom was the place where such issues could be aired and considered.

However, I do understand very clearly that ArbCom's role is to each a judgement, that the judgement will stand whether or not I like it, and that I am obliged to uphold it. I understand very clearly that ArCom's decision is that it is not acceptable to accuse an editor of lying even when I see clear evidence that they repeatedly made statements which they must have known to be untrue. I understand that no matter how great the evidence of an editor's sustained incompetence, ArbCom's decision is that it is not acceptable to note that incompetence. In general, I am used to the principle that in matters of speech truth is absolute defence, and that fair comment may be evaluated; but I accept that ArbCom is heading to a finding that wikipedia should adopt something more akin to the parliamentary approach that no matte how self-evident the falsehood, such accusations may never be made.

I understand those and the other decisions, and have repeatedly noted on this page that if they are finalised I will accept and implement them. I will not call other editors liars, and I will not accuse them of incompetence, regardless of what facts I see and verify.

I still do not agree with the decisions, but that sort of disagreement is routine; any experienced editor routinely applies policies and guidelines with which they disagree, but which they do uphold. What matters is conduct and compliance, and I have a long track record of upholding consensus with which I disagree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Mkdw: your post of 21:01, 25 January 2020[23] says the fact that BHG still has yet to acknowledge and recognize the enduring and problematic issues surrounding her conduct.. I had in fact made earlier assurances on that point,[24] but they have been overlooked because they were part of a much longer post. A discussion at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Comments_on_proceedings led to make a standalone statement[25] of those points. I just wanted to check whether you were aware of that statement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed remedies 7.1 Community discussion recommended (II)

If ArbCom wants to recommend questions for the community to address about portals, then please include in the list the central issue of portal content: how, and on what criteria, articles should be selected for inclusion in a portal.

WP:POG was incoherent and somewhat self-contradictory on this point. But if we are going to have portals which showcase content, the choice of content is the central editorial issue. There is currently no guidance on this core point, and my experience of trying discuss this with portal enthusiasts is that they have at best shown little interest in the concept of explicit criteria, and in some cases have expressed strong aversion to criteria. The community should decide whether selection should continue to be predominantly by an unexplained and undiscussed application of personal preference, or whether some set of principles is set out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Xeno: yes, my aim was to promote scrutiny of the quality of portals, initially by using the deletion process to cull those which were on inappropriate topics, very poor state and/or unlikely to be maintained.

Your suggestion of making publication contingent on a consensus-based quality level is in principle a very reasonable proposition to consider, but in practice it seems to me to be unworkable because I see no sign that quality levels will be reasonably assessed.

Portals have long been in a death-spiral, almost unread and largely abandoned by their topical WikiProjects. They have therefore been avoided by most editors, and have become the preserve of a relatively small group of editors who specialise in portals, and who have collectively shown little little inclination and/or aptitude for assessing portal quality. The former WP:Featured portal process almost entirely ignored the central question of the portal's selection of articles, focusing instead on presentation. The usual project-banner assessment process (see Category:Portal pages by class) has only ever tracked a small minority of portals (most are unassessed), and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals/Assessment#PQC is to vague to allow consistent, objective assessment. And the baroque structure of most portals (even single-page portals, but especially) makes them exceptionally hard for anyone to assess without first learning the structure, which understandably few editors do. So while most editors can readily identify a stub article, v few can identify a stub portal.

The same lack of effective scrutiny was visible even in the glare of MFD. Note e.g. MFD:Portal:Transport (where most editors failed to spot that a massive breach of NPOV), or MFD:Portal:Painting (where almost a dozen editors didn't spot that it was drive-by spam).

So while a proposal like that has clear merits in theory, in practice it's unviable unless there is some influx of more critical editors to portalspace.

Note that this problem of lack of capacity was one of the motivators for TTH's pursuit of automation. Unfortunately, his preferred remedy simply turned portals into pages which the community eventually agreed crated no added no value for readers. The problem remains that the community chose two years ago at WP:ENDPORTALS to preserve this ancilliary namespace, without ensuing that in practice the community could devote enough skill and energy to make it viable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No indef?

I take it nobody's getting indeffed today? ミラP 18:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that`s necessary? If yes, why?Lurking shadow (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lurking shadow: BHG has been determined to have engaged in misconduct and is facing a desysop right now. Possible they will consider even worse for her, considering that ArbCom deemed her to have violated an injunction against her. ミラP 02:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This would be extremely excessive under the circumstances. I suggest you not stir the pot like this. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is going to be indeffed, thankfully. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Any punishment here should be punitive, the objective is to have the person learn from their mistakes and give them the benefit of the doubt. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, we are here to solve a dispute and will try to apply remedies that do just that. BHG is a highly-experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedia volunteer and only a small part of her editing career is being scrutinised. Suggesting an indefinite block/ban is baseless and you should regret the remark. AGK ■ 14:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Am I correct in assuming you meant to say should not be punitive? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Future Rfcs on Portals

To be clear. Will the future Rfcs on portals, have deletion calls barred? GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that is within the scope of the committee to say. It would be for those drafting the RfC to determine whether such calls are in or out of scope. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. When it comes to the content side of this issue, all we can do is offer our best advice based on what we saw as the most problematic issues in this area. I personally don't think trying again to delete them all would be a worthwhile endeavor at this time, seeing as that was tried recently and failed, but we can't stop anyone from proposing it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeking deletion of the top 10 Main page linked portals was overreach. 90% were pretty bad, 99% unworthy, but that was poor justification to call for the deletion including the best most high profile and most used portals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Remedy 7/7.1 is just utterly confusing to me. What findings of fact suggest it would be an effective remedy? FoF 2, which currently has a majority in support, says "Recent community proposals have been contentious and have not resulted in a clear consensus about their use." Why does ArbCom think its RfC will find consensus especially in light of proposed principle 9 (also currently with a majority) which states it's not ArbCom's responsibility to solve good faith content disputes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: If other remedies pass, BHG will not be permitted to take part in such discussions (because of the finding she has been disruptive in such discussions). In other situations removing the sole disruptive user has resolved impasses, so it's not impossible it will work here. However, I don't have much faith on this occasion though, as while BHG was the single most voluminous disruptive user she was not the only one who was disruptive (as noted in the workshop, this was a failure of those submitting evidence to bring to light, including me). Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not think there is evidence that BHG is why those multiple RfCs failed to come to consensus. I also am quite sure there are not findings of facts that suggest that BHG's disruption derailed th RfCs even if there is evidence submitted that she did. Beyond that your hypthosis would make more sense if 7 was getting the lion share of support rather than 7.1. So my two questions remain: What findings of fact suggest it would be an effective remedy? Why does ArbCom think its RfC will find consensus especially in light of proposed principle 9 (also currently with a majority) which states it's not ArbCom's responsibility to solve good faith content disputes? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We can't solve the underlying problems with the Portal namespace. It simply isn't within our authority as a committee to even try to do so in any direct manner. All we can do is act to resolve conduct issues. It is entirely possible that the suggested RFC would fail to accomplish anything and there's nothing we can do about that either. But clearly, something's got to give. There currently is no policy at all regarding portals, and that is in part why these problems persist, or at least that's how I see it. Since we can't create policy ourselves,all we can do is suggest that the community try again to find some consensus. It's possible that this case has raised the profile of the issue sufficiently that broader portions of the community will participate in that process and a consensus will at last be found on at least the most basic issues regarding when it is appropriate to have a portal for a given subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think ArbCom have to say something regarding trying to get the community to engage in portals. However, the reality is that over 90% of portals died sometime in circa 2012–2013, after which outside of automated/mass updates like TTH, or even NA1K, nobody has touched them. Some are in a terrible state and don't give a favorable view on Wikipedia to those who click on them. Editors have abandoned them, readers don't read them, and there are lots of cases where the Head Article is indefinitely protected, but the portal needs no such protection as the vandals don't touch it. At MfD we have had the portal originators return and !vote for their deletion, and/or the relevant WikiProject !vote for their deletion.

The entire portal-space is relying on a very small group of editors, who show a residual interest in portals (although it can be specific to certain well-maintained portals). At the useful recent Scotty Wong portal workshop, ideas were pitched to try and address the structural issues of portals to boost engagement, but none seems to catch on. Ultimately, Navboxes and the fact that Head Articles are now much better structured (with links), mean a key "navigation aspect" of portals has gone. All that is left is as a galleria or emporia of FA/GA articles that unfortunately have a random correlation to what is important in the topic area (and WP:FAC and WP:GAN seem to want nothing to do with portals). Britishfinance (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: part of the reason for lack of editor interest in portals recently is because you can put hours and hours of work into a portal only for that to be summarily reverted and/or the entire portal deleted with your efforts (whether they are an improvement or not) completely ignored and your arguments in favour of portals in general and/or a specific portal dismissed out of hand, your competence trashed and your motivations described in terms such as "childish". Why would anyone want to work in an atmosphere like that? Whether that a small part of the issue or a major part of the issue is not knowable, but hopefully with one of the people responsible for that state of affairs removed from the arena things might begin to improve, but it will also depend on the actions of others. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf:, unfortunately, I don’t think that is the case here. BHG’s involvement in portals is recent, and her disruption even more so. There is a finding that Editors have been discouraged from participation in portal discussions, but to those who were in the portal MfDs, BHG’s incivility attracted editors and !votes, against her (and ironically led to a mini-renaissance in portals – which has now gone); most of the editors who were aligned with my views above (which have been a majority per MfD, as the data/evidence is very stark), and who conducted themselves without any incivility, have not really participated in this case (including myself for large parts). Portal-world is a strange place, and many editors who have gone into it (for all manner of intensions), seem to have regretted it. At some intellectual level there should be "portals" in Wikipedia, but what we have in +90% of cases, are not "portals" as a casual reader would understand the term, but something else (i.e. emporia of FA-GA articles). Britishfinance (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf's comments misrepresent two crucial facts, to the point of inverting them:

1. Thryduulf stridently objected to both the speedy deletion of the automated spam portals, and to the mass deletion of similar portals at MFD. Those portals were created by TTH at a rate of up to one per minute, yet Thryduulf demanded a process which would require the community to spend much much more time evaluating each portal than was spent creating it. In most cases, the ratio of effort-expended-in-creation to effort-expended-in-deletion was dozens to one. (One minute for TTH to create the portal, vs the sum of all the time spent by the nominator in identifying and nominating plus the sum of the time spent by editors who commented on the MFD plus the time of the closer). Whatever Thryduulf's intent, the effect of Thryduulf's stance was to stack the system massively against the deletion of a type of page which the community overwhelmingly rejected at the mass MFD.
2. The overwhelming majority of the older portals deleted at MFD had long since been abandoned by their creator; that abandonment was the prime cause of the rot which led to their deletion. The angry denunciations of "deletionists" and the cherrypicking of sentence fragments from the guideline which soured the atmosphere at those debates came not from those who had put any time into them, but from other portal enthusiasts who hoped that years of neglect would somehow be magically reversed. In nearly all cases, vastly more time was put into analysing and MFD-nominating the portals than had been put into maintaining them for years, often for over a decade.

I continue to view as highly disruptive Thryduulf's attempts to create such a high burden on those who worked to clean up the mess. (I cannot know their intent, but their preferred process favoured the disruptor, and the effect was predictably toxic). The avoidable prolongation of the process of cleaning up the spam was a significant factor in turning a broad disagreement into what became a bitter dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

BHG, you have made this accusation time and time again, I fully explained my intent the first half dozen times at least refuting your bad faith accusations and assumptions (for example I never objected to the concept of speedy deleting portals, I objected to the criterion that was proposed as it was massively overbroad. I objected to mass MFDs where portals of massively different quality, activeness and broadness of topic were lumped together such that it was impossible to even verify whether the nomination statement was even relevant to all the nominated pages, let alone anything more in depth than that). After that I simply referenced my previous explanations, and then simply gave up as you clearly were not listening to anything that didn't fit your preferred narrative. You had plenty of opportunity to present evidence about me in the evidence phase of this case and the arbitrators have looked hard at many of the discussions you reference. Yet there is no mention of anything about my actions in the workshop or proposed decision. Despite all this, and despite all the findings against you, you are still not letting go that somehow there was this big conspiracy against you? This is doing nothing but proving my point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is not the place to have/relive such discussions. BHG is out of portal-world now (regardless of the final outcome), lets leave it at that. Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: yes, you have previously replied. However, the fact remains that the consequence of your objections was to create a massive burden on those doing the cleanup, requiring several orders of magnitude more work to delete them than was taken in their creation. The fact remains that when I identified a large set of automated portals which fitted a particularly extreme set of criteria (created by TTH after a cut-off date, using only a singe navbox as their source) and published all the tools used to identify them and offered help to anyone who wanted to verify my checks, you objected to that too. Far from impossible to even verify whether the nomination statement was even relevant to all the nominated pages the tools were all there to enable that check, and sample-checking could be done without tools. And the overwhelming consensus was against you. You clearly were not listening to anything that didn't fit your preferred narrative.

And no, I didn't address this in evidence, because a) the saga ran for so long that producing evidence on it all would have taken several weeks of full-time work by me, and b) evidence is size-limited. But the facts still stand, and neither you nor anyone else has identified a single false positive in the ~2,600 portals which were deleted at the two mass MFDs.

