Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop

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

Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk) & Primefac (Talk) & SilkTork (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.

Concern about Fayenatic london's talk page

There are several threads on User talk:Fayenatic london directly related to this case which JaggedHamster mentioned earlier in their evidence. Additional comments have been made since then.

I started to draft a proposed temporary injunction but @Fayenatic london: is an admin, albeit one on holiday, so they probably don't need my intervention on their behalf. I did want to register my concern though that this all occurring outside the ArbComm pages. (If this is the wrong location for this, please direct me to the right one.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I will just note that the more recent discussion on FL's page is not in evidence (only the previous discussion) so if there's something relevant you think the committee needs to consider feel free to enter it into evidence. That said I'm not seeing anything either in that chain, or the subsequent one, which would necessitate any sort of injunctive need, especially since neither FL or jc are parties. What kind of injunction were you thinking about @RevelationDirect? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that conversation was appropriate during a case but I've never drafted/proposed an injunction before. I defer to your judgment here. (Thanks for the prompt reply!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Where to put principles

Moved from the workshop page@Barkeep49: Should I post those new principles that could be appropriate for this case here? And should they be relevant for the remainder of this case (Workshop phase and Proposed decision phase), or can I also post feedback and recommendations for future ARCs based on the phases that have now been closed (Preliminary statements phase and Evidence phase)? I think I've got a lot of helpful input for the latter, but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking for? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw the idea of the Workshop is to suggest things for the proposed decision. The proposed decision gets voted on and turned into the final decision. So you would use the templates on the Workshop page that are labeled "Proposed principles" under "Proposals by User:Example" to suggest principles. For examples of what decisions look like you can look at previous cases. And this page is a collection of previous principles used in ArbCom cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: thank you for linking to these examples. I saw one that imho is particularly applicable to this case (about good intentions not justifying undesirable conduct), but is there a need to repeat that principle here, or is it redundant because committee members are perfectly well acquainted with these example principles anyway? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If you think a past principle is particularly salient, you are welcome to point to it, but I do not think that you need to necessarily rewrite the entire thing (even if it is just a copy/paste job). There are a lot of cases to pull similar precedent from, and I for one am more than happy to be pointed to specifics and save a little time. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thanks! Sorry, I didn't get your ping of 19:49, 5 August 2023 somehow, I didn't know you had moved my question here and answered me already (isaacl informed me on my talk). I now understand that we're considering to reuse past principles (or perhaps developing new principles) for the Proposed decision phase alone. (I see I've got an awful lot of reading to do, but I must also say I find it interesting. Law, jurisprudence etc. are things I write Wikipedia articles about. )

Shall I wait with feedback for future cases until after the Final decision has been made? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop does say the Workshop subpage is, amongst other things, meant for receiv[ing] feedback. But much of what I intend to share isn't relevant for the remainder of this case, so I think I'll wait with that, okay? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What kind of feedback do you have in mind @Nederlandse Leeuw? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you have feedback specifically about this case, but not relevant to coming to a final decision then the main case talk page is probably best. Feedback about the arbitration process or arbitration cases more generally belongs at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 @Thryduulf Well, for example... This issue is still relevant for the deadlines of the remaining phases of this case. I don't know if it's helpful or wise to be editing the template right now, but it is probably technically possible. But it's not really an "arb principle", it's an information thing:

Clear deadlines of phases

It would be helpful if the Template:Casenav included precise timestamps for when each phase of the case will be closed. Currently, the information says Target dates: Opened 21 July 2023 • Evidence closes 4 August 2023 • Workshop closes 11 August 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 18 August 2023. I assumed this meant the Evidence phase would be closed on 23:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) at the latest, but I wasn't sure. Another editor Didn't realize that time limit. (...) [more text I've already written].

More relevant to arb principles are things like what arbitrators should probably say by default, or link to by default, if a participants asks a question, or if a certain external event happens which influences the case. E.g. I didn't know the WP:ARBPRINCIPLES page even existed until Barkeep49 linked to it yesterday 16:10, 5 August 2023. Linking to it, or having a standard answer to frequently asked questions (that you could copypaste or easily reproduce), could save everyone a lot of time and concerns/stress, and give everyone more legal certainty. In short: it's great if we all know what to expect. For example...

