The Workshop phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request.

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

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

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.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As a general comment: even arbitration decision principles that are "re-used" will often evolve over time as better wording is found. This process is to be encouraged. Principles are generally only relevant to the specific decision in which they are handed down (apart from a few that make their way into wider policy), so there is no reason to stick rigidly to wording that obviously needs improving. AGK  ■ 20:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I disagree with the second sentence above. I think the first part is better phrased "Anyone may edit, use, or modify the content, or distribute it for any purpose . . ." And I think "re-use of information" can be problematic, (which is why we have WP:COPYWITHIN) and was very probelmatic in many portals. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ UnitedStatesian: I don't doubt your reasoning, but this exact wording was used as a principle in a previous, albeit similar arbitration case, so in that case you might want to file a clarification request for that case. ToThAc ( talk) 19:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Clarification not necessary. This is a new case, and we can come up with new, better wording here. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 20:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, important point to make. Administrators must try to be voices of calm in heated conflicts. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think it is important to include this or something like it. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I agree with Thryduulf. The lack of decorum in this dispute is notable. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Agree something like this should be included, but I'm concerned it is weakened by being too broad, and implies every one of the listed behaviors was shown by at least one admin party to this case. Is there evidence of trolling, harassment or gaming the system? UnitedStatesian ( talk) 17:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Decorum is a good word for this problem. Decorum involving conflicting administrators is quite serious. The display of poor decorum by administrators has been distressing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Good faith and disruption

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes. I think just about everyone involved in this dispute believes or believed that their actions were improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Again, I agree. I am not sure whether 'good intentions' is the best description for behaviour based on the certain conviction that one is right and the opposition is wrong, but I think this is what we have been seeing here. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Consensus can change

5) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bringing up the same proposal repeatedly at short intervals, or spread out with no attempt to centralise discussion, is gaming the system. In some collaborative situations, finished requests are not heard again unless there is a change in situation or unheard evidence, however, refusing to hear a proposal ever again is also damaging because it prevents refinement, which is possibly the most important feature of the WikiMedia projects. Ideally, proposals toward significant effect should have a cooling off period of at least (I say at least a year and at most two). ~ R. T. G 02:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Consensus is also not the majority agreement of one minority group overwhelming the minority agreement of another minority group. Taking a disagreement that may affect persons outside of the original groups to a larger audience is a legitimate procedure where a local consensus is percieved to be biased. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

There is no deadline

1) Editors, particularly Administrators, should remember there is no deadline, and so should consider moving on, at least temporarily, to other areas of Wikipedia if they find themselves in conflicts that risk escalation, such as to a level that necessitates arbitrator involvement. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

I could see this being re-written to more closely reflect WP:DISENGAGE for inclusion as a principle. Mkdw ^talk 20:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Alternatively there is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground, which is an actual policy that could frame this. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't think ArbCom should be endorsing an essay in their decision. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 02:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply

This mirrors the WP:DISENGAGE policy: Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I agree this or something like it should be included. The fact that the same people who were hammering away in contentious portal discussions in February were hammering away in contentious portal discussions in November says a lot. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Knowing when to walk away, or at least take a break, is a critical skill both here and out in the real world. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Maybe ArbCom can recommend an essay to be upgraded to a guideline. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think they could do that. They could recommend, or even encourage, the community to discuss whether it should become a guideline though. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The linked essay is not listed as a guideline, but WP:DISENGAGE links to it and pretty much gives the gist of it: Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute. I see no problem with this principle, and the concerns about essay vs guideline are a non-starter. Lots of essays have the level of consensus of policies: WP:SNOW, WP:BRD, and WP:COMMONSENSE are not marked as policies but clearly have the same level of consensus. — Wug· a·po·des​ 02:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Deletion Policy

2) Wikipedia's deletion policy specifies alternatives to deletion. As these use the terms "page" and "page's," they apply to portals, not just articles. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reversion, then deletion

3) If an editor reverts a page to an earlier version, and then later nominates the resulting page for deletion based on its content or quality, it can be seen as gaming the system and may appear that the reversion, or the nomination, or both, were not done in good faith. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unfortunately I can't find diffs. on this, since I think every portal where this happened was then deleted. But it definitely happened, and editors with access to deleted pages may wish to investigate this further during this case. We may also consider a change to the deletion policy that discourages this in all namespaces. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I was reading this ANI about portal reverts a while ago. I wasn't involved, but perhaps something might jog your memory.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I am not sure that this is what happened. In the examples I am aware of, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maryland, someone else nominated for deletion (and the discussions look like keeps). This is gaming only if it is deliberately organised, for which I have not seen any evidence. — Kusma ( t· c) 15:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

Purpose of blocks, bans and other restrictions.

1) The purpose of editing restrictions - up to the site ban - is to protect Wikipedia. Anyone applying or proposing them should verify that these measures are the best way to solve a problem. However, inaction can be a problem, too.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am concerned that this is too narrow, and would be interpreted as "protect Wikipedia article content": for example, some restrictions clearly exist to protect Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) from legal liability, and some (such as anti-harassment) seem to me to exist to protect the community of editors. Also, there are blocks/bans (such as interaction bans) that go beyond "editing restrictions," and these may well be relevant in this case. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

UnitedStatesian has beat me to it in every facet, although anti-harassment blocks can also exist to protect non-editors, though obviously that's rare. Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Responsibility of admistrators

2)Active adminstrators with severe conduct issues in the recent past are leading other users by bad example, creating a more hostile environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not necessarily incorrect but unnecessary complicated. I would rather use the policy's language as pointed out by Bagumba below as has been done in previous ArbCom cases (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama#Administrator_conduct recently). Regards So Why 10:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interestingly, WP:ADMINACCT deals with "actions involving administrator tools". Is there a policy or guideline about their behavior as editors? There probably should be, as I'd imagine an editor who was excessively combative would be pressed to pass a request for adminship, or a WP:RECALL if they were already an admin. If we don't hold an admin accountable for their actions outside of the tools, it sets up a double standard if that admin in question themselves holds other admins to a higher editing standard, as I presented at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#Admin_accountability— Bagumba ( talk) 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Reading WP:ADMINCOND, that conduct policy does not explicitly limit its application to use of admin tools. Particularly: Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

As written this wound mean that BHG (or whomever) would be punished (or not) as a result of other administrators actions. No one should be punished (or not) just because other members of a certain group they happen to belong to do something inappropriate (or good). - Nabla ( talk) 20:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Can you clarify? I didn't read the proposal as admin A was bad, therefore admin X and Y will be punished by association.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Bagumba, it says that some administrators (A, B, C, etc., which may or may not include BHG) are leading other users by bad example, as a principle used to eventually punish administrator BHG.

"[All] Administrators are expected to lead by example", as you quote above, would be a valid principle; but the proposed principle is "[Some] administrators are a bad example". "All" includes BHG, "Some" may or may not include. - Nabla ( talk) 19:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I think this point should be clarified before discussion. Does it simply confirm the principle that misconduct can set a bad example, without implying that anyone has done so? If it is a finding that one or more admins have recently misbehaved then it needs to name names, both to allow the proposal to be assessed and to avoid tarring innocent admins with the same brush. Certes ( talk) 10:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a proposed principle, which should be general. A "finding of fact" would need to be specific.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Battleground behaviour and incivility by User:BrownHairedGirl

1) BrownHairedGirl has shown signs of severe uncivil battleground behaviour in portal space, e.g. this, especially in deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

BrownHairedGirl desysoped

1) BrownHairedGirl is desysoped. They may apply to regain adminstrator privileges via a successful request for adminship no earlier than 24 months after this case is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Without comment on the question of desysop itself, I see no need to add a restriction from filing a new RfA. – xeno ^talk 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Why is the time limit necessary? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The reason for removal of adminship will be still there after the desysop, for some time, at least (section Responsibility of admistrators).

The committee rarely sets a timeframe (and when it does it's almost always 6 or 12 months), simply saying they may regain adminship at any time at RFA. Very few people who are desysopped do apply sooner than a few months down the line, and almost none of them are successful. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

As above the time limit is not required, but it is important that the desysopping of BHG be actively considered by arbitrators given the extensive battleground behaviour and personal attacks that have persisted despite numerous callings-out at ANI and elsewhere. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Seems inappropriate without a) the abuse of tools and b) an attempt at other Arb remedies. This issue is extensive and BHG has been insulting, however, originally these insults were founded and left underacknowledged, in this case, editors such as NorthAmerica1000, were taking on portals they couldn't understand and projects they couldn't seem to manage. It is easy when ignored in a dispute to continue to advertise your ignored inputs if you consider them particularly relevant without reposting the full content, of what is a case, each time you mention it. It has went further than acceptable yes, and this series is extended over a period yes, but it is otherwise confined to a narrow niche, i.e. portals. BHG may be exhibiting obsessive input around the portals, but she has also fallen into a situation where she is the loudest voice in a complaint which seems to have produced minimal returns. BHG and NorthAmerica1000 in particular are tireless and recognisable contributors to the site. It has taken a long time to get to the ArbCom stage, but I wish to call for you to defuse it rather than go straight to the cells. It seems like you can do that easily, but at the side of that situation, there are mounting calls to go straight to the whip here with little defence for BHG, even from herself. I see that as unfair. BHG is a tireless contributor. Any respects you've had for her in the past have been well founded. This series of events is confined to the portals. So it is fair to claim an appropriate response is to first try to focus on the portals and related parties. I do not even consider myself on BHGs side as regards such a wide dismissal of portals as she is reaching for, however, to punish her while her peers are unsure or afraid to defend her will set a precedent for these relatively quiet voices. We need criticism of portals. BHG has been incivil and persistent variously, but that is a minor part of the input. She has been the most rigorous against the portals, and while that should have an extent, it should not be completely rebuked. There were valid concerns about the automated portals not making very much sense. The idea of disfavouring them completely does not appeal to me, but it is meritable as an opinion, and they did require a rigorous review at the start of (what is a rehash of an ancient debate really, nobody seems to be picking that up on either side, this debate has came and went since portals original conception, I've read through much of it last year in the course of a related mission). Let's put an extent on any obsessive behaviour, but let's be careful to protect dissent and contrary opinions. I do not subscribe to the idea that BHGs insults have actually damaged the site as they have not devolved into debasive language or aggression, but to be fair, insulting complaints must be based on the attempt to found them only, and insults aimed at groups are an underacknowledged behaviour across many forms of social interaction. Arbs are going to want to restrict things here, but they don't need to desysop anything as serious unless time proves that they are not in control here. If you are not in control once you take charge, well that's hammer time, but please don't roll over immediately for the crowd here, until it is necessary, ~ R. T. G 21:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I am not aware of any misuse by BrownHairedGirl of the admin tools, in the portal area or any other. Removal of admin tools for incivility alone has not, in my opinion, resulted in a positive long-term outcome in the past. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It won't affect Portals. It would address cries that those higher up dont police their own, and the likely reality that an admin's civility as an editor impacts the community's trust in them as an admin.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Don't see a need for this as her admin tools were never involved. However I can see how other admins may think this is necessary to maintain the integrity of the admin community.-- Moxy 🍁 23:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:ADMINCOND does not limit desysoppong to misuse of tools.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Even though BHG commendably refrained from using her admin tools in portal space, she is still generally accountable for her behavior. The intensity with which she personalized disputes and unjustifiably impugned the character of other editors renders it necessary to remove her tools. However, it is not necessary to impose a time limit on how soon she can reapply at RfA and 24 months would be excessive even if such a limit was necessary. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl: portal topic restrictions

2) User:BrownHairedGirl is restricted to 1 edit per 120 hours to pages related to portals, broadly construed; edits falling under the usual exceptions( WP:BANEX) and answers to questions about these edits that are directly addressed to her should not be counted. Attempts to game the restriction by answering or asking overly broad questions are not acceptable, from anyone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

this does seem unnecessarily complicated with no benefit over a (much simpler) topic ban Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't believe I have ever seen a restriction that limits an editor to one edit every five days. I'm not going to ba an active arb on this case, but I have to wonder, if you believe a restriction of this magnitude is needed, why not just go for a full topic ban, as the effect would be nearly the same? Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

It allows others to check their contributions if they choose to use that edit, making it easier to establish if the restrictions should be eased upon appeal. Or if they don't get another chance and fully topic banned. Lurking shadow ( talk) 17:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but... five days between edits? I'm afraid I just don't see the point. 24 hours is usually considered plenty of time for a third party to review one single edit. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Five days seems a bit over the top, possible even pointy. It may also have the counterproductive effect of eliciting massive walls of text instead of reasoned rational argument. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Peter Southwood makes a good point. This could only work in combination with a word limit, but even that could prove problematic - say BHG makes a point that is misunderstood, that misunderstanding cannot be corrected for 5 days (at which point the discussion as likely moved on a long way) and even then BHG would have to use some of her word limit correcting the misunderstanding rather than moving the discussion along. If it is necessary to restrict someone to that extent then there doesn't seem much (if any) benefit to the project over a simple topic ban. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Also it could be gamed to bait BHG. That would not be a good result. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This proposal is both absurd and clearly mean-spirited rather than constructive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I completely disagree that this proposal is "mean-spirited". It is unworkable (because it goes too far) but I see no evidence that it was not proposed as a good-faith attempt to break the back of the dispute while still allowing BHG to participate to limited degree from someone who does not have a lot of experience of arbitration remedies. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes. Unless I'm missing background, there is no way to conclude intent. And it's far from draconian in any event.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl topic banned: portal deletion discussions

3) User:BrownHairedGirl is topic banned from pages and sections related to deletion discussions of portals, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal should welcomed by those who object to critical analysis of portals which reveals the flaws which a dozen others had missed, e.g. [1]; or those who dislike detailed scrutiny [2]; or those such as Hecato who object to well-researched MFD nominations [3]; or those who object to identifying breaches of NPOV [4]. If the aim is something other than to suppress such analysis, then it's a less good idea. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This might be best for all involved as others have been able to represent the same points as Brown in a more civil and constructive manner. Though I have only been involved in a few deletion talks I will be voluntarily withdrawing myself from these talks simply to avoid conflict as it may help.-- Moxy 🍁 03:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is the best case scenario if the behavior has been specific to the obvious frustration around Portals, and there is confidence that she can remain productive outside of that area. Perhaps my earliest recollection of BrownHairedGirl was her general composure almost 2 years ago while being attacked by an editor (non-portal related)— Bagumba ( talk) 10:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

" broadly construed" means not limited to just MfDs, right? There was a personal attack at Village Pump re: portals. [5].— Bagumba ( talk) 07:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl warned

4) User:BrownHairedGirl is warned that more incivility will lead to a site ban rather quickly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We need effective, prompt remedies to restrain editors such as NA1K who systematically misrepresent policy and game the system, and editors such as Moxy who repeatedly disrupted discussion with angry off-topic falsehoods and repeatedly tried to game the system through tactics such as non-neutral notification, objecting to a call for notifications of interested editors, and launching a straw man RFC. The lack of effective restraint is what led me to use direct terms to describe these problems.

