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

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.

The portal dispute has seen such a huge volume of inaccurate assertions made by the anti-portal side that it's challenging to address more than a tiny fraction in 500 words. I hope anti portal editors don't repeat their false allegations here. With the cancellation of UK campaigning activity due to yesterday's London Bridge incident, I've had 8 hours to look into the history of this dispute, and have compiled many dozens of diffs & links. The most hard hitting of which I've not posted as like others I think it would be a huge loss to the project if any party is sanctioned beyond a topic or iBan. Yet not going to hold back if too many more false smears are posted against my friend NA1K.

Below is a brief timeline of the dispute - Im not claiming its totally fair to the anti portal side, but it might be helpful to Arbs & other editors looking for a quick overview. If any clerk or Arb disagrees, please just delete.

UK campaigning is about to resume in the next hour, so gota dash. Just want to apologise there hasn't been time to make my statement fairer to the anti-portal crew. While most of their arguments against the pro portals editors seem false, a few checked out. E.g. the statement that Portal:Northern Ireland was overloaded with "troubles" articles does convince there was at least one case of bad PoV editing by NA1K. I also agree with some of BHG's high level points, but my main concern has been to refute some of the utter nonsense posted against the most good natured, peaceful and collaborative editor I know. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the portal dispute, mostly from a pro portal PoV

Has the Evidence page been closed yet? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, No, per the header Evidence closes 20 Dec 2019. SQL^{Query me!} 22:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SQL. I'm giving myself a dope-slap, because Dec somehow registered in my brain as Nov. Of course, it isn't 12/20 yet: I'm embarrassed! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 9 days, since the last involved editor presented evidence. We're still waiting to hear from the two major involved parties. Quite strange. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: People take different amounts of time to submit evidence. I wouldn't read too much into it --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the instructions on the main Evidence page, I am writing to formally request written consent from an arbitrator to have my evidence length limit expanded to 1,500 words and 150 links. Portal matters go back for many months, have occurred in various disussions and pages, and essentially involves an entire namespace in some aspects. It will be just about impossible for me to present an accurate evidence summary with the present 1,000 word/100 link limit. If I am to be hindered by this limit, my evidence will be incomplete, and thus, less accurate. Again, there are many facets involved, so I respectfully request for my evidence length limit to be expanded per the above. Thank you for your consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, This has been raised on the mailing list. SQL^{Query me!} 05:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that my limit has indeed been raised, and that it's listed on the mailing list? Are you saying that I have to use the mailing list here to make my request? I'm near the stage of being ready to post, but I may not be able to break it down to 1,000 words without having to seriously alter the message in a manner that would would force me to omit portions of evidence. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying that he has presented the question in email form to the Arbcom email list. I'm recused so I won't be weighing in. Once it's been discussed he'll advise you whether your request has been accepted or denied. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, your request for an extension to 1500 words and 150 diffs has been granted. – bradv🍁 15:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the prompt responses, which is appreciated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @SQL: I'm nearing being ready to post, but I need to know if bullet points count as words. I assume they don't, but I'd like to be certain before posting, to keep aligned with the word limit. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Northamerica1000, They do not. SQL^{Query me!} 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks again for your most prompt responses. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please may I ask for more time to complete my evidence?

When the evidence phase opened, I was busy tidying up after a real life crisis, and my nerves were a bit shot. I wasn't in a frame of mind to concentrate on en.wp, let alone on assembling evidence.

I began to re-engage with Wikipedia this week, doing some gnoming after the UK election, and began yesterday to build my evidence. It's a big job, because this covers about 10 months and over 1000 different discussions, so there is a mountain of material to sift, as well as a lot of other evidence to respond to. I reckon it will take me another two or three days to complete it, which takes me beyond the deadline. Please may I ask the committee for a 3-day extension to allow me to complete my evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BrownHairedGirl. I will bring this up with the committee. Mkdw ^talk 19:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mkdw. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Brown has many many many edits during the time they could have replied here...but they are the main subject of the talk and should have time to rebut and explained why this situation got to this point (last day posts have alot to them). She has to go over 100 plus links trying to explain her actions. Also think Brown should have a word limit extension as the amount of evidence would be over whelming to anyone to try to rebut in just the current word limit. --Moxy 🍁 14:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will almost certainly require a word-limit extension, and probably a big extension, for all the reasons which Moxy noted.

I considered mentioning this in my request for a time extension, but thought it more helpful to wait until I had completed my evidence, so that I had some idea of how much of an extension is needed.