The community does not have infinite resources. Your failure to balance effort-in-creation vs effort-in-deletion had the effect of placing a disproportionate burden on the cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And I have also repeatedly explained to you exactly why it is more important to get cleanup right than to do it quickly and/or easily. You didn't listen any of those times and so I decline to waste my breath here. Regarding the false positives - it is incredibly difficult and time consuming to review deleted pages (and it is something only admins can do) and not many admins remained unburned out by your (and others) actions and they chose to prevent deletions of portals that shouldn't be deleted rather than expend effort on ones that already had been. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And I have also repeatedly explained to you exactly why it was not important to spend ages micro-scrutinising pages which were auto-created in a single click by a script, each of which could literally have been re-created in seconds if they added any value, which they didn't. But you preferred a process which would burn out those clearing the spam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, could we add into the list of RFCs, whether portals should follow their own Manual of Style? One of the issues constantly raised with portals is that while a minority can look well, a majority follow no discernible format/structure/scheme. An unkept portal that has been abandoned for a decade (and showing odd articles), with a luminous colour scheme (we see many at MfD), does not reflect well on the project, and not something we would allow in article-space? Given some of these abandoned portals can have thousands of article links, we should consider this? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Britishfinance: The committee's list is a recommended minimal set of questions, there is no restriction on what others may be proposed to be asked. Personally though I'd prefer to get agreement on the fundamentals of purpose and scope of portals and then consider secondary things like style only after that (especially as what is and is not a good layout will depend on what the purpose and scope are agreed to be). Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay @Thryduulf:, I did not know that. I did not participate in the main portal RFCs, but while the community did not !vote to end portals, there was a lot of unhappiness with portals in general (and explicit !votes from senior voices that they would resist any form of guidelines for portals on a fear that it would only legitimize them). I think if portals had higher standards, and the wider community could see a commitment by portal editors to do this (like a portal MOS), then they might be more inclined to support them? Britishfinance (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick note

As for me, the reason for my hiatus on portal editing (as per FoF #10) was to let this case run its course, though I don't know if it's the same for others. ToThAc (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Indefinite hiatus on portal program development?    — The Transhumanist   14:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello @The Transhumanist:, are you the fellow TTH, that I've been reading about on this talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Recently this case affected a {{portal}} on a BLP, and I was surprised (on another BLP in 2019) by the deletion of the YouTube portal, counting it as good riddance for a zombie project. –84.46.52.79 (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This case has not affected either portal. Portal:YouTube was deleted via an MfD in May 2019, long before this ArbCom case was brought. Your first example, the removal of Portal:Feminism from Krystal Ball, again had nothing to do with this case. It followed a talk page discussion concerning whether Ball was sufficiently prominent as a feminist to merit the inclusion of the portal on the article page. Some were also arguing for removing WikiProject Feminism from the talk page banners. Portal:Politics remains at the foot of the Krystal Ball article. Voceditenore (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No misconduct by Northamerica1000

Negative assertions are easily disproved by one counter example. I would reframe this finding as a positive assertion: We found no misconduct by Northamerica1000. We looked carefully (detail what you looked at) and found nothing wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - I changed the header to No compelling evidence presented of misconduct by Northamerica1000 better reflect the text. –xeno^talk 15:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As an observer of the dispute I had a difficult time understanding (at quick glance) who was in the wrong. This finding is useful because it clarifies that Northamerica1000's editing was investigated thoroughly and no systemic problems were uncovered. Thank you for all your work to resolve this question. Jehochman ^Talk 16:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the biggest finding by ArbCom (I can't find the exact diff), is that INCIVILITY, is wrong, not just when you think you are right, BUT, even if you are actually right. That is why some of BHG's responses to these emerging findings are still missing the point (and where she went so wrong with NA1K, who is well known for their civility). However, we have seen others use this logic to justify incivility at other fora in Wikipedia. This finding, properly formatted, should be put in BOLD CAPS, in WP:5P4. It is the single most important finding of this case, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As a community we will have to review many portals to see if we should be reinstating "Northamerica1000" good faith additions that were reverted.....or should they simply be reinstated as per the findings here? This point was not covered here directly but its finding would lead most to assume the committee saw nothing really wrong with the additions by Northamerica1000. I ask because we have many portals in a state of disrepair because of the reverts that has left empty redlinked boxes (i.e Portal:Switzerland) or trasncluding pages marked historical (i.e Portal:Lebanon).--Moxy 🍁 15:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should restore NA1K’s edits now. BHG should assume she has left the portal space now (for her own sanity, and the general sanity of all). My issues with portals are not specific to NA1K’s edits, but the general state of the portal-space, and/or looking at specific portals brought to MfD. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I predict: Auto-restoration of NA1K's mass portal edits if done without regards to the recommended RfC, will induce a backlash. The violated policy is WP:MEATBOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Too late. It's all done. [26]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I see some reverts have already started. Let's make sure the reverted version is a viable copy. Because of my perceived involvement ...I will let others revert but will try to correct any technical issues with the North100 version.--Moxy 🍁 01:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There should be no reverts carried out. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Best go very slowly. You are correct the wording should be good faith additions "reinstated". This has to be done with extreme caution....and perhaps should involve more then just reinstatement. Meaning more work should be involved.... such as fixing the so-called black-box problem by making sure full list of selected articles are visible to our readers and editors ( perhaps in some page). Brown had valid points that should be considered before just reinstate edits willy-nilly.--Moxy 🍁 02:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's the BHG is defeated. Let's reclaim the territory feel to it, that looks bad. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree ...again this should be done with care and very cautiously..... hopefully by multiple editors expert in those fields that the portals cover.--Moxy 🍁 02:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the 31 reverts[27] by BusterD mean that all of the reverts I made have been undone. BusterD's edit summaries give no indication that they made any checks at all of the quality of what they were restoring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The sudden restoration (if that's what it's called) comes across as poor taste. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI (to all), I have posted to user talk:BusterD and asked that no further reverts be made unless there is a consensus broadly supported by the community. EdChem (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus sought, is best. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think not rushing to restore all NA1K's improvements might be the thing to do. It's going to be near impossible to achieve without causing anger & distress. There's more than enough emotional violence playing out in the world right now.

Granted, IMO at least, policy is about 80% on the side of the pro Portal editors, & justice nearly 100%. But you guys didn't win this case due to Justice. There is no justice in this world. You won for 3 reasons. 1) Your own strongly presented arguments. 2) An exceptional set of Arbs who had the courage to make a PD that reflects the evidence, not what will be socially least unpopular. 3) Because most of the influential centrist editors taking an interest in this either kept Silent in the crucial Evidence phase, or intervened moderately on your side (e.g. BD2142). Im not sure the latter two would be on your side if there was a big pro portal push after this case closes. More likely, that would just continue the cycle of conflict. (I.e anti portalists disturb the status quo with WP:ENDPORTALS but find a clear majority against them. Then it's the pro portal side who decisively lost a community discussion after pushing to hard. Leading to over forcefulness by the anti portal crew that cumulated in this case.) If the pro portal side chose to break the cycle by being gracious in victory, that would be a big win for one of best values of Wikipedia, something shared by many on both sides of the Inc/Del divide. The spirit of peaceful collaboration. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: talking in terms of winning and losing, and of presenting this case as a battle in a larger conflict is really, really unhelpful - indeed its that kind of attitude that got us to this point in the first place. There is no single "pro-portals" ideology, there is a whole range of opinions on what makes a portal good or bad, and what the aims of them should be. Similarly there are editors described as "Anti-portals" who are no such thing. There is no binary "all portals" vs "no portals" or even anything close to that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Thryduulf. That's your opinion, and it's one still shared by quite a few in academia. You'll find that those on the cutting edge of real world conflict resolution take the opposite view (I'm familiar with a few of them per my decades of interest in such matters, e.g. my creation almost 10 years back of this article that discusses breaking the cycle of conflict. ) Without wishing to straw man your position, the smart thinking's is that it's the naive assertion that conflict can be banished from political and social life that's responsible for much of the intensity of our current Age of Anger. You might like this article. Pretending there's no conflict when there blatantly is, results in much unnecessary strife. What matters is treating everyone with respect, including opponents. This was a jolly good show by ToThAC & co, they presented their side quite skilfully. Doesn't change the outcome. Ps , just as minor thing, but you got my name wrong in your edit summary. It's Feyd. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the message was that conflict should be ignored. Personally, I don't think using sporting ("you won") and entertainment metaphors ("good show") is helpful to show respect towards those who are not pleased with the outcome. isaacl (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, you (FeydHuxtable) have misunderstood completely what I was saying. The conflict should not be ignored, but neither should it be stoked by applying polarising terms to something that is not about winning or losing. This is not a sports match where there is a binary outcome of one side won and one side lost - Wikipedia is a collaborative project and opinions regarding the topic area are very significantly more nuanced than simply "pro" and "anti". Apologies for the getting your name wrong - I often misread "Feyd" as "Fred" and so it was either an incomplete correction of that or a simple typo. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@isaacl & Thryduulf, you might be amused if you search this page for the word 'arena'. I at least half agree with what you guys are saying, & yes my earlier post lacked a little nuance, & risked being provocative to some. And the central (& non objectionable) part had already been said & reinforced by folk like Thryduulf, GoodDay & EdChem. I still think I did the right thing by posting, as some messages warrent being communicated in multiple styles. If you want to discuss more, come to my talk, as don't want to clog this page with too much philosophy. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that we create new portals. Indeed, there is still a ban on mass creations. However, we do need a way forward, and that requires addressing several issues. This may not be the best forum for discussing details but I'll briefly list the main points:

1. New guidelines. ArbCom's recommendations seem to be universally accepted and User:Scottywong was already making good progress when everything halted for this case. Let's get back on track.
2. MfDs. In 2019, Portal: was unique in systematically subjecting the majority of its pages to MfD. We need consensus on whether to resume that process, or to adopt the practice of every other namespace that XfD is an exceptional event for a few pages which suffer from unfixable problems not shared by their peers. If there is consensus to continue routinely deleting typical portals then the other points here are clearly moot. There is no point in improving pages which are about to be deleted; that time is better spent either contributing to the MfDs or doing something outside the project.
3. NA1K's changes. Many but not all of the changes have now been reinstated, and in many cases further improvements have already been made. We need consensus on whether to reinstate the remaining changes automatically, to assess them individually, or to agree that replacing stale content forks is for some reason no longer a good idea.

I'm sure other contributors to this page will have their own views but, with this process about to close, we should take further discussion to WikiProject Portals or elsewhere. Certes (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete sig

@Newyorkbrad: (or @ any of the clerks): at the end of this edit by Newyorkbrad only an incomplete signature was generated, that is, the date without naming the editor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Over the next 6 months

Though I've mostly ignored portals (five edits in the area, over 14 years), it does concern me that once the injunction expires (with this case) & BHG is barred from portals, there might be another explosion of creation/re-creation of portals. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You can MfD an entire set of portals if they do not adhere to policy. You don't need to deal with them one by one. Also, when somebody creates a mass of disputed edits to achieve fait accompli, that's often viewed negatively and can lead to sanctions if the behavior is persistent. As a first step, when you see something like this happening, you can ask the editor to stop what they are doing and discuss it before they proceed. Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, probably not so, Jehochman.

In this case, MFDing lots of portals is a proposed finding of fault. And despite repeatedly challenging NAIK's faitaccomplis at numerous XFD discussions and unsuccessfully attempting to engage dialogue, my subsequent application of WP:BRD is also being cited as evidence of sanctionable misconduct.

So if you want to stay out of trouble, GoodDay, look away from this morass. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

BHG, please don't dispense advice in this area. You should just walk away. Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

When these proceedings are over, I will indeed walk. Meanwhile please note that in the early days of portals MFDs, there were many nominations of sets of portals, many of which failed because some editors argued that the portals raised different issues, so needed to be considered separately. There was often a huge amount of discussion in those group nominations, which was kinda wasted because they resulted in no consensus (I count a consensus of any sort as a successful discussion). That's why portal nominators shifted to making individual MFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Jehochman's advice to you BHG – whatever the ArbCom outcome, leave portals. As you know anyway, the vast majority (but not all), of portal-space is collapsing of its own accord because it has been superseded by other options in Wikipedia (e.g. Navboxes, Head Articles etc.), and hasn't had a proper edit (or a maintainer) for +8 years. We looked to explore ways to address these structural issues at the recent portals workshop and reposition portals, but for various reasons, I don't think anybody is really up for it.

I could see it was taking a huge amount out of you working on portal-space (most others would have abandoned it earlier), and it ultimately brought you to the wrong place (and esp. with NA1K), both for your own enjoyment of Wikipedia, but equally importantly, for the enjoyment of others (including those on both sides of the portal debate). You are a fantastic editor and have been - issues of this ArbCom case aside - a huge asset to Wikipedia; go and find something else worthy of those talents. Britishfinance (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there was another user who mass-created portals, most of which have now been deleted. We are not addressing their behavior directly here for one very good reason: once it was made abundantly clear to them that that what they were doing was not acceptable they stopped doing it and walked away from the portal conflict, well before this got to the point where intervention by the committee was needed. When to walk away is a hard lesson to learn (and one I've failed at a number of times myself) but recognizing it could have prevented this entire case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

+1, which is the core point - accepting we might be wrong, even when we think we are right, is a core requirement of life in Wikipedia. Britishfinance (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, yes, TTH did walk away. But they did nothing to clean up after themselves.

That left behind an almighty mess of about 4,200 spam portals for others to clean up. And that cleanup process was turned into a nightmare slog by the actions of a small set of portal fans who gamed the system by demanding individual scrutiny of each one of the 4,200, and who vented fury at WT:WPPORT and at MFDs about the deletions which followed. Note that admin Thryduulf was one of those who repeatedly demanded individual scrutiny.