In response to Peter Southwood: on the contrary, I do understand very clearly why some editors consider that I have been uncivil. However, I strongly disagree with the apparent belief amongst some that calling someone a liar (with supporting evidence) is more problematic than telling lies.

I urge editors and the ArbCom to reflect very carefully on the consequences for consensus-forming processes if using harsh terms to describe misconduct is treated as a more serious problem than the misconduct itself, such as gaming the system and repeating asserting falsehoods to consensus formation. --12:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If no stronger sanction passes, then BHG definitely needs an enforceable final warning for civility. I don't think this is the best way to phrase that though. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I am not sure that BHG understands why she is considered uncivil. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Agree with Pbsouthwood point and any evidence to the accusations would be nice.-- Moxy 🍁 03:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

See #Exemptions on why she believes it is OK.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

No personal attacks

1) Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are never acceptable. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g., the other editor's talk page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, etc).— Bagumba ( talk) 18:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:No personal attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? defines personal attack much more narrowly than some editors believe. For example, the policy says Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

This part of the policy has been repeatedly ignored by those who have objected to my noting the misconduct of NA1K. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I find it plausible that some Wikipedians do not realise that they are making personal attacks when they do so. This may be partially an external cultural problem, and partly a Wikipedia cultural problem. I do not have any silver bullets, but this kind of behaviour often appears to correlate with the conviction that one is right and the other is wrong, and to make a statement that is true is not a personal attack. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't think this case is dealing with one-off PAs or an occasional heat-of-the-moment lapse. There has been a persistent battleground, despite pleas, warnings, and noticeboard discussions.— Bagumba ( talk) 19:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

That`s an accurate summary of our policies about personal attacks. Lurking shadow ( talk) 10:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@BrownHairedGirl: It's not the "what" but the "where". When you are acting as an editor, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and WP:ASPERSIONS says the analysis and commentary is done at that user's talk page or appropriate noticeboard. Never behind the user's back, and not to complicate content discussions ( WP:FOC).— Bagumba ( talk) 00:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• BHG, please present and refer to the incompetence specifically, and rely on that presentation for the sake of this argument at any time in future. Arbs, if she does that, the content of this complaint will have begun to pass, right? ~ R. T. G 14:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Perfection is not required

2) Wikipedia is a work in progress, and perfection is not required. Through collaborative work, a page that is incomplete, poorly organized, or not regularly updated can evolve into a high-quality page. If editing can improve a portal, that should be done instead of wholesale deletion of the portal. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It would be more appropriate to flip this to make it more align with how it voliated existing policies - something like, "there was no consensus to delete portals wholesale, hence there was no place to delete them outside of the usual processes that decide deletion." or somesuch. It also needs specific examples as to where it occurred. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bagumba:, anyone can nominate anything for deletion, so nominating in and of itself is not out-of-process, though I suspect supplying grossly false reasons could be construed as problematic. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Tho nominating by itself is not out of process, nominating abusively, or in such a manner that proper consideration can not be given , or in such a way as to bypass discussion, is an improper use of process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

This appears to refer to Bagumba's evidence at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#Deadlines_and_compulsory_work, which sadly is replete with falsehoods:

1. Bagumba writes WP:BEFORE states If the article can be fixed through normal editing. However, a portal is not an article, so WP:BEFORE is clearly inapplicable.
2. Bagumba claims that the portal was fixed. BrownHairedGirl supported the nominator's deadline rationale: Nobody wats to maintain ether portals[192] I explained that someone fixed it, so "nobody" is incorrect. Bagumba fails to note the distinction between a one-off correction and ongoing maintenance. which I set out clearly in the MFD. Bagumba's choice to omit my responses is highly selective an thoroughly misleading; it presents a skewed view of the discussion. Note for example my reply [6] in which i noted the lack of interest from WikiProjects.
3. Bagumba invokes WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, but chooses to omit the subsequent discussion ( [7], several posts by each os us) in which I note that no individual is being asked or required to commit to anything more than they want to.

The sustained misrepresentation of policy, guidelines and previous discussions which Bagumba has indulged in both at MFD and here is timewasting, disruptive and highly uncollegial. I make no assumptions about the reasons for this msirepresetation, but IF it was done intentionally, it would be a form of GAMEing the system, by forcing other editors to choose between lengthy exchanges (for which they can then be accused of bludgeoning), or leaving the falsehoods unchallenged.

Note that Bagumba's case is based on unevidenced suspicion of malign intent: I suspect there is a trend among the MfD nominations to find a few errors then justify the whole portal's deletion, while alluding to the risk of BLP violations lurking and lack of dedicated editors for said portal. If Bagumba actually believed that there was such a trend, they should have sought and presented actual evidence rather thanking arbcom to endorse an untested "suspicion". The reality is that I personally made about 500 MFD nominations, of which the ~400 which dealt with non-autoated portals set out in structured form evidence of problems such as indiscriminate article selection, long-term neglect, narrow scope, low readership, lack maintainers, lack of of interest from related WikiProjects. Many other editors (e.g. Newshunter12) made similarly thorough nominations, but here's a sample of mine:

1. Portal:Bavaria
2. Portal:Mathematical Analysis
3. Portal:Weapons of mass destruction
4. Portal:Computer graphics
5. Portal:Gaelic games
6. Portal:Reggae

Yes, this post is loooong. But the reason is simple: it's very easy to do what Bagumba did, and assert a sweeping suspicion ... but it takes a lot more words to demonstrate that it is a falsehood. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Reply to Bagumba's comment of 07:57, below: the proposition above asserts as fact the point which Bagumba raised in evidence as a question. Bagumba is therefore asking ArbCom to formulate deletion policy.

Meanwhile, the status quo is that portals are different, because WP:BEFORE specifically refers to articles, not to other namepsaces. If Bagumba or anyone else wants to open a RFC to propose a similar policy for portals (or to amend BEFORE to include portals), then they are free to do so. However, Bagumba's proposal here amounts in effect to an attempt to bypass the consensus-forming process by asking Arbcom to make that policy.

Note that about 1,000 non-automated portals were deleted in the course of 2019, mostly on grounds which included long-term neglect and lack of maintainers. If we apply DGG's comments elsewhere on this page about consensus being established by practice, then there clearly is a consensus that severely neglected portals should be deleted, and that BEFORE does not apply. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Reply to Bagumba's comment of 08:16, below: Bagumba's choice to repeat their misrepresentstion of my comment about ongoing maintenance was not forced by word count limits, and nor was Bagumba's choice to again misrepresent WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I invite Bagumba to either name the editor who they believe was being subject to compulsion, or to withdraw that claim ... because unless there is an identifiable editor then there is no compulsion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

re DGG's comment of 01:42, 7 Jan: the only suggestions which I have seen of abusive nomination of portals have been:

• In March or April, Legacypac made over 20 separate MFD nominations in a single day. I complained that this was overloading the capacity of community to assess them, and urged restraint. (This was one of episodes in Legacypac's mounting aggression towards me which led to them being blocked for a misogynistic attack).
• In perhaps a dozen MFD nominations, concerns were expressed that a renomination followed too soon after a previous discussion. In some cases, these were unbundlings of previous group nominations. These seemed to me to be no more controversial or frequent than I have seen at CFD and AFD.

Apart from that, there were episodes of objections by editors who took the WP:ENDPORTALS rejection of a proposal to delete all portals and misrepresented it as decision to never delete any portals. A variant of that was repeated ABF assertions that editors were using individual MFDs as a stealthy attempt to delete all portals. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

re Bagumba's comment of 08:34, 7 January 2020: please read WP:PERFECTION, which mentions only articles. At no point does it say "pages" in general, and nor does identify any other namespace. If it was applied to all namespaces, then TFD, RFD and CFD would need to change their practices. ArbCom should not impose such a change of policy. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

The community did not get to a consensus on this; Arbcom is neither supposed to nor empowered to make content decisions. Lurking shadow ( talk) 10:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Casliber: One example was presented at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#Deadlines_and_compulsory_work about the NBA portal nominated because it was "neglected" and a few fixable (and later fixed) errors that were found.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Casliber: Understood about good faith nominations. But I suspect there is a trend among the MfD nominations to find a few errors then justify the whole portal's deletion, while alluding to the risk of BLP violations lurking and lack of dedicated editors for said portal.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Casliber: "IMPERFECT" was also mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#BrownHairedGirl_bludgeons_and_discourages_debate_with_ad_hominem_attacks.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

There`s a difference between articles not needing perfection and keeping portals that are unlikely to have any value over navigation templates. Which small portals don`t. Lurking shadow ( talk) 12:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:PERFECTION is a general editing policy; it's not limited to articles.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It only mentions articles there, though. And if a portal indeed needs constant attention to function properly, but it didn`t get over a significant period of time then that`s a problem that cannot be fixed by simply fixing the portal once when it gets nominated - the attention needs to be sustained. Lurking shadow ( talk) 14:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is inviting ArbCom to make are finding that portals are subject to the same deletion criteria as articles. That is a policy matter for the community to decide, and any analysis of existing policy should note that several non-article namespaces have their own deletion forums with varying deletion criteria: e.g. TFD, CFD, and RFD apply different criteria to AFD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, I encourage a statement to be made whether there is a spirit to be followed here or whether letter of the law says "perfection" only applies to articles. This is especially important given that there is no portal guideline currently.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Please also see related principle #No firm rules (below).— Bagumba ( talk) 13:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@BrownHairedGirl (from "Comment by parties") You said: This appears to refer to Bagumba's evidence ... sadly is replete with falsehoods ... However, a portal is not an article, so WP:BEFORE is clearly inapplicable." You missed where I wrote: Should portals be different? Per WP:5P5: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording ...— Bagumba ( talk) 07:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@BrownHairedGirl Bagumba's choice to omit my responses is highly selective an thoroughly misleading I had a 500 word limit for my evidence; you had a 1500 word limit for your evidence. We all had 1+ month to prepare our own evidence. Arbcom is entrusted to analyze all evidence and weigh the arguments. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Clarification The principle I am proposing in this Workshop section, "Perfection is not required", is based off the editing policy WP:PERFECTION. Arbcom can determine if it is applicable as a general editing policy in spirit or specific to articles only.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

For those hung up on the "article" vs. "page" technicality, Wikipedia:Deletion policy deal with all pages generically: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. (h/t UnitedStatesian at #Deletion Policy).— Bagumba ( talk) 16:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The whole wiki ethos supports this principle being applied generally. Espresso Addict ( talk) 23:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@BrownHairedGirl (re: 07:39, 7 January) Note that Bagumba's case is based on unevidenced suspicion of malign intent: "I suspect there is a trend ..." If Bagumba actually believed ... suspect v. səˈspekt 1. have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof. Arbcom is capable of combining everyone's evidence and assessing accordingly.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Focus on content

3) During content disputes, the focus should be on content and not editor conduct. Assume good faith. Bringing up conduct during content discussions can be antagonizing and unproductive. Seek appropriate dispute resolution on the content issue if the discussion becomes unavoidably uncivil. Conduct disputes should be dealt with directly with the other party on their talk page in a civil manner. If the conduct issue still cannot be resolved, seek an uninvolved administrator or an appropriate noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Where a falsehood is asserted in the course of a discussion, the best place to challenge it is in that discussion. Where there is a pattern of the same falsehood being repeated by the same editor in multiple discussions, that pattern of disruption should be noted in the discussion to allow the closer to weigh it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

reply to Bagumba's 10:26 question: I am referring to both sorts. Whether the falsehood is due to misunderstanding or mendacity, it should be noted in the discussion so that closer can assess the issue and impact of the falsehood.

