Initiated by RevelationDirect (talk) at 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• RevelationDirect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marcocapelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carchasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MJL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification BrownHairedGirl
• diff of notification Laurel Lodged
• diff of notification Marcocapelle
• diff of notification Oculi
• diff of notification Nederlandse Leeuw
• of notification Carchasm
• diff of notification MJL

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk Page
• ANI

Hello, I'm concerned about User:BrownHairedGirl's repeated failure of WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, and WP:5P4 generally at Categories for Discussion (WP:CFD) toward me and others when nominations involve the WP:SMALLCAT editing guideline.

There is a legitimate WP:CONTENTDISPUTE but BrownHairedGirl repeatedly questions both the motives and competency of others. BrownHairedGirl believes that Laurel Lodged is targeting her and influencing five other editors, including me, with a secret WP:TAGTEAM.

Rather than raise those concerns about us at ANI with evidence, BrownHairedGirl sprinkles those accusations within CFD:

1. ... "This is another vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination by LL, who is stalking my contribs"... (Diff)
2. "I don not believe that you a[r]e acting in good faith"... (Diff)
3. ... "this vindictive, disruptive bad-faith nomination" ... (Diff)
4. ... "And yes, I can produce evidence of the tag-teaming" … (Diff)
5. ... "it is quite invidious to propose to demolish my work"... (Diff--I had to look that word up!)
6. ... "I will not accept the use of a malicious and unresearched CFD as a weapon to bully me" ... (Diff)
7. "Ah Marcocapelle, that's disingenuous." ... (Diff)
8. "Utter nonsense. ... It's blindingly obvious that you are pontificating away with great certainty about how to do a task which you have never actually done." ... (Diff)
9. "That's just wikilawyering and offence-taking. When it comes the treatment of other editors, the real issue here is the attempt to demolish the categorisation work" ... (Diff)
10. "... This is yet another blatantly bad faith nomination by a highly-experienced editor ... who is par[t] of a tag team ..." (Diff)
11. "when editors tag-team to abuse the CFD process by systematically misrepresenting guidelines and vindictively targeting the work of other editors, then it is important that this info is presented to the CFD discussion. In 17 years at CFD, I have never before seen anything remotely like this." (Diff)
12. "No it is not a 'difference of opinion'. There has been a systematic efforts by a tag team. ..." (Diff)

There are an additional dozen examples at ANI.

When I attempted to resolve this issue at BrownHairedGirl’s talk page, she wrote a parable about how I was like a corrupt police officer ignoring violence. (Diff)

I also took my concerns to a sprawling ANI nomination where BrownHairedGirl doubled down: “I stand by my comments.It will take me several hours to collect all the evidence, but I will make a full response when I have do[n]e so.“ (Diff suppressed, ANI timestamp 09:31, 7 July 2023) A week later, I'm still waiting for those Diffs though.

Both MJL and BrownHairedGirl did raise separate concerns about Laurel Lodged going back years but those aren't related to tag teaming and perhaps could be reviewed separately. There’s no similar history of bad blood with me though; in the past BrownHairedGirl even gave me a barnstar for my CFD work.

I just want the incivility to stop. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @L235: No, I find Floquenbeam's thoughtful suggestions helpful but incomplete. There is a content dispute and resolving that at an RFC as proposed sounds like the right path forward. There is also an issue with either rampant uncivil comments or justified comments to rampant WP:TAGTEAM meatpuppetry. An RFC can't resolve those issues and--despite the length of the discussion--ANI has barely scratched the surface of either. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want editors at CFD to apply what is actually written in the 100-word guideline WP:SMALLCAT, rather than citing it while ignoring what it actually says. I deplore the incivility to colleagues and the disruption to consensus-formation of repeatedly misrepresenting SMALLCAT. I deplore RevelationDirect's refusal to discuss the substance or open an RFC, and instead launch multiple dramas about the tone of my complaints. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Guerillero:, this isn't asking the other parent. This is RevelationDirect's third attempt (prev my talk and ANI) to weaponise civility policy to suppress objections to sustained misuse of SMALLCAT by RevelationDirect and others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @L235: Floquenbeam suggested at ANI a path to actual resolution: everyone involved will stand down from nominating/commenting on category deletion discussions related to SMALLCAT until there's been an RFC on SMALLCAT.
  The substance of this should be resolved at RFC, rather than a huge timesink at Arbcom which cannot resolve the substance. Whether SMALLCAT retains its current wording or is changed to something else, editors should follow what it actually says rather than what they would like it to say. (Ignoring everything except the opening word "small" is not a "interpretation"; it is flagrant misrepresentation.)
  Note that WP:ANI#The_core_issue_of_WP:SMALLCAT, I invited other parties to endorse a simple summary of what SMALLCAT actually' says. AFAICS, none of them has done so. Laurel Lodged called it "bait"; Oculi said your interpretation of what SMALLCAT means inherently causes SMALLCAT to defeat itself.
  This is absurd, and it is highly disruptive: when a highly experienced category editor like me creates categories within the letter and spirit of a stable guideline, they should not risk having their work arbitrarily deleted by a small group of editors who ignore the guideline's actual wording.
  The community needs to agree a wording, and editors need follow it (as with any guideline, there will be occasional exceptions, which should be explicitly acknowledged as occasional exceptions).
  I invite all parties to commit to upholding in letter and spirit whatever is agreed at RFC. One way or another we cannot conitinue the disruption of having the actual words of a stable guideline dismissed as "bait".--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarity, I commit to accepting the outcome of whatever is decided by the RFC(s) on SMALLCAT, and to follow it in letter and spirit.