The result was that those scrutinising and MFDing the spam portals had to walk through fire for weeks on end clearing the spam. Even the two successful mass nominations which made cleared out only 2,600 of the 4,200, leaving 1,600 spam portals to be processed at other MFDs. Because of the varied nature of the spam, its identification and removal continued for months and still isn't finished: MFD:Portal:Painting is the most recent of those spam portals to come to MFD, in November, which is 7 months after the spam portals began to be discussed at AN.

It remains very sad that the arbitrators appear to have paid no attention to the way in which this created the uniquely conflictual situation which persisted. The proposed findings of fact do not acknowledge the destructive effect caused by this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A couple of years ago we had an incident you may recall of an administrator literally creating thousands and thousands of redirects, ranging from weird and not helpful to obscene and/or extremely inappropriate. It was a similar sort of mess, and the admin responsible also walked away, quitting as an admin and retiring from the project, leaving the rest of us to clean it up. I worked on this for months myself, but the overall effort took something like two years and at one point we had a temporary speedy deletion criterion just for these redirects. At times people found all these speedies problematic, and so we also had to go through MFD for at least several hundred of them. It was similarly exasperating to what you've been working on with portals. And so I quit doing it for a period of several months. One day I saw a notice that it was finally almost done. Somehow, they had done it without me, and the world hadn't ended or anything! Because I was able to accept the fact that parts of Wikipedia suck and making them not suck can sometimes be very difficult, unrewarding work where you keep arguing the same points over and over, sometimes with the same people, I didn't have a giant burnout or meltdown and didn't begin personally attacking the people on the "other side" of those MFDs. Now I can look back on that as something I helped with for a while, including a couple thousand admin actions, and it isn't a bitter memory littered with walls of text full of personal attacks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That's all sound advice for self-preservation, @Beeblebrox. And for my own self-preservation, I intend to follow it in future.

However, I really do think that as a community we need to reflect long and hard on why our community processes are such that as you say, making them not suck can sometimes be very difficult.

Those processes have evolved to a point where it is not uncommon for those who created a huge mess to walk away with no more than informal rebuke, while those who do the clean-up face at best a long tedious, bruising slog ... and at worst facing sanctions for flaws in how they shovelled the manure.

We have a clear example in this very case. TTH created thousands of spam portals, shouted down the many objections until it all exploded into a shitstorm at WP:AN, did nothing to assist in the cleanup, and has walked away without so much as a formal rebuke ... while the editor who put thousands of hours (no exaggeration) into that cleanup faces severe sanctions.

I want to ask you to please leave aside for a moment your undoubtedly correct advice (echoed by others) that I should have protected my personal self-interest by walking away, which i will do. Please look at it from the perspective of the core principle that we are here to build an encyclopedia; please set aside all the individuals and personalities involved and look at this from a systemic basis. It seems to me to be clear sign of a very deep systemic flaw in our processes that we have made it so much safer and less arduous for any editor to create a mess than to resolve it. Whether debating with defenders of the mess, or noting repeated misrepresentations of guidelines, or lending clerical assistance to those who weigh consensus, or even in making and writing sufficiently analysis of the problems which are then denounced as "walls of text", anyone trying to do the cleanup faces a structural problem that the system is ready to come down hard on any failings by those who do the cleanup. The unintended result is a strong systemic bias against cleanup.

The system is working hard against our strategic mission, leading you to observe rightly that self-preservation here requires acceptance that parts of Wikipedia suck. It seems to me that this is a system stacked against our mission, and that the strict interpretation approach explicitly advocated by some arbs exacerbates that systemic flaw. (See my longer comment on this at #BHGstrictinterpretationcomment, and the numerous comments by other experienced editors at #9_BrownHairedGirl_has_used_administrator_tools_to_delete_portals )

So while I repeat my commitment to abide by ArbCom's rulings, I do see a severely malfunctioning system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

In the real world, it's difficult to build & easy to dismantle. But on Wikipedia, it's the opposite. Thus my suggestion that Arbcom place some form of restraint on the # of creations/re-creations of portals. Another spam event, must be avoided. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

A blanket ban of a certain kind of edit effective against all editors is outside ArbCom's remit. The if, how and why of portal creation is a content question and thus needs to be decided by the community. Regards SoWhy 18:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: your observation above that TTH has walked away from the portal conflict was accurate when you wrote it, but is now outdated. TTH is back, claiming vindication.[28]. The failure to include TTH in these proceedings appears to be taken by them as a green light. I will have no further involvement with portals, but those who remain involved will face interesting times in dealing with this re-entry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I've no plans for mass MfDs or mass creations/re-creations. Just hoping 'at least' some kinda restriction will be put in place, to limit (say per year) the creation/re-creation of portals. Such a restriction would lesson the chances of frustration from both sides. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: (and others): note that the consensus against any mass creations, established at Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals)/Archive 157#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals, is still in place. A change to that consensus would be a prerequisite to any future mass creations. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that consensus will continue to be respected, after this Arbcom case has concluded. BHG's removal from the Portals topic, must not be seen as 'green light' to spam. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

FOF#7 BrownHairedGirl was blocked for personal attacks

Wasn't this block almost immediately unblocked as being wrong by JBW, one of the most experienced admins on Wikipedia? As per FOF #9 (discussed above, under BHG comments, where her help to closing admins has been turned against her as a FOF), this looks like another event being "repackaged" as an important FOF for a verdict? Don't get me wrong, there was real incivility here, but ArbCom should deliver their verdict on actual real FOFs – not events "repackaged" as violations? I am sure ArbCom does not want to give that impression. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that there is disagreement among the arbitrators as to how much significance, if any, should be attached to that block and my subsequent unblocking. I do not wish to get into arguments about that, but since Britishfinance has called my attention to the fact that it is being discussed, I should like to put on record the fact that afterwards I was unsure whether my unblock was good, and I came to believe that at the least I was mistaken in unblocking without first consulting the blocking administrator. JBW (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, post NYB's updated !vote under FOF#7, the "abstains" should now be 1 (not 2), and I think brings it below the majority? thanks. 17:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies 4 and 5

Per User:Xeno: If both Proposed Remedies 4 and 5 are carried (and I suspect once second choices have been cleared up and everyone has voted, this will be the case) then Remedy 5 becomes an empty warning. It's not much use warning someone that food is hot after they have already taken a bite and experienced this and the related consequences firsthand, and the same is true of warning someone they will be desysoped when this has already happened. Tantusar (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got this wrong, but I believe what we do in that case is to mark the remedy as passed but moot. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If both have majorities, then both pass --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, given they have all !voted, is that result now set, and is this concluded? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: An arb needs to start a motion to close. Once it has hit next 4, the case will be closed in 24 hours --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, thank you for that, much appreciated. Britishfinance (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by BHG

I have reflected on proceedings so far, and want to say:

1. I now regret not supporting the request for a portals case back in about March 2018. Earlier intervention by ArbCom could have established less conflictual methods of resolving the mess left by the mass creation of automated portals, and created a better climate for examination of the rest.
2. Regardless of the outcome of this arbitration process, I commit to no further involvement with portals, in any form. My views on the structural problems with portal space have not changed, but is abundantly clear that my further involvement would serve no beneficial purpose.
3. Consequent to the above, I will ask that BAG withdraw its approval for WP:BRFA/BHGbot 4.
4. I will henceforth follow the principle of rigorously avoiding unparliamentary language. In particular, I will not call other editors liars, and I will not accuse them of incompetence, regardless of what facts I see and verify. I remain concerned that the community lacks effective and accessible mechanisms for dealing with such conduct, but I unreservedly commit to abide by the letter and spirit of what the Arbs guide.
5. I accept that in future, an apparent WP:FAITACCOMPLI should not be addressed by unilateral application of WP:BRD. That was not my understanding of the relevant policies, but I stand corrected.
6. I remain saddened by the proposed finding BrownHairedGirl_has_used_administrator_tools_to_delete_portals. I have been unable identify any allegation by the Arbs of misconduct in my making of MFD nominations, so I have no idea why that is included under this heading. I have been assured that there is no suggestion that I used admin tools to further my views. I accept unreservedly the Arbs recommendation to take in future a strict view of WP:INVOLVED. However, I feel that it is unjust that I am apparently condemned for my good faith use of admin tools for purely clerical purposes to implement decisions made by others, assisting in cleanup in the context of a deepening shortage of admins within what I believed was the broadly accepted interpretation of INVOLVED.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to BAG made here[29] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC).

• Good to hear. The impending desysop of BHG is a sad thing. I think BHG has done more good, does more good, for the project, than the entire impact of the sideshow of Portals. Except for the toxic effects of the “unparliamentary language”. The toxic effects of the disruption of the collegial atmosphere of the community of editors demanded this response. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  There's no "impending desysop" yet; instead there is a tangled web of 2nd-choice votes currently resulting in an admonishment but capable of swinging in either direction. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  My 2¢, desysop here would be killing a fly with a sledgehammer. Desysop as a first sanction should be reserved for the most egregious cases; and this one didn't even involve abuse of tools. There are other options on the table that should be tried first before the nuclear one. – Levivich 02:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  Desysop would be quite a strong statement in support of civility. With an apology, and the statement above, I would expect a successful new RfA. The nuclear option would be a ban, quick a big difference to a desysop with a fresh RfA allowed at any time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  I would not be so sanguine about how a new RfA would turn out. Part and parcel of being an administrator is settling disputes, which invariably leads to occasions where one party to the dispute feels wronged, and would gladly exact revenge where the opportunity arises. BD2412 T 05:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  You mean, at RfA, out of the woodwork will come many editors sore about a past experience with BHG, and they will fling it bad. Yes, RfA invites broad criticism, more so than this exercise. It could be cathartic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  I thought her post of 23:02, 24 January 2020, was a very positive sign. Stepping back from unparliamentary language would be the most important thing she could do. We both advised her to do this on her talk page, using other words, months ago. In the evidence phase, she failed to establish proof of lying or gaming by NA1K, which would have been the main excuse for the uncivil allegations, and I thought here she was now stepping back from that. The proper parliamentary procedure in front of her was to withdraw the past unparliamentary language. And apologise. However, later posts here show that useful progress has not been made. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• BD2412, a regular closer at XfD, has just made a helpful contribution re point 6. above in the #9 BrownHairedGirl has used administrator tools to delete portals section. I think FOF #9 (and FOF #7) are straining the integrity of the process, and seem to “reach” for additional violations, that are not really there. The incivility is, no doubt, and in quantity. Britishfinance (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would add one other thing. The committee seems to downplay the utility of admonishment (as opposed to desysopping) on the grounds that BHG has previously been admonished. However, admonishment by ARBCOM is a separate category of thing, and should not be summarily dismissed in favor of harsher sanctions. BD2412 T 03:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    • If an editor has an incurable pattern of being grossly uncivil (as BHG was, although no other history outside portals), then desyoping is not going to address it, and the real question is an indef. If BHG ignored the feedback of this case and continued the behaviour she showed to NA1K to another editor, then she would - rightly - face an indef. FOF #9 (and FOF #7), give a misleading impression of a desire to lean this case to a deysop, which doesn’t feel fair (or logically correct in addressing the issue at hand - which is a serious one). Britishfinance (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: Your statement in this section materially changed the situation and the commitments you made in it were significant. I wanted to let you know that I spent over a day considering your statement and whether I should change my vote to desysop. The issue has actually been following my thoughts in real life this weekend. Having considered the issue, I have decided to still support the same set of remedies. But your statement was listened to (by me, and I know all my colleagues have read it too) and posting it was not wasted. Thank you. AGK ■ 12:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that assurance that it was duly considered, AGK. I remain very disappointed that you regard it as insufficient, but there we are. If you have time, I would welcome an explanation of why it seems insufficient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • AGK, this kind of comment to explain your reasoning and what information you considered is very helpful, thank you. I note that it's still not clear to me why you wouldn't change your vote on FoF 9 given what said above by BD2412 (and others) and below by Jo-Jo Eumerus, and referenced in the arb discussion as well. A desysop for civility, conduct etc. is one thing; a desysop coming with a hint that the committee thinks there was an abuse of tools and a violation of WP:INVOLVED hsa quite different and wide-ranging consequences beyond the single case and the entire saga on portals. Nemo 18:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

desysopped - compromise proposal

Hi. Haven't commented in this, but I noticed it looks like BHG will be desysopped. Given the discussions above, and some of the comments by arbs at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision#BrownHairedGirl desysopped, can I suggest allowing BHG to reapply for adminship via RfA or via request to the committee? Once the committee feels that BHG has learned the lesson or otherwise appears suitable for adminship, it can be restored.