Where there is sustained mendacity, it is also important that the closer can see the evidence that the system is being gamed. Sadly, in the relevant portal MFDs, some editors seemed to be much more concerned about the mendacity being noted than about the substance of the attempt to game the discussion through misrepresentation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bagumba: (re 12:09): lying in a content discussion is both a content and a conduct issue. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

@ BrownHairedGirl: Which meaning of falsehood are you referring to: "a lie or a statement that is not correct"? [8]— Bagumba ( talk) 10:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ BrownHairedGirl: (re: 11:50, 7 January) It's one thing to say there is a disagreement, even call someone wrong if you must. On the other hand, lying is a conduct problem. The WP:FOC policy discourages bringing up conduct issues in content discussions. WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE suggesd dealing with the lying accusation at the users talk page, and seeking an uninvolved admin or noticeboard if still needed.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Where there is an alleged pattern of the same falsehood being repeated by an administrator in multiple discussions, it requires urgent resolution at WP:AN. It is not OK to repeatedly make conduct allegations at the content deletion forum, MfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Be concise

4) Long posts risk being misunderstood, if not ignored. They can hinder communication. Detailed posts, when necessary, are generally clearer when points are seperated and organized. Discussions should use basic English, inasmuch as possbile. To be inclusive to all Wikipedians, specific terms or ideas that may not be familiar to all should have links to relevant policies, guidelines, past discussions or essays.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal as drafted would create a bias against analysis which is particularly inappropriate in this context, because portals are complex, multi-page structures: some of those I nominated at MFD contained hundreds of pages. Assessing that structure involves a lot of details, and a nomination which omits that detail risks being misleading.

I made a lot of long posts at MFD, because I did a lot of prior research and posted a lot of evidence. I took great care to structure those by using bulleted and/or numbered points, separate paras for separate issues, etc. (see e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12]) But even so I was specifically attacked at "evidence" by Hecato for posting "walls of text" and "bludgeoning".

ArbCom should commend editors for doing detailed analysis of complex multi-page deletion nominations, and not reproach them. Editors who do not wish to engage with the mass of detail of an MFD of a large multi-page portal are free to recuse themselves from the discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

re Bagumba's post of 09:10. This proposal goes way beyond WP:TPG#YES. It is not an invitation to ArbCom decide if the guideline generally applies to all discussions; it is an invitation to ArbCom to make policy. Given the nature of Bagumba's other comments, it appears to be designed to facilitate the criticism of editors who have served the community by making detailed analysis of complex portals or detailed rebuttals of falsehoods. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This proposed principle is based off of guideline WP:TPG#YES. Arbcom can decide if the guideline generally applies to all discussions, or if it's specifically for article talk pages and excludes Wikipedia:Project namespace (e.g. deletion discussions) and WikiProject discussions.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@BrownHairedGirl: regarding your reference to Hecato's evidence, this principle is unrelated. They took some snapshots showing multiple short posts in a single discussion. This principle deals with individual posts which are long.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Some posts are long because they contain detailed factual analysis. Such posts are often desirable. Some posts are long because they are tedious repetitive walls of text, and are undesirable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

In many portal MFD discussions, critics of portals provided detailed analysis, and defenders of portals complained about too much information, but they also complained about not enough information when portals were nominated for deletion without supporting details. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Any principle about conciseness should say something to the effect that posts should contain enough information without containing too much verbiage. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Detailed posts, when necessary, are generally clearer when points are seperated and organized. This seemsed to me to be a universal best practice. There is no ban on longs posts. If we all can forget about Portals and Wikipedia for one moment, we all know that TLDR can be a real-life issue. Or look at the long Evidence post with no subsections for individual assertions.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

BHG's posts would be more concise if she omitted the aspersions and attacks against other editors. Just a thought. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

One of the problems I recall was that it was not just one long detailed post, but post after post with +/– the same long rationale that one had already had to respond to repetitively before. This is to some extent a defect in MfDs. It did have a cumulative wearying effect on me, at least. To clarify it felt as if I had offered cogent points refuting a particular argument on one MfD only to find it was repeated verbatim on the next, and the next, and the next. Apologies for repetition, but there were often 10 or more or MfDs opened on one day (not necessarily by the same nominator) in which one had to respond to the same material again and again, without either side ever convincing the other one iota. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, one of my assertions at Evidence stated that as portal non-regular, I had no guidelines to refer to, and people either assumed I knew all the history or presented points in a manner a non-regular could not readily comprehend. It's hard to get an outsider prospective when the details require institutional knowledge that's either not accessible or presented in an ad hoc post, as opposed to at least a semi-organized essay (which also helps minimize long posts).— Bagumba ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is not a particular issue. BHG presents a lot of facts, and does so with good concision. Concise does not mean brief. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Espesso Addict and Lepricavark accurately sums up the issues here: BHG's posts are excessively long and difficult to read. This has been one of the real problems in this area. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I do not agree that BHG's posts are excessively long and difficult to read. She presents thorough, logical, well-structured facts and argument. Excepting for comments on others, her contributions to MfD discussions have been high quality. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I did not expect this much debate on a proposed principle. Detailed posts are sometimes necessary, but it should be a flag to be extra discerning about how long really is necessary. This isn't a fact about a person, and certainly not a suggested remedy.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Assume good faith

5) Disagreements can be the result of different perspectives, and are generally not because of ill intent or incompetency. People make mistakes. These can generally be corrected with a civil reminder. Seek dispute resolution when disagreements appear unmanageable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No firm rules

6) The principles and spirit of policies and guidelines matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is related to the proposed #Perfection is not required principle (above), where it was suggested that since the editing policy WP:PERFECTION only refers to "articles", it does not apply to portals, which are in a different namespace. However, "articles" are also only mentioned at policies such as Wikipedia:Consensus (Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above), Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (When two editors disagree over what to do with an article, they must talk things through politely and rationally.), Wikipedia:Verifiability (All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.). I don't suggest that portals be exempt from these. An exception for PERFECTION could be argued for portals per WP:IAR, but I have not seen evidence that there is such a consensus.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Gaming the system accusations

7) Using the term "gaming the system" should be done judiciously, as it can be viewed negatively as an accusation of bad-faith editing. Even if bad intent by others seems subjectively clear, one should not cast aspersions about the mentalities or motivations of other editors. These alleged problems should be addressed at the proper noticeboards. Uninvolved parties there can detect bad behavior with consise evidence containing proper diffs. Repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gaming the system is negative. It is an accusation of something which cannot be tolerated. It is an accusation of cheating. Accusation is not wrong. It is accusation without foundation which is wrong. It does not require aspirations on the motivations, intent, or mentality of anybody, to point out they are gaming the system. Gaming the system might include trying to prevent accusations of gaming the system by claiming such accusations are actually aspirations on motivation, intent and mentality. The gaming part there would be:- presenting a large scale proposal to the community is restricted in the sense that you can't end one large debate today to restart it tomorrow. But... if you could convince people that such a restriction was about attacking the proposers character, rather than protecting the community from being worn down, thereby changing perspective of the issue, from what should be done on the site, to a clash of personalities, you'd have gamed the system in a textbook manner.

Repeated large scale offensives against consensus, without genuine cooling off periods, i.e. wearing the community down into an action which cannot be reversed, is gaming against the system which prefers a cooling off period for such proposals. You asked if portals should be deleted altogether. You were told no. Accept your answer, and "motivate" yourself with "intent" to the "mentality" of respect for that answer. Although the request would need a timer put on repetition, in fact, the spirit of such restriction, is no to ask again until the situation may have changed, or a fresh outlook on the proposal is possible. That cannot be the case with a major proposal repeated every few months. This is an oft repeated situation on the site. It is always restricted, because it is a form of gaming the system, and one of the most effective forms of gaming to turn people away from that system. ~ R. T. G 14:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Accusations of lying

1) BrownHairedGirl frequently accuses others of lying during content discussions [13] [14] [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is a factual statement that no one is denying.-- Moxy 🍁 23:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

An accusation of lying my be defensible by it being the truth. It should be considered: Who was accused. What was the accusation. Was the accusation correct. Also, was the tone of the accusations justifiable.

The three links involve three different users being accused:

(1) Knowledgekid87 . eg "is demonstrably untrue, was known by Knowledgekid87 to be untrue, and made with the intent of deception."

(2) NA1K eg "NA1K is a shamelessly deceitful serial liar"

(3) Moxy. "either you are either a congenital liar or you have a very poor grasp of facts"

I personally have never had the stomach to examine these for truth. In all three, I find the tone of the accusation unreasonable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

One could just be making an illogical argument and not be a liar.— Bagumba ( talk) 06:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Or one could be making a perfectly logical argument but based on a premise that is wrong, for example due to a good faith misreading or misunderstanding or even simply changed circumstances one was not aware of. Even if this means the conclusion of your argument is incorrect it does not make you a liar. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Or that a different interpretation than your own is not a "falsehood." Or failing to mention a detail one judged insignificant or wasn't aware is not being "deceitful" — Bagumba ( talk) 10:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Incivility

2) BrownHairedGirl frequently criticizes others' intelligence esp. in content discussions, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] labels opponents as portalistas [21] [22] [23] and condescendingly refers to editors' "playground" portals [24] [25] @BHG's Evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again a factual statement that no one is denying.-- Moxy 🍁 23:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

With regard to "portalistas" it's my understanding that she voluntarily stopped this after a related AN(I) thread. If this hasn't recurred, I think referring to it in the present tense is inappropriate. — Wug· a·po·des​ 02:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Wugapodes:. The similar term "portal fans" is used more than once in BrownHairedGirl's evidence. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) BHG agreed to stop using the term "Portalista" on 14 August 2019 in a discussion at WP:AN [26]. A quick search finds uses of the term after that date by Robert McClenon (multiple uses, including 2 September, 11 September, 14 October, 23 October) and Nick Moyes ( 21 December) and by various editors quoting BHG's comments from before 14 August. I have not found evidence of her using the term after agreeing to stop doing so. Thryduulf ( talk) 04:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

At least one other use of portalista by BrownHairedGirl on 20 September 2019: This isn't Classic Wikipedia ... it's Classic Portalista!. [27].— Bagumba ( talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Robert McClenon affirmed in September 2019 that they would continue to use portalista, will also mix in portal platoon and refer to Wikipedia:Dead rat, an essay written by him and used in at least 10 portal-related discussions. [28]— Bagumba ( talk) 19:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Espresso Addict: I don't recall BHG committing to not use the term "portal fans" so that is a separate issue to Wugapode's comment. (i.e. she agreed to refrain from using one specific term, not to refrain from doing the same labelling, belittling, etc using different terms.) Thryduulf ( talk) 04:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I find "portal fans" at least mildly uncivil, in context. I'm not sure abstaining successfully from one word but substituting another is a matter for laudation. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Indeed it is not a matter for "laudation" - my comment is simply a factual note in response to Wugapodes' observation. In this context agreeing to refrain from one specific term and doing so is neither good nor bad, but had she agreed to refrain and not done so then that would be a further black mark. Thryduulf ( talk) 04:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

All three instances of "fan" on the Evidence page are mentions of "portal fans", all by BrownHairedGirl. Multiple mentions there of "playground" by multiple people.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I call attention to the repeated use of "Planet Portalfan" in this Village Pump (policy) discussion with an admin not currently participating in this process, referring directly to a "parallel universe" where those who disagree with BrownHairedGirl are "sustained by faith, to the exclusion of reason and of evidence." This usage is clearly disparaging. Several comments later she refers to "Planet Allan" [sic], choosing to specifically "other" this admin who disagrees with her behavior in THAT particular discussion. BusterD ( talk) 06:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It hasn't been edited by BrownHairedGirl, but I've just run across Wikipedia:Toy portals. Another coined term to pair with the playground theme.— Bagumba ( talk) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, and it quite clearly refers to editors who work on portals as children. It's written by Robert McClenon who has participated extensively in the case and in nominating numerous portals for deletion. BrownHairedGirl isn't the only one who denigrates editors in this way, simply the most frequent and vocal one. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Good find. If I'd been aware of that I'd certainly have brought that up in evidence. At the very least that needs to be in userspace not project space, and I'm tempted to MfD it to be honest as detrimental to the functioning of a collaborative encyclopaedia. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Exemptions

3) BrownHairedGirl often discusses personal behavior at inappropriate venues. She believes this incivility is misunderstood and exempt because:

• It is ok to discuss user conduct in content discussions because it is "calling out another editor's misconduct where it occurs" (See BHG Evidence)
• It is ok on her talk page to make "negative judgements [about another person] based on assessments of the evidence" without the other person being present in the conversation. [29] She says it is necessary to prove WP:GAME. [30](see also BHG Evidence)
  • In discussing this situation later with an admin, she criticizes them: ... you don't even have the courtesy to acknowledge that I noted two possible [negative] explanations, and you offer no alternative possible explanation. [31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Long posts

