Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case opened on 12:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Case closed on 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators. Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

• 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)
• Carchasm (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)
• Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Talk Page
• ANI

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

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]

  @BrownHairedGirl: you have been granted your requested additional 1000 words and 250 more words for a future reply. Further extensions are much less likely to be granted, so please plan accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BrownHairedGirl noting that you are about 300 words over your extension, as 250 of those words were reserved in case you needed to answer any questions from arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @RevelationDirect: you are now at 550 words. Please don't add any more without requesting an extension or removing a comment which has not been replied to by others (which at this point I think would only be your reply to L235 given that the entirity of the case request has been considered and replied to). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• RevelationDirect granted an extension to 1,000 words total. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:38, 17 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]
  • There is some opinion among those supporting Floq's close (including in my read from Floq himself) that the close is insufficient compared to a regular case. I am taking this feedback seriously and am now leaning towards an accept. Here's where I'm stuck. In a scenario where we have Veteran Editors A, B, C as the core parties to a case request about a somewhat sprawling and nasty at times CfD dispute, it's certainly conceivable we would accept the case. It's inconceivable, in my mind, that we would accept the case in light of a reasonable community solution with unanimous community support on how to move things forward. We would say "try the community solution and if that doesn't work come back to us". Instead the reason I think we're not just doing that is the BHG of it all and that when we last had a case request in 2021 we said "Try the community solution and if it doesn't work come back to us". But having a case just about BHG would be patently unfair to her and would not address the larger issues at play here, including potential misconduct by the other core parties. Not to mention the "come back and see us" was 2 years ago so it's not clear to me that the community solution hasn't been working. So exactly what case I would be voting to accept is unclear to me and since that's the case I'm not yet ready to do it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an RfC question that could clarify community consensus about SMALLCAT that is reasonably ready to go? Would appreciate input on this from anyone but will ping the 3 I see as the core parties to this case request, @RevelationDirect, BrownHairedGirl, and Laurel Lodged:. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might belong better at the Workshop, but I am puzzled by the editors suggesting we assume the community's restriction against BHG as I'm not sure what that addresses and part of the reason I think the community has a good track record of resolving disputes is that ArbCom leaves it alone to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that instructions for opening the case were sent to clerks earlier today so (hopefully) this case will be opened soonish pending availability from that team. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 20 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]

  What attempts have been made to resolve the conduct of the participants, ignoring the ANI discussion prior this case request? I am less inclined to a broad examination if there are no other attempts besides the recent one. Izno (talk) 18:58, 16 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]
  • We could/should probably so two cases here (as we did with American politics 2 and Collect et al. in 2015). Case 1 to examine BrownHairedGirl's conduct since Portals. I am an accept on this case due to Vermont's evidence that behavioral problems seem to follow BHG from topic area to topic area. Further, neither the community sanction nor ANI seem to be able to solve this ongoing issue. I was overly hopeful a few days ago that with Floq's almost close we could avoid a case. But here we are. We could also have a second case to examine the SmallCat issue. I am not sure that it is fully ripe for arbitration right now. There seems to have been little to no prior efforts to resolve the conflict outside of the mega ANI thread. The committee could consolidate these two issues into a single case, but that seems needlessly chaotic for the drafters. I am a firm no on the motion below. The RfC and the question on SmallCat should come from the community, not arbcom. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:32, 18 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]
  • For the information of the parties, I expect to vote to accept the case request. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I find Floquenbeam's proposal appealing for various reasons, and if we do have a vote on that I would be very inclined to support it. However, as Floq says above, this would not be truly dealing with the underlying reasons of the dispute. Most of our guidelines are imperfect, and there's no saying that after a RfC that a revised SmallCat will become perfect, or that the behaviour of the parties involved will change. When folks are in disagreement about interpretation of a guideline, there are better ways of sorting it out than engaging in long term disputes resulting in ANI reports and/or ArbCom case requests. I'm not seeing the issue here as being SmallCat itself, but in how folks have handled the natural disagreements as to interpretation of SmallCat. Changing SmallCat doesn't necessarily change the mindset or behaviour of the folks involved in the dispute - it may simply move the dispute to a new location somewhere down the road. When there are personal disputes between people such that the people themselves cannot or will not sort out themselves, and when the matter has been referred to ANI and the folks and admins there have spent a week and 35,000 words trying and failing to reach a solution and so have turned to ArbCom, I do think that ArbCom needs to take the case just to check if the issue is just an inability to behave appropriate in this dispute, and not that some of the individuals involved may have a mindset that generates a dispute out of minor disagreements. At heart here we have claims that BHG is incivil and involved in persecutory delusion, against BHG's own claims of vindictive, disruptive bad-faith tag-teaming. I think these claims do need looking into rather than brushing aside in an attempt to find a quick solution. Accept. SilkTork (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul August, would you please unblock BHG in order to allow them to continue to take part in this discussion. You may impose a restriction on BHG to forbid them from editing elsewhere, but they need to be allowed to take part in a discussion about them. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a 48 hour block I have no problem with copying replies from her user talk to here. I also admit that Paul's idea that he can't change his own block to be incongruent with the community's restriction. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: I could wikilawyer why I think you could have undone your own block, but unlike a community ban or some other community sanction, which an individual, even the one implementing, can't undo without consensus, this was still a grant to individual admin and I don't think the community had any desire to impose a kafkaesque one way imposition on that grant to individual admins. This is based, in no small part, on my re-read of the discussion about sanctions that led to this editing restriction a few days ago. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with including User:Paul August and User:Courcelles as parties as I don't see the clear consensus for either the block or the unblock. I'm seeing the case as behaviour and conduct around disagreement over interpreting the SmallCat guideline; as such, if the case is accepted, it would be appropriate to name it after the guideline rather than any one person. If there is a case, do we need to include everyone listed as parties in this request? MJL, for example, doesn't appear to have been involved in the categories dispute. SilkTork (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul August and User:Courcelles. My agreement with accepting you both as parties in the case is based on the notion that there is more to the blocking and unblocking than a simple trout-worthy error, that either or both of you are involved in either the SmallCat dispute or some prior relationship with one or more of the main parties. It is not uncommon for grievances to emerge during an ArbCom request, but when those grievances turn into actions utilising admin tools then there will be some concerns of involvement. I'm not seeing any involvement, and if no one provides any evidence of involvement then I won't be supporting you be named as parties. SilkTork (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting I've seen this; I'm inclined to accept, but I'll wait for further developments before doing so. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept Per Barkeep49. I don't think two cases are needed here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept I agree with SilkTork's analysis of the situation. Most editors manage to routinely disagree about guideline interpretations without needing ANI, let alone ArbCom, intervention. The problem here isn't the wording of SMALLCAT, and the idea of running an RfC is just a distraction from the underlying issues which will crop up at some other guideline dispute in the future. — Wug·a·po·des 22:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse Worm^TT(talk) 13:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. It's clear I misread the clear consensus in favor of implementing the "drive-by" close of the ANI thread. While that close was all about creating conditions for an RfC, the support for it seems to have really been more a case of "the conduct present in this ANI thread needs something, ANI isn't going to be able to do it, this drive by close is something, so support". Such a situation clearly means we've reached the "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" stage of things. I am of mixed feelings about Guillero's suggestion of 2 cases. My concern is that I think it puts BHG in a spot where the broader context of the most recent dispute (e.g. any potential baiting of her) is out of scope or otherwise given less weight. The benefit is that I think it becomes a bit easier to then include Paul August and Courcelles as parties in the BHG side of things because if the outcome of that case were anything except an arbcom ban of BHG having clarity about how BHG's existing restriction should be handled feels like a necessity. In either scenario I feel that the conduct of RevelationDirect and Laurel Lodged also needs examining. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Courcelles analysis of his actions and those of Paul August (see also my user talk for more from PA) feels correct. It suggests to me that including them if we decide to keep it to a single case (my current preference) would be unnecessary and perhaps even a mistake. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite ready to vote yet, but leaning towards accepting, providing that the case we take makes sense. We can interpret existing policy, but it is not our job, as a committee, to lead the way on policy changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept I am also unsure exactly where this case will lead us, but it seems there is a real problem here that needs to be adressed, and that the community has been unable to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. I am not sure what will be done, but something needs to be changed in this editing dynamic; BHG's enthusiasm for whatever project she sets her mind to is commendable, but does tend to go over the top rather often. Civility issues cannot happen in a vacuum of course, so I am not opposed to looking into the activities of the other editors as well. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

3) Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

4) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. Interaction bans may be used to force editors to do so.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

5) Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. In most cases, consensus is an implicit process, where undisputed edits—either in article or project space—are assumed to have consensus. In cases where consensus is unclear, extra care must be taken to avoid stirring up unnecessary conflict. From both a broad behavioral and content standpoint, there exist situations on Wikipedia where it is preferable to be cautious and seek consensus prior to an edit instead of editing boldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

6) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

7) Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editors being subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

8) Reasonable editors can disagree on how to apply policies and guidelines in a given circumstance. When a group of editors have repeated disagreements on policy and guideline application they are encouraged to use dispute resolution and to otherwise gain broader community feedback about the policy or guideline. Failure to do so can result in an invalid or contradictory local consensus forming.

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

1) The inciting incident for this case arose from a number of CfDs which hinged on how to apply SmallCat to categories involving expatriates. The dispute began when BrownHairedGirl questioned several nominations. A number of such categories had been uncontroversially decided at CfD in 2022 and 2023 by a small number of editors, most of whom are parties to this case, including some after BrownHairedGirl began to participate in these discussions (Oculi evidence).

SmallCat has been part of a guideline since 2006. Originally named "No potential for growth", it was changed after editors were using it to delete categories based purely on numbers. There has been an ongoing desire, never reaching consensus, to apply a strict numerical threshold for SmallCat (jc37 evidence). Use of such numerical thresholds, even if phrased as a "rule of thumb" or similar such phrase, in CFDs is therefore not supported by the guideline. However, reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions about other elements of the guideline, including the potential for growth and whether categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

2) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) was a party to the January 2020 Portals case. The Arbitration Committee found that BrownHairedGirl repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, mass reverted another editor, used her administrative powers to delete portals, and violated a temporary injunction during the case. As a remedy, BrownHairedGirl was deysopped, topic banned from portals, and placed under an interaction ban.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

3) BrownHairedGirl has displayed a history of starting and escalating disputes with the way she labels other editor's actions and otherwise engaging in incivility (e.g. DanCherek, DIYeditor evidence). Her participation in discussions can often become disruptive owing to the number and length of her replies (e.g. August 2021 ANI, July 2023 ANI, Trainsandotherthings evidence). BrownHairedGirl has shown limited ability to compromise, even in conversations that remain civil and productive, though she can sometimes convince others of her point of view (e.g. Pppery, Tamzin evidence).

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

4) On August 8, 2021, a report regarding BrownHairedGirl's conduct was made to ANI. That same day, BrownHairedGirl was blocked for 1 week for Major breaches of WP:CIV and WP:NPA toward many editors. This block was lifted 1 hour later. On August 10, a case request was made to the Arbitration Committee related to issues raised at ANI and the block/unblock. Later that day a community restriction stating that Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks, she may be blocked first for twelve hours and then for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion. was proposed and was adopted by the community on August 16. The case request was subsequently declined.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

5) On August 9, 2021, BrownHairedGirl was blocked for violating her community restriction for 12 hours (and subsequently had talk page access revoked). On July 16, 2023, BrownHairedGirl was blocked for 48 hours for violating her community restriction. 3 hours later this block was reversed. The unblocking administrator subsequently noted at the SmallCat case request that it would have likely been better to wait a few more hours to confirm the consensus was present to unblock, while the blocking administrator commented at the SmallCat case request that he didn't have a problem with the unblock.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

6) Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) has failed to observe the consensus reached at CfD and has emptied categories out-of-process (ANI, Dan Cherek evidence, MJL evidence).

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

7) Since 2021, Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) has been called to task for misgendering users, making comments about other editors' mental health (Dan Cherek evidence), using incendiary language when mentioning religion, indicating religious intolerance (MJL evidence), using sexually-charged language in an edit summary towards BrownHairedGirl and later making a personal attack towards her by speculating on her mental health. (Beccaynr evidence). When concerns have been raised with him, Laurel Lodged has sometimes made inflamatory comments and at times failed to respond (MJL evidence, Valereee evidence).

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

8) In July 2023 Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) made fun of BrownHairedGirl for multiple typos in her statements at an ANI thread, continuing to do so even after it was revealed that BrownHairedGirl had a malfunctioning keyboard. Nederlandse Leeuw later apologised for making those comments. Nederlandse Leeuw has also bludgeoned some discussions. (DIYeditor evidence)

Passed 10 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

4) Laurel Lodged is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

5) Laurel Lodged is indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories. In addition to discussing categories and their maintenance, this includes – but is not limited to – directly adding or removing categories from pages, and moving or renaming categories.

Passed 7 to 4 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

8) Nederlandse Leeuw is warned about their behavior during conduct discussions.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

9) Editors participating in XfD, especially those forums with a small number of regular participants, are reminded to be careful about forming a local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers at an XfD forum may also want to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.