While this hasn't been done much recently, there is substantial precedent. A quick search revealed:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb#Henrygb desysopped
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek#Darwinek desysopped
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Geni desysopped
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand#Betacommand desysopped
• Special:Permalink/226543619#Motion: Desysopping of User:Can.27t sleep.2C clown will eat me
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#FeloniousMonk desysopped
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango#Tango desysopped
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#A Man In Black desysopped
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2#William M. Connolley desysopped
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Arbitration motion regarding User:Coffee
• Special:Permalink/349940199#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement

This could also be a temporary desysop (done before, precedent available), or some other measure that isn't as permanent.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

As you've noted, all of these are quite old. The current consensus is that the committee is is empowered only to remove admins, not to grant adminship. You'd need to convince the community to reconsider that consensus before the committee could even consider doing this. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Admins are only empowered to act when they have the trust of the community that they will act only in accordance with policies and guidelines and behave in a manner consistent with community expectations. The point of RFA is to determine whether an editor has or does not have that trust. The arbitration committee can remove adminship when the evidence shows that an admin has not acted appropriately for some reason and it is either clear they no longer have the community's trust (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama) or it is sufficiently unclear whether they do or do not (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram). The committee though cannot judge whether someone has regained that trust, that is something only the community can do. RFA is very far from perfect, but it's the only mechanism we currently have. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It is common for admins who lost adminship at ArcCom to re-apply for it at another RfA, and if so, what is their success rate? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of one that passed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I can. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guerillero, Pppery – I think the conclusion is that it doesn't really happen in the "modern era" :( Britishfinance (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That was just one example off the top of my head; the fact that I can't think of any more recent ones (unless Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2 counts) does not mean they do not exist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Although the most recent one I can find (according to Wikipedia:List of resysopped users) is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 4. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery and Britishfinance: I had a good long look at various pages and the best I can say is that at least 10 people have run for RFA after being desysoped, and at least 5 of them were successful. I suspect these figures are both too low though. See User:Thryduulf/What happend after a desysop for more detail. It is worth noting that arbcom handled very many more cases in the early days than it does today, and so most of the desysoppings, resysoppings and re-RFAs were also many years ago. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

None in the current era, to my recollection. –xeno^talk 19:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Thryduulf and Xeno, very interesting (and great analysis to have done Thryduulf). I guess the takeaway (per Xeno), is that it hasn't really happened in the last decade? It would suggest that when ArbCom does desyop an admin, it is effectively permanent? Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just looked at RFAs since 2015. Since then there have only been 3 people run for RFA after being desysopped by Arbcom, all have been unsuccessful: Rich Farmbrough (2015), Hawkeye7 (2016, 2019) and Fram (2019). Rich Farmbrough and Hawkeye have both been found (by the community and/or arbcom) to have engaged in further disruptive and/or other unwanted behaviour since their desysopping, Fram ran immediately after the conclusion of the case (and his was not strictly an arbcom deysop, but arbcom choosing not to reverse a Foundation action, which complicates things) when emotions were still very high. Without knowing why those who were desysopped but chose not to run for RFA made that decision (in some cases arbcom specify a time limit before which someone may not run for RFA, I think this has expired for everyone it applies/applied to. There may still be some users who need to ask the committee for permission to re-run, but as that remedy has not been used for many years I can't imagine that permission not being granted on request), there is just too little data to say that it is or is not effectively permanent. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

In terms of raw numbers, some of the remedies passed in the early days of the committee (up to around 2006-2007) were things like suspending admin rights for a week or even just 2 days - recorded in the stats as a desysop and resysop but nothing like what we would consider that to mean in the present day. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, so no admin who was desyopped by ArbCom has ever passed another RfA since circa 2010? The impression I get from your commentary above is that while pre-2010 deysops could be handed out with a "lower bar", post-2010 deysopping is more serious, and the ex-admins never recover? thanks 20:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

When you say While pre-2010 deysops could be handed out with a "lower bar", that's generally true for cases before circa 2008-10 when the Committee routinely handled issues at a far earlier stage than they do now, but there was no sharp cut-off but a gradual change in approach. The rest of your comment is not really correct. Firstly I only looked at RFAs in 2015 and later, so I presented no data for years earlier than that, and with only 3 data points the data is far too limited to draw conclusions from (the plural of anecdote is not data)- especially as one of the desysoppings was less than 6 months ago so far too recent to draw any long-term conclusions about (even the successful RFAs from the past tended to happen between a few months and a few years after the desysopping, Fram's re-RFA started less than a week after the case closed). The other two admins who ran for RFA were both involved in further disputes after their desysopping - Rich Farmbrough would not pass an RFA today even if he hadn't been desysopped previously, and Hawkeye7's most recent RFA failed at least partly on matters unrelated to why he was desysopped previously). You are also implying that a desysopped admin can only recover if they regain the admin bit - some choose to become productive editors in good standing in other areas and simply choose not to return to admin-type work. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Thryduulf, I thought that the User:Thryduulf/What happend after a desysop covered both periods - maybe I misread? Am I wrong to say that it still seems like a pretty rare event post 2010 for a deysoped admin to return to an admin? It might be a question worth fully answering for another time if the data is available?

There are admins that if deysoped, might not be that impactful to the project and their intensity of admin actions are mild and/or less important. I think BHG's case, the intensity of her admin actions are quite high, and in specific areas (e.g. categories), she is one of the most dominant admins (if not the most dominant). Such a pity she got involved in portals – it seems to have produced unhappy outcomes for so many others (even on both sides). Britishfinance (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The subpage covers all resysops since ~2006 but is based on explicitly incomplete data. For my subsequent comment I looked at the list of RFAs in each year since 2015 (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year) and looked at every RFA that was a second or greater to determine if the candidate had previously been desysopped by arbcom (most were not). Yes some admins are more active than others but nobody is irreplaceable (and I explicitly include myself in that statement). It's been a while since I paid attention to CfD, but from what I recall most of what BHG was doing there was work that didn't require admin tools - nominating and discussing categories for deletion and merger, which will not be affected by a desysop - and she will still be able to perform non-admin closures of discussions she is not involved with (and which do not relate to portals). I've been around Wikipedia for 15 years and over that time I've seen numerous claims that X area cannot survive without user:Example, and on exactly none of those occasions has that come to pass - e.g. it was claimed that without user:RickK Wikipedia would be flooded with vandalism yet there are users who've been here years that will never have even heard of them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Does an editor have to be held to a higher standard, because the editor is an administrator?

Does an editor have to be held to a higher standard, because the editor is an administrator? If BHG used administrative powers to strengthen BHG position on content issues, that would be a problem. However, if BHG did not use such powers & merely participated in the portals dispute an a non-administrator? then removal of these powers would appear as over-reaction. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is why FOF #9 has become central to this RfA (see the !vote of DGG), even though it is clearly a mistake by ArbCom on how portals are deleted (per myself/BD2412/Jo-Jo Emerius above). There was no misuse of tools here. There was gross uncivility by BHG to NA1K in the portal-world, but not elsewhere, or historically. If an editor is persistently uncivil then only an indef will solve things (as has been done in other well-known cases), not a desyop. A deysop is really more punitive, and given the above statistic from Guerillero/Ppperty, is really permanent. Britishfinance (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, BHG did not threaten blocks to any editors who disagreed with BHG, concerning portals dispute. Therefore, removing BHG's administratorship would appear unwarranted, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

FOF#9 says that BHG's deletion of the larger network of portal sub-pages, after MfDs that were closed as "delete" by an UNINVOLVED admin (and when she was usually either asked by the closing admin to do it/or explicitly told the closing admin she would do it for them), was INVOLVED, and thus is being quoted as a "technical" abuse of tools further supporting a desyop; which is not right, and should have been rejected like FOF#7. Nobody, ArbCom included, believes that she threatened to abuse the blocking tool in portals. Britishfinance (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Generally speaking, WP:ADMINCOND says admins are "expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" and "should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors". Requiring the misuse of tools prior to considering a desysop would logically mean that admins who misbehave in other ways could not be desysopped despite no longer following the standards set out in the policy. There is no precedent or policy-based reason for that. On the contrary, it's long established that desysop can be a remedy for admins breaching policies without misusing the specific admin toolset (DannyS712's first example, Henrygb, was a desysop for something not related to tool use, i.e. socking). Regards SoWhy 18:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SoWhy, has an admin been deysopped as a first case on incivility? I am sure there are admins/editors indeffed for serial cases of incivility (which makes sense), but does it happen as a first case? I think socking is considered far more serious and I would expect any case of socking by an admin to be an automatic deysop? Also, don't you think that FOF#9 should be re-looked at? Whatever outcome is finally decided here, I think that FOF#9 reduces the integrity of that finding as it is just wrong as an FOF that is relevant to a verdict? thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It is worth noting that in the workshop there was analysis that showed BHG's style of incivility and personal attacks (not just directed at NA1K but at most editors she disagreed with) was being used as an example and copied by at least one relatively new user. Admins leading by example is not just theoretical. Incivility is something that the community have repeatedly asked admins and the committee to take a harder line on - there have been previous cases where it was treated far too leniently. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I also think the use of the term "first case" in this context isn't accurate, as it implies this arbcom case is the first time any of this was brought up. It wasn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. It has been well over a decade since the Committee would even consider taking a case about something like civility without the community having repeatedly failed to handle it themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think BHG was ever brought to ArbCom for incivility before? I don't think BHG was every considered a "civility problem case" before portals? Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

So, you did mean it the way I thought, that we shouldn't desysop because this sis the first full-on arbcom case that looked specifically at BHG's behavior? And we should've waited until it was necessary for second full case before considering it? I don't think you're going to find that a lot of people support that position. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Beeblebrox No, I was responding to your comment above that is was not the "first case". Pre her latter portal work, she was not considered a "civility problem"? I don't think it is right to say she was? In any system of arbitration, the absence of any previous history of offense (e.g. BHG was never a "civility problem" pre latter stages of portals), would be considered important – I don't think anyone would disagree with that? Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Beeblebrox You have made a second point about implying that this should not be considered before a second case - I have also not said that. It should be dealt with, and remedies like prohibition and admonishment are tools at ArbCom's disposal? So is deysoping, however, there was no abuse of tools here (FOF#9 is clearly wrong, and you have rightly noted that, although other Arbs don't). And while the incivility was serious, deysoping doesn't address the problem and is potentially leaning to being punitive. There are two outcomes here: (1) BHG never repeats her portal incivility and prohibition and admonishment will be enough (and the project will benefit from a highly productive admin), OR, (2) BHG repeats her incivility (which being or not being an admin is not going to affect), and the issue is not deysop, but an inevitable indef. That is where I think I would challenge some of ArbCom's thinking/logic (if that is helpful to do). Britishfinance (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I did misunderstand you then, because that sounded a bit...off. As far as the desysopping goes, others have already repeatedly quoted the policy segment about admins leading by example, and I also mentioned in my support vote that I do not feel that someone who needs to be subject to any sort of editing restriction is fit to be an administrator. Admins are not expected to be perfect, but they are expected to be able to conform to the basic standards of conduct we hold other users to. I think you can see from many of the arb comments on the PD that many of us did not want to do this as we can see that BHG is a dedicated Wikipedian and we don't want to lose her entirely, but her behavior here is so far outside what the community expects from and admin and he she has been so very, very slow to acknowledge t and we therefore see no other choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Beeblebrox. I think BHG's statement was a step forward, but I can see from the comments of various Arbs in the Deysop section, they need to be convinced BHG has heard their concerns that thinking one is right (or even being right), is never (ever) grounds for violations of WP:5P4 (in fact, that should be added to WP:5P4). If these Arbs are going to "take a risk" and soften their Deysop stance (per the logic discussed in the point above), then BHG has work to do to show, in a simple and reflective/self-aware way, that the "portal BHG" is gone for good, and that if they trust her, she will not let them down. Britishfinance (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy:, I only hope that BHG's restriction from Portals & stripping of administratorship, isn't treated by other editors as a 'green light' to spam create portals. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor who initiated over 100 portal MfD discussions, I can say with confidence there are plenty of other editors who are willing to continue working to see that the current consensus is followed. Without the incivility. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec)(ec) We all know that Wikipedia is a surreal environment – no workplace would be allowed to record every single word you ever uttered and put you under such examination? If somebody is serially uncivil, then they should be indeffed (and that has happened to "big characters" in the past at ArbCom). BHG has +10 years of +1 million edits as an admin, and before she entered the "Bermuda Triangle" of portals (it has sunk many others), she was not regarded as a civility problem case? Yes, her incivility in portals is material and serious, but outside of portals, she has no such issues. I think BHG just snapped in the portal-world. Beeblebrox gave a great example above of an earlier clean-up, and what they did to preserve their sanity; however, BHG is a different type of person, and she kept heading down the portal rabbit hole until she became the problem.

If ArbCom believes that BHG's "incivility in portals" over-rides all else to desyop her at the first-time, then so be it; but ArbCom should strike out FOF#9, and the incorrect pretense that there was anything other than "incivility in portals" involved here (as others will invoke FOF #9 to claim there were other factors involved). Britishfinance (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my non-deletion of Portal subpages mentioned above...

If it matters, when I began working at Portal MFDs I didn't immediately realize that they often have a plethora of subpages and thus didn't always delete them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anybody holds that against you Jo-Jo Eumerus, and your work at MfD has been much appreciated. It is a pity that BHG's help to MfD portal closers has been used as a FOF #9 against her (some Arbs have expressed concern with it, but it stands as passed), and it also shows per my comments at #Future Rfcs on Portals above, that not a lot of people really understand what is going on with portals, the state they have gotten into, and how complicated and difficult they are to address; portal MfDs were some of the longest, most heavily analyzed, and most thoroughly debated (notwithstanding the serious issues of BHG's incilivity) XfDs that I have ever seen in Wikipedia - and I have plenty of AfD under my belt. Britishfinance (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for doing the heavy lifting of evaluating the discussions. The rest is clerical work, and I echo BF's hope that nobody reproaches you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Definitely a pity after the community did not fix issues with the namespace, e.g., XNR SPEEDY, for ~ten years, and ArbCom missed a last chance to intervene before the escalation. If both parties could agree to work on a "joint RFC" it would be more constructive. –84.46.52.79 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions from an Observer

I've looked at the PD and am puzzled and hope some Arbs (ideally) might help me (and likely others) to understand.