4) BrownHairedGirl makes a lot of long posts. "Editors who do not wish to engage with the mass of detail of an MFD of a large multi-page portal are free to recuse themselves from the discussion.", she says. [32]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BrownHairedGirl's posts are long when they contain a large amount of detailed factual information. Sometimes lengthy factual analysis is useful. Some editors post lengthy and tiresome posts that are difficult to read and are the subject of the essay too long, didn't read, but BHG does not post walls of text. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I've seen long Powerpoint presentations, good and bad. Useful information become useless if it's not consumable. It's dismissive to take a "too bad" attitude. I AGF that readers are sincere when they complain.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Here's a representative long MfD post. It's effectively a walled-off discussion, as any non-portal editor who wanted to help would be overwhelmed. Loads of analysis, and no background for an outsider on the basis for the selected criteria. Part of this is systemic from Portals not having existing guidelines or explanatory essays. Am I the only one: what is portal spam exactly?— Bagumba ( talk) 10:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

That's an interesting case, because I think BrownHairedGirl is absolutely correct in that case, but the language & style are off-putting. Espresso Addict ( talk) 10:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I proposed this independent of whether the post was "correct" or not.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

More generally, I take issue with the relevance of this as a finding, as in, "So what?" Posts should be long enough to provide the required information. Too often, supporters of portals in general would complain that posts containing detailed information by BrowhHairedGirl, or Newshunter12, or myself were "oppressive", probably because they required thought to assess the content. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I can't speak for others of course, but that's not the reason I had issue's with BHG's posts - it was because they were unnecessarily long, poorly formatted, contained lots of issues (that would be better dealt with separately for clarity), and frequently repeated arguments already made multiple times. Responding to them does take a lot of time and effort - far, far more than responding to discussions on pretty much every other topic on Wikipedia. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to read long, well-structured arguments in deletion discussions. It was not so much that any one post was long per se, but that +/– every single post contained +/– every conceivable rationale for deletion, including many that were strongly disputed by those wishing to retain some portals, forcing one to respond again and again and again with the same arguments, until everyone who was not 100% obsessed walked away. It felt like I, a long-standing contributor and admin, was being treated like a paid editor or a vandal, just receiving repeated boilerplate material which in no way respected/considered my previous arguments, as if all 12 years of my contributions to portals were vandalism or spam or at best "vanity editing". I am not alleging that this was the intent, necessarily, but this was the feeling it generated in me. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is why in my proposed "Be concise" guideline, I said diffs from past posts—better yet, (organized) essays—would make posts more readable. This is also a byproduct of not having a portal guideline, causing the urge to debate everything including the kitchen sink.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It would appear BrownHairedGirl believes she is welcome to write an analysis so detailed as to discourage a normal editor from attempting refutation, forcing such an editor to "recuse themselves". By extension editors who DO attempt engagement can be (and have been) gradually eliminated through exhaustion and frustration; I have seen several comments by contributors in various stages of this process refer to the same effect. Remember, BrownHairedGirl, mostly to her credit, was in the last year by far en.wikipedia's most prolific editor. In 2019, she performed a record 671K edits, roughly twice as many the next editor (per wikiscan) [33]. It could also be argued that many of the points she reiterates again and again and again are based on a guideline sentence fragment using entirely subjective and contestable language. So "Editors who do not wish to engage with the mass of detail of an MFD of a large multi-page portal are free to recuse themselves from the discussion." is no idle threat. This practice appears to be a winning strategy at gaming the system in good faith debate. BusterD ( talk) 01:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Endorse BusterD. Fwiw, typical day of a portal maintainer (eg me between late March and early May 2019): Get up. Anxiously check "my" portals & talk page for deletion notices over espresso & breakfast. After second espresso, look at my series of pings from BrownHairedGirl, write acerbic responses, delete them, write politer responses, post them. Have another coffee, cuddle the cats, and down some more sugary food to fortify before venturing to MfD. Open all the new portal deletion discussions in separate tabs, then open all the nominated portals and quickly triage by determining on what basis they run (including had they been recently converted), & whether they were once featured. Write a list of urgent portals to investigate, as well as new deletion rationales to consider. Have another coffee. Investigate all old-style portals carefully, including the recently automated, write keep/delete comments and make sure any WikiProjects had been notified. Deal with another round of pings from BrownHairedGirl. This usually took a minimum of several hours. If time/energy, investigate all the purely automated portals too. Then go back to the best nominated portals and consider whether & how they might be improved. Also revisit older MfDs and attempt to respond to comments/concerns. [This comment is not a joke, though aside from the dates, it is based on memory. For clarity, not all portal MfDs were initiated by BrownHairedGirl, but I do think that she commented on +/– all of them, and also tended to comment on all comments in MfDs that did not agree with her viewpoint, whether or not she had initiated the MfD, a practice that she defended on her talk page [34].] Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

BusterD, see also here: many of her edits were using AWB to replace links to something like Portal: Minnesota with Portal: United States. (Performed too fast, and not quite in accordance with the bit policy, but most people didn't care). The point that she did dominate and sometimes overwhelm portal MFD discussions is absolutely valid, of course. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

No common ground

4) Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines had been listed as a guideline since 2008. In 2019, it was tagged for update requests and disputes before being marked as under discussion, which led to its current status as a failed proposal. Discussions have been difficult at MfDs with long discussions, incivility, and accusations of gaming the system.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is not fair to say "Discussions have been difficult at MfDs". MfD has been working well despite the incivility and despite the large number of Portal MfD nominations last year. The damage of incivility and alleged gaming has been to the editors involved, and perhaps the driving away of some editors who don't like the unpleasantness, but there is no allegation of bad MfD decisions due to the unpleasantness. If there are concerns about bad decisions at MfD, they should not be raised first at ArbCom, but at DRV. eg Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 18#Portal:Weather, where DRV considers issues of participant bias. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I meant the difficulty from "long discussions, incivility, and accusations of gaming the system". I make no comment on the close of individual MfDs. From the big picture, however, I question continued serial deletion nominations while there are no guidelines for portals and in the face of the WP:ATD policy that "if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page".— Bagumba ( talk) 05:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Well, I for one was driven away from the process by regard for my mental health. I consider a reasonable proportion of decisions flat-out wrong, and not just the deletions. There really is limited point in having deletion discussions when there's no agreed policy applicable; the result appears to depend on who turns up, and who closes. Espresso Addict ( talk) 05:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

There is the comparsion to Portal MfDs as a kangaroo court at my evidence for "Deadlines and compulsory work".— Bagumba ( talk) 06:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree that the unpleasantness of the portal MfDs was psychologically challenging, more than enough to drive people away. Including me. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree with Espresso Addict and SmokeyJoe. I completely disagree with the conclusions reached in many of the portal MfDs because (in many, but not all, cases) only a subset of the arguments was being presented. I chose not to continue participating in most of them though because spending a very significant proportion of my available time for Wikipedia in a hostile environment getting accused of all sorts of things (many of them repeatedly, despite being fully refuted on multiple previous occasions) in massive walls of text was really not pleasant. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Although I turned up to defend a few portals which I felt were the clearest keeps, I also avoided many MfDs due to their tone and verbosity. The suspicion that almost every portal may soon have its turn at MfD is also a significant deterrent to actually improving the namespace. Certes ( talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines was failed early in its life. It was much later quietly retagged, very inappropriately. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Combining good faith with bad faith

5) BrownHairedGirl often mixes a good faith comment along with a bad faith attack in the same statement. [35] [36] [37]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Here are the statements for convenience:

• "either you are either a congenital liar or you have a very poor grasp of facts."
• " I cannot judge why you are doing this, and do not presume to know whether it is a conscious choice on your part, or a misunderstanding by you of policy."
• " I make no assumptions about the reasons for this msirepresetation, but IF it was done intentionally, it would be a form of GAMEing the system, by forcing other editors to choose between lengthy exchanges (for which they can then be accused of bludgeoning), or leaving the falsehoods unchallenged."

— Bagumba ( talk) 07:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

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

Moratorium on portal creation and deletion

1) The community shall not create portals nor nominate portals for deletion at MfD for one year. Moratorium can be appealed if a portal guideline becomes approved by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy that requires written rules, but being bold and editing through consensus has not been working for portals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is way over the line for ArbCom getting into policy making. "The community" is not a named party. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

ArbCom would not write the guideline. I am looking to 1) remove the disruption 2) encourage a guideline, which could determing that an exception is needed for portals regarding the WP:ATD policy of If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Forget a guideline, it seems we can't even agree on a two-sentence statement that described what portals do at #Portals_(principle_proposed_by_Bradv).— Bagumba ( talk) 09:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree that this is not something that ArbCom can impose. It has been suggested previously without consensus being reached. It might be worth seeking consensus anew after the case closes, depending on what the final remedies are. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Admittedly, this is the first case I've commented at. Hopefully it can spark something that can reasonably address the concern. People are being driven away based on feedback at #No common ground.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Dont think this is possible for this forum. ..Plus those that work on portals have been using Wikipedia:Portal for its purpose with NO problems...problem lies with no updates to static pages.-- Moxy 🍁 21:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Moxy: Good to know. So in your opinion, this info page has been generally uncontroversial?— Bagumba ( talk) 02:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I think so...only page Brown did not revert [38] after the project made changes all over.-- Moxy 🍁 16:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Bagumba, I'd say it needs some updates, as the page currently seems to assume that most portals are fully automated and that this is the most desirable state. Many of our best portals do not follow this practice. — Kusma ( t· c) 17:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kusma: At least there is potentially a good portion that represents some common ground. I was fearing the worst by the fact that parties were unable to salvage even a stripped down version of the prior guideline.— Bagumba ( talk) 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kusma: There's a confusion that, as I recall, "fully automated" used to mean, uses the subpage model to rotate the selection automatically, rather than manually replacing it monthly, which was the original model. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Espresso Addict, indeed, I mean the page has a bias towards a post-2018 single page model with News and DYK selected via text matches, although that needs to be done very carefully in order to avoid nonsense results. — Kusma ( t· c) 03:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Noted; I obviously haven't looked recently enough. Coming back after my wikibreak I've been trying to avoid non-constructive portal conversations, with some success apart from being sidetracked here. Unfiltered automated suggestions for virus & Cheshire are just laughable, unfortunately. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am not disagreeing with any of the above, but I do not see the relevance of Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited in this context. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Articles

Articles are the raison d'etre for Wikipedia, presenting human knowledge to readers in the form of the encyclopedia. All other namespaces in Wikipedia are incidental to article space, which presents human knowledge to the readers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I support this. Wikipedia's encyclopedic content is in articles; all other namepsaces are either internal (e.g. User, WP) or are tools to navigate and/or showcase articles (e.g. categories, navboxes, portals). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Herein lies a core problem with portals: They are not in article space. The rules of portal space are poorly defined and personal interpretations appear to differ. If all the rules of article space were to apply, there would be no substantive reason to have a separate portal space, so one must assume that there are differences, but other than being virtually invisible, it is not clear what they are or should be. I think that assumptions about what is or should be permissible in portal space is at the root of some of the disputes. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I get where you are coming from, but it is overly simplified and so more wrong than right. Articles are the main way Wikipedia presents human knowledge to readers, but they are not the only way we do so (e.g. images, reader-facing templates, etc). The other namespaces are not "incidental" to articles but are all there to support and enable the project to present human knowledge on a continuum from directly (e.g. categories of articles, MediaWiki pages that define reader-facing interface elements, etc) to very indirectly (e.g. humour pages that facilitate community health, ACE RFCs, etc). Portals are at least partly reader-facing, but their exact position on the continuum is not fully defined and surprisingly controversial. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Articles need navigational aids and quality assessment. Encouraging positive editing is an important goal of many subsidiary arenas, whether overtly or not. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Espresso Addict: I have never seen any evidence that encouraging positive editing is an important goal of many subsidiary arenas. Categories, navboxes, exist are all defined on their functional merits rather than as some sort of boost to "positivity". That appears to be a personal view of yours, and it's pity that you present a personal view as some sort of undocumeted community consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Such as, just f'rinstance, this forum, the wikiprojects, DYK & ITN projects &c&c&c. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I was thinking of broader arenas, such as namespaces, but i see you had a much narrower focus.

