Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by AmericanAir88

BrownHairedGirl exhibits unacceptable behavior

• Throughout this entire conflict, the user BrownHairedGirl has exhibited bad behavior through harassment and mass reverting. Most of the harassment is targeted at the user Northamerica1000, a user who is trying to improve portals. Here is an example of harassment on Northamerica1000. Northamerica is frequently a target as differences like this are common as well. In the recent ANI, BHG created a section called "NA1K is gaming the system again". The name calling and verbal abuse of NA1K is present through other edits such as this. Here is an example of the reverting that takes place. Additional evidence is through this and this. Edit summaries are a frequent location for attack.
• The harassment has been noticed by the community, with a whole section titled Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl created. User:Vermont/BHGANI sums up the situation at the recent ANI very well.
• BHG isn't just harassing NorthAmerica, she harasses other users like in this edit. The User:Vermont/BHGANI sums it up well. The behavior is unacceptable in discussions and I have been the target of accusations as well form the users. AmericanAir88^(talk) 06:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl should be desysopped as the user violates admin conduct

Reasons for Desysop of BrownHairedGirl (Copied from my ANI proposal). Diffs provided above:

1. Harassment. Plenty of evidence is prominent through diffs and this discussion. Targets other users. This violates WP:ADMINCOND and is against Wikipedia policy through the pilars.

2. Violation of WP:ADMINACCT. BHG does not reason properly as she erupts into poor judgement and accusations. She breaches multiple policies

3. Reverting and edit warring. Violation of WP:TOOLMISUSE by reverting other admin's edits. She reverts other users edits without consensus and does not consider WP:ALTREV and WP:ROWN.

4. Not a role model for non-admins. Administrators are meant to be examples of Wikipedias who excel in the pilars and understand all policies. They are meant to cooperate and help build an encyclopedia. BHG being able to commit activities I mention above is not what an Admin stands for or what ANY Wikipedian should be doing. AmericanAir88^(talk) 06:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by BD2412

BrownHairedGirl needs to temper her communications with others

I have only one "argument", which is to restate my relevant comments from the discussion proposing this case:

For full disclosure, I have twice initiated discussions on User:BrownHairedGirl's user talk page, archived here and here, to suggest that she refrain from characterizing editors with whom she has policy disagreements as liars. These discussions generally arose in response to statements made in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Golf and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ohio State University, which are worth examining. I do believe that she has toned down her invective following these discussions, but still evinces a tendency to view such disagreements through an ill-fitting moral lens in which those who think differently are harshly characterized as dishonest or incompetent.

I have no intention of digging around for further evidence. Others might feel compelled to do so. I do not believe that it benefits the project as a whole to lose BrownHairedGirl either as an editor or as an administrator, but some measure may be required to bar further activity in the vein of addressing the character of disagreeing parties, rather than the subject of the disagreement. BD2412 T 05:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable

Like BD2412 I feel it would greatly hurt the project to lose BHG as an editor or admin. She's made over 1.5 million edits, is fiercely intelligent, cultured, and is sometimes helpful and kind. Yet she does seem to get over passionate on some topics. Possibly leading to a tunnel vision effect, where anyone who doesn't share her take of a situation appears dishonest or incompetent. Coming from such an authoritative admin, the many thousands of words she's posted against pro portal editors may have caused some to think there is equal fault on both sides. So posting a few examples to suggest this is not the case.

There's been little wrong doing by pro portal editors; assertions to the contrary collapse under scrutiny

• "The disputes began with" The Transhumanist (TTH) ...

It's probably more accurate to say it began with WP:ENDPORTALS – as per TTH's own words, the failed proposal to mass delete portals is what "inspired" him to relaunch WikiProject Portals & hence move on to his overly optimistic mass creations. (See talk page for a more detailed timeline of the dispute.)

• "Those three diffs are of edits where I provide evidence to show that NA1K was systematically lying ..."

The 3 attack diffs in question actually contain zero evidence, merely over-passionate arguments. NA1K had been arguing to the effect that while WP:POG can no longer claim to be a formal guideline, it still has an advisory function (like an essay). Admittedly NA1K didn't word it that clearly, yet it was rather bizarre that BHG seems to read his reasonable argument as evidence of dishonestly. Every other statement I've seen alleging bad faith by the pro editors is either evidence free, or equally unconvincing.

• NA1K's improvements to ~100 portals were an "extraordinarily huge breach of WP:FAITACCOMPLI".

NA1K's improvements were executed over a period of several weeks, largely including talk page comments, and multiple individual edits to each portal (This can be quickly verified by looking at the tables in this ANI archive section and clicking on a few of the portals to confirm the accuracy.) So it's a bit of a stretch to describe NA1K's improvements as even a minor breach of WP:FAIT, let alone an "extraordinarily huge" one. That description could more fairly describe BHGs "truly shocking" mass reverts, which were all done on a single day. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.