• In the interests of transparency, I don't recall ever having worked in Portal space, though I was aware of the controversy following TTH's actions. I did look at some MfDs though I don't recall commenting in any... so the content of FoF 6 was not surprising.
• I have interacted with BHG over categories, and come to this with an existing impression of her as someone very dedicated to Wikipedia but who struggles to see that issues she sees as technical and black and white can upset / hurt editors (who are people and not just pseudonyms on a screen). I am not surprised that she might have lost perspective in dealing with Portals, even while also being correct on the quality issue, and I appreciate that NYB noted (FoF 6) that BHG has many very many great contributions to WP.
• FoF 12 on NA1k really surprised me. I had seen BHG's comments on MfDs and again on this talk page, and I really thought there were genuine issues here. For example, BHG's point about the failed guideline that NA1k continued to cite as a "schema for advisement" (even while recognising its status) struck me as exactly the sort of wikilawyering to which Principle 7 refers. Further, BHG has noted repeatedly that NA1k advocated for the delisting. I'm trying to understand:
  • Q1: Is BHG correct that NA1k advocated for the guideline to be marked as failed and then continued to push that parts of it remained effective? If so, why is this not problematic behaviour from NA1k? If not, why isn't there a finding that BHG has repeatedly and falsely claimed misconduct against NA1k that is an example of conduct unbecoming to support a desysop?
  • Q2: BHG has repeatedly stated that NA1k rebuilt portals in a way the obscured what content was included and that, when the content was declared, it became clear that the selection was inappropriate in scope and biased in selection. If such a claim has no merit, should it not also be cited as examples of conduct unbecoming in a collaborative environment, casting aspersions, etc? If it does have merit, how can FoF 12 clear NA1k completely? Even if the selection of articles for inclusion was objectively problematic but there is no reason to think the choices were made in an effort to stonewall or as part of a battle (ie Principles 6 and 7), surely some question of skill / competence arises?
  • Q3: Is it ArbCom's conclusion that the Portal area has become a battleground, with (potentially) stonewalling and wikilawyering, that has gone through creating and deletion of more than 4000 Portals, three Village Pump RfCs (1, 2, and 3), two mass MfDs and many individual ones, ANI threads, and finally an ArbCom case... and there has been sanctionable behaviour (leaving aside TTH) from only one editor – and that editor being one who was on the side matching community consensus in most cases? Battlegrounds, stonewalling, wikilawyering, incivility, these are behaviours typically exhibited by the side fighting to frustrate consensus and I find it very odd that that all this activity has apparently only seen problematic behaviours from an editor whose views match community consensus. How can it be that BHG is the only editor to have behaved problematically in a battle that has continued for months and with multiple fronts? Or, is it that BHG's behaviour was so much worse, in your view, that poor behaviour from oponents / the "other side" appears pale by comparison? If so, what about a general finding / warning relating to not-collegial / sub-standard / incivil / whatever behaviour? The impression I get from the PD is that NA1k did nothing wrong, BHG has behaved very badly, and that everything else that has happened has been fine (or would have been had BHG not been involved)... but that a community discussion to lay down policy would be good. Is this what the PD is trying to communicate?
  • Q4: Regarding the recommendation for a community discussion – which I know is included in some PDs with varying results – I am reminded that ArbCom promised some community discussions after the Fram mess and that last year's Committee decided that the 2020 Committee should be left to handle it... is there any progress on that front?

EdChem (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem:

• On your Q1, NA1K asserted that While WP:POG is now a failed proposal, it is still utilized as a schema for advisement about portals. That precise phrase was used by NA1K at 3 separate MFDs: [30], [31], [32]. This followed NA1K's own lengthy argument[33] for POG's delisting at WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC:_Formalize_Standing_of_Portal_Guidelines_as_a_Guideline_(18_July_2019).

Note that NA1K's description of POG in that RFC was scathing: the page has been treated as an actual guideline, despite the content being based solely upon one person's opinion, and The page was intended from the start as an information page. It's actually rather a farce that the page was somehow converted to a guideline page.

So when NA1K wanted POG deleted, it was junk: one person's opinion. But when NA1K wanted to defend their own reworking of Portal:Transport, their defence was that per WP:COMMONSENSE, and WP:POG allows (the full test[34] is While WP:POG is now a failed proposal, it is still utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions, as per WP:COMMONSENSE, and WP:POG allows)

That amounts to a complete volte-face by NA1K, and after many months of similar antics by NA1K, it was what led me to explode and write[35] NA1K is either an idiot or a liar or both. My outburst of unparliamentary language did nothing to help my cause, but I stand by my view that NA1K's actions were either a blatantly deceptive attempt to WP:GAME the system, or incompetent. I am horrified that the Arbs find no fault in this.

• for an explanation of the issue raised in your Q2, see the discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 054#Help_me_understand, where I responded to a question by the admin User:Scottywong. There I explain how NA1K's conversion of the portals to a "black box" format impeded scrutiny.

I am sorry that it's all quite verbose, but the technical issues are quite complex, because portals use various forms of complex structure to draw content from dozens of other pages.

Note that at the time of my reverts, three of the portals which NA1K had rebuilt in this "black box" format had been scrutinised in depth: at MFD:Portal:Ghana, MFD:Portal:Djibouti, and MFD:Portal:Guinea-Bissau. All 3 were demonstrably of poor quality, and all were deleted.

After my reverts, two more of the NA1K-rebuilt portals were scrutinised. See MFD:Portal:Transport (mentioned above), where it was only when NA1K posted at the MFD a list of the pages selected that it was spotted that NA1K had created a massive breach of WP:NPOV. See also Portal:Australia, where in a subsequent discussion I did a detailed analysis of the portal's flaws[36], most of which were accepted in subsequent discussion.

Note that as part of this rebuilding of portals, NA1K had added themself as the maintainer to no less than 42 portals which they had rebuilt in his black box format without any attempt to notify the topical WikiProjects: (Afghanistan, Belarus, Belize, Biochemistry, Coffee, Colorado, Companies, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Evolutionary biology, Food, Free and open-source software, The Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Housing, Hungary, Islands, Italy, Kuwait, Liquor, Lithuania, Moldova, Money, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Oman, Ontario, Panama, Physics, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Supermarkets, Tanks, Vietnam) Their subsequent removal of themself as "maintainer" of all 42 came only after this was repeatedly challenged as implausible: it is preposterous to claim that one editor could maintain 42 portals, or that this one editor had sufficient expertise in such a diverse range of topics to make reasonable judgements about article selection without any input from topic experts (because no effort was made seek any input, other than some inadequate notification on the almost-unwatched portal talk pages.

Given the evidenced poor quality of the portals which were subsequently scrutinised, this still seems to me to have been a WP:Article rescue squadron-style effort. (NA1K was a prolific member of WP:ARS, until suddebly withdrawing from it in the course of the RFA nomination when it was challenged). This lacks most of the attributes of a genuine attenpt to create quality portals with the support of topical experts, and it looks very like an attempt to game the system by apparently lifting those portals just over the deletion threshold, by allowing keep advocates to say that each portal had a named maintainer, and had recently been "maintained". The latter was exemplified by NA1K's use of boilerplate edit summaries prefixed with the word "maintenance" which did not explain what had been added and why, but left a record which shouted "maintenance". (see e.g. the history of Portal:Somalia

Yes, I am probably wasting my time pointing this out again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl (or BHG, assuming that you don't mind this TLA being used to refer to you), thanks for providing this response. To be clear, I didn't and don't doubt that you have evidence and reasoning to support your stance. I had seen the "schema for advisement" idea in the MfDs and am confused how it can be used to describe a failed proposal and not be an example of the problematic behaviour that us described in Principle 7. I was hoping that ArbCom members might address what I see as a contradiction – that if they accept your evidence, how do they conclude FoF 12, and if they don't, why not have said so by making it clear that they see your evidence as false / flawed, leading to logical conclusions about your behaviour that are not in the PD. I am familiar with the idea of preferring one version of evidence over another, but both you and NA1k have made the same points repeatedly in different venues, and it seems to me to be inevitable that at least one of you must have been disruptive. Overall, I am extremely puzzled by the apparent conclusion in the PD that all that is happened has involved poor behaviour from you and (excluding TTH's portal creations) nothing sanctionable / problematic from anyone else yet involved megabytes of debate / discussion over months. I can't help but think of the Korean war – an initial push south (TTH's creations), a series of battles restoring the borders to pretty much where they started, and a battlefield where there have been a series of skirmishes to little overall achievement – as a metaphor for the events over months here. Maybe that's not fair, but it seems apt to me... but the skirmishes and battles don't happen by just one editor pursuing what she (in this case) believes is right. ArbCom, please, how can all that has gone on have happened with only one combatant? If NA1k and others disagreeing with BHG over portals did nothing problematic, and BHG's views (if not her words) were mostly backed by consensus when that was sought / challenged, how did this end up as such a large (non-?) conflict? EdChem (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @EdChem. "BHG" is fine. The TLA has been widely used since soon after I created my account to write one article, and chose a silly name for what I planned to be a very brief stay.

I think that your description of the portal debates as a series of skirmishes to little overall achievement is misplaced. When TTH stopped creating automated spam portals, there were 5,705 portals. Category:All portals now contains only 493 portals (per the bug phab:T18036, the count on the category page is overstated). That's because ~4,200 spam portals were deleted at MFD, followed by the deletion of about 1,000 of the ~1,500 portals which existed before automation began.

But I share you bewilderment at ArnCom's proposed decision that there was only one person at fault. I get and accept their decision that I should not have used unparliamentary language, but I am deeply troubled by their explicit statement of no fault by NA1K. It seems to me to set a very bad precedent to explicitly state that there is "no compelling evidence was presented to indicate misconduct" in the actions which I set out above.

I will accept ArbCom's decision as final, but I do not believe that its approval of such gaming conduct is either correct in fact or good for the 'pedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, there have been many low quality portals removed over and above the ones TTH created. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, so my analogy has flaws / limitations. On the issue of poor behaviour, even with one editor at fault on each side, there has still been an absolutely massive amount of conflict and activity... EdChem (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Ed. A lot of conflict.

I remain of the view that conflict was largely a product of a wider set of failures, including: the detachment of most topical WikiProjects from portals after about 2010, leading to their long-term decline; the resulting detachment of portals from mainstream editing, so that they became a bit of a walled garden where a small crew of editors proceeded without seeking wider community support through RFC, even for the WP:WPPORT-endorsed mass creation of automated spam portals; the community's decision to keep portals, but not to remedy the lack of accepted guidelines on what portals are for or how they should do it; the sheer complexity of portals posing too high a barrier for most editors to evaluate them without committing enough time to understand the structure; the fact that portals do not apply any of the content policies such as WP:V, WP:RS etc, so they became attractive as a space where editors could effectively work right outside the usual quality-control processes; the lack of any effective quality-assessment process for portals (WP:FPO focused almost exclusively on presentation rather than content, and the usual WikiProject banner assessment process was inadequately defined at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals/Assessment#PQC, and little used). Those problems remain unresolved, and some old ones appear to be about to kick off again (see the re-entry of the portal-spammer TTH)). God help anyone else who tries to clean up the swamp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl: Here is our case in point: Your post was going really well - focusing entirely on the content issues - until you dropped a label on another contributor. Again, I think you would do well to be overwhelmingly cautious in only addressing content when you are in a dispute with another contributor. Don’t label them, don’t comment about their motives, capabilities, quality of their work, etc..

For what it’s worth, I found it liberating to be without the extra buttons. I’m actually hopeful that you will be able to devote more time to categories, leaving the subject of portals to its own devices. (I think that erroneous category rename I sought your advice about some months ago has yet to be resolved...) –xeno^talk 14:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: thanks for your reply, and the evidently kindly intent. So in the same friendly spirit, I hope you will read my explanation of why it makes me despair.

TTH created about 4,000 automated portals at rapid speeds of up to one per minute, mostly as one click operations. They even created dozens (maybe hundreds) of them at high-speed against a date target for the heck of it.[37]

That created a prolonged, storm at WP:AN, a hurricane season at MFD as editors tore into pile of spam and others objected, until most of them were deleted in April in two mass deletions (one, and two), the first by overwhelming consensus of the highest turnout I have ever seen at MFD, where at least ten editors explicitly labelled them as "spam".

So that term "portalspammer" is entirely justifiable as a point of fact ... yet you have chosen here to reproach me for summarising that conduct (not character) in adjectival form as "portalspammer" rather than using a dozen or two words of description.

Meanwhile, because of the way in which ArbCom chose to frame this case, TTH goes entirely uncensured and has been emboldened by the PD to return to the fray not only claiming vindication, but accusing me[38] of terrorizing the neighborhood. I have checked TTH's talk page, and there is no sign there of any warning or rebuke or anything either for returning to the field in which he wreaked so much destruction, or for making such a vile personal attack (even if he did later strike it).

This has echoes in the situation I set out [39] for Hobit wrt another editor who on multiple occasions maligned me with barrages falsehoods which were repeated even when disproven until I flipped and use harsh words.

I get it, I should not have used unparliamentary language, and I won't do so again. But I remain appalled that all the misconduct to which I replied goes unreproached (and in one case is even given an explicit clean bill of health), that the Arbs seem set to proceed with some perverse findings of fact despite sustained protest from several other editors, and even censure me for defending my case ... and that even at this stage I get reproached for using a factual label on an editor who labelled me in a way which in meatspace would be clearcut defamation (no legal threat; I'm not the sueing type, and in any case my real name isn't linked to it.)