Role of draft evidence sub-pages in the userspace

It would have been helpful if a link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Evidence sub-pages in user space had been provided when this happened on 14:01, 2 August 2023. By the time the Evidence phase was closed (16:00, 5 August 2023), no arbitrator had linked to it. In between that time, at least 4 out of 7 involved parties (myself included), as well as one uninvolved party, were unsure/confused/mistaken about the role draft evidence sub-pages in the userspace was allowed to play during the case. Both [A] and I had to ask arbitrators at the Evidence talk as to what role (...) I found myself having to piece the rules together from the comments of the two arbitrators and from what WP:POLEMIC said in order to explain the situation to [B], [C], and [D] at various times, because they were similarly confused. (...) [more text I've already written].

This specific example of linking to an existing arb principle probably won't play a role in the Proposed decision phase anymore? But lots of other existing arb principle sections on that page might be. Arbs could save themselves a lot of time and trouble just linking to it. It would also make participants less dependent on arbs to answer their questions, both in terms of time and trust. (I could explain that in detail, if helpful).

So it's these kinds of feedback that I would like to share. But I'm not sure where to post it, and to which remaining phases of this particular ARC it may still be relevant or not. That all has to do with the fact that, well, I have never been in an ARC before, so I'm not sure what to expect haha. That's why a lot of these things are also focussed on making clear to inexperienced editors how this process is supposed to work, and to a large degree focussed on phases that I have now already passed through for the first time.

So if either or both of you have good ideas on where and when and in what format to share this, please say so! I'd really like to make things easier for everyone if I can. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Procedural question

A further discussion of WP:SMALLCAT is potentially a remedy to this ARBCOM case. In fact the discussion about the guideline already started during ANI and still continues, see Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization. Should the discussion about the guideline be put on hold pending the final result of the ARBCOM case? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you are asking this here? If anywhere, you should ask over there whether people like me should stop posting on that talk page about it until this case is over. But I think you already answered your own question when you submitted a motion saying the community can take care of this regardless of this case, which is about conduct, not content. It's not a remedy the Arbcom can propose, they have no jurisdiction over content. I would agree that no proposals about substantial changes to the current guideline should be voted on before the case is over (and I've already said I'm not putting anything to a vote yet). But otherwise, discussions about it seem fine to me (as long as they don't lead to new disputes, in which case we should probably put them on hold as suggested). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I do have an answer on my question for myself, just want to verify we aren't doing anything that would hinder this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a legitimate concern, so I understand why you are expressing it, and I am taking it into account for sure. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbcom addresses conduct, not content. So I would imagine that discussion can still happen there while any conduct issues are being sorted out. Obviously, all editors should probably be on their best behaviour : ) - jc37 00:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A section of the evidence I submitted suggested just the opposite: that a substantive SMALLCAT discussion did not stop the incivility. (The editing guideline should be clarified though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose that as long as at the Smallcat future reform discussion we do not invoke any examples or case studies which have led to the current ARC (since the 13 June 2023 Expatriates CfM), we are not at risk of the entangling the two. This is why the stuff I have written at User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Examining the phrase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme is so far only about stuff that has happened between 2006 and 2014. This is also why at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Upmerge For Now Without Prejudice Against Re-creation (WPAR) I felt comfortable including examples Oculi has given for January–May 2023, preceding the examples which have led to the current ARC.

Even though the reconstructions jc37 and I have written about the development and early history of Smallcat, and the examples Oculi has gathered, were all written during this case, they do not contain any references to it. It's just that when the history of something suddenly becomes important, all of us suddenly need to take on the role of a historian. (A few months ago I discovered that Google Ngram showed a remarkable steep rise / spike in usage of the phrase "grand duchy of moscow" in English-language books published in 1939–1941 which are now available on Google Books. Why would that be? Because WW2 broke out in 1939, then in June 1941 Operation Barbarossa happened, and therefore everyone suddenly wanted to understand/explain the existence of Russia / the Soviet Union, so lots of writers began publishing books containing the phrase "grand duchy of moscow". The history of Russia had suddenly become important, so lots of people suddenly needed to take on the role of a historian of Russia, even though the Grand Duchy of Moscow ceased to exist arguably in 1547, far before WW2 broke out. I believe this sudden 1939–1941 spike is the reason why the term "grand duchy" has become part of the WP:COMMONNAME for that dynastic state of Moscow in modern English literature, even though every other article on Rus' principalities on English Wikipedia is titled (Grand) Principality of Foo, as specialised historians of Russia prefer the term "principality" over "duchy", which is better applied to Western than Eastern European history. Anyway, back to the topic at hand.)

