Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 15 October 2020 (→‎Motion: Portals: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Portals Motion (orig. case) 10 October 2020
Motion name Date posted
Historical elections 7 August 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

Amendment request: Portals

Initiated by BD2412 at 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Portals arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#BrownHairedGirl prohibited
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#BrownHairedGirl interaction ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Lift the prohibition entirely, or at least with respect to discussion of the issue in a new RfA.
  • Lift the interaction ban entirely, or at least with respect to discussion of the issue in a new RfA.

Statement by BD2412

I write to request the removal or limitation of restrictions currently imposed on User:BrownHairedGirl. Per the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Remedies issues on 29 January 2020, BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from "engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia", and from "interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia", both subject to appeal "in six months". BrownHairedGirl has studiously observed these restrictions for over eight months now, and has continued to contribute excellent work to the encyclopedia since then. Another editor and I are therefore preparing to renominate her for adminship, and it is possible that either of the aforementioned issues will be raised by participants in the discussion. I therefore request that the specified restrictions be lifted, either in their entirety, or at least to the extent needed for the purpose of fully engaging any issues that may arise during the course of the RfA.

Additional comment: I don't understand the point of allowing these prohibitions to be appealed in six months if they are going to remain in place after perfect behavior with respect to these areas for eight months. What, exactly, would BHG need to have done to merit the removal of these prohibitions after six months? BD2412 T 15:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

Thanks to BD2412 for making this request. I have absolutely no desire or intention to get involved in portals again, or to resume interaction with NA1K. However, I would like the restrictions to be lifted because:

  1. It would be unhelpful for everyone if I was banned from answering questions which arise at RFA
  2. Most of my editing this year has been on categories, and most of those category pages include links to portals. The ban leaves me in the perverse situation that if anyone asks me a non-contentious question about links which I have created to portals, then I am unable to reply even if the matter if solely technical.

For my own peace-of-mind, I intend to continue to observe the self-denying ordinance which I posted on 24 January, and also to avoid contact with NA1K. However, it would be helpful to at least be able to reply to comments at RFA, and preferably to also at least have the option of making a brief factual reply to NA1K if our paths cross at a discussion venue such as CFD, where I am a regular participant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • SMcCandlish writes of intensely unpleasant wiki-personal experiences with BHG. The last encounter I recall with SMcCandlish was at ANI in March 2019: I had banned SMcC from my talk in response to their aggression, then found SMcC editing other pages of mine from which they were clearly excluded. SMcCandlish then made a wholly bogus allegation that I had harassed him by email. The unpleasantness was indeed intense, but it was entirely from SMC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Northamerica1000: when RFA nomination was suggested, I considered how to handle any such issues raised in the RFA. My response will be something like this: "I stand by my assessments of portals and of NA1K's role therein, and I also reaffirm my commitment not to discuss them further".
    That is all I want to say, but the restrictions prevent me saying that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bradv: this[2] is Kafkaesque. I have absolutely no intent or desire to hurt or to re-open old issues.
Wrt NA1K, in response to a concern, I made no comment on substance. I did not reiterate my views; I simply stated that a) my views have not changed, and b) I will not comment further. The claim that my remarks were designed to be hurtful is the polar opposite of my intent. Yet that very self-denial is being weaponised against me.
SMcCandlish made a criticism of me which appeared to refer to a bogus allegation of harassment that was dismissed by the community at ANI. If any arbitrator wants the evidence, I will email it. Please do not pass judgement without seeing the evidence that in fact I was repeatedly harassed by SMcC, and please do not accuse me of malice for defending myself against falsehood. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Northamerica1000

In the interest of fairness relative to an RfA, I find myself in general agreement with Beeblebrox's statement below in the "Portals: Arbitrator views and discussion" section, "I would also be ok with a temporary lifting of the restriction, so long as it is made clear that it is only lifted at the RFa page, during BHG's RFA. I do not feel like a compelling case has been made to entirely lift the restriction at this time".

I sure hope an RfA does not become all about me, for some reason or another. If the temporary restrictions are permitted, rather than stating my user name repeatedly throughout an RfA, the phrase "the user" could be used instead. Otherwise, it could come across to casual readers and page skimmers as a regurgitation of more ranting against NA1K (me), preserved in the RfA archives for all time. North America1000 22:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The user has now essentially already violated the one-way interaction ban, right here on this page (diff), by pinging me to their comment and speaking directly to me. To be very frank, I do not care to hear anymore about how the user stands by their assessments of portals and their subjective opinions of my supposed "role". The user's vocal assessments and actions ultimately ended up getting them interaction banned, topic banned and desysopped. It was wholly unnecessary to ping me here, because the exact same message could have been conveyed without the ping, and in my opinion, the pinging does not fall within the purview of WP:BANEX. I understand that the user is trying to convey what they would say at an RfA, but in my view, they have done so in a manner here that is in violation of the one-way interaction ban. North America1000 00:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user has continued violating the one-way interaction ban, now stating their personal, subjective opinion about my post directly above (diff), characterizing it as "excessive". This is clearly outside of the purview of WP:BANEX. The terms of the one-way interaction ban are crystal clear,

BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely restricted from interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed in six months.

but the user seems unwilling or unable to comply with them. In the process of commenting and editorializing in a negative manner about my post, the user is attempting to label my post and opinion as inferior. In the process of appealing the interaction ban here, the user is already engaging in similar tactics that caused them to be one-way interaction banned in the first place. North America1000 01:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if my name comes up at a future RfA, it is my sincere hope that the user keeps their word here, where the user stated regarding portals and regarding my existence on Wikipedia that they have made a "commitment not to discuss them further" and that it "is all I want to say, but the restrictions prevent me saying that." (diff).
If not, these ammendments come across as a convenient and quaint means of providing license for the user to potentially freely engage in another reputation-smearing shitfest at RfA against my character and good name. It was my view when the user previously actively engaged in their attacks that they received some sort of personal catharsis in doing so, which then provided positive reinforcement for the user to continue ad infinitum, until the user was eventually appropriately halted by Arbcom. It went on for months.
So, if an RfA becomes personalized against my character anyway, I would then likely have to at least comment in the General comments section that per the Portal arbitration case's FoF #11, "No compelling evidence was presented to indicate misconduct, abuse of admin tools, or persistent abuse of Wikipedia policies on the part of Northamerica1000". I can copy it and keep it ready for use as a canned reply at RfA if the harassment continues there. It is of course my hope that I would not be essentially forced to do so to protect my reputation and good name in this manner, but there you have it. Otherwise, the double jeopardy retrial of NA1K can continue into perpetuity, devolving Wikipedia's arbitration processes into an online kangaroo court of subjectivity. Then I can spend more time defending myself against yet more personal attacks, rather than spending my time performing functional tasks. North America1000 05:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scottywong:, and for members of the Arbitration committee to further consider: In addition to the diffs provided by SMcCandlish below, see also the following:
  • 25 March 2020 (UTC) – diff, edit summary "GET LOST":
  • "The pair of you have engaged in a series of mischievous attempts at specious argument"
  • "Your utterly dishonest attempts to claim that WP:NCM guides the use of "compositions" rather than "musical compositions". It says no such thing. That is pure fabrication on your part."
  • "Your blatantly false assertions that..."
  • "Now get the hell off my talk page, and clean up your act while there is still time."
  • "(And for clarity, this is my talk page, so I get the last word here. Do NOT reply to this here)."
  • 25 March 2020 (UTC) – diff. The user reverted a post in reply to the concerns they stated above, erasing it, rather than replying to it. The post that was erased contained content in disagreement about how they were being characterized.
  • 25 March 2020 (UTC) – diff – The user then starts a thread on the talk page of the user who they reverted, with the heading title "Get lost".
  • 25 March 2020 (UTC) – diff – edit summary "Long comment on the disruptive antics of Gerda Arendt and Francis Schonken, and Schonken's WP:GAMEing and harassment."
  • "The substantive position of the pair of them is a series of specious arguments thrown out in a blatant FUD exercise to support their WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance
  • "To top it all, Francis has been using his barrage of falsehoods as a tool in his attempts to bully me into withdrawing the nomination"
  • "The only time sink here is Francis's strategy of disrupting consensus formation by barrages of FUD and falsehood. Creating a shitstorm and then claiming that the said self-started shitstorm is a time-sink is a WP:GAMEing strategy, and Francis's contempt for truth extends even to claiming in his post...
  • "This pair of truth-averse, tag-teaming bullies...
– The user posts attacking statements on their talk page about other users, and then engages in muzzling other users from defending themselves by telling them to stay off their talk page when they voice concerns about how they are being characterized, then leaving their negative judgments in place on the page, essentially acting as judge, jury and executioner, all the while smearing reputations in their prose and edit summaries. North America1000 10:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dweller: You stated in your comment, "But mostly because there is evidence there's no longer a need for the sanctions", which suggests at least a possibility that you have not looked into the diffs I have provided above, along with those presented by SMcCandlish in their section of the discussion. After the Portals arbitration case was closed, the user continued to engage in the same types of behaviors against other editors, demonstrating an ongoing pattern of personal attacks, scolding and negative declarations against others. Of course, I leave it up to others to decide for themselves upon the severity of the user's actions relative to this discussion. The evidence provided comes across to me that there is a need for the one-way interaction ban to continue after the RfA is over, because the same behaviors continued after the Portals arbitration case, just against other users than myself. In my view, this demonstrates at least a potential that the user could possibly eventually go back to their old ways of making more personal attacks against me, in part because it is my belief that the user enjoyed doing so. North America1000 16:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reyk