Most of those venues which you are not reader-facing pages (WikiProjects, Arbcom, etc are internal). DYK & ITN are reader-facing, but have very specific and clearly-stated purposes, with high readership. I see no way in which the low-view portals encourage editing. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Ah, I missed "namespace" in the proposed principle. I still think this is overly simplistic and prefer the first sentence of Robert McClenon's earlier principle, "Purpose of Wikipedia". Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Portals are meant for reader usage like categories, thus should conform to content guidelines Wikipedia:Administration#Data structure and development.-- Moxy 🍁 00:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Criticism and casting aspersions

An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Demonising the opposition by bundling them under a disparaging category to which they do not subscribe is a personal attack and should be recognised as such. ("Portalistas", "Planet Portal", etc. come to mind immediately in this context, there are others.) Labeling someone as a liar, dishonest or a fool without producing multiple incidences of clearly supporting evidence assumes bad faith. An occasional error is simply human. Memory is not perfect. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is something that multiple parties to this dispute have been guilty of. What counts as "disparaging" towards an editor varies depending on context and the views they hold. For example, describing someone as a "fan of portals" in an otherwise neutrally worded comment is generally going to be uncontroversial (assuming the editor in question does generally like portals), however doing so in the context of discussing their !vote to keep a portal that has been nominated for deletion could be (and on occasion has been) seen as disparaging. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree with Thryduulf that context matters, but the issue of judging and categorising a person as part of a group based on one or two comments can easily be wrong, even if not obviously derogatory. If one defends or supports one aspect of a thing it does not imply that one supports or approves all aspects. Questioning the validity of evidence for or against something does not imply that one supports or opposes the thing that the evidence is purported to support or oppose. When applying the duck test one should check that more than one of the characteristics of a duck apply, and that there is no contradictory evidence. I give as an example the hunter using a duck call in the vicinity of a decoy floating in a lake. Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck. The shotgun is a fair indication that it is not a duck.
A similar problem occurs when using limited evidence to generalise to an assumption about someone else's motives, then stating the conclusion as fact. Repetition of a claim does not make it any more true, regardless of the Bellman's claims in The Hunting of the Snark. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Call out incorrect statements or illogical arguments in content discussion. Take the accusations of bad intent or incompetency to an appropriate venue. Discussion conduct in content discussions is a distraction and inflammatory ( WP:FOC).— Bagumba ( talk) 08:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Role of the Arbitration Committee

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle either good-faith content disputes or policy disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle either good-faith content disputes or policy disputes among editors. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe is correct. However arbitration committee decisions can sometimes have the effect of settling disputes if all that stands in the way of the community doing this is the behaviour of one or a small number of editors. For example if user:Example is removed from a topic area for disruptive behaviour, then it might be that everyone else quickly agrees that content X should (not) be in the article/the correct interpretation of policy Y is Z, and there is no longer a dispute. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Consensus

Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see the relevance. This dispute has been about portals, which are not articles ... but the proposal here is explicitly about article content. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Change "article" to "page". Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Behavioral standards

5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This behavioural standard is frequently breached. Often with apparent impunity. The standard is not enforced evenhandedly, and when a person in a position of trust breaks these rules it is a bad example for other members of the community. Some allowance should be made for circumstances. Reaction to persistent baiting is not easily suppressed, and sometimes we snap, but there are limits. I see that baiting is not mentioned at gaming the system. Perhaps it should be. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

That's a good point about baiting. I've long held that baiting someone to break a policy/breach a restriction/etc should result in the same outcome for the person baiting as would be applied to the baitee had they done that thing without being baited. (e.g. if User:Example is subject to a 1RR restriction that would be enforced by a 24 hour block for violations, and user:BadUser baited them to revert multiple times then User:BadUser should be themselves blocked for 24 hours). Thryduulf ( talk) 22:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The problem comes when trying to discover the motive for apparent baiting. I think that sometimes people are not aware that they are baiting. Which is more important, the intention or the consequence? Clearly the consequence is evident, but the intention is not easily proven. As is often the case, it is much simpler to disregard the intentions and act on the available evidence. When using this strategy it is advisable to keep in mind that one will occasionally be wrong. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Alleged intent is often not clearly explained or demonstrated to an outside administrator. The ideal case would be an uninvolved admin in that domain, who has insight to bridge the gap.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Levels of consensus

Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is part of what makes portal deletion discussions so contentious. In the absence of any guideline governing the use of portals, global consensus is difficult to gauge and everything is left to local consensus. This leads to the same arguments being repeated over and over again. – bradv 🍁 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Generally agree, but I'm not sure what relevance this has to this dispute, which is largely caused by there being a broad global consensus that portals should exist but no consensus (global or local) on pretty much anything more specific than that. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is another form of words that one "side" in this dispute takes one way and the other another. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Deletion

In order to maintain the highest quality of content in the encyclopedia, it is necessary to have processes for the deletion of pages from the encyclopedia. Decisions about the deletion of pages must be made deliberately and with collaboration, and with mutual respect for other editors who may have different philosophies about the maintenance and deletion of pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This principle seems to me to be a self-evident component of any goal of quality control. For example, we routinely delete articles on non-notable topics, categories with subjective or arbitrary inclusion criteria, redundant templates, undersized navboxes, misleading redirects. The portal namespace should be no exception to the possibility of deletion.

However, discussions about deletions of portals were labelled from the outset as a war on portals, [39] and those advocating deletion of a portal have been labelled as deletionists [40]. Some editors repeatedly misrepresented that WP:ENDPORTALS as banning any portal deletion as wrong, creating the WP:BATTLEFIELD atmosphere which led to those of repetaedly smeared by in this way to use terms such as "portals fans" and "portalistas". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, I used the term war on portals once, in March 2019, about specific edits by a third party who is now indef blocked. This is the fifteenth forum in which you have quoted it. Certes ( talk) 15:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

To give this context -- ignoring The Transhumanist-associated bump -- total portal numbers have declined from ~1500 to ~500 since May 2018. Around 32/172 portals (19%) that had been reviewed as featured have been deleted (hand counted from [41]; despite being marked historical, the current list has been edited to remove some of the deletions). Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Civility and Truth

Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Civility may not be compromised even in pursuit of truth. Certain allegations, such as that an editor is lying or that an editor is stupid, should not be made even if they are believed to be true. Editors who repeatedly violate this principle may be sanctioned, because uncivil conduct is contrary to the concept of collaborative work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal appears to treat lying as civil behaviour, but noting that lying as an unacceptable breach of civility. Any such principle rigs the system massively in favour of liars, and imperils consensus formation.

Similarly, if an editor repeatedly demonstrates insufficient competence to do the task the attempt, and fails to recognise the limits of their competency, the quality of the project will be in big trouble unless there is some way in which this problem can be described and resolved.

The proposal as worded would protect liars and empower editors who repeatedly fail to recognise the limits of their skills. This principle would be commendable for a social club, but it is utterly toxic to any attempt to build an encyclopedia. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

The allegations, "an editor is lying" and "an editor is stupid" are not on par with each other. The first is a serious allegation that demands investigation. The second is a simple ad hominem. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The comment by User:SmokeyJoe is true but irrelevant. Both statements are uncivil. The claim that an editor is stupid is, as SJ says, a simple ad hominem, and a breach of civility. The claim that an editor is lying should be avoided even if the editor is making untrue statements, because the allegation of lying involves an assertion of the knowledge that the statements are untrue. Certain allegations should not be made even if they are believed to be true. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The allegation "an editor is lying" should be called out, with evidence. If it continues, resolution is demanded. BHG accused NA1K of lying. If true, that is not incivil, but necessary. I think ArbCom should investigate the allegation for truth. Either the lying is unbecoming of an administrator, or false accusations of lying is unbecoming of an administrator. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree. If truth is not at least a partial defence for making such allegations, then discussion become biased in favour of those who lie. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Conduct disputes don't belong in content discussions ( WP:FOC). Take up the alleged lying at the appropriate venue, and even then as civil as possbile ( WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE).— Bagumba ( talk) 08:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The ArbCom should almost always include an appropriate civility clause in its decisions. Cases that are accepted by ArbCom almost always have at least one of two characteristics. Either they are combined content-conduct disputes, in which disagreements over content cannot be resolved in a collaborative fashion because of the conduct of some editors; or they are issues about the conduct of administrators. Incivility is always a factor, usually the key factor, in content-conduct disputes, because the conduct issue always includes incivility. Incivility is usually a factor in issues about administrative conduct, either because the administrator is said to have been uncivil, or because the administrator has been required as an administrator to deal with incivility by editors Almost every ArbCom decision should include an appropriately worded civility principle. This case is a content dispute that has been complicated by conduct issues including incivility. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

At wit's end

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

NPOV: "seemingly draconian" -> "extreme"— Bagumba ( talk) 02:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Use Common Sense

In any area where Wikipedia policies and guidelines are silent, are ambiguous, or are unclear, Use Common Sense is a governing policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't believe "Use Common Sense" is actually policy. – bradv 🍁 22:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This doesn't help with resolving this case, mainly due to the subjective nature of common sense. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@ Bradv: it isn't. The page it's on is tagged as an "explanatory supplement" to the WP:IAR policy page. "Explanatory supplement" links to Wikipedia:Project namespace#How-to and information pages which begins "Informative and instructional pages are [...] not policies or guidelines themselves..." and continues "...like essay pages, [they] have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community.". Given that two, good faith, highly competent editors may have completely opposite understandings of what is the "common sense" outcome in a given situation, I would oppose making this a policy. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Given the way "common sense" has been used as a bludgeoning tool in portal MfDs this feels an unfortunate wording. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

There was a page that was long thought to be a guideline, and the supporters of portals cited it for a long time, and it contained a great deal of common sense. When the critics of portals began citing it in detail, the supporters of portals found that it had never been enacted. It is 'interesting' that the use of common sense is now being said to have been a bludgeoning tool. One could also argue that the term 'bludgeon' is used as a bludgeoning tool by editors who do not have a better argument. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not at all in favour of deprecating what I thought had been a guideline for around a decade. I assume this happened while I was having a cool-off wikibreak. As Lepricavark states below, the problem is everyone naturally believes their own opinion is common sense, and the other side's opinion is [insert pejorative here]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 05:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It's a nice idea in theory, but my idea of common sense may be very different from your idea of common sense. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Use Common Sense (2)

In any area where Wikipedia policies and guidelines are silent, are ambiguous, or are unclear, the use of common sense should govern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We just follow consensus. We can IAR policy or guideline. There are also de facto guidelines. Through this process, common sense has generally prevailed.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Content and Conduct Forums

Wikipedia has forums that focus on article content and forums that focus on editor conduct issues. The discussion of conduct is sometimes necessary and inevitable in content discussions, but should be kept to a minimum, because the purpose of content discussions is to improve the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mostly follows WP:FOC. I'm not sure if discussion of conduct is so much "necessary" w/ content as opposed to it does happen.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Agree. Sometimes pointing out to user:Example that their conduct in a given content discussion is/was not helpful/not appropriate is necessary to keep a discussion on track (and often that stops the disruption without requiring further action), and linking to a directly relevant conduct discussion from a content discussion (especially the link is discussion conduct in that content discussion) is frequently going to be appropriate, but that is clearly within the "keep it to a minimum". Thryduulf ( talk) 10:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Deletion Discussions

Discussions of whether to delete material from Wikipedia pages and spaces should focus on content. While sometimes discussion of conduct is necessary in deletion discussions, it should be kept to a minimum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In deletion discussions, it is usually better to say that X's statements are incorrect (content) than that X is lying (conduct).

Comment by others:

In deletion discussions, it is usually better to say that X's statements are incorrect (content) than that X is lying (conduct). Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Or X's reasoning is illogical because XYZ as opposed to X is an idiot.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Portals (proposed by Robert McClenon)

Portals are a feature of Wikipedia that are intended to facilitate access to the articles that are the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. The creation, maintenance, and deletion of portals have been contentious and have resulted in conflict among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Portals happened without a plan. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

There is no consensus about whether this is all, part or none of the intent of portals. See also my comments elsewhere about how describing articles as "the raison d'etre of Wikipedia" is overly simplistic. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Portals do showcase content to readers but they also encourage editing and collaboration between editors, and encourage readers to convert to editors. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I have seen many many assertions along the lines of EA's claim that portals encourage readers to convert to editors ... but my many requests for evidence of this have produced zero evidence. So I conclude that this is just wishful thinking asserted as if it was fact. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I have occasional experience with IPs or relatively inexperienced users contributing news, images or links to new articles to the portals I maintain (eg [42]), and an unquantifiable number of people might join WikiProjects having first seen the invitation in a portal, or respond to the list of red-linked articles or requested images by supplying them. (If the main page counts as a portal, which it functionally is, then there's a clear reader-to-editor conversion, particularly for In the news.) But my "claim" was intended to go along with "are intended to..." in Robert McClenon's principle, rather than to assert that this happens in practice. An aside, BrownHairedGirl, could you possibly refer to me by my full user name here, to facilitate use of the find function? Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Espresso Addict, I disagree that it's unquantifiable. All but a handful of portals have absymally low pageviews: in 2019, only 60 of the current 494 portals exceeded 100 views per day, and the median was 26 / day. So while we don't know the lower bound, we do know that the upper bound is tiny.

The example which you cite was actually the 479th edit by an editor who first contributed in January 2017. Their editing rate has been lower since the edit you linked than it was before, so if the portal edit had any effect it was to discourage editing. (No, I don't think it had any effect, but since EA is positing a causal effect ...)

As to WikiProjects, this again is just more unevidenced wishful thinking. The same low portal readership applies, and most WikiProjects are gathering tumbleweed. So the numbers aren't there at either end of the chain.

I have always found EA to be civil and honest, but I find it very depressing that almost a year after these dramas began, we still have this sort of highly implausible assertion being raised even at ArbCom. The numbers show that it clearly isn't happening, and if EA was noting it as a goal of portals, then it's a failed target. One of the most exasperating aspects of portals MFDs has been the repetition of notions such as this which need to be rebutted again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Can I draw your attention to the argument here, whether readers are going to be editors or not? Readership is an underspoken, main goal of the site. Being effective in that respect requires efforts toward the content browsing systems. I can evident at length here, the lack of interest in browsing systems, beyond editorship of individual pages within those systems, is phenomenal.