It's important in such a situation to write sine ira et studio, and not skew the background / pre-history of the thing that has suddenly become important in the present in favour of the POV one takes in the present. I believe we are being careful with that, but we should remain aware and self-critical of it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Just an aside - when you say "jc37 and I", I presume you're speaking of the SmallCat info I posted on the evidence page, which you've copied/quoted. (Which I'm fine with, as you did attribution lol.)

I only clarify this in that, I haven't as yet joined in any of the SmallCat discussion afaik. - jc37 21:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Zero tolerance of sexism: a refinement suggestion

Saying we will have zero tolerance for any sexism may have an accidental negative impact. Unconscious gender bias is widespread and exists even in women. To make a less sexist environment, we should all accept where we have bias and work to address it. If we say we have zero tolerance for any level of sexism (and I assume therefore bias) then that implies that someone will be banned for admitting it and that will incentivise editors away from admitting error. That will inhibit editors from acknowledging bias and creating an environment of equality.

I suggest we say we will take robust action where there is overt sexism or harassment but would caution away from zero tolerance policies about anything as they tend to be very clumsy policies that don't consider very mild accidental errors that many people (including equity-deserving people) make. CT55555(talk) 20:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555: Thanks for your input. There is a place on the workshop page for commentary should you wish to leave it there, the "Comment by others" section below the proposed principle. I will reply there. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Workshop extended

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute § Evidence re-opened and workshop extended.[edit]

The evidence phase has been re-opened. Both the evidence and workshop phases will now close at 23:59 (UTC) on 13 August. At this particular point in time the drafters do not expect other phases will need to be extended to accommodate this change, but if necessary we will make that announcement. This extension of the evidence phase is to allow participants to provide further clarification to any statements that require it, as well as answer questions from Arbitrators if necessary. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: Will the involved parties be notified? - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

By posting this notice in three different locations, it is generally assumed that parties to this case will see said notice. I do not recall notifying parties for similar announcements in past cases, though I may be mistaken. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Stepping away from this

I've come to the conclusion that I've said everything I wanted to say at this point in my preliminary statement, evidence submission, and AN/I subsection. Anyone is free to ping me with any questions they have, but otherwise I've said what I needed to say.

Though, I'd like to encourage BHG to use the extended evidence phase to publicly post her draft evidence. It does not need to be more than 10,000 words, and it could simply be re-written to be less than half while still including the same amount of information. If you want help rewriting it to fit within the word limit, I can do that over email. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks for the offer, but I don't believe that it could be condensed that far without removing important parts of my case.

I don't have the energy to edit it myself, or to review anyone else's edits to it.

Also, I am worn out with his circus, and utterly fed up with it. It is utterly absurd that such a vast amount of my time has been sucked into this timesink of a storm created by a small group of editors who believe that they can both participate in an encyclopedia-building project and insist that words mean whatever they want them to mean. Those goals are incompatible: they can have one or the other, but not both. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

And if that's a belief you have, you should be able to present at least a portion of evidence proving such beliefs using the extended word limit provided to you (imho). --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not prepared to omit any part of my evidence. It's all highly relevant. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

But if I understand right... by not presenting it, you're omitting all of it. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Request extension of Workshop phase

In the last few hours, Nederlandse Leeuw has been piling on multiple allegations against me. I cannot possibly respond to this properly in the few hours remaining. it's 9pm here, and I am tired, and have a lot of real life things to do.