The verdict of the ArbCom case back in January was that BHG is allowed to run at RfA at any time. That implies she should get a clear and unobstructed run at it. Since she's almost certainly going to be asked questions about portals and NA1K, preventing her from answering those questions would hobble the RfA attempt and make a cruel joke of ArbCom's determination that she's allowed to run. I think all bans should be lifted completely- failing that, they should be lifted temporarily for the RfA. Reyk YO! 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreamy Jazz

As noted below, I have recused from clerking as I am one of the nominators. I think that, personally, the restrictions should at least be suspended for the RfA. I also think any RfA for a user with active restrictions will have questions from voters about said restrictions. If the RfA candidate was not able to answer such questions, it would be unfair for the candidate as good faith questions left unanswered for a long while are often frowned upon at RfA (I understand that if the restrictions are properly and clearly noted in the RfA, voters should see why the question could not be answered, but it cannot be taken for granted that voters will see such a note). By suspending the restrictions for the RfA, it gives the nominee a chance to answer questions about the issues behind the restrictions. This also gives them a chance for them to show that they understand why those restrictions are in place, and show that they have / will continue to comply with the restrictions once they are back in force. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I'd be interested in the stats for people who have been desysopped with the "May regain via RfA" provision. I can't think of anyone offhand who has passed RfA after that. But that's not an issue of desysopping or ArbCom, it's the ridiculous standards applied at RfA these days. It's closer to "Requests for Sainthood". There are a dozen really solid people I can think of who would have been a shoo-in ten years ago but would probably fail today: you have to have created FAs, engaged in dispute resolution processes, engaged in some (but not too many) debates, voted Delete enough and Keep enough at AfD, all without pissing off agenda editors. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

When an editor is sanctioned, edits productively without violating the sanction, and appeals after the minimum appeal time expires, the sanction is usually lifted because it's no longer needed and lifting it is better for everyone. This case seems to fit that mold. BHG has "done her time" as it were, there's no reason to extend it. The "portal wars" are over. Given her commitments above it's unlikely that the restrictions are actually needed to prevent any problems going forward. We're not going to learn anything relevant in the future that we haven't already learned after eight months. Why take up ArbCom's and other editors' time with another appeal down the road instead of lifting the restrictions now? Lev!vich 03:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bradv's suggestion is a good one, so I started the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#RFC: BANEX exception for permissions requests. Lev!vich 22:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Symmachus Auxiliarus

If BHG is to participate in an RfA, these sanctions would necessarily have to be lifted, as this is surely an issue that someone is going to raise. Since she has preemptively agreed to continue to abide by the spirit and general letter of those sanctions outside the scope of the nominating process, and isn’t going to directly interact with NA, the committee should absolutely accept the amendment as proposed. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

"May regain via RfA" is pretty much a death sentence for regaining the tools which an otherwise competent and respected long-time user who knows how to put them to frequent, good, and indispensable use - and the ArbCom is fully aware of its consequences. In face of the character assassination that is unavoidably imparted by a desysoping of this kind for which no appeal is permitted, in order to avoid compromising an intended new run for adminshipship, the only solution is to completely vacate any existing restrictions.

I strongly recommend all commenting here to read both BGH's statement following her desysoping and her Shermanesque comment to Xaosflux and to grant BrownHairedGirl even more respect for having the courage to nevertheless remain active despite her statement. That's what I call 'true dedication' to a worthy cause despite the inadequacies and iniquities of its Arbitration Committee. This statement by Swarm puts it best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Guy: I totally agree that the modern expectations at RfA are far too high and the new breed of voters caused by the reforms, many of whom are very inexperienced and only vote 'as per', can cause an unexpected sway in the result. OTOH, most serious candidatures do appear to pass with a healthy majority. That said, unfortunately, some candidates, and admins - including me - have been unable to turn the other cheek in the long term, to some nasty individuals who harass and gaslight us, and avoid pissing them off. You can see where it got us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Worm That Turned: I'm not sure: 'the desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions' - we don't know what discussions take place off-stage. Naturally some desyopings and/or sanctions are without question absolutely the only possible outcome. Willing to nominate BrownHairedGirl is indeed a truly equitable gesture. However, it does seem to clash somewhat with your not wanting to permanently lift the restrictions entirely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

Setting aside the merits of this particular case, it does occur to me that having an un-recused arbitrator telling a party that they would nominate them for adminship isn't ... ideal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SmokeyJoe

Remedy 1, “prohibited ... engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia” should be wound back. There’s no good reason why she shouldn’t be able to comment on her past involvement with ongoing things such as portal categorisation. I would advise BHG to not mass nominate portals for deletion.

Remedy 2 I would not touch. At RfA, BHG may very well be tempted by questioners to engage on the topic of past behaviours involving herself and User:Northamerica1000. However, every sensible question should be well answered by a statement that does not include “commenting about Northamerica1000”. BHG’s RfA2 should be about BHG, not about another editor. BHG should not comment on Northamerica1000.