Though the category system was born of lengthy debate and heated opinions, all of the rest of the content browsing system is, frankly, neglected by the community in general. To complain about the portals is great. List their faults, what they fail to achieve... It's all constructive criticism. To generalise them as pointless and not conceivable however, is terrible!

A content browsing system is not only an important part of an encyclopaedia superficially... it is considered traditionally to be an unfolding technology in encyclopaedia, ground to a halt by the inception of Wikipedia and downgrading of Britannica, who had been refining their content tree for more than fifty years, until they went out of print a few years back. Their content tree/system was their flagship. We've buried it with the claim that we have outmoded everything about Britannica... but not its content browsing system. Can we not adopt the most extremely diffusing attitude in this circumstance, and continue to criticise portals when we can see criticisms as valid, but give up on deleting them off the face of the planet or considering them some wild unprecedented idea?

It would diffuse much of the consternance for the importance of content browsing systems to be in the consciousness around here. All parties overlooked it. It's so important to the mission. Criticism in itself is constructive where valid, obviously. However, though this iteration has failed in the portals, the content browsing system needs put forward, not held back. It's a deeply serious issue nobody is considering in terms of the general mission. If that was in the awareness, we would all still disagree, but we'd be heading the same direction, and consequently less critical of each other individually. Please agree with this. It is like a fact of nature for an encyclopaedia. We need not to have winners and losers in this instance, to prevent further clashes and debates, but to get our goals straight, so that we might continue without rejecting each other. Build, a tree, which defines where the information intersects, and put the portals at the intersections, like all the other encyclopaedias did, and you'd have a goal which both guided portals and embedded them in a way which would prevent disagreements turning into major rambunctions... ~ R. T. G 02:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Portal Guidelines

The community has never enacted guidelines concerning portals. Proposed guidelines concerning portals have failed to gain consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Guidlines do not necessarily have to be written. What we consistently practice can become in effect a guideline. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is correct and important. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I think the truth is more nuanced than what is stated here. First, I do not think guidelines need to be "enacted"; if so, how is that done exactly, and can we point to that process having occurred for every (or even most) guidelines on Wikipedia? Second, we need to recognize that WP:POG was tagged as a guideline in 2006, remained so tagged for over thirteen years, was stable for most of that time, was cited in multiple deletion discussions and the establishment of 2 WP:CSD criteria specific to portals, was the basis of an extensive featured content process, unilateral changes to it were reverted as requiring consensus, etc., etc. Which means it looks to me an awful lot like it was a guideline during that time. That there is now no consensus on a guideline for portals is of course correct, but I am pretty sure that does not create a license for uncivil behavior. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 20:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't necessarily agree based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence#No_portal_guidelines. There were pages marked as guidelines, whether or not we were able to find a drawn-out discussion. I've seen this quite a bit with guidelines from the early days. Who's to say they didn't just made sense back then and became de facto guidelines, even if they didn't have enough discussion by today's standards? And that it wasn't until recently that consensus changed on portals?— Bagumba ( talk) 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is incredibly simplistic, and represents only one side of a many-year debate. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is very important. The community has allowed portalspace to exist without achieving a clear consensus on any of the key questions such as:

• what is a portal for? (navigation? showcasing? representative sampling? magazine-making to entertain the editors who like making portals)
• why does WP have portals when web portals failed years ago?
• What should portals contain or not contain?
• what topics should have portals?
• By what criteria should articles be selected for inclusion in a portal?

Similarly, the portals project was happy for years with a document labelled as a guideline, and made no attempt to deprecate it until other editors upheld it as grounds to delete abandoned junk portals. That failure by the portals project to build a community consensus for the purpose and nature of portals was one of the key factors in this mess. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It's fair to say consensus changed. We can analyze what happened too, but "happy for years" and "mess" sounds like an unnecessary tone of blame. We try, we learn, we improve.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Re: BrownHairedGirl: Additional questions might be: should all portals have the same function?; is there a role for portals in motivating/providing a framework for existing editors? I'd also question the characterisation of the portals project as a unified voice; this is certainly not the case. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Espresso Addict, sure I just gave example, and many more questions can be asked (tho please please please, not the motivating chestnut again; see my comment above [43]).

I didn't try to depict the portals project as a unified voice. I know there have been various views on some issues, but it was dominated in 2018 by supporters of the automated portalspam, and dominated in in 2019 by angry opponents of deleting even abandoned junk portals. My point however, was that the project never set about building a community consensus on any of these questions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: if consistent practice can make a guideline, then I hope we can agree that the consistent practice developed in 2018 of deletion automated spam portals, narrow-topic portals, and abandoned or poor-quality portals is the basis of a guideline. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

To say no guidelines existed before is factually incorrect....yup it fell out of favor but it was there even if it was not followed as some would have liked. I agree that generally there is no need to have a guideline as "most" would agree all pages especially content pages for our readers fall under our Wikipedia:Editing policy that says "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it)" and Wikipedia:Deletion policy "describes how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia". That seen I think working towards a guideline is a good goal and at the very least have the same type of consensus as seen at Wikipedia:Drafts....that was redrafted and tagged as a supplement of our editing and deletion policies after a similar conflict not all that long ago. We have no guidelines for some of the administration namespaces like help or draft. These administration pages have normally just defaulted to the grandfather of administration namespace Wikipedia:Project namespace that links the main info level pages of the other administration namespaces. But like the draft namespace after conflict like this there should be some sort of guideline or info level page to guide all. WP:Portals (not the former guideline page but the one page that has outline what portals are for a decade+) needs to be updated because unlike the help and project namespaces the portal namespace is a content namespace visible to the readers thus it should have something more substantial in way of guidance.-- Moxy 🍁 02:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Deletion Debates

Deletion debates, concerning articles, portals, and other types of pages have too often been disrupted by inappropriate conduct, such as personal attacks, battleground editing, gaming the system, and incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could you please provide a number of examples to support this FOF? Mkdw ^talk 20:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I think this pretty much common knowledge about deletion debates in general--or indeed about all debates in WP; about deletion debates in this area, abundant examples have been presented in the complaint and the evidence. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes, this or something like it needs to be included. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Thousands of Portals

In the second half of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, The Transhumanist and other editors created thousands of low-quality portals, in accordance with Wikipedia policy because Wikipedia policy was silent on the subject, but without discussion with the larger Wikipedia community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Transhumanist is not a party of this case and should not be called out by name. Furthermore, how the portals came into existence is ultimately irrelevant with regards to the behavioral problems this case is to examine. There is no evidence or FoF to assume that the behavioral problems would have been different or non-existent if the portals had been created by someone else or at some other time. Regards So Why 10:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That is an unfair statement. His creation of automated portals that transcluded article lede contents instead of content-forking content was discussed and encouraged at WT:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 6#Portals are moribund. A reasonable number of Wikipedians contributed to the discussion. The Transhumanist is not a party in this case and he should not be subjected to this disparagement. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think this is a neutral statement. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This is an accurate statement. Following the WP:ENDPORTALS decision to not delete the whole portal namespace, a discussion on a project page let some editors to interpret this as a mandate to create ~4,200 automated portals. That discussion was neither formulated as an RFC nor notified at WP:CENT, so it was at best a WP:LOCALCON in respect of an issue which was the subject of wide community controversy. At worst it was end-run around consensus-formation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The Transhumanist was attempting to respond to critique in the original RfC by experimenting with new techniques to create/improve portals. I don't agree with their solutions, but I don't think there was an intention to make "thousands of low-quality portals". I see it as an experiment that got out of hand. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Espresso Addict, the facts seem to contradict your belief. TTH didn't create those thousands of portals by accident; the goal of speed was repeatedly stressed in their newletter, e.g. " We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it).".

The low quality of those portals was agreed by overwhelming consensus at the mass deletion MFDs ( one, and two). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The statement is factually correct in what it includes, but does not cover all the detail. The majority of the automated portals were created by The Transhumanist. This creation was not uniformly approved by the WikiProject, but was also not immediately deprecated, though there were comments on the variability of quality, which were answered by claims that they would be improved over time, a principle that applies in article space. There were a few suggestions that this was too much too soon. A minority, but probably a significant minority, were more carefully created by other project members, in a significant number of cases specifically to supplant traditional model portals which had no-one maintaining them, as can be shown by their history, and that they displayed outdated information. Some also by people who had been maintaining specific portals, because they were seen as a better option by those editors. At that stage in the project, great care was taken not to antagonise people with different ideas about what a portal should be and what uses it might have. It was a time of enthusiasm and experimentation. Automated portals were considered to be a cheap experiment. Little work was invested in them directly, so changes were easy to make and could be deployed automatically in many cases. Basing the content on existing structure such as a navbox or outline list were seen as lightweight flexible structures worth investigating for their foreseeable and unforeseeable potential. It also encouraged the improvement of the navboxes or outlines that were used for the structure, when one was producing a single portal. The mass produced portals showed up some shortcomings in the tool set which might otherwise have been missed. Those were usually fixed reasonably soon. We had some fun and developed some potentially more widely useful templates and modules which could do things previously unavailable. There was no policy that was clearly against any of these experiments at the time. Attention from the rest of the editing community was minimal until large numbers of links were added from articles to the relevant portals. I may have left out something important, and this is how I remember the story. Other versions may differ.
I took a look at some of the deletion discussions. Those which I inspected appeared to be frequented mostly by the same editors. Whether this constitutes a fair, reasonable and sufficiently broad consensus is open to debate. I guess The Transhumanist decided this was not the hill to die on, and after the lack of success in establishing a consensus purpose for portals, I also decided to apply my time to places where some lasting value could be achieved. Left in the hands of editors who find value in working on portals, they are mostly harmless. Their continued presence is irrelevant at worst. Disrupting the creation of the encyclopedia to prove a point is generally deprecated. Whichever point turns out to be the final outcome. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The problems here are encapsulated in Peter Southwood's assertion that here was no policy that was clearly against any of these experiments.

1. TTH's portalspamming went way beyond an "experiment". The intial experimentation became a mass rollout which quadrupled the number of portals. Those who objected at portal project discussions were shouted down by TTH and his group of enablers.
2. This was an area of huge recent controversy at WP:ENDPORTALS, an RFC which ejected a narrow proposition made but did not try to settle what the actual consensus was about what portals should exist and how they should be built. The move to mass rollout of automated portals was clearly controversial, but those pushing it did not open an RFC to seek support. This was at best reckless, and at worst gaming the system by creating a WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

When tested in April in two mass deletions of automated portals ( one, and two), there was overwhelming consensus of a high turnout to delete them. That could all have been avoided if consensus had been sought at RFC before the spam was unleashed. Instead, many hundreds of hours of editors' time was taken in cleaning up the mess. TTH gave zero assistance to the cleanup, but in his final "newsletter" he noted that New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. So the whole thing was a pointless waste of time. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I intended to indicate that there was no intention to create thousands of portals at the start. The newsletter comment that BrownHairedGirl links is from 30 December 2018. Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Is knowledge of this fact helpful to achieving a solution now? If so, I'm missing it.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Deletion of Portals

In 2019, some editors have identified large numbers of portals that they have proposed for deletion. These portals included but were not limited to those created by The Transhumanist and others. These deletion discussions have been contentious and have resulted in personal attacks and incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I see no need to mention who created the portals since there is no reason to assume that the deletion discussions would have been less problematic if the portals were created by users A, B or C instead of TTH. And as Nosebagbear correctly points out, "The Transhumanis and others" encompasses everyone anyway. Regards So Why 10:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Transhumanist not listed as an involved party, so doesn't need specific mention.— Bagumba ( talk) 20:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Transhumanist was the major creator of automated portals. Specific mention is not out of place. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Surely every portal was created by TH or an other? Namecheck serves no purpose and I generally agree that namechecking of current editors who are not parties shouldn't be done. Not every deletion discussion has been contentious, so that should be clarified. Not every contentious discussion has resulted in both personal attacks and incivility, which should also be clarified. Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I think the intent is to distinguish new automated portals (using techniques developed by The Transhumanist & others) from long-standing hand-curated portals mainly using the multipage model. The degree of contentiousness between the two has been different. Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Not relevant, unless this fact is useful beyond the #The Transhumanist Topic-Banned proposed remedy. TTH is not a named party.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Conflict Between Editors

The conflict between certain editors over the retention or deletion of portals has been unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I fail to see the point of this. We want to examine the conduct of specific editors, so name them. Regards So Why 10:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000

BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 have personalized the conflict over the deletion of portals to an extent that has been harmful to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Needs separation, and supporting evidence for both Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I certainlyagree that this needs to be presented separately. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC) . reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disagree. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Both editors have been criticised but for different reasons. It may be better to assess their behaviour in two separate findings. Certes ( talk) 12:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