Please can the arbs extend the /workshop phase for at least few days, so that I have an opportunity to reply? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No objection from me. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The answer is yes. I'm going to add a day for now given that I'm the only drafter around but will talk tomorrow with Primefac about whether any additional time beyond that is appropriate. I will note that I think at this point we may also push the proposed decision date, which seemed likely before this from my point of view and even more necessary with this further extension. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no need for yet another extension. There is nothing new about anything I have posted today that hasn't already been posted about before by other people. These are summaries of conclusions already reached before, mostly by other people. In other words, a meta-analysis. They are mostly not even about BHG, but about LL, and the perceived response or lack thereof by the community. All issues have already been responded to by BHG in the Workshop and elsewhere, usually many days ago. Further extensions will not help bring this process to a conclusion, but only further undermine the legal certainty for all parties involved, and for the others participating in this process. For these reasons, I ask that the request to extend the Workshop phase not be approved. For everyone's sake, we need to conclude this case at some point. Good day to all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  As someone who has to do cases on the regular, I want to create disincentives for huge last minute additions to cases and instead incentivize additions throughout the posted periods. I'm not saying there was any "gaming" or the like, just noting my general thinking on this topic. Importantly in this case, there is a reason that the workshop generally closes after evidence - to give additional time to process, analyze, and propose, and so this extension (and potential further extension after discussion) restores that feature (if less than the week we normally give) to the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  If it is really just 1 extra day, and the Workshop closes definitively at 23:59 UTC on 14 August 2023, then perhaps that might be alright. It would have been helpful if that extra day was already added to the Workshop phase when the Evidence phase was extended (but that's easy to say now in hindsight). I just find it distressing that the rules are constantly being changed while we're "playing the game". This is the kind of stuff that can keep me up at night; have I submitted my Evidence properly, have I analysed and responded in the Workshop accurately and appropriately etc. before the deadlines close? At some point things need to end, or we keep being in this tense situation where, to be honest, none of us really wants to be in. No more extensions, please. I would like to know when certain phases are definitively closed. Good day to all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Extension of time are not "changing the rules". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not a drafter here, so I'm writing as an individual arb only. It's my view that it's appropriate to grant extensions upon reasoned request, and that we should generally do so when necessary to avoid gamesmanship or to allow substantive responses to new submissions (and when the extension request itself doesn't seem to be an act of gamesmanship). Moving away from this model while still aiming for fairness would require some significant changes to how we do things at ArbCom: for example, the imposition of several rounds of submissions in each case phase, where the appropriate scope of each subsequent round is only to cover genuine responses to submissions from the previous round. That's not how we structure cases right now, which I think makes extensions in some cases unavoidable. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks KevinL, that makes sense. But I really hope this 24-hour extension of the Workshop phase will then be the last. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I only became aware of the evidence that I submitted very recently. — SamX [talk · contribs] 21:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw:It's absolutely not true that All issues have already been responded to by BHG in the Workshop and elsewhere. I hadn't addressed before any of the issues which NL raised these evening.

  As to legal certainty, I found that the charge sheet was growing rapidly with only hours left for me to respond. Most legal processes stabilise the allegations and the prosecution case, and the give the accused plenty of time to respond. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

On 16:13, 24 July 2023, BrownHairedGirl expressed to me a desire to WP:DISENGAGE from you entirely. I have respected that consistently, not tagging or pinging her, or directly addressing her in the second person singular ever since. I would appreciate it if BrownHairedGirl now also stopped tagging/pinging me, and stopped addressing me directly in the second person singular with "you said this" or "you did not do that". I have no desire to directly interact with BHG if she does not want to do so with me either. I think that would be in both our best interests, to prevent further unconstructive interactions. Good day to all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That disengagement remains my deep desire. But since I made that request, Nederlandse Leeuw has made it their business to devote huge amounts of energy in pursuit of their stated intention to turn hostile to me after I refused their inadequate apology. Far from seeking dispute resolution, they have been working hard to oppose me at every opportunity and to deepen and broaden the dispute; at ANI they repeatedly rebuked me for seeking a resolution rather than sanctions.

So I have been forced to spend a huge amount of my time and energy responding to the endless stream of assertions and allegations from NL ... yet now NL complains that I respond.

If I bother replying to anything else here, I will try to not ping NL, but since I usually ping in replies there will be some lapses. But I am deeply sick of this barrage of NL trying to find reasons to attack me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hate to say the obvious but arbitration cases are inherently contentious, it is more obvious to feel dejected after someone rejects your sincere apology. Also, I will note that NL has not disagreed with everything you have said, quite importantly, about some of the incivility you experienced. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, lemme amend that: there were one or two exceptions to the endless barrage of hostility from NL, which has been ongoing since they piled onto me at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G and repeatedly misrepresented SMALLCAT with assertions such as "The burden of evidence for growth potential was on whoever created those nearly-unpopulated categories in the first place". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Done, see below. Primefac (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Workshop phase extended (2)

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute § Workshop phase extended.[edit]

The workshop phase has been extended and will now close at 23:59 (UTC) on 16 August. To accommodate this change, the Proposed Decision is set to be posted on 23 August. Primefac (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Workshop Motion After Close