As I guessed, my thoughts are in line with Northamerica1000's statement. I fear BHG may be challenged on old statements associated with NA1K, and there may be temptation to summarise her then perceptions, re-litigating the past, and BHG RfA2 could then contain a pseudo-trial of NA1K. I recommend a hard bright line: "BHG may not comment about Northamerica1000", no matter what other editors in the RfA ask or comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having watched BHG and NA1K over the extended period of difficulty, it is obvious to me, without surprise, that sensitivities on both side are still raw. Continuation of the IBAN is for the good of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Regarding Kudpung's statement (about Worm That Turned's initial response as an Arb): "Willing to nominate BrownHairedGirl is indeed a truly equitable gesture. However, it does seem to clash somewhat with your not wanting to permanently lift the restrictions entirely." WTT basically offering to be a BHG nominator for AfD (but simply getting beaten to it) is also an obvious reason to recuse. The optics are terrible, even if WTT's rede so far on the request is skeptical beyond the "may answer at RfA" point.

As for the heart of the matter, I agree that being able to answer questions at RfA about this should be permitted, on the same basis that someone under a T-ban is allowed to discuss it, as a T-ban and series of issues that led up to it, in an administrative or community proceeding (like this ARCA) that pertains to their conduct. It's the same sort of "the community examining one's behavior and judgment" meta-discussion.

I also tend to agree that the portal-war stuff is old news, and a continuing topic-ban about it doesn't serve a preventative purpose in this case. However, the interaction-ban stuff might not be no longer needed, and we have yet to hear from the other party. I've had some intensely unpleasant wiki-personal experiences with BHG of my own, so I'm skeptical that everything is just kosher between those two editors now, even though I also find most of BHG's work and actions constructive and of value to the project. (This kind of "intelligence and good faith != suitable temperament" distinction is why we have RfA to begin with, and is also a major part of WP:CIR.)

There's not a close connection between T-bans and disruptive behavior that is topical, on the one hand, and I-bans and unreasonably hostile inter-personal behavior, on the other. They're entirely severable, both as remedies and as behavior patterns that lead to remedies. Next, "it'll be hard to pass RfA again" isn't a rationale to remove any ban, anyway. Bans should be lifted when they no longer serve their project-protecting purpose. Not for other "reasons". (But they definitely should be lifted under that condition, whether they impede the editor's constructive editing or not.)

PS: I can think of at least two desysopped admins who regained the bit, so I don't buy this "the 'May regain adminship via RfA' clause is an admin death sentence" nonsense. Trust once lost is hard to regain, in every aspect of life, but usually not impossible.

PPS: I also do not buy the argument that appeals filed by third-parties are invalid. They're uncommon, but I myself benefited from one, years ago, so I know for absolute fact that they're permissible.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned, I'll take my response to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This from BHG is, shall we say, a fancifully fictionalized account. But ArbCom already knows this from e-mail evidence I sent them at the time. I was likely to actually sit out BHG's upcoming re-RfA, but now the editor has bent this gift-horse appeal into another venue to re-allege the same old badly distorted to outright false accusations. (This isn't the venue for details, though RfA will be.) I support 2/3 of BHG's appeal requests (and the third-party opening of the request being valid), skeptical only of the I-ban part due to previous negative interactions I found personally unpleasant. Yet BHG responds to this concern in an appeal by doubling down on specific aspersions (not relevant in any way to the appeal), after making this statement about commitment to civility? Seems somewhere between counterproductive and self-defeating. If someone mostly giving you the benefit of the doubt brings up old wounds as their remaining reservation, you don't rip them back open (after stating that you're not into rending flesh any more). Along with the concerns raised now by Northamerica1000, the other directly affected party, this has clear implications for whether the I-ban portion of BHG's restriction should be lifted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is "tripling down" a phrase? BHG now continues: "SMcCandlish made a criticism of me which appeared to refer to a bogus allegation of harassment that was dismissed by the community at ANI". Except I did nothing of the sort. I stated that I had felt some previous "wiki-personal experiences" with this editor as "intensely unpleasant". (That may reflect as much on me and my own temperament, along the "it takes two to argue" and "you own your own emotions" principles, of course. But I'm not appealing an I-ban or seeking restoration of admin tools.) BHG has incorrectly assumed something highly specific and kind of bad-faithy from what I said, and then – not discerning/acknowledging a difference between me describing my internal feelings about some interactions, versus me projecting a characterization about her person – has turned retro-aggressive about it. The abortive ANI stuff that she refers to, which was primarily about off-wiki interaction, is not even what I had in mind. Although some of the wiki-interactions I'm thinking of were part of what ultimately led up to that ANI noise, some of them are earlier and completely unrelated (though similar to more recent issues; see sample diffs below). BHG is correct that what she's mentioned are the most recent "issues" between us, though. For my part, I have studiously avoided arguing with BHG, and have even skirted most CfDs in which I would have to disagree with a BHG !vote/nom.