Note that I suspended work on my evidence until I hear a response from Arbcom on whether the time extension will be granted, because I don't want to put in all this effort if the evidence won't be accepted. I still have at least two days work to do from whenever I get the green light, if such a green light is given. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: We're discussing the specifics of the extension, but you should go ahead and continue compiling evidence -- the committee's not going to reject it if you submit in the next couple days (at least), and we're just discussing whether everyone will get an extension or just you and other logistical questions. Also, the Committee has previously authorized us to grant you an extension to 1500 words and 150 diffs, which I'm granting to you now; let us know if you're seeking more words or diffs. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Granting everyone an extension is fair, and gives everybody an equal opportunity at having "last word".—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Kevin. I will resume work.

@Bagumba: I am not seeking a "last word". I just want to time to produce my evidence, and have no desire to suppress anyone else or to gain any sort of tactical advantage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I was not assuming that you were, and a time extension for everyone would render anyone's potential assumptions moot—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To point out the obvious for the record, I imagine few people will wish to spend their festive season reading and (if permitted) responding to BrownHairedGirl's evidence. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Festivus indeed.—Bagumba (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: Your submission deadline has been granted. We are still discussing whether we need to push the workshop and PD dates accordingly. Mkdw ^talk 02:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there will be an opportunity to refute evidence submitted by other editors at the workshop in the 'Analysis of evidence' section as well as in comments of any proposed FOFs or decisions. Mkdw ^talk 02:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effective immediately, the timetable for this case is extended for all users to:

• Evidence closes 5 Jan 2020
• Workshop closes 12 Jan 2020
• PD expected 23 Jan 2020

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This gonna be difficult. Watching Trump's impeachment trial and the Portal Arbcom case ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know which one is most important. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I suspect the ArbCom case will be resolved first. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:, the extended deadline is approaching. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity. I was unable to proceed as I hoped in the run-up to Christmas, and assumed I had missed the deadline. This ping by GoodDay is the first direct notification to me that the deadline was extended. And now I have missed it.

I am very disappointed that no direct notification was made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were pinged about this last month (Dec 22), by @Mkdw:. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, I was pinged then[1] about an extension for a few days. I received no notification of the 16-day extension to 5 Jan.

There are only 7 parties to this case, so it wouldn't have been a big job to ping them all, or even to post a note on everyone's talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ya keep the case on your watchlist? GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up on my watchlist years ago. It's far too big.

And in any case I have't been active the last two weeks. I have done only about a dozen gnoming edits on pages I was reading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, this case has been open since 26 November, and the request itself was open for a week before that. I'll ask the clerks not to close it until the end of the day today (6 January UTC), but we really do have to move on. We owe it to all interested parties to keep these cases moving in a timely manner. – bradv🍁 01:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new extensions dates were posted the same day as you were pinged. The 3-day extension which you were notified about was not met either so anything beyond was in addition and properly announced on the talk pages. Since, you had edited Wikipedia on several days and you have been well aware of this on-going case. If you choose not to check in on the case then that is your prerogative and consequently risk not being up to date the case. Mkdw ^talk 04:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that having missed the initial extension, there was little point in checking back.

It seems odd not to do any proactive notification.

Anyway, thanks for the extra 24 hours. I'll see what I can rustle up in the remaining time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added my evidence. Thanks again for the extension. Pinging the clerks @CodeLyoko and Guerillero to draw attention to my last edit[2] to my evidence, suggesting the possibility of a summary finding which might bring the case to a rapid conclusion. I have no idea how that suggestion fits with ArbCom's procedures, but I will hold myself to my commitment there.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence phase is now closed. – bradv🍁 01:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Please note that another user edited BHG's comment after the discussion was closed [3]. I find this to be inappropriate, particularly where the user who edited after the discussion was closed changed a link to a different MfD discussion. This makes BHG's commentary now essentially two against one in some manners: a comment by two users within one in a minor way. Just doesn't seem right. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Undone. Not speculating on the user's motives but the rules are clear and they apply to everyone. Regards SoWhy 13:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy A ping would have been helpful. BHG thanked me on my talk page for performing the edit.

@Mkdw An open question to the Arbs/Clerks, but pinging the one who's been the most responsive: may I have permission to re-instate the copy-edit, which BHG herself described as: It was a helpful and neutral cleanup, and I do hope that you aren't rebuked for it? By the way, NA1K, I changed no links in her evidence, but did replace an uncompleted repetitive link with it's clearly intended endpoint (based upon the same three MfD's being mentioned again later in her evidence). Nice aspersions, though, NA1K. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12: There is a big banner that says "Any further edits to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without further reason.". I'm not sure how that is complicated. None of your edits were necessary except changing a MFD link but it's not any third party's job to decide what the party providing evidence could have meant. If BHG wishes to change her evidence, she can request so like anyone else by asking on this talk page. Just like the big banner says. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]