@Barkeep49 and Primefac: I have a motion that @BrownHairedGirl:'s proposed finding of facts #2 through #5 be stricken since no evidence was submitted. These were presented 6 minutes before the extended Workshop deadline so I wasn't able to reply on the page. While I don't need any days long extension, may I have permission to raise that on sentence motion on the workshop page? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I have no objection to BHG's last comment even though it was 7 minutes after the buzzer, since it was replying to something I posted late.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I was expecting something like this. My evidence is at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Workshop had already closed when replied to the last minute findings of fact . I opened this procedural conversation here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Although no arbitrator has yet formally closed the Workshop phase, I'm happy to have all contributions posted after the announced deadline of 23:59 16 August, including mine, to be removed if out of date. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I misunderstand how this works then. I just assumed the timestamp was final, but I've never done this before. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it goes until the page is marked closed. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I added it then. Please strike if not allowed. @BrownHairedGirl: I wasn't sure if you wanted me to copy your comment there; please provide feedback if you wish. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Accidentally omitted you above. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I was expecting something like this. My evidence is at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case. But you know that has been excluded as evidence. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Motion to strike Proposed Findings of Fact #4.11.2.2, 4.11.2.3, 4.11.2.4 & 4.11.2.5

2) Since WP:ARBGUIDE#Workshop requires that "Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page." and these had none, I propose striking them. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I am short on time so I can only say that the workshop has now closed. Additions made in the last ~90 minutes are allowed to stand but proposals which do not meet the standard of the workshop may still be removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There is also the point that this is a workshop, and the drafting Arbitrators are not obligated to use any of the proposals. We will take the above into advisement. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm okay. But then we could be in the paradoxical situation in which proposed findings of fact which are not supported by the /Evidence page need to be removed, but comments made to those proposed findings of fact which are supported by the /Evidence page need not be? Funny. For the record, I don't mind them being removed altogether. After all, there's no point in commenting on a proposal that has been disqualified and removed, either because it was posted too late, or unsupported by /Evidence. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

My concern is not that the evidence is off of the Evidence page (although that is what the guide page requires), but that no specific sections or diffs are quoted which is also required. If I had been less rushed, I would have quoted WP:ARBGUIDE#Workshop a little differently. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Quoting out of context

I would like to make the point that BHG has complained about people quoting her out of context, yet in the very complaint about this on her talk page she quoted SilkTork “We are not here to assess the rights and wrongs of the SmallCat guideline, or decide who is right or wrong in their interpretation of that guideline”.

This is itself a radical application of quoting out of context, and seems quite unfair to the Arbitrator. - 49.195.118.157 (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This could've been a part of the Workshop phase but it's okay ig. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Funnily enough this is the very point I commented on just after the formal deadline of the Workshop had passed. Even if her interpretation were correct (which is disputed, while she claims anyone who disagrees is "misrepresenting" it), the Arbitrator is saying the Arbcom has no jurisdiction to decide who is right or wrong in their interpretation of that guideline anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I strong disagree that I was quoting out of context. No other part of Silk Tork's comment[1] addresses directly or indirectly the misrepresentation of SmallCat. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you did selectively quote him. Right before the bit you quoted, Silk Tork wrote that “I think it's worth underlining that it is conduct that we will be focusing on. We are not here to assess the rights and wrongs of the SmallCat guideline, or decide who is right or wrong in their interpretation of that guideline.”

What you do not seem to understand, BHG, is that ArbCom does not adjudicate on content guidelines. They solely look at conduct disputes that cannot be resolved by the wider community. Your conduct was the problem here, not the debate about interpretations of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline. It is quite hypocritical for you to make multiple (often inaccurate) claims that you have been quoted out of context when in fact you yourself then quote another person out of context. For someone who bandies about terms such as “contextonomy” you seem remarkably unaware of when one is and is not being quoted out of context. It doesn’t seem to have helped your case any. - 49.181.44.177 (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies!

Thought I'd drop in an apology - I followed a direct link to a workshop post, scrolled from there and found some principles to comment on. Unfortunately, this meant I missed the rather large and very clear statement at the top that the workshop was closed. I've rolledback my own edits and thus will hopefully be saved from the much warranted wrath of the arbcom clerks. Apologies again, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The wrath of the ArbCom clerks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV7RkPJUbQ8 It's true, I was subjected to it. -qedk (t 愛 c) 12:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

LOL. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering ...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BHG posted a section on their talk page saying that they put in 80 hours of work collecting evidence. (Somewhere else they said 100 hours.) But I don't see where they have posted anything. Seems like they've withdrawn from this action, then. What does that actually mean? Will a default decision be given against them? I added my experiences because I thought they were relevant, but now I'm not so sure.