I hadn't looked into it until just now, but on CIVIL stuff, BHG's pattern of dismissiveness toward, mischaracterization of the concerns of, and eagerness to battleground against editors who disagree with her seems to have actually worsened since the RFARB, e.g. [3]. In the next example, someone else was being a bit heavy-handed (after repeat attempts to get traction with BHG on the matter), but BHG's response would probably doom most RfA candidates: [4]. And it got much worse from there. The wording gave me a hunch, which turned out correct: BHG has a habit of hyperbolically accusing other editors of "weaponizing" [insert something here] against her, and it's often combined with strings of other accusations, e.g.: "Your cynical, bullying, abusive, edit-warring attempts to weaponise ..." [5]. Those last two diffs are best examined in their entire multi-page context (here, too). The short version is that the other editor, RexxS, availed of REFACTOR to do list-formatting repair on the discussion, for ACCESS reasons, and BHG engaged in an extended editwar to stop him, selectively quoting TPG and pretending that REFACTOR wasn't an exception and that ACCESS didn't matter, not because she disagreed on the merits of any of that, or didn't really understand the WP:P&G pages that applied, but just to stick it to someone she was having a real-content dispute with in the same discussion. This is a total "WtF?!" She even tried to ANI him [6], where she ASCII-screamed "STOP YOUR LYING" in bolded allcaps at him over and over and over. While RexxS had erred in reverting a whole post of hers during that fiasco, I really don't think this was called for: "After RexxS's repeated lies and vile smears [....] I really thought that I had already seen the very worst of Wikipedia, but RexxS's despicable conduct today has plumbed depths an order of magnitude worse than I have seen before." That was just block-worthy on its own. This "weaponization" stuff is usually also in close proximity to declarations that people are "banned" from her talk page (see several diffs above, and unrelated one here). While USERPAGE encourages us to respect requests to avoid non-required user-talk interaction, it's a quasi-privilege admins basically don't have, due to ADMINACCT requiring them to be responsive to editors raising concerns about their decisions (though BHG attempted to subject me to such a "ban" while she was still an admin, now that I think of it).

I was looking for something else in BHG's user-talk history (any post-RFARB issues between the two of us in her user-talk that I might have forgotten). Instead, in just a couple of minutes I ran into more (and quite recent) evidence for opposition than what I'd already considered maybe presenting at a re-RfA. This does not bode well. What will one find with a search for an intersection of "BrownHairedGirl" and "lies/liar"? Or "despicable", "vile", "abuse/abusive", "bully[ing]"? I don't want to look. I was originally critical of the desysop decision (for procedural/policy reasons) [7], but everything I'm seeing now suggests it was the correct move from an ADMINCOND perspective.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Lets be clear about this, this request is entirely about making the re-RFA process for BHG easier and avoiding the consequences of their restrictions. BHG's ownership issues, editing behaviours as well as their conduct towards others, and the resulting lack of any admin willing to do anything about their fellow admin's behaviour and blatant refusal to abide by community-mandated policies are what led to the desysopping and restrictions with NA1000 in the first place. Either consider lifting the various restrictions on their merit, or do not. But unless BHG has had a radical change of personality in the intervening time period (rather than the situation being that the restrictions are doing their job), lifting them would be a mistake. Leaving the topic ban in place so they cant answer questions (if you are not going to lift it completely) is exactly what you should do. As anyone unfamiliar who shows up at the RFA will then have an accurate grasp of the circumstances. Claiming its 'unfair' they cannot answer questions about their restrictions is misleading. That is the result of BHG's behaviour, no one else's. It is not unfair to have to deal with a situation you created. What is 'unfair' is that a former admin should get preferential treatment. They recieved preferential treatment before the arbcom case, and now they are getting it after. It is extremely telling that WTT below says "The desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions" - anyone who has read the actual voting and the comments made by the arbiters there would have to be a blithering idiot to believe that gross mis-charactization of the comments there. That was not 'a close thing'. Arbcom's duty is towards the community as a whole, and this sort of blatant favoritism is a slap in the face to that end. The partisanship is not even superficially obscured here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

I'm ambivalent as to whether the restrictions should be suspended for the duration of the RfA. At first glance, it seems reasonable for BHG to be able to answer questions about the issue. On the other hand, this does very much seem like special treatment and it is not ArbCom's responsibility to make this process easier for BHG. I might be more inclined have some sympathy for BHG were it not for my familiarity with the circumstances that led to her desysop, but I'll save those thoughts for when the RfA opens. Moreover, I am deeply troubled by WTT's unwillingness to recuse even after they have openly indicated their desire to serve as a nominator in BHG's re-RfA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am strongly opposed to lifting the i-ban beyond the duration of the RfA. BHG established an extensive history of grossly subpar interactions with NA1K. She has stated that she has no desire for further interaction with NA1K and has indicated that she stands by her assessment of NA1K's actions with regard to the portal controversy. In my opinion, that's close enough to a statement that she stands by her treatment of NA1K, which is the very behavior that got her desysopped. In other words, I see zero reason to believe that lifting the i-ban would be of any benefit to the encyclopedia. BHG does not want to interact with NA1K and, at any rate, she has demonstrated an unwillingness to do so civilly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