I like you, Xeno, and I usually like your work on en.wp. ... but your reply here leaves me even more disillusioned. I will follow the letter and spirit of what ArbCom decrees. But my inclination to to devote more time to any part of en.wp is slipping away fast. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• EdChem: speaking personally/as I understand it:

  1) BHG asserted that NA1K supported the guideline being delisted as NA1K disagreed with portions of the guideline and yet quoted other portions of the (since-delisted) guideline in their arguments. I’m not sure how this can be construed as misconduct. There is no prohibition on using content from a de-listed guideline to form an argument as long as you haven’t misrepresented the content as having the force of a guideline. Sometimes people quote essays in their arguments, which only carries as much force as the arguments therein, not the force of a policy/guideline. This seems analogous.

  2) This seems to speak mostly to the content concerns (and to me, brings to mind "SOFIXIT", i.e. get in there and integrate the changes, don’t mass revert, remain civil, keep calm and carry on, this kind of thing). So in that regard, I would say that the case against NA1K was not made out, at least not to a level that invited arbitration-level intervention or findings. One can disagree with an editor’s arguments, or disagree with the content they’re adding, or the way they chose that content, this doesn’t make those actions misconduct, necessarily. That’s not to suggest that their activity should be considered condoned by the committee (and indeed the decision is without prejudice to community intervention if the case can be made out there), but it was not concluded that NA1K’s editing was disruption that should be constrained by remedy even while done in good faith the way BHG’s activities were. I do recognize that BHG was trying to FIXIT, and their efforts in this area have probably improved the Portal inventory by energizing activity in the namespace...they would have been fine if they kept their focus on content.

  3) along the lines of 2), the decision should certainly not be taken to endorse all other behaviour in the topic area, only that no evidence was presented (or properly contextualized) that compelled a finding against any other particular editor. That the Principle was included cover those behaviors mentioned shows that the issue was recognized. Are you suggesting some kind of “Editors reminded” remedy?

  4) There has been progress. Let me go check on that for you. Will respond in a different venue later on.

Please note these are only my off-the-cuff unvarnished personal thoughts, and I was not a drafter, or as heavily immersed in the case as they would have been. Let me know if my understanding is off about anything. –xeno^talk 14:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Xeno, thanks for giving a response. May I ask, is this sort of comment implying that BHG is akin to a terrorist and stating that she has been creating a toxic atmosphere for months and using smear campaigns to drive away opponents made acceptable (or non-actionable) by BHG's own intemperate language? Also, if there was nothing compelling enough to make a finding against anyone but BHG, is it really ArbCom's view that everything will be fine and the problems around portals will be resolved by desysopping and topic-banning BHG? I just don't see how such a huge conflict and problem area can be resolved by acting against one editor only. As for NA1k's "schema for advisement" characterisation being fine so long as it was not "misrepresent[ing] the content as having the force of a guideline," I struggle to see how calling the content a "schema for advisement" is different in substance from calling it a guideline. How is this not game playing or wikilawyering or stonewalling? EdChem (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"Schema for advisement" can indeed be read as synonymous with 'guideline'. It can also be interpreted as 'essay like'. In light of the well known fact that WP:POG lost its claim to guideline status, it's obvious that the 2nd interpretation is the one to go with. Unless that is you'd let yourself become over- passionate about the subject.

I'm half tempted to write a long post teasing out the various false assumptions you & BHG seem to be making, to show why the apparent "multi-step gaming" by NA1K was in fact good collegial editing. (Allbeit with some v minor flaws like occaisional ambiguous language.)

BHG reminds me a bit of my mistress Simone Weil. Weil had one of the strongest minds of the 20th century, but as TS Eliot explained, one of her few flaws was that on the rare occasions she took an invalid position, it needed an awful lot of time and good argument for her to change her mind. Also, even as an Inclusionist I found myself convinced by much of BHGs analyses against portals (at least until TH explained to me the other side). So it's understandable she was so passionate about this. But think I'll spare you guys the long explanation unless BHG specifically asks for it. Sometimes hearing the right advise from the wrong person does more harm than good.

What I will say is that your loaded questions against highly valued editors like TT & NA1K seem rather uncollegial. At the evidence phase, or even the workshop phase, it would have been fine to make arguments attempting to show incompetence by NA1k. It's not collegial to be bringing that up after an exceptionally talented Arb committee have carefully examined all the evidence over a period of weeks, and more or less exonerated NA1K of any wrongdoing.

On the subject of timing, here's one of the best bits of advise I had from my Dad. When it comes to situations you care about, "Don't be a spectator!" Don't just observe, intervene in a timely way. You can't fatten a sheep the day before market, and mostly you can't change a PD you don't like by waiting till it's all over before you say anything. Granted, it takes considerable effort to make an influential submission at an Arb case. But even a supportative post that doesnt really engage with the core of the dispute (like the one by Francis) would have helped.

Arbs may primarily base their decision on their own evaluation of the evidence. But to an extent they're the final executor of Community will. If more people had expressed some support for BHG when it counted - then BD2412's position - that BHG's miss conduct, while serious, doesn't warrant a de-sysop - may have carried the day. As you can see 6 Arbs agreed with that view. Another way to save us losing a valuable admin would have been to support Guy's wise proposal before this even started. Even some firmly on NA1Ks side supported a 2 way no fault iBan + perhaps a topic ban. Which should have resolved the core of the dispute without taking up so much community time, and without the risk of one of our most productive editors being demotivated by a desysop. At this point, all you're likely to achieve by supporting BHG with false insinuations against NA1K & TT is to firm up her false belief that she's on the wrong side of deep systemic problems. All that said, will be happy to be proved wrong and see two of the Arbs find some merit in yours & BHG's new arguments, and thus change their mind about the desysop. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Xeno: with respect, I think that your undertsanding is a bit off. (Unsurprisingly, given the duration of this dispute. Too much to get a handle on without massive time commitment)

on Q1, NA1K did misrepresent the content as having the force of a guideline, by calling it a schema for advisement, which is just a fancy synonym for "guideline". If NA1K wanted to cite it, they are experienced enough to well know the difference between an essay and a guideline, and to describe it as essay. An essay is after all just one editor's opinion, which is precisely how NA1K described POG:[40] the content being based solely upon one person's opinion. But they didn't call it an essay, they went to all the trouble of inventing a synonym for "guideline". So when it suited NA1k, the whole of POG was just one person's opinion ... and then when they's got it delisted, they did a volte-face and called it WP:COMMNSENSE.

If, as you claim, NA1K had accepted parts of the guideline, they could have called for its amendment rather than its complete delisting. And in fact, that's exactly what they did, at WT:Portal/Guidelines/Archive_11#Proposal_to_update_and_clarify_the_lead_of_WP:POG: on 31 July NA1K, had proposed[41] rewording the lede of POG, to remove the wording about "broad subject areas". The discussion at WT:Portal/Guidelines/Archive_11#Proposal_to_update_and_clarify_the_lead_of_WP:POG led to NA1K's proposal being rejected by 6 editors to 1. Yet when it came to the WP:POG2019RFC, NA1K didn't even mention that their objection to the lead of POG had already been clearly rejected.

Lemme sumarise the history:

1. 31 July 2019: [42] NA1K calls for revision of the lead of POG. Proposal rejected by 6:1 (see WT:Portal/Guidelines/Archive_11#Proposal_to_update_and_clarify_the_lead_of_WP:POG)
2. 17 August 2019: [43] NA1K calls for the delisting of POG in toto, specifically because of their objections to the lede ... without mentioning that their view has already been rejected, let alone notifying the revival of the proposal to those objectors @Britishfinance, David Fuchs, DexDor, Wugapodes, UnitedStatesian, and BrownHairedGirl
3. 6 September 2019: a bot archives the unclosed RFC [44]
4. 6 September 2019: Wugapodes calls posts[45] at AN/RFC calling for the closure of the archived RFC
5. 26 September 2019: non-admin User:DannyS712 closes the RFC by editing the archives, de-listing it.
6. 27 September 2019‎: NA1K edits[46] WP:POG with a well-constructed edit-summary noting that it is not a guideline
7. 10 November 2019: NA1K cites[47] POG as a schema for advisement.

This is very careful, multi-step gaming of the system by NA1K. (Note: I make no criticism of DannyS712 or Wugapodes. Their actions are listed here solely to show the chronology). NA1K WP:FORUMSHOPed their way to getting rid of a clause they objected to, without disclosing their previous failed effort, ultimately achieving the goal by getting the guideline delisted without disclosing the previous discussion rejected their idea, and without notifying the participants in that discussion that they were reviving their proposal in a new forum ... then 6 weeks later did a reverse ferret on the delisting, describing POG as a [verbose synonym for guideline]

And this was after many dozens of incidents of NA1K cherrypicking the same guideline, which was why I blew up and used unparliamentary language. I accept that I shouldn't have blown, but I was triggered by a new outbreak of real and persistent problem.

I don't think that this history has been set out before, so I am taking the liberty of pinging all the Arbs to ask them to review this: @Casliber, Mkdw, Bradv, Beeblebrox, Newyorkbrad, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, AGK, Joe Roe, Xeno, and GorillaWarfare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I must note that it's well past the time to submit evidence, but even so, I'm not sure what this is evidence of. As I mentioned at #6 BrownHairedGirl, the "schema for advisement" quote was taken out of context, and it was later struck. Even if NA1K had not struck that comment, I don't see how referring to the page by the wrong description is a policy violation worthy of some sort of sanction. I also don't see how such a wrong description, even if intentional, justifies personal attacks in retaliation.

As for the rest of the comments here, the portal discussions have been drawn-out, contentious, and over time have weakened consensus rather than strengthened it. I am hopeful that the recommendation we're making for a new RfC will provide some benefit, and I'm hopeful that by raising the level of discourse to focus on the subject at hand rather than other editors will have a positive effect on the portal area as a whole.

BHG, we're one little clerical issue and a couple of votes away from closing this case, at which point you will no longer be able to comment on portals or on NA1K. I hope that you will find disengaging from this area cathartic, and that you will find yourself able to continue your contributions to other areas of the project. You have a long history of doing important and useful work on Wikipedia, and your efforts, and the efforts of the other participants in this case, are appreciated and respected. – bradv🍁 17:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: I am very disappointed that you seem unwilling to give any consideration to background evidence which places those events in a different light. I posted this not as part of any desire for ongoing involvement in the portal morass, but in the hope that before the case is finally closed, you might pause look more closely at your findings of fact.

I thank you for your kind words in closing, they don't resolve those factual errors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

← In this 'schema for advisement' diff, they are but a few words earlier specifically calling out that they're quoting from a failed proposal - there was no attempt to misrepresent there.

And EdChem, no, the diff you linked was unfortunate: I appreciate your intervention there. As far as whether the Portals ship will "right itself": that remains to be seen. We've provided a framework for an RfC, which someone will hopefully tweak where necessary and run with, and we've removed one particular element that had begun generating more heat than light. The case can be revisited at WP:ARCA, should disruption continue. –xeno^talk 02:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: I note that you don't comment on the forumshopping behind that switcheroo, even tho the Arbs are giving an explicit clean bill of health to the forumshopper. Hey-ho.

As to whether the Portals ship will "right itself", portals had been rotting for a decade before my involvement, and left to their own devices those working in portalspace had decided to remedy that with spam for which they never sought community support at RFC. And now the spammer is back in town[48] claiming vindication-by-Arbcom. So good luck with that.

And as to one particular element that had begun generating more heat than light, it seems that this definition of light doesn't include: devising the analytical process which led to the bulk removal of about 60% of the spam, and the tracking system which triaged the remaining automated portals; the many hundreds of detailed, individual portal analyses which led to the removal of hundreds of pages of rotted, abandoned junk; or the analysis of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE list-making hidden by the "black box" process which was being deployed. We evidently have different definitions of light.

Sure, I'm out of this area. But the Arbs have mistaken cure and cause. Hey-ho. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The case to find specifically against NA1K was clearly not made out. I recognized that you were working to improve the Portal inventory. You did so with a burning vigor. Intense fires generate light. But also, heat. Time to move on, I think - you’re needed elsewhere. –xeno^talk 13:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: AFAIK, that's the first time in these whole proceedings that any Arb has acknowledged that I generated any light at all. Thank you for being the first; I do appreciate that, but remain astonished that it's just a lone comment on talk. However, the lack of any such acknowledgement in the PD, combined with the explicit statement of no fault by NA1K, has greenlighted not only antics such as NA1K's forumshopping and sustained cherrypicking and games with statistics and indiscriminate list-making, but TTH's return to the fray and Buster D's mass reinstatement[49] (apparently without scrutiny) of the indiscriminate list-making.