And It's not hard to empathize with them. Seems like a fight of a million to one, and then there's the Byzantine rules and processes. If this machine were pointed in my direction, I'd probably just resign, too. What advocate or help do they have? What happens when someone don't have hours to collect and review and respond? So now I'm wondering ... is this really the way that Wikipedia should work? -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

When asked to limit her evidence to 5,000 words (or more than 2.5x granted to any other party) BHG decided that was unacceptable and so she decided not to submit any evidence. It is important to remember that ArbCom is not a court of law. Which is reflected in my skim of BHG's evidence, which did far less to defend herself than present evidence against others, and also in the fact that others posted evidence which "defended" BHG. The community process which has evidence from a number of editors participating, as in this case, does represent how I want Wikipedia to work. I find cases where parties are the only ones participating much harder to reach good decisions in. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

To answer another part of the initial query, whether or not a named party participates in the process does not automatically affect any potential outcome; we base our case around the presented evidence. In some cases, of course, that means that little to no counter-evidence will be provided, but as Barkeep49 mentions there have been a large number of participants in this case with a fairly large amount of evidence in either direction. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The outline history of the case is straightforward.

BHG objected to the misuse of SMALLCAT at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G and WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Expatriates_2; got piled on at the first and personally attacked at the second. In revenge for having challenged the misuse, BHG's own categorisation work was repeatedly targeted using the same misrepresentation of SMALLCAT, at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 24 (overtly at §Irish astrophysicists) and the next day at CFD: People by occupation in Northern Ireland, where the dispute exploded. An editor who supported the misuse falsely accused BHG of having "threatened" the closer, then bizarrely came to BHG's talk to preach about "civility", refused to discuss substance, and then engaged in a massive exercise in quoting out of context to create a mega-storm at ANI.

The choice facing the arbs is whether they focus on:

1. the root of the problem, which is the misuse of SMALLCAT and the revenge nominations and the quote-mining to create a storm;
   or
2. tone-policing BHG's responses to the attacks, in support of the cancel culture strategy of those who misrepresent SMALLCAT and have quote-mined several years of BHG's work in pursuit of their goal of silencing objectors to their disregard of the UCoC requirement to "strive towards accuracy and verifiability".

My User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case focuses on those roots of the dispute, rather than on the dramas along the way. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You've said repeatedly that you've withdrawn your participation from this case, but since you're still here I do have a couple questions that have been on my mind if you could answer them. You once again bring up the UCoC here; could you explain sections 2.2 and 3.1 of that document to me? Do those sections apply to you? My impression is that you want ArbCom to enforce the UCoC. Should we enforce those sections even if that constitutes "tone-policing" and "cancel culture" as you put it? As a strong advocate of accuracy and intellectual integrity, I assume you have a good explanation for why you never seem to quote the part of the UCoC that hold you responsible for your tone and civility; I would be interested in hearing it because I myself can't seem to reconcile these positions. You set up this dichotomy between the SMALLCAT issue and "tone-policing" but if I read the whole UCoC (not just the part you quote) it seems that the dichotomy is false and upholding that document requires that both aspects be considered. Am I missing something? Why is it not possible for us to look at the conduct of everyone involved, including you? — Wug·a·po·des 23:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: It's a matter of priorities.

We are here to build an encyclopedia. That's the core of it. Without that, everything else is superfluous.

This dispute arises from a bunch of editors who set out to misrepresent a simple stable guideline, in order to engage in arbitrary mass deletion of parts of the encyclopedia.

When challenged, they accused me of "threatening" the closer by mentioning deletion review. Then they escalated to revenge nominations to delete my work.

Then they escalated again, creating a mega-storm by quote-mining my comments to strip out the reasons why I made strong assertions. Quote-mining is a propaganda technique used in the worst sort of politics, and it should have no place in any intellectual project.

So it's a matter of priorities. Which do you think is more significant to Wikipedia?

1. Repeatedly misrepresenting a simple, stable guideline to mass delete, and the making revenge deletions, and using propaganda techniques to smear an editor who objects, and treating a mention of the community review's process as a "threat" and "intimidation"?
2. Using a parliamentary-acceptable term such as "disingenuous" in reply, describing vindictive retaliation bluntly, and asking "really really really" to editors who behave as if "Small with no potential for growth" means the same thing as "small"?