This would look like a double standard; having even the mildest of restrictions erased just for having complied with them for 6 months whereas for commonfolk that might require a couple years of sainthood. But I don't think that the intent was to prevent answering questions at an RFA and IMO it would be a good idea to waive them for responding at the RFA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scottywong

A ban on working with portals and an interaction ban with NA1K were given to BHG 8 months ago. The terms of both of these bans explicitly allowed BHG to appeal them after 6 months. This request is that appeal. In my opinion, the question shouldn't be "has BHG done enough and behaved well enough to deserve overturning the ban?" Instead, the question should be, "has BHG specifically done anything to show that she is undeserving of being granted this appeal?" That would be my challenge to everyone here: can anyone point to anything that BHG has done in the last 8 months that is evidence that she's not ready for either of these bans to be permanently overturned? If the answer is no, then I think it's clear that we should grant the appeal. Because if we allow someone to appeal a ban after 6 months, and they've done nothing during that 6 months to be undeserving of that appeal, but we deny the appeal anyway, then what's the point of even allowing a user to make an appeal in the first place?

Is anyone truly worried that if these bans are overturned, BHG would dive right back into contentious actions with portals, and strike up a heated argument with NA1K? As far as I can tell, BHG has accepted her bans and diligently worked to ensure that she wasn't violating them. Above, she has stated that she would voluntarily continue to avoid NA1K as much as possible if the ban was lifted. Especially if her RfA succeeds, she would have to know that another blow-up with NA1K would land her right back at Arbcom for a swift desysop.

If we're willing to overturn the bans for the duration of the RfA, then we should just overturn them permanently. There is no need to treat editors like children who can't control their own behavior, especially after they've demonstrated that they've learned their lesson and accepted the consequences for the better part of a year. Besides, in this very discussion I see clear signs that NA1K is attempting to milk these bans for all they're worth: flailing around as if he's been shot in the heart because BHG pinged his username in this discussion (gasp!), making absurd requests that everyone refer to him as "the user" at the upcoming RfA instead of by his username, etc. It's getting ridiculous, and it's time to end it so that productive editors can dispense with childish, punitive punishments and get back to the business of writing an encyclopedia. ‑Scottywong| [comment] || 07:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: While I understand that you are not a fan of BHG's personality, the quotes you posted (from 7 months ago) provide no evidence that BHG would have a problem specifically avoiding interactions with you, and/or avoiding problematic interactions with the Portal namespace, in the absence of an overly restrictive ban that prohibits her from even mentioning your name or acknowledging the existence of the Portal namespace. These diffs are surely a great dry run for your predictable opposition to BHG's upcoming RfA, but unfortunately they are wholly irrelevant in a more specific discussion of her appeal to lift these bans. The bans in question only involve interactions with you and the Portal namespace. BHG is not currently banned from having discussions on her own user talk page, nor is she banned from posting negative judgments about other users on her user talk page, or asking other users to stay off of her user talk page. Every user has the right to ask other users to stay off of their user talk page. In your characteristically over-dramatic words, everyone is "judge, jury, and executioner" on their own user talk page, per WP:UOWN. While you may not agree with BHG's opinions or enjoy her personality (both of which are your right), no WP policies were violated in the diffs you provided, and none of BHG's bans were violated either.

Statement by Dave

Lifting the restriction is the best solution here, It's unfair to lift it for BHG but then keep it for NA1K (NA1K would have no reason to need it lifted but that's not the point - we cannot have one rule for one and one for another.), Generally speaking I would've preferred this to be lifted in s year or 2 not 6 months but looking at various options lifting it seems the best option. –Davey2010Talk 10:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Only just spotted the 24hr motion - If it's only for 24 hours and not say 5-7 days then I'd support temporarily lifting it. –Davey2010Talk 10:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Northamerica1000 - I had obviously assumed it was a two-way thing, In that case I have no issue with the duration either now. –Davey2010Talk 11:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I don't think I've ever interacted with BrownHairedGirl (I don't get involved in categories much), however I've worked with NorthAmerica1000 and found him to be perfectly reasonable. Since BHG has not had any cause for objections to the topic ban to be lifted, I think it should just be lifted full stop. More specifically, I think any editor has the right to tell another editor to stay off their talk page if they have sufficient justification to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xaosflux