On the one hand, User:Certes is correct that the conduct issues on trial about the two editors are different. I intend to propose findings about both of them. On the other hand, the purpose of this finding is to propose an interaction ban between them. Reasonable editors may disagree with that proposal, but it has to do with the interaction between the two editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I see where you are coming from, but I think it better to have separate findings about each of them (per Certes). There doesn't have to be an exact 1:1 relationship between findings of fact and remedies - one remedy can relate to multiple findings, so it isn't necessary to combine them to enable a mutual interaction ban (it would also hinder the imposition of a one-way i-ban if anyone was considering that). Thryduulf ( talk) 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

There is value in both options, but I think separation may make it easier to manage. Possibly even to three points: The behaviour of each and the interaction between them. There may be significant differences or similarities between their behaviour with other people and each other. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

PS. It looks like this has already been done (see below). Maybe it could be clarified that this point is specifically about their interaction with each other.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Northamerica1000 and Portals

Northamerica1000 has resorted to gaming the system and tendentious editing in order to retain portals, and has sacrificed quality of portals in order to maintain their quantity. Northamerica1000 has personalized disputes with BrownHairedGirl and other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Needs a more specific claim/finding and needs supporting evidence. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The definition, from Wikipedia:Gaming the system: "An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support." I have not seen a diff in the evidence showing that any of Northamerica1000's edits met this definition: which specific policy was that editor using in bad faith? I also don't see the edits meeting the definition of tendentious editing, or that quality was sacrificed to maintain quantity. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Agree with User:UnitedStatesian still after all this time the evidence we have is of an admin doing their best and being hounded and insulted by another admin.....nothing like lying or deliberately making bad edits has been shown. -- Moxy 🍁 00:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Correct. The purported evidence against NA1K has never materialized, so it is disappointing to see that the same unproven allegations are still being repeated. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl has resorted to incivility amounting to personal attacks on other editors in deletion debates concerning portals, alleging that the other editors are lying, and insulting their intelligence or reading comprehension. BrownHairedGirl has personalized conflicts over portals with Northamerica1000 and other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree with the above...would be different if it was just between the two admins,,,but Brown does not get along with anyone on the wrong side of the fence. Orly Brown has conflict with multiple editors as demonstrated by 100+ differences were noone else has this problem on either side.-- Moxy 🍁 01:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It's not just at MfD. It's also exhibited at other venues like at Village Pump or this current Workshop.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

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

Discretionary Sanctions for Deletion Discussions

ArbCom discretionary sanctions shall be available for all deletion discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

How would DS help with portal deletion discussions? – bradv 🍁 22:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I would not apply DS on all deletion discussions without it having been clearly demonstrated that the entire deletion discussion area requires the intervention of the Arbitration Committee. This case would not be sufficient as it is well beyond the scope and much greater input from the wider community would be needed in order for us to even remotely consider taking such a dramatic action. Mkdw ^talk 19:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Like bradv, I have yet to see any evidence that DS would be helpful in all deletion discussions. Regards So Why 20:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I as well do not see the point of this for a deletion discussions in general. Notonly would it be a great change incurrent practice, but I think it would not be the least helpful, and would make disputes more complicate and moredifficult to resolve. . We may possibly need some rethinking of how deletion discussions are conducted, but that would be for the community, DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This proposal is intentionally not limited to portal deletion discussions. A few editors have been disruptive in Articles for Deletion, and this proposal is intended to avoid the need to involve the community in sanctioning them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I disagree with this. There is a widespread problem with discussions of portals (not just deletion discussions) and the problem in other deletion discussions of other pages is related to specific users. The evidence presented is also vastly insufficient to justify such a massively broad imposition of discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I disagree in the firmest possible terms to this - we don't implement DS because "a few editors have been disruptive". DS is implemented when normal steps aren't sufficient to retain general functionality - I'm not aware of this being an issue on either AfD or even general MfD. Most of the issues raised in Portal MfDs have been caused by a couple of users. Proper handling in this case should render even DS in portal MfDs unneeded. Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Interaction Ban

A two-way interaction ban is imposed between BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@ Nosebagbear: Considering the evidence so far, I think it unlikely that BHG and NA1K will be able to work productively together on any topic, at least for the next six months, so such an IBAN could make sense even without restrictions. Regards So Why 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This seems like an obviously necessary step, tho I do not think it will be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Have we seen significant issues between the two parties when portals aren't involved? Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC) (Moved as I wasn't a party). reply

That's not an unreasonable viewpoint as regards general usage Nosebagbear ( talk)

An Oct ANI was closed: ... It's mainly a dispute beween two well established editors (one of whom has over 1.5 mio edits) who should be experienced enough to attempt to put aside their mutual animosity and resolve it themselves ... (I'm merely stating a fact, not endorsing one way or another)— Bagumba ( talk) 08:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Northamerica1000 Topic-Banned

Northamerica1000 is topic-banned from all edits in portal space and all deletion discussions involving portals. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arguably justified, but only in combination with a similar restriction on BHG. The evidence does not support NA1K as being the sole disruptive party. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Reasonable, but conditional on a similar BHG restriction. I do appreciate the quite specific phrasing, as better than a straight Portal TBAN. Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Extremely unfair given the absence of any demonstration of actual misconduct on NA1K's part. I really hope ArbCom won't simply adopt the 'topic ban the both of them' approach. Arbs, please actually look at the so-called evidence. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Needs more evidence at #Northamerica1000_and_Portals.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

The Transhumanist Topic-Banned

The Transhumanist is topic-banned from all edits in portal space. This ban may be appealed to the ArbCom after not less than six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This remedy is inappropriate on multiple grounds. The Transhumanist is not even a named party to this case. Furthermore, TTH received a community sanction in March 2019 in the form of a three-month topic ban (see also [44]) from creating portals, and despite the expiry of the sanction, has not since edited portal space. These points are missing in your evidence submission, which I believe you are using to justify this remedy; other currently present evidence submissions only mention TTH as part of a general background to the dispute. Effectively, the proposal amounts to sanctioning a user a second time for generally the same behaviour, which has not been an issue since original sanction. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Agreed. The way this is supposed to work is that the proposed remedies are justified by the evidence presented. Unless you can provide evidence that TT is part of the ongoing behavioral issues in this subject area there is no reason to consider this. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Agree also. their actions may have been part of the chain of events that led to this, but what they did is not part of the present dispute. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Also agree. Also, the community can always discuss sanctioning TTH if TTH is being disruptive but they are not a party to this case and there is no evidence that they should. Regards So Why 10:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An inappropriate suggestion. Although The Transhumanist is significant in the history of portals, I do not believe he was ever a party to the long running incivility. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

As far as I know The Transhumanist has not been active in Portal space or in the WikiProject for some time. I do not remember him indulging in incivility at any time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

ARBCOM has rightly received extreme rebukes from sanctions of non-parties in the past. The case would have to be returned to an earlier stage and TH notified they were becoming a party if this was desired. Additionally, sanctions should be preventative, and that currently is not demonstrated. Reasoning for it is both unsuitable and insufficient. Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Absolutely not. It would be a dreadful precedent if prior but stale issues were to be used as a justification for sanctioning an editor during a separate case in which said editor is not a named party. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Portals (principle proposed by Bradv)

2) Portals complement main topics in Wikipedia, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics.

2.1) Portals are designed to complement main topics in Wikipedia and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals can also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Copied from Wikipedia:Contents/Portals/Intro. I'm looking for feedback here on whether this is a useful principle as worded. – bradv 🍁 22:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Updated per comments below. – bradv 🍁 15:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No, Portals DO NOT complement main topics, not in general. Maybe some good ones, but in general portals detract from main topics. They split content, split navigation roles, draw editing resources away from things that matter. They are detached from core policies WP:V and WP:NPOV. Many nation portals became brochure-style promotion. Portal:Donald Trump inadvertently became an exposé of Wikipedian criticism of Donald Trump, due to the decoupling of portals content from content policy. ArbCom should not add the voice of ArbCom to backwater wishful thoughts. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

That comment needs a [partisan source] or similar tag attached to it. User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace is the best place to look for recent (but not finalised) balanced discussion of portals, where one can see that SmokeyJoe's view represents just one point near the end a spectrum of opinions. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace is an excellent workpage that I watch, and I hope User:Scottywong continues to nurture it. My view as stated, I think we can agree, is on the spectrum of opinions. The point is that consensus on portals is still in development, and the role of portals is in question. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe, would this be more accurate if we added the words "Portals are designed to complement main topics..."? I don't mean to imply that portals aren't flawed, but some sort of neutral description is useful here. – bradv 🍁 16:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'd think are designed to or are intended to would be helpful; more accurate and covers the bases as it's clear from this case that Portals are aspirational. Likewise, I think removing the comma before and expound would be good, as would saying Portals may also assist.... ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree with Bradv: the sentence from Wikipedia:Contents/Portals/Intro is of course aspirational, and would be improved if its aspirations were explicitly stated. I also find useful the similarly aspirational sentence from Wikipedia:Portals: "Portals serve as enhanced "Main Pages" for specific [very] broad subjects." (my addition in brackets) UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

As with any contentious statement of fact, try putting it in the active tense. Who designed portals to complement main topics? I suggested that portals should be considered as a failed experiment. However, there was no experimental plan. There was no scoping statement. No record of initial assumptions and premises. BHG gave a better explanation: portals were an imitation of web rings, navigation tools that were common before the advent of good search engines (which predate Wikipedia). The conception, purpose, etc, of portals is disputed, and the arbs should not slip in any such implied facts. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It's fair to say that is how it's billed to readers. The statement is directly accessible on the Main Page via the "All portals" link, and is available on any page via " Contents" and " About Wikipedia". As with all of Wikipedia, it's another matter of what state any individual page is in, whther it's a portal or not.— Bagumba ( talk) 20:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC) reply

One of the problems is that there appears to be no definition of a portal's purpose that pleases everyone. It's not clear why all portals have to serve precisely the same goal, either. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I think this strays too close to trying to resolve a content dispute. There have been a number of discussions about the purpose of portals which have been contentious, and while well intentioned, this principle will likely be seen as trying to legislate from the bench by someone. — Wug· a·po·des​ 02:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

There has been much discussion of portals, but no clear community consensus on what portals are for, how they should try to do it. (My own views is that WikiPortals have always been a solution in search of a problem; they are failed attempt to imitate the resource-intensive web portals which failed in the 1990s despite the huge resources allocated to them). Without a stable community consensus, this well-intended proposal looks like policy-making by Arbcom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, it should be a mere statement of fact that this is what is readily accessible by readers at Wikipedia:Contents/Portals.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

A statement of what is written at Wikipedia:Contents/Portals should be qualified by the lack of evidence for a consensus that it reflects either current or practice or desirable practice. It's neither a policy nor a guideline. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bradv: Consider the opening statement at Wikipedia:Portal. (came up in discussion at #Moratorium_on_portal_creation_and_deletion)— Bagumba ( talk) 17:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

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

This is my first time participating in an ArbCom case, so I'll give it a go if it means helping the encyclopedia. I trust the Wikipedia community will find this very fitting. ミラ P 21:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposal 1

1) The proposal is to restrict portal creation so that no one will misuse them. Several points:

1) Each portal will require consensus through a proposal at a "Portals for Discussion" portal, wordplay intended is a "you decide" thing.

2) The portals will be creatable only by an uninvolved administrator who reviews each PfD and deems the consensus fit.

3) The sidewide title blacklist will be configured to allow non-admins to create portal subpages without (of course, accidentally) creating portals.

4) All of the portals that existed at the time will be grandfathered in, but may be subject to a delete/merge proposal at a PfD.

5) The portal will be the responsibility of the Wikiproject it is associated with.

6) Each portal deletion in 2019 will be reviewed by the PfD discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Portals for discussion has been discussed and rejected previously, as I recall. I'm not sure any of this is within the arbitration committee's purview. Espresso Addict ( talk) 23:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposal 2

2) The proposed sanctions with respect to BHG and NA1K will be any of the following choices, all of which come with making their bans from editing in portalspace and PfD permanent:

1) BHG and NA1K will be desysoped and must do an RFA to get the mop back, but may retain specialized rights they are determined to be trusted with.

2) BHG and NA1K will be banned from interacting with each other.

3) As an alternative, ArbCom should decide on whether BHG and NA1K should be banned from the English Wikipedia for at least six months or indefinitely, but I see evidence leaning towards the latter.

4) Throw in the Transhumanist if possible.

5) All bans may be appealable six months after the ban.