Yes, I'm moving on as soon as the decision is finalised. But it's a pity that ArbCom is not taking more note of the feedback on this page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

BHG, it is worth noting that both NYB and WTT made comments on your positive contributions (at least in general) as part of FoF 6 – though the posted decision will not include those relevant comments, sadly. You know that we have disagreed before, but I most certainly do recognise that you have made an incredible amount of positive contributions to WP, which I hope will continue – even while also wishing you would take a different approach to some topics. I have not argued against your being sanctioned here because you did lose perspective and behave problematically, but I remain perplexed by the apparent conclusion that everything will be solved by your removal from the Portals topic and an RfC. I am glad that you will be moving on, and I hope that others will act if they see you being targeted when you will be unable to respond. I believe that there are many editors who can see the good that you did in cutting back on low quality material in Portal space, and appreciate that, even while seeing and regretting some of the comments that you made. May your future WP editing be productive and appreciated! Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Xeno, you chose the word "unfortunate" to describe TTH's recent post. Beeblebrox called it "shameful" and said it made TTH look "petty and nasty." No one else has commented, and TTH's rephrasing concedes only that "terrorize" was perhaps too strong a word and leaves all the other comments in place. TTH's subsequent comment at user talk:GoodDay leaves me with no doubt that TTH (a) will continue to offer criticism of BHG and treat this PD as vindication and (b) has plans to re-enter Portal space. I am disappointed that TTH's comments have not been met with disapproval by anyone but me and Beeblebrox as they were much more than "unfortunate." They were a violation of the civility pillar by someone who should have been a party to this case but escaped scrutiny. The case is not even closed and it is clear that it will not succeed in righting the Portal ship, and for the exact reason I have raised – that one does not have such a large and extended conflict over thousands of pages with only one editor being a problem. As for ARCA, bringing TTH there would be pointless as he wasn't part of the case and NA1k has been ArbCom-declared to be blameless. I see the following possibilities: (a) peace breaks out, everyone comes to a consensus view that is respected, disputes on WP end, all editors are sysopped since any misconduct is unthinkable, and ArbCom is disbanded due to having nothing to do... but since the miracles required there are beyond improbable, (b) Portal space deteriorates back to low quality but the community ignores it and allows the mess to fester, (c) there is another almighty fight ultimately leading to the grudging acceptance that BHG was not the source of all problems in Portal space, (d) the RfC(s) produce some meaningful guidelines leading to conflict and blocks / community bans. I would like to be proven wrong, but I remain perplexed at how a conflict of this magnitude can have occurred with only one problem editor – and that editor being the one who was backed by the community in the judgement to delete a lot of low quality material. EdChem (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sharply criticizing someone with strong language in the context of that party being entirely unable to reply did strike me as rather unseemly. There are venues available for that activity to be examined, I do not think this page is the correct one. –xeno^talk 13:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: If TTH (or anyone else) repeatedly makes comments about BHG or her actions in a manner and/or venue that does not allow her to respond then the normal dispute resolution process should be followed - discuss it with the person concerned, if that doesn't resolve the situation then bring it to AN(I) where remedies including topic and/or interaction bans can be placed. Only if the community is unable to handle it would it need arbcom involvement. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I hope that BHG is spared being targeted by editors engaged in gravedancing or other distasteful behaviours. In the event that they do occur, I hope that the community does act. So far, the comments made by TTH have been modified (slightly) at my request, but I don't have the impression that TTH sees just how inappropriate they were as he conceded only that "terrorize" was perhaps to strong a word.

^{Addition: I note that The Transhumanist has now removed the word "terrorize" and replied to Beeblebrox accepting that it was inconsistent with WP:NPA (which is good)... but also included another series of comments targeted at BHG, sadly. EdChem (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)}

Amongst the Arbitrators, Bebblebrox described them as "shameful" and said they made TTH look "petty and nasty," while Xeno described them as "unfortunate" and "rather unseemly," and no other member of ArbCom has commented on them publicly (at least, as far as I can see) – this doesn't inspire great confidence in me that my view of the behaviour and language used is much shared, which is disappointing. BHG's behaviour does warrant sanctioning because the things she wrote and the approach she took were inappropriate and contributed to a battleground developing, and I think she accepts this. However, though what she did was wrong in places, what she sought to (and did) achieve was for the good of WP and in line with our community goals of generating high-quality content. ArbCom appear to have concluded that removing her from Portal space (necessary in the circumstances) and encouraging a broad RfC should lead to a resolution of issues in Portal space (or, at least, that is all they can do at present). Their decision does not convince me that they are correct that the dispute will now be resolved (at least in time), though I very much hope that I am wrong. BusterD is using the PD to reinstate many of NA1k's changes, which is obviously controversial given this contentious (and ultimately inconclusive ANI discussion. Coupled with TTH's comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design and at user talk:GoodDay, I am left with the impression that the underlying problems / disputes remain, that further conflict is likely, and I agree with Nemo who wrote here that "[o]ne-sided character assassinations don't help anyone."

Part of the problem here is that ArbCom's jurisdiction extends only to conduct and their judgement is that the only conduct problems (at least, the only ones rising to the level of requiring an ArbCom finding or sanction) in the Portals area came from BHG. In recommending an RfC, they clearly see an underlying dispute and hope to nudge it towards a consensus resolution. I do not share their optimism that this will be sufficient because it is already clear that some will take BHG's sanctions as ArbCom saying her actions on content or positions on policy were wrong, even though it is her conduct and comments that is being sanctioned. It is possible that BHG was right about every content issue (she was backed by the community in MfDs, for example) and yet still warrant sanction for conduct problems, but ArbCom can't issue a ruling to clarify their (obiter dictum) views on content. Looking at individual Arbitrator comments, I do see signs that they are in a difficult position. Not being presented with what they consider persuasive evidence of a problem is not proof that such evidence does not exist or that there has been no misconduct, yet Arbitrators independently presenting evidence has proven to be problematic in the past. Where they do see or are given evidence that points to problems but those are insufficient for an ArbCom finding, the practice (understandably) is to say nothing, yet that can give rise to an impression of endorsement that is not intended. ArbCom has adopted the position of not mentioning non-parties in PDs, which I have argued previously is appropriate, but it does make the selection of parties crucial and in this case it appears that someone who should be a party is not – which is unfortunate, as an IBan between BHG and TTH appears desirable at present to protect BHG from gravedancing.

I hope that one or more RfCs can bring some broadly supported policy and guidelines to Portal space. I hope that I am wrong and that Portal space does not now see an increase in problematic or poor content and that BHG is not targeted. If either of those does happen, I hope that community can act to address problems and that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals 2 remains a red link. I have made it clear that I am very skeptical that a conflict of the breadth of the Portals dispute, and occurring over an extended time frame, can have taken place with Principles 6 and 7 being breached by only one editor (or even, by only one editor to a level warranting ArbCom findings / action). With BHG gone, perhaps it will become clearer who (if anyone) is also behaving poorly in this regard. EdChem (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Perspectives and precedents

Having been involved in portal MfDs, and contributed on this talk page (although not on the evidence pages), I offer the following:

1. BHG being deysopped for gross incivility to NA1K (and she was during the latter part of the portal-debate, and on a level that UNINVOLVED editors found offensive and inappropriate, per the ANI), without a record of incivility before portals (e.g. she was not a prior "civility problem"), is a nearly significant ruling by ArbCom. In the large ANI that led to this ArbCom case, a deysop proposal was made, but was closed early as "not going anywhere", and had no support. It is, therefore, a pity ArbCom hasn't "owned" this ruling, and has weakened and even undermind it, by including the FOF#7 and FOF#9 (.2 and .3 below). While BHG made efforts to address ArbCom's concerns on her future behavior, the concern remained, and that has to be respected.

2. FOF#7 is problematic. The block was made the night before an ArbCom request case was started on BHG, and the unblock edit summary was: "Apart from the fact that "personal attack" is at best a dubious description, there is no reasonable way of regarding a block for this one edit more than 19 hours before the block as preventive". I was the only person to ask the unblocker to come to this case (per above), yet ArbCom accepted it as a critical FOF. While I don't doubt the good faith of the blocker (I don't think anybody does), I do doubt whether it should have happened given the intense atmosphere of a large ongoing ANI. It's acceptance by ArbCom as an FOF, means that tactical "precedent blocking", even if immediately unblocked, is now a potential strategy in the hours before ArbCom cases.

3. FOF#9 is problematic. I was at portal MfDs, and BHG was asked to undertake the large and complex task to delete portals, Xfclosed as Delete (as explained on this talk page). No portal advocate at these MfDs ever complained that this was even a "technical breach" of INVOLVED. The precedent of FOF #9 (aside from it undermining the importance of 1 above), means that the few admins willing to close at MfD, are going to be even more reluctant to delete a portal because of the large workload. I was considering making a submission on the evidence page that there was no abuse of tools (which there wasn't, this case is purely WP:5P4), but I thought it would have been over-kill and unnecessary (e.g. "producing evidence that there was no evidence").

There is an "asymmetry of concern" regarding portals. A smaller and committed group who advocate them (which is their right), and a larger but more diverse and less committed group who have concerns over them (the attendance at portal MfDs, the evidence phase of this case, and the Scottywong workshop shows that). BHG – almost singlehandedly – removed that asymmetry, but it caused her to "snap". I don't think we will see any future admin (or editor), attempt this again. However, while FOF#7 and FOF#9 were unfortunate, ArbCom can do no more here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• If she had ever acknowledged that she had stepped out of line with the insults it would be a very different thing. I personally caught a small part of her abuse and was pretty annoyed. But if she'd said "yeah, I handled this poorly, sorry folks", I think this whole thing would have gone a lot better for her. If you can't see where your own actions have gone *so far* over the civility line, you probably shouldn't be an admin. An apology and acknowledgment of the issue would have made all the difference--to me for certain, and I think to many of the arbs also ("BHG can't see herself in the mirror."). It's not just a lack of civility, it's a doubling down on the behavior that is worrisome. I thought at one point on this page she'd gotten there, a bit late, but gotten there. But later comments she made seemed to confirm she still doesn't really see the problems with her behavior. Being right (which I personally don't think she is for the most part on these issues) doesn't justify streams of insults and accusations of bad faith. Hobit (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) A fair perspective Hobit, and one that I would share; per AGK and Xeno above, BHG came close, but ArbCom kept being given more signs BHG could not get beyond this, per KrakatoaKatie's point re the mirror. What happens when you go far down "the rabbit hole" of any major dispute in Wikipedia. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• And for the record, I agree with you on FOF#9. It's true, but I'd have voted in opposition because it is housekeeping, one of the places where WP:INVOLVED doesn't really apply. I can see how someone could view it as poor judgment (rubbing salt in the wound), but I didn't see it that way. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it was "rubbing salt", but given it was wrong, it undermines the integrity of the outcome – E.g. in other cases of admin incivility, it will be argued: "but BHG was found to have also misused the tools" (or in a future BHG RfA), even though it was not the case. Some Arbs quoted FOF #9 in their !vote to deysop. Britishfinance (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) @Hobit: I acknowledge that the way I responded in frustration to the sustained problems has turned out to be counter-productive because it generated heat which has obscured the problems, and has ultimately served to negate my purpose. To that extent, yes, I did handle it poorly. But when faced with barrages of nonsense such as the stuff I replied to here[50] (from an editor who repeatedly posted angry attacks on me based on such falsehoods and then denounced my rebuttals as "wall of text" or "craptalk"; there were dozens of similar episodes), then it is perverse to focus solely on the form of words used in reply.

But, no, I will not retract my substantive assessments of what was going on here, and I remain alarmed that the community does not seem to have mechanisms for dealing with the systemic problem of a backwater of Wikipedia becoming a zone where low standards have been normalised, and that it seems to be choosing instead to deprecate the conduct of the canary rather than the state of the coalmine. It is clear that I did not find an effective way of dealing with those systemic problems, but the fundamental problems remain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You still aren't getting that it was your conduct that was determined to be most problematic and that, despite intense and repeated investigation most (although not all) of your accusations of misconduct on the part of other parties have not been sustained. Being "right" (whether you are or not) is not an excuse for incivility and personal attacks, especially given how often you were warned about exactly that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: you are confusing the concepts of "don't get" and "don't agree". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to write this a few times and haven't managed to hit the right tone, so sorry if this isn't as clear as it could be. But I, and I think the wider community, find that diff to be wholly unacceptable. You keep insisting it's because we don't get the larger context. But I think I do, and I suspect others do too. So to us the issue is that either your view of what is acceptable is so far out of step from the community that we really can't have you being an admin or we are all idiots. I've seen you around a lot and you've always had a really good sense of community norms (in some cases pushing up against the limits of them), so I'm honestly shocked that you are this far off in this case. I'm hopeful that a bit of time away from the subject will give you perspective. I honestly wish you the best of luck, because while I've occasionally found you to be a difficult person, I've never doubted that you were doing what you felt was best for the encyclopedia. And I value that very highly indeed. Hobit (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Hobit's comment above, and I aprpeciate their eloquent and magnanimous thoughts in the closing portion of the comment above. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write, @Hobit. Especially since it took multiple drafts. And thanks for your kind words at the end. I do appreciate that.

Look, I think we're talking at cross purposes. I do get that the terminology which i used that that post was out of bounds. I regret using it, and I have committed myself to not doing that again.

However, the trigger for that directness was that the editor concerned had for months being throwing at me angry barrages of demonstrable falsehoods. I don't mean errors of interpretation; I mean objectively falsifiable points of fact, where that editor was simply averse to fact. If you read the rest of the thread in which that diff happened, you can how that one episode unfolded. And I flipped.

No, I should not have flipped. Yes, it was not the only occasion when I flipped. But nor was it the only occasion when I was subjected to barrages of angry falsehoods, and eventually flipped.

This pattern of attack-by-demonstrable-falsehood from that one editor (Moxy) continued even to ArnCom, where Moxy cited[51] a post by NA1K in an ANI thread opened by Moxy about my reverts as evidence that NA1K had informed others of what they were doing, despite my having noted the absurdity 6 days earlier at ANI.[52] (AFAICR, he actually did it twice at that ANI).That's the same editor, repeating at two dispute resolution venues the same absurd claim: that a statement posted by NA1K after NA1K's edits had been reverted was somehow evidence that NA1K had given prior notice of their actions.

There was mountains of this stuff, and it's at best exasperating. One example was when Moxy went off-topic at another MFD to berate me for not using AWB to make a set of thousands of changes for which he had repeatedly (in other venues) refused my suggestion to seek consensus. If had accepted Moxy's demands, I would have been in breach of WP:AWB#rules, which I reused to do ... but that didn't deter the attacker.

I cannot guess Moxy's intent, but as a general principle if someone had an intent to goad, then sustaining a long-term pattern of attacks by multiple repeatedly angry falsehoods is very effective strategy to generate a very harsh reply which you can then cite as abuse. Alternatively, if the aim was to lay a false trail of evidence, it would also be very effective. Again, I do not know Moxy's intent; all I know is that was on the receiving end of this nonsense for months.

One of the downsides of the whole practice of citing diffs is that it focuses on a single moment to the exclusion of what led up to it and what followed. So I am pilloried for lashing out, but Moxy's long barrages of falsehood go unreproached. I accept being sanctioned for my incivility. But I am appalled that zero account is taken of how I was repeatedly goaded with barrages of demonstrably false assertions of "fact" which were designed to reflect badly on me, and which were repeated even after they were demonstrated to be false. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Newyorkbrad re his response to the talk page concerns of FOF #7 (now not passing), and FOF #9. Just to underline the problematic nature of FOF #9, here is NA1K closing a portal MfD as delete: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bulgarian Empire. For the avoidance of doubt, NOBODY (myself included), on any side of the portal debate would have ever complained/had issue/or considered this action INVOLVED, or an abuse of tools (e.g. despite BHG's issues with NA1K, this was never a problem for her). BHG's deletion of portals were portals that another UNINVOLVED admin Xfclosed as Delete, and was asked/agreed that BHG would execute the deletion because of how complex they could be. I really do think that ArbCom should reflect on this FOF #9, either it is not needed, OR, if it is, then we have a different issue. The worst outcome is to let FOF #9 stand and as NYB has noted, leave the case under an adverse finding cloud. Britishfinance (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see this as an adverse finding or an indication of wrongdoing. It's simply a mention that administrator tools were used in the portals area, not that they were abused. While some may see this as a violation of INVOLVED given BHG's strong feelings on the topic of portals in general, I am not aware of that policy ever being interpreted so broadly as to include an entire namespace, and I would not advocate for that interpretation here. – bradv🍁 19:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, as an example, here is DGG's !vote on the deysop: .. do not think anything less than this is really equal to the situation, especially because of the question of involvement. There are others. Per my cmt above, it is credible for ArbCom to reach their conclusions without FOF #9. But, including FOF #9 in a list of FOFs (e.g. FOFs are not random facts, but facts relevant to a verdict; and FOF #9 is misleading as a fact in the context of a vedict). With FOF #9, ArbCom is giving a message that gross inciviity is a deysoping action (a significant ruling). With FOF #9 included, it gives an impression that some Arbs could not reach such a finding without the additionl FOF that there was abuse of tools – which there wasn't. Britishfinance (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Once again, FOF #9 is not just misleading. It's just factually incorrect. No portals were deleted. Nemo 19:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Even when a section on desopying was opened up in the last mega-ANI case regarding BHG that led to this ArbCom case, it never mentioned deletion of portals as tool mis-use (even though it went through a fair variety of things); in fact nobody in that mega-ANI raised "deletion of portals" as admin tool mis-use Britishfinance (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on, but in the other long September ANI, previous to the last mega-ANI in November, SNOW-support was given to the final Alternate Proposed resolution, that said

There is no indication of anything even remotely resembling misuse of Admin tools.

And both these ANIs where "heated", with lots of diffs (because there was lots of incivility by BHG), where advocates left few stones unturned. Why don't ArbCom accept BHG's statement, and turn her restriction regarding portals (and interaction with NA1K), into a tougher indefinate restriction? With her permanent departure from portals (and NA1K's life), her high, and per these ANIs – well regarded admin productivity outside of portals on both sides – will return to the project? Britishfinance (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Having re-read these ANIs this morning, many of BHG's strongest critics of her conduct in portals (who themselves had been subject to abuse by BHG), had a more sanguine view of BHG outside of portal-world (if not outright respect for her), and these were very recent ANIs. Should ArbCom's final ruling not in some way reflect this? BHG's overt portal incivility has cast her into a lonely figure in this case and in the community. We don't have many high-productivity admins in WP, and almost all of them come from an earlier period in Wikipedia. Very few of our new admins are "high productivity" admins (in fact, I think they lean to the opposite). Where there is scope, and I accept that BHG's incivility went over the edge, ArbCom should consider such aspects; they can always wield the axe easily another time? Britishfinance (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the points above about the problem with the lack of an apology. the constant demeaning rhetoric about other users here, the constant assumptions of bad faith on the part of editors merely for seeing some validity to portals, in my opinion made it important for these issues to be addressed. I do respect and appreciate portions of BHG's comments above where they are very forthright about past issues. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Constant incivility IS a misuse of admin tools. the key to Wikipedia is upholding our natural processes of discussion, civility, and community consensus. Admins have a central role and responsibility in upholding this. this is not a question of pressing an admin button in the wrong or right way. admins cannot wage a vendetta on an issue, or against individual editors. that is precisely what ArbCom is saying in its ruling, in my opinion. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

In reply to the highlighted note above, I am adding my own comment here: constant incivility IS a misuse of admin tools.In my opinion, that is the basis for the ArbCom decision. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)}}

The highlighted quote above your was the OP that was SNOW-supported at a September 2019 ANI re BHG's uncivility – hence why it is highlighted. You may want to re-consider the appropriateness of highlighting your own individual sentiments immediately above regarding the case. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

ok, fair enough. in response to Britishfinance's highly valid comment above, I have changed the formatting for my comment, based on their useful points. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Technical point

Thanks to Bradv and others for keeping the statistics updated. As we may be close to closure, please can you check the current status of FoF 7 and FoF 9, which seem to have 16 votes? Thanks, Certes (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That was my fault; when I moved on these from abstain to oppose, I struck the abstain votes, but forgot to strike the numerals. It's been fixed now. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Moratorium on creating and deleting portals

I suggest that a moratorium be declared on the creation and deletion of portals until the guideline has been established. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

See also User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace#Moratorium on Portal creation ?.--Moxy 🍁 07:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with editing those which still exist, or creating the occasional experimental draft portal to illustrate a proposal, on the understanding that if the proposal fails the demonstration model will be deleted once it no longer serves that purpose. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this would be outside the committee's remit. Certainly it could impose a restriction like this on named individuals, and possibly on everyone as a temporary injunction, but as a non-emergency measure it is straying too far in to content matters imo. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also agree that it's outside committee remit. I suppose you could run a brief VPR discussion on it, but unless the current situation is still so dire as to warrant a truncated (c 7 days) timeline, it would seem pointless. After the two big initial discussions (and this case), I've stayed away from it - is it still in massive turmoil? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Portal creation and deletion seem to have halted during this case. Prior to it, we were gaining about one portal per month and losing about 100. Bulk creation is still prohibited and I see no appetite for creating even small numbers of portals. The big question is whether the bulk deletions should resume, i.e. whether the 400 or so portals which have not yet been through the MfD process should be proposed for deletion as a matter of course simply for being a portal. These represent less than a quarter of the portals which existed at the time of WP:ENDPORTALS. Indeed, assuming that the deletion candidates were selected carefully, it should be the best quartile. Certes (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Portal MfDs have halted due to this case, I would say. I think it was true that the Portal MFDs largely were being done from the end of the worst cases. Although I was mostly not participating, I was watching, and felt that slam-dunk deletion decisions were on the decline. My feeling was that, assuming the usual participants, there might be two or three hundred more to go before getting to the best 100, at which point I expected the quality of the discussions would improve. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose a simple community-wide moratorium on portals with good reasons to delete, such as Portals on living individuals where the Portal has actual NPOV issues. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd also oppose a complete moratorium. What I would like to see is the deletion process limited to the same scope as every other namespace: problems which are specific to one portal or a small group of portals, such as a BLP issue, and which cannot be solved better by improving the portal rather than deleting it. That would enable us to move on from defending portals to improving them, in the confidence that they won't be deleted just for being typical portals. Certes (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What Certes said. When there is no certainty that if you work to improve a portal that work (whether successful or even complete) will not just be ignored and the portal deleted for reasons unrelated to that portal then there is no motivation for anyone to improve any portals. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:: FWIW there is not one portal remaining on any individual person, living or otherwise. Portal:Jesus, Portal:Shakespeare, all went into the bin along with the others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed when browsing after my comment. I didn’t see any that I’d call “obviously a bad idea”. However, I think there are too many, thin slicing of topic areas, and browsing to the 400 remaining portals is not very good. This calls for consideration of rationalisation. I think that means careful considered discussion, merging discussions, not 7-day mfd discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• I support a moratorium on portal deletion for the time being UNLESS there are BLP concerns with outdated information provided on the portal pages. As Moxy pointed out above, we already have a portal guideline discussion ongoing... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Thryduulf says, this is completely outside of the scope and remit of this ArbCom case. It should no more forbid creation of portals than it should forbid deletion of them. If there's to be an RFC on portals then the status quo should prevail until a consensus is formed for some other regime to take its place.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Partially support. I support a moratorium on deletion of portals. the reason is that any portals that already exist are there because at least a few editors saw a genuine need for them. we already have some editors again raising the idea of gratuitous deletion of entire groups of portals, with little reason or basis, other than that they question why portals exist. in my opinion, that is what first sparked this situation in the first place. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think arbitrators will agree with me, that this isn't the proper talkpage, to have this discussion. WP:PORTALS would be best, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments above, but IMHO, since this is where this discussion did take root, in my opinion it is an acceptable forum for it to take place here. with that said, any editors with their own suggestions or ideas on other venues that they consider to be preferable, are totally welcome to add their ideas and input as well, i.e. on where they feel this topic could best be discussed. I do appreciate your ideas above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This is no longer the appropriate forum for this, it can be moved to the Scottywong workshop, which is a more appropriate forum. Britishfinance (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, but could we have the discussion somewhere in project space? It seems a bit odd to have such a thing on someone's user page. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's there because the discussions in project space were failing to converge towards consensus, and so Scottywong chose to try to mediate a discussion in his user space, where he nominally has greater prerogative to manage the conversation. I suspect this may still be advantageous for a bit longer, but I could be wrong. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, we use to have mediation, and the mediation cabal, for such things -- sad, they were not encouraged to continue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe the discussion was suitable for the formal format of the mediation committee. I think Scottywong volunteering to shepherd discussion was basically a similar approach to how the mediation cabal operated. isaacl (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, its just that mediation and mediation cabal was not encouraged to continue and so that ten months ago, no one was able to say 'hey, let us go to that place where we all mediate.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, people can still ask former cabal or committee members to assist. In my opinion, it's just been hard to get people to follow through to analyze one issue in depth at a time. (My comments on the case request are related to this point.) A lot of different things get raised at once, and so the conversation rapidly sprawls. (I know things are tied together, but in a large group conversation, it's really helpful to build up agreement bit by bit.) With English Wikipedia's consensus tradition, there isn't a good way to try to keep editors on topic, as they can argue that the current topic is whatever they want to talk about by consensus. Even on Scottywong's discussion page, where in theory Scottywong could take a more active hand in guiding the direction of the comments, many threads emerged, and the current comments are once again trying to discuss everything at once. isaacl (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with, understand and appreciate the points above, to a large degree. however, I see this issue and set of concerns somewhat differently. in my opinion, we do not need any mediation on this at all. the whole reason the discussion got derailed in the first place, was due to a small miniscule number of editors who chose to deliberately and to destructively derail any discussion on portals that positive-minded editors sought to have. now discussion is free to proceed as it should have in the first place... freely, openly, and most importantly, individually, meaning that editors can discuss portals individually, as they should be able to, based upon which portal(s) they are interested in editing. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Lots of discussions with good-faith contributions fail to reach an agreement due to lack of direction. Someone shepherding the conversation can help focus it. Not all discussions need it, but often as the number of participants increases, it is useful. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

oh, and one more thing....any discussions in which editors do try to derail discussions of portals in any way, ie by denigrating other editors, or denigrating their views, or polarizing the discussion by denigrating portals as a group, rather than discussing the constructive ideas for an individual portal, should be reported to ArbCom. Fully, completely, constructively and tactfully of course, but without delay.

Since ArbCom is now involved. and ArbCom itself issued a ruling asking the community to work together to sort this out. then that gives us the basis for simply dealing with any further discussion snags in a forthright way, without unnecessarily devolving into more extended dispute. I am saying this for the benefit of all sides in this debate, not only the side that I agree with. this is meant constructively, in order to benefit the WIkipedia community as a whole, of all viewpoints.

and yes, ArbCom itself said we should work out some reasonable overall guidelines for Portals in general; however, if the community itself decides the most constructive way to do so is by having positive discussions about each portal on an individual basis, then I don't think ArbCom would have any objection to that at all, obviously.

I hope that is helpful. thanks. Cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Folks, these discussion belong at Scottywong's place. The Proposed decision of this Arbcom case (that this talkpage is for) is closed. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

What's that called?

User:Newyorkbrad (and any other lawyers and logicians who happen to be around): The RFC proposed recommends as a question "Should they be linked on all relevant Wikipedia articles, or should another method be used to ensure that portals are viewed and used?"

Is assuming that portal viewing is something that needs to be ensured the thing called Begging the question, or is it another one? And – more actionably and so that I'll know what to say when editors who think that portal viewing is something best discouraged or ignored come to WT:RFC with complaints about this not being a "neutral" question – does ArbCom want that exact wording used in the RFC, or is that merely an illustration? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals Closed, where Newyorkbrad stated "There's no requirement that the questions in the RFC be taken verbatim from the decision..." isaacl (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, we didn't prescribe exact wording for the questions; the intent was to suggest topics. (in any event, one could answer the question as framed "no, neither one" if one wishes.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The risk that the community would feel compelled to have the RFC using the proposed wording is precisely one of the reasons I opposed that remedy. Regards SoWhy 09:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)