This is a comment about User:Beeblebrox's Motion below, feel free to move this to the other section if more appropriate. I don't think it is logical to tie a 24-hour countdown clock to an event that has not yet occurred - would we need to assume good faith that the second this occurs it is ok and a clock starts - and if the transclusion doesn't actually occur within 24 hours it is retroactively in violation? If you want to exempt that page, just exempt it for a fixed period (e.g. for one month) - if the RfA never starts it would expire, and if it does start RfA pages are already not expected to be edited after RfA closure. — xaosflux Talk 15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: thanks for the response - just don't want to see ArbCom setting up a scenario where an RfA candidate that decides they actually aren't ready after drafting has to post their RfA and immediately withdraw it (as opposed to delaying posting it at all) - then potentially have to start another RfA nomination just to avoid running in to a sanctions timebomb. — xaosflux Talk 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dweller

Whether it's blocks or Arbcom action, we should not be punitive. If there's a track record without trouble, Arbcom should agree to lift the measures. 8 months is plenty. Just lift them. Temporarily lifting them is no solution in my opinion, because it shows !voters in the RfA that Arbcom does not trust her. Let the community have an unencumbered view of the candidate. But mostly because there is evidence there's no longer a need for the sanctions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crouch, Swale

I support lifting at least for the RFA (which is being discussed as a general exception at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#RFC: BANEX exception for permissions requests anyway). While I am aware of BHG unfortunately having some civility issues, generally BHG is civil and has a good understanding of WP policy and I think BHG's view that many portals were unsuitable was correct and BHG was getting rid of junk from our encyclopedia (and I speak as someone who used to favour keeping almost anything). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: regarding you're comment today in support of the motion, this kind of thing is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#RFC: BANEX exception for permissions requests. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Portals: Clerk notes

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

Portals: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions, and still I do not believe it raised to the level of one at the time (especially in comparison to some of the other cases we've dealt with). I believe I made a statement soon after the desysop was accepted that I would be willing to nominate BHG as an admin. Now you have a few nominators, but drop me a line if you feel my nomination would help. That said, I do not believe that the other restrictions should be lifted outright. I would accept their suspension during the RfA, as BHG should be able to be open about the subject at that forum, and RfA voters will want to be able to ask their questions on the matter. WormTT(talk) 19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: I understand the concern for recusal in isolation, however, when you look at the larger situation, you will see that I have not interacted with BHG outside of Arbcom cases, I regularly nominate individuals after reviewing their contributions and go on to never interact with them (you can look on my user page for examples), my nomination will primarily be addressing the Arbcom decision and my thoughts on that. Simply, this comes down to two factors, firstly - I accept the decision of the committee, but did not agree with it, and so feel that se deserves a fair shake at community review, and secondly, I feel that RfA is an unpleasant prospect for anyone, let alone someone who has had their admin bits removed, and they deserve a fair shake at community review - again check out my user page to see that this view is something I have been consistent with for nearly a decade. WormTT(talk) 09:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would certainly grant the requested amendment at least to the extent that the restrictions should not apply in the forthcoming RfA. With regard to a broader lifting of the restrictions, I will allow some time for any additional statements before opining. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read the statements posted over the past couple of days, I still believe it makes sense for BrownHairedGirl's restrictions to be suspended for purposes of an RfA—that is, they would not apply on her RfA page and its talkpage. To be clear, I do not think it's in anyone's (including BHG's) interest that she focus unduly on Northamerica1000 in the RfA discussion—indeed, I strongly think it would be in everyone's interest that she mention him as little as possible—but it might be impossible for her not to mention him at all, and she is certainly going to have to say something about portals. In response to the above comments by Only in death and Lepricavark, this modification would not be intended merely as making the RfA easier (or more difficult) for BrownHairedGirl; it's equally about the community of !voters having the benefit of an unconstrained discussion. Procedurally, is it sufficient that we seem to have a consensus of arbitrators in agreement with this, or do we need a formal motion? If a motion is required, I will post one, as we should decide at least this aspect of the matter promptly.
    • With regard to the broader question of lifting the restrictions altogether, I don't think anyone (including BHG herself) wants to see her return unrestrainedly to the portals arena, but I might support a more nuanced modification that would allow her to make an occasional passing reference to a portal when it's directly relevant to something else she is discussing. Similarly, I don't see any reason for BHG to comment about NA1000, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that BHG shouldn't ever be allowed to cross NA1000's path again in any discussion anywhere for the rest of their wiki-lives. Is there a modification here that everyone can live with? Or would it make sense to defer deciding this aspect of the matter until sometime after the RfA-related prong is resolved? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with lifting the restrictions for the purpose of the upcoming RfA. It would not be fair to BHG, nor to the community, if these subjects could not be openly discussed. I would not support repealing the restrictions outright at this time. – bradv🍁 03:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm discouraged by BrownHairedGirl's comment here that she "stands by her assessments of portals and of NA1K's role therein." These assessments were expressed in ways that this committee found to be "personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith" (FoF #6), and reiterating them here is evidence that the restrictions remain necessary. Furthermore, the comments she has made here with respect to Northamerica1000 and SMcCandlish are clearly designed to be hurtful, as demonstrated by the response they have elicited, and therefore fall short of the level of discourse that we expect on this project. The bottom line is that I can't endorse repealing any of these restrictions without some evidence that BrownHairedGirl understands the reasons for them and is willing to make a commitment to do better. "Standing by" the comments that led to this case is, quite simply, counterproductive. – bradv🍁 04:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad, I believe we would need a motion to carve out an exception for the purposes of an RfA. In fact, I think it would make sense to write such an exception into WP:BANEX, but that is a question for the community to deal with, and outside of the scope of this amendment request. – bradv🍁 19:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also be ok with a temporary lifting of the restriction, so long as it is made clear that it is only lifted at the RFa page, during BHG's RFA. I do not feel like a compelling case has been made to entirely lift the restriction at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am open to temporarily lifting the restriction on discussing portals for the period of the RfA, though I am not sure I see the value in permanently lifting it given that BHG has no intention of returning to that space. I would also support a loosening of the IBAN, again only for the period of the RfA and only at RfA-related pages, but would prefer to see some kind of wording that makes it clear that while BHG may mention NA1000 if it's relevant to RfA-related discussion, she is still expected not to interact with or comment about them elsewhere on the project.
    If BHG wants the restrictions lifted permanently, I'm open to hearing the argument, but the current request does not make it seem like she's interested in returning to that kind of editing, nor do the restrictions appear to be disrupting her current day-to-day editing in any major way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support lifting the restrictions, with the understanding that they can be reimposed if there should be unconstructive editing in that area or conflict with the individual.. There were several similar cases this year, and , altho I voted for desysop, I think I might have ben unduly influenced by the need to set a precedent that we would indeed take action. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to removing the restrictions per WP:ROPE—I don't much see the point of only doing so for an RfA. We either take a user at their word and work from there or we consider the sanctions necessary and don't. And I don't think pinging NorthAmerica was at all hostile or in violation of the topic ban, fwiw. It's directly germane to the topic of discussion; we shouldn't be in the business of making people play charades when discussing previous sanctions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thinking is in line with GW. Mkdw talk 19:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Portals