  Also, I commend the idea of having one or more experienced but uninvolved editors assist consensus-formation by helping to draft the RFCs needed in a way which neutrally puts all issues and perspectives on the table. Can Arbcom help by nominating one or more facilitators? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I may be getting out of scope for this page, but one way in which WP:SMALLCAT could work more consistently and with less conflict is by explicitly requiring the nominator to address the principles set out in the guideline.
  E.g. with the curently-worded guideline, a new final para could say "Nominations citing SMALLCAT should explain why the nominator believes that the category a) lacks potential for growth, and b) is not part of an overall accepted series".
  Obviously, an RFC might led to a different set of questions being posed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first ANI, and this is my first ARC, so I hope I did/do things right. I don't have a long history with BrownHairedGirl (BHG) or "the three": Laurel Lodged (LL), RevelationDirect (RD), and Oculi; with all but until recently with BHG, my interactions have been amicable, and I believe they can be again in the future. I want BHG on English Wikipedia, but I think limited restrictions for her, and perhaps the three, are necessary to make future conduct acceptable.

I concur with the findings made by RD about BHG's lack of WP:CIVIL conduct at SMALLCAT CfDs. I therefore proposed:

• a WP:TBAN for BHG at SMALLCAT CfDs. This should solve the core issue identified by RD. Initially supported by some, opposed by others.

Later, evidence provided by other users (particularly S Marshall and Nobody) that BHG has been sanctioned for incivility in several ways before – including partial bans, temporary blocks, and desysoping – convinced me inaction towards BHG was no longer an option. We cannot afford wishful thinking. A SMALLCAT RfC (alone) won't solve this. More measures are necessary, also perhaps for the three. So I also proposed:

• a two-way WP:IBAN between BHG on the one hand and LL, RD, and Oculi on the other. More widely supported, especially between BHG and LL, less so between the others. BHG said she "didn't want anyone sanctioned", but "just wanted the WP:HOUNDING to stop". RD indicated she was "not sure" if a two-way IBAN is what she wanted, but she "just wanted the incivility to stop".

Finally, I proposed:

• a limited nomination ban on all 4: the three may not nominate any category created by BHG, nor may BHG nominate any category created by LL, RD or Oculi, nor may any of the 4 ask others to do so per WP:CANVASS. This should prevent the "team-tagging" and "revenge-nominating" as alleged by BHG. I'm not sure this is actually going on, but we should do this just in case, to prevent future hostilities. Worries about "gaming".

At the ANI, I tried to be helpful and serve as a sort of diplomat between BHG and the three, and suggest solutions to reach a consensus. But eventually, some people thought I was giving too much input, and recommended me to disengage, which I did. I was surprised Robert McClenon suggested a two-way IBAN between BHG and myself, but am grateful for the overwhelming response by the community: they saw no need, and generally found my own behaviour to be civil and amicable. That's what I strive for as a Wikipedian, although I'm not flawless. If some of my jokes towards BHG were too harsh, I'd like to apologise, and work with her again in the future. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to minimize my own involvement on ANI and CFD, and don't know any broader history, but I've written up a list of proposed changes to SMALLCAT to make the wording more clear, because after reading closely, I believe that the guideline is vague enough to support multiple incompatible interpretations, and should be discussed and updated by the community. While I believe this is a de-escalation path that those more involved should have considered a long while ago, I agree with others that it would be best to have a pause on WP:SMALLCAT nominations until an RfC is conducted. - car chasm (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I've been involved enough to justify being a party (with no participation in the underlying disputes), but I guess I'm fine with it. I have quite a bit to say about Laurel Lodged and think if Arbcom does accept this case, it should be re-titled to just name both him and BHG (even if there are other parties). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remain astounded that every AN/I thread about BHG seems to require a case request, rather than the community handling the problem on their own. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got Barkeep's ping. If you look at the ANI sprawl, I think it's clear that the community is not going to be able to resolve the whole dispute at ANI. I think there are a couple of options:

• Accept my proposed imperfect close. Because by it's nature it was unlikely to make everyone happy, I didn't want to close it myself with the low level of acceptance. Pros: saves time and heartache. Cons: probably doesn't get to the root of the problem, leaving it to simmer until next time.
• Maybe I'm completely wrong, and the whole mess at ANI could be definitively closed by someone. Pros: wouldn't that be great. Cons: seems unlikely.
• I think someone somewhere in that thread said BHG has an active civility parole type thing from the last ArbCom case? If true (I have no idea) as a community restriction (thanks Tamzin, thanks Izno), I think that clearly got violated, and could be referred to AE. Pros: saves some time and some heartache. Cons: if BHG is correct that there are behavioral concerns on the other "side" too, those don't get addressed.
• Accept a case to look at all facets of the case. Pros: there is at least some hope that this would get to the root of the problem. Cons: time and heartache.
• Do nothing. Pros: saves time (probably doesn't save heartache). Cons: instead of simmering, the problem is more likely to fester, and explode in the future.

I honestly don't know what would be best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: There is a community-imposed civility restriction. I have enforced it once (at the maximum first-block length of 12 hours), which was overwhemingly upheld at AN/I. I think it would be within admin discretion to invoke that restriction here, but have felt it would be better coming from a different admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Floq's clever ANI proposal to an ArbCom case. Not only have ArbCom earned a bit of a rest after the recent cases, but I think Floq's remedies are better than what ArbCom could provide. They're both generous (the current situation is messy enough that the slate is wiped clean) and tough (block for any involved party upon future violation), and the proposed SMALLCATS RfC will better address this in the long-run. DFlhb (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Floq said, not one bit of the ANI discussion was able to resolve the issue at hand even if some editors managed to make interesting and good points about the correct way to handle things. Here's a list of things of things that need to be examined, IMHO:

• Are BHG's WP:MEAT allegations valid?
• If the allegations are not valid, are they classified as personal attacks?
• If they are personal attacks, should there be a respective enforcement action?
• While defending themselves, BHG and LL have been repeatedly incivil, what level of WP:CIVIL enforcement is required at this stage?
• How is the community supposed to enforce WP:CIVIL policies with protracted conduct issues?

As I have also said at the ANI thread, it is theoretically impossible for a rational editor to read through the massive thread and decide on appropriate enforcement actions, as such, ArbCom is the body that is elected to go through conduct issues with a fine-toothed comb and seems to be perfect solution for protracted conduct issues involving long-standing editors (WP:UNBLOCKABLES, but I don't want to make an implication thereof). --qedk (t 愛 c) 00:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really really really really should make WP:Anchoring into a blue link and official policy. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Recused. Obviously. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @BrownHairedGirl: you are now at 538 words. Please don't add any more without requesting an extension or removing a comment which has not been replied to by others. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Will be awaiting more community feedback but it had seemed from my reading of the ANI thread that this was headed towards a community resolution with Floquenbeam's proposed close having no real opposition to implementation and so it was just a matter of that actually happening. Is this incorrect in some way? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Floq: from my POV, the community taking incremental action to keep something at a simmer rather than letting it boil doesn't strike me as a choice that would require ArbCom to step in necessarily. I'm really not opposed to opening a case with these plays in principle. But if the community can handle it - and by my read your close has support for implementation - I think the community should be the one to handle it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @QEDK: your opinion as (I believe) an uninvolved administrator is that a case is a better outcome than Floq's proposed close which you've also supported? If that is corrrect can you tell me why, as I believe Floq's close offers remedies to the issues you've identified, if not offering judgement about who is actually right and I'm not sure that's enough of a reason to justify a full case. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Floquenbeam, it is a community restriction. Izno (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline I am struggling to see how this isn't an extended exercise in asking the other parent to win a dispute. The request is almost a carbon copy of the opening post of the ANI thread. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @RevelationDirect, BrownHairedGirl, and Laurel Lodged: I would appreciate hearing your input as to whether Floquenbeam's proposal sounds like a reasonable way to proceed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]