6) Addendum, 11 January: All mentions of "BHG and NA1K" are switched to "BHG and/or NA1K, but especially BHG", and 4 is applicable only for a possible topic ban. Courtesy ping @ Certes:.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have indicated above that I do not personally consider BrownHairedGirl's conduct such as to merit removal of admin tools. I have not examined NorthAmerica1000's actions in detail, but no evidence has been presented that the editor has done anything that would merit the removal of admin tools. Espresso Addict ( talk) 23:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm undecided whether I think BHG should be dysopped but her conduct has been significantly below the accepted standard that it needs to be actively considered. No evidence has been presented that comes close to showing NA1K has done worthy of being desysopped. The Transhumanist is neither a party to this case nor an administrator. None of the three have engaged in conduct worthy of a six month ban, let alone an indefinite one. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It may not be helpful to consider "sanctions with respect to BHG and NA1K" as a unit. The case hinges on BHG's allegations of misconduct by NA1K. If the evidence submitted proves them then sanction the guilty party and consider separately whether the phrasing of the reports requires further action; if not then exonerate the innocent and sanction the accuser. If that's an oversimplification and ArbCom takes a more nuanced view, sanctions against the two parties are still negatively correlated. I see no outcome where "hang and flog 'em both equally" is the best approach. Certes ( talk) 10:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Certes, even if BHG were to be found to be absolutely right about the substance of the dispute, her conduct might still be a reason for sanctions. Fram, for example, was desysopped despite being usually right about the issues debated. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposal 3

3) Portals will be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Existence of portals supported by community

1) Portals are a long-standing part of Wikipedia. Community consensus has been sought to delete the namespace, but the community has affirmed its support for the existence of portals. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Portals are unusual

2) Portals are unusual in being designed to be reader facing, yet to display areas associated with editing, such as WikiProjects. They are not purely navigational aids like categories. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Curated set of content

3) Portals are unusual in directing readers to curated content across a topic area that is interesting, of high or at least moderate quality, and in toto is intended to form a balanced selection suitable for an introduction to the topic area. They are not the same as categories, navigation boxes or outlines, which do not filter content by quality level. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deletion of portals extant prior to the portals RfC

4) Excluding template-based (and similar) automated portals created after the RfC closure and deleted with community consensus, the number of portals has fallen from ~1500 to just under 500 since ~May 2018. The number of portals that had been reviewed as featured (before the featured process ceased in 2017) has fallen from 172 to 140. This has been as a result of a large number of individual deletion discussions at Miscellany for Deletion. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lack of basis for deletion discussions

5) In the absence of a generally agreed guideline for portals, portal deletion discussions are not underpinned by any generally agreed portal-specific policy. Arguments based in general policies or in application of policies for other namespaces have been disputed. Discussions have often been acrimonious. Deletion discussions have tended to produce eccentric results depending on the participants and the closer. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think you are probably saying they are not bad, per se, from an individial closer's perspective, but because the arguments are so subjective, another closer could determine that almost the same arguments point another way?— Bagumba ( talk) 04:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

If there's no policy, then there's no rational basis for weighing arguments on either side. I've not closed any portal MfDs because I would find it very difficult to put aside my biases. I would say some of the closes have been "bad", because they seem to weigh some arguments more heavily than others, but the closers are not named as parties, so that's hard to get into here. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Underderstood.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Deletion of multi-subpage portals

6) Deletion of portals based on the multi-subpage model is not like the deletion of articles. Hundreds of subpages need to be deleted, and not even those with permission to view deleted content can form any view of the nature of the original portal after deletion. Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is that a design improvement, or is there more background?— Bagumba ( talk) 06:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm intending to imply (1) deletion of multi-page portals is labour intensive; and (2) nearly impossible to check or contest after the fact, even by those with administrative permissions. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Got it: it wouldn't be easy to recreate a portal at, for example, DrV so people could readily review it. I agree. The one or two portals I ever tried to make minor edits to, it was difficult for me to navigate to the relevant trancluded part, and I have a technical background. (These were the older portals, which I'm pretty sure were not related to the recent creations especially being berated.)— Bagumba ( talk) 11:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Discouragement of portal editors

7) The climate at deletion discussions has led some editors to take a break from portal editing or the encyclopedia. Those editors who continue to edit portals have felt discouraged. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It would be nice to have a list of people who (partially) disengaged from portals and/or portal MFDs. I am aware of at least Moxy and Thryduulf in addition to myself, but I am sure there are many more. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I also disengaged. Espresso Addict ( talk) 09:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I also disengaged in July 2019 following this very unpleasant deletion discussion. See my entry on the Evidence page here for the details. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I set about improving individual portals but scaled back my efforts after seeing pages I'd edited deleted or rolled back to ancient versions. I stopped after seeing NA1K's changes bulk reverted. I continue to maintain underlying software and to defend the most obvious keeps at MfD but am awaiting consensus before doing any significant further work. Certes ( talk) 12:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Featured portal process deprecated

8) The featured portal process was deprecated unilaterally by Bencherlite on 30 March 2017 [45]. This subsequently had a major impact on the hits of some but not all featured portals; see eg [46]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It also deterred at least me from bothering to try to improve my non-featured portal a year before the ENDPORTALS RfC. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Portal hits and mobile view

9) Portals are poorly accessible from the mobile view and thus portal hits (as well as main-page hits) have declined on average as mobile views have increased. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm not an expert here, perhaps others can explicate. It is relevant because of the frequent reference to lack of hits in deletion discussions. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

Newshunter12 is admonished

1) Newshunter12 is admonished for their uncivil conduct during this case. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@ Espresso Addict Instead of wasting time complaining about me, and un-rightly at that in my opinion, perhaps you ought to reconsider donating your time to Wikipedia, an organization unwilling or incapable of handling reality. 15 years of hard data shows portal space was and has always been a complete disaster and shouldn't have been started, let alone sustained, yet here it remains for two reasons.

The most pressing reason is that part of the editorship lack critical thinking skills to understand a). efficient time use at an organizational level (the Salvation Army doesn't send Santas to collect donations at vacant lots, they send them to busy stores and streets - on Wikipedia, portals are vacant lots with burned out frames of buildings never built, while articles are like Walmart or Macys) and b). that however well done, an encyclopedia doesn't need to create and maintain in perpetuity a second set of pseudo-main-pages just as the United States doesn't need to maintain in perpetuity a second land Army (the United States Marine Core - whose core purpose of naval assaults was last performed in the Korean War) when fighting land wars is the Army's job). Just as the fanboys and special interests refuse to phase out the obsolete USMC despite it being a key factor in the slow bankrupting of America, portal fans are clinging to their playground despite all evidence demonstrating that the vast majority of portals add nothing positive to Wikipedia.

The second reason for the present situation is that on an organizational level, Wikipedia lacks central planning, so something as failed and backward (yes, the purge-page function on nearly every portal is pure backwardness and absurdity) as portal space, which has always been so, was allowed to be created, then sustained for 15 years.

To reiterate where your thoughts ought to be, just as America's financial problems will one day cause the USMC, all of whose funding passes through the US Navy, to be shoved under a bus in the fight for funding-scraps, if Wikipedia can't get skill and honesty to be baseline requirements of editorship, @ BrownHairedGirl and I won't be the last editors to leave Wikipedia, if we do over the present insanity. But by all means, focus on me, someone who as you say hasn't even made many edits to mainspace, since that's obviously what Wikipedia is about. Not focusing on the bigger picture is portal space in a nut shell. Newshunter12 ( talk) 18:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Thryduulf In order for something to be a personal attack, it needs to be personal, not vague statements of reality about an amorphous group. Nothing I said violates WP:NPA Also, when did I ever say good faith arguments in favour of keeping portals was "fanboys clinging to their playground"? You're putting words in my mouth and creating a quote I never said. Your comment below is all the evidence needed that Wikipedia isn't worth a competent person's time if this ArbCom case ruling can't uphold a need for skill and honesty to be an editor. Once again a portal advocate (or at least that's my impression of you) focuses entirely on tone and feelings, not hard evidence or hard realities. Newshunter12 ( talk) 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Newshunter12, part of the hard reality of Wikipedia is that it is written by volunteers. Belittling the work of other volunteers (takling about "playgrounds" comes across as belittling) does not usually motivate them to volunteer more, nor does it create a more welcoming atmosphere to find new volunteers. — Kusma ( t· c) 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Newshunter12's comment above is all the evidence needed that this admonishment is needed. You can disagree with something without personal attacks. Denigrating other editors as "lack[ing] critical thinking skills" or describing good faith arguments in favour of keeping portals as "fanboys clinging to their playground" is completely unnecessary and completely unacceptable. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Just a lack of experience is what I'm seeing. But the example set by Brown is being followed by new editors and this is a problem that needs to be nipped in the butt.-- Moxy 🍁 22:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

Limited discretionary sanctions

1) Limited discretionary sanctions are authorised for discussions of portals as follows: A: Any editor who disrupts a discussion about portals in general or about one or more specific portals may be banned from making any further contributions to that discussion. Where the discussion is about one or more specific portals, or a specific (proposed) policy or guideline such a ban includes making any changes to the portal(s)/(proposed) policy or guideline being discussed before the discussion is formally closed or (for discussions that do not require formal closure, and for which formal closure has not been requested) has received no non-minor edits for seven consecutive days (excluding edits by bots and reverted edits). Such bans must be logged on the talk page of the discussion, or in a separate (sub)section of the discussion if it is taking place on a talk page in addition to the discretionary sanctions log. B: Any editor who disrupts multiple discussions about portals in general or about one or more specific portals may be topic banned from contributing to all, or a specified subset of, discussions about portals for up to 6 months for a first topic ban from some or all portal discussions, and with no limit for a second (or subsequent) or expanded topic ban from portals. Disruption includes, but is not limited to, incivility, harassment, casting aspersions, posting walls of text, repeating accusations already fully responded to or before the editor concerned has had a chance to respond, re-presenting arguments there is prior consensus against, gaming the system or attempting to achieve a goal by means of a fait accompli.

• Bans of type A may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator with or without discussion.
• Bans of type B may be imposed only following discussion at Arbitration Enforcement.
• Bans of type A and B may run concurrently, and being subject to a ban of one type is not a prerequisite for the imposition of the other type.
• Bans of either type may be appealed as if they were a normal discretionary sanction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is obviously only necessary if full discretionary sanctions are not authorised for portals as a whole (per Miraclepine's Proposal 3). Thryduulf ( talk) 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Community encouraged

2) The community is encouraged to develop a comprehensive set of policies and/or guidelines for portals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The absence of this has been a significant factor in parts of this dispute. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes. The lack of common ground proved to be too much for some editors to handle. More disagreements to manage mixed with escalating bad faith and a mix of incivility brings us here.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed Enforcement

Enforcement of limited discretionary sanctions

1) Should any editor breach a type A ban, they may be blocked for a period of up to one week for a first offence, up to 1 month for a second offence and up to 6 months for a third or subsequent offence. 2) Should any editor breach a type B ban, they may be blocked for up to 1 month for a first offence, and up to one year for a second or subsequent offence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obviously only required (and relevant) if the limited discretionary sanctions remedy is passed. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis by Bagumba

I was looking at the oft-cited WP:ENDPORTALS RfC ("Should the system of portals be ended?") and found !votes there by NorthAmerican1000 and BrownHairedGirl that were useful to me for perspective. I'm not sure about the timeline on when the conflict between the two started, but it's likely that April 2018 was before or early in the cycle, and doubtfuul either of them knew it would reach this point. From that perspective, it might provide an unfiltered lens to prove or disprove the gaming allegations. !Votes below for convenience, listed chronologically and in full to avoid accusations of misleading (feel free to remove if inappropriate, as the link is still above; diffs possible but a bit harder due to copied comments from main Village pump):

Oppose – This would delete the entire portal namespace, and some portals are viewed fairly often. This would also remove a navigational feature that many readers utilize. Perhaps tag outdated ones as historical instead. Deletion of all portals per some of them being outdated, and subjective reasons such as some users not liking or using them, some thinking they are useless, pointless, etc. equates to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and in the process would throw out thousands of hours of work performed by hundreds of editors in one fell, overarching swoop. It would be quite overly drastic and hasty to mass-delete all of the work that has been performed on portals in such manner. North America1000 04:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. Whatever the theoretical benefits of portals, the reality is that most of them are woefully under-maintained, and v little used. This been the case for years, so all the talk of "keep and improve them" is dreaming: there simply are not enough editors with a sustained interest in doing so, Worse, given the viewing figures, anyone advocating widespread improvement is unintentionally encouraging editors to waste their time. That would actively damage Wikipedia by diverting effort away from actually improving en.wp

I say this with some sadness because I recently spent a day or two making Template talk:YearInCountryPortalBox to automatically add portal links to thousands of country-by-year cats; but as I built it and viewed more portals, I became more and more convinced that my concerns were well-founded.

My ideal solution would be too keep about 20 major portals(art/science/etc plus continents), and delete the rest. But given the unhelpful binary nature of this proposal, I'd prefer outright deletion to either keeping them all or to having 1500 MfD debates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

— Bagumba ( talk) 19:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Following are some quick notes on my review of an ANI case of " Portal updates reverted" in October 2019.

• BrownHairGirl is explaining that her revert of NorthAmerica1000's mass edits were part of the WP:BRD cycle. Presumably that means NA1000's edits were part of WP:BB, but BHG complains that there was no prior discussion and that parts were "sneakily added" [47]
• BHG complains about "boilerplate" edit summaries of "Maintenance: Portal updated / further expanded with more new content" NA1K used. [48]
• Later, an editor says: I don't think that our portal structure is generally the product of consensus in the first place. My impression is that editors have more-or-less randomly and independently developed portals, although often by copying existing portals without giving much thought to whether the structure being copied was ideal. [49]
• BHG make personal attack that NA1K needs "remedial" training [50]
• Another editor says that NA1K probably shouldn't have made so many edits in quick succession. They suggest maybe edit 10 or so portals and give it 2 weeks or so and see what happens. Then try another 10-