Remedies 1 & 2 of the Portals case are temporarily lifted, only at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. As proposer. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, though it's worth mentioning that if the behaviors that led to the restrictions are repeated during this RfA that will almost certainly affect any future appeal. Also noting that it may be worth a community discussion of whether circumstances such as this should be built into WP:BANEX so that should other ArbCom-restricted users wish to run for RfA we don't have to handle each case-by-case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like I'm behind the times. Crouch, Swale has pointed out that there's already a discussion regarding BANEX at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#RFC: BANEX exception for permissions requests. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, although quite cautiously per my comments above. (P.S. I've changed the wording as per the conversation below. The original wording was "...and its associated talk page, and only for 24 hours before the RfA is transcluded and while it is an active RFA.") – bradv🍁 00:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With updated wording. RegardsSoWhy 07:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. –xenotalk 19:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 19:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. WormTT(talk) 06:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

@Beeblebrox: I've copyedited by adding the words "for 24 hours before the RfA is transcluded and". This will allow BrownHairedGirl to mention the arbitration case if she wishes in her candidate statement and/or her answers to the standard questions, which are typically completed before the RfA is transcluded. If you disagree with this addition, please revert it and I'll propose it as a separate motion.

That edit is fine with me Brad, I usually go into these things with the assumption I've not thought of something and on of ya'll will catch it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct to assume that "active RFA" encompasses the time until the RFA is closed one way or another, including time it is on hold if there is a crat chat? Regards SoWhy 07:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When an RfA ends, even if a 'crat chat is opened, the RfA pages are usually closed to further input, so the issue of whether BHG (or anyone else) could post on the pages then seems moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, only the RFA page is put on hold, but the talk page is kept open and the crat chat's talk page is also open to the community. Imho, the exemption should cover both those pages until the RFA is closed for good. If there is a crat chat and BHG wishes to react to something people write, she should be allowed to do so just like on the RFA page itself. Regards SoWhy 17:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Please suggest a copyedit to the motion. I just don't want us to overcomplicate or delay something that I hope should be relatively simple. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about "...temporarily lifted, only at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process." – bradv🍁 18:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a pretty good wording I would support. Regards SoWhy 18:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay with me also. Pinging Beeblebrox as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I'm the one who added the reference to 24 hours (the original motion just covered the period of the RfA itself, which would have created a logistical problem, as I noted above). I didn't mean it as a rigid time limit, just in the sense of "shortly before the RfA is transcluded." If BHG said she needed 48 or 72 hours, I would have no objection (though I don't think a month would be necessary). But I see from a discussion on User talk:BrownHairedGirl that she and her nominator are planning to draft the nomination statement and responses to the standard questions off-wiki and post them when they are ready to proceed, which I think resolves this concern. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=983700816"