This is a fundamental choice facing Arbcom, about the nature of Wikipedia. If you don't give some leeway to those who try to uphold the core purpose of Wikipedia, and leave them to be monstered by those who want words to mean whatever they like and wreak havoc by mass deletion and revenge, then you create a climate where it's not safe to challenge damage. When the Arbs wouldn't give me space to produce evidence of the quote-mining and the double-standards of Oculi and of the nature and history of the guideline, I reckoned the case had already been framed against me.

It seems that even at this late stage, the Arbs don't see clearly that the reason a dispute became a mega drama is because of revenge for challenging the sustained misrepresentation of a guideline. I know of no other environment where the response to such disruption is to tone-police the objector who has been targeted by the mob for challenging the destructive absurdity of their assertions that black is white.

I really thought that objecting to the blatant misuse of SMALLCAT would be a short saga. But now I fid that it has become a two-month megadrama. How can Wikipedia stop a repetition of this disruption if the misrepresenting mass-deleters get rewarded with the scalp of the objector? How can editors use community processes to challenge abuse if they get monstered for mentioning them? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you of this but other editors disagreeing with your incivility is not tone-policing your responses but rather calling you out on your conduct. --qedk (t 愛 c) 23:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: So why didn't you put this as your evidence (perhaps with several key diffs, or even long chains of diffs at important points in the summary):

The outline history of the case is straightforward.

::::BHG objected to the misuse of SMALLCAT at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates_A-G and WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Expatriates_2; got piled on at the first and personally attacked at the second. In revenge for having challenged the misuse, BHG's own categorisation work was repeatedly targeted using the same misrepresentation of SMALLCAT, at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 24 (overtly at §Irish astrophysicists) and the next day at CFD: People by occupation in Northern Ireland, where the dispute exploded. An editor who supported the misuse falsely accused BHG of having "threatened" the closer, then bizarrely came to BHG's talk to preach about "civility", refused to discuss substance, and then engaged in a massive exercise in quoting out of context to create a mega-storm at ANI.

You chose not to cooperate. I looked through your long evidence and I don't think it makes a better case than the short version. Asking you condense it down is just common sense. You also refuse to address the behavioral/civility concerns at all. There no "quote farming" necessary for any CIVIL violation, the diffs speak for themselves. If I were an Arb I would be pretty fed up with you at this point, I assume they will have more patience than I. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor, the Arbs cannot be half as fed up as me. I have been dragged two more than two months of drama for daring to challenge abuse and daring to object to being targeted in revenge.

What I posted above is just a summary. The full evidence is unavoidably a lot longer.

And no, the diffs do not speak for themselves. The context may not even be on the same page.e

This is like some sort of trial by ordeal: get attacked by a set of falsifiers, and then get tried for calling out their antics. It's like yelling "stop thief" at a pickpocket, and then getting monstered an tried for being "uncivil" to the thief. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who are advocating on behalf of BHG. The “machine” you speak of (ArbCom) is a group of reasonable people who have bent over backwards in an attempt to fairly accomodate her. The “Byzantine rule” they have set is a word limit, because 11,000+ words to merely comment on a dispute over whether a category is too small is, by anyone’s standards, mind boggling.

The fact is, there are serious conduct issues that are being looked into about BHG. The incivility has caused many, many editors concern for some time now. I note that BHG has a strong contingent of supporters she can call on at any time. They have been giving evidence on her behalf in this case. A number of people offered to help her condense her evidence, but she not only declined the offer, but stated it would, in her opinion, remove too much context. Furthermore, she has asserted that such an ask is an anti-intellectual attack and that ArbCom are exhibiting disdain to intellectual rigour, for which she will not stand.[2] Certainly, the word count can be reduced - for example, at one point it was pointed out that at least 500 words of the evidence she posted on her subpage was summarising policy. That is not evidence, and despite how helpful she believes it to be it is not necessary for the ArbCom members.

From an outside POV, the Arbitrators have been more than fair in the way they have conducted themselves. I do hope this isn’t going to be another pile on to the Arbitration Committee like happened previously when they made a decision on BHG. Certainly I don’t envy their job. No matter what they do, they are going to have unhappy editors. It’s pretty clear that “community consensus” has not stopped problematic behaviour. When this happens, ArbCom must intervene. - 49.195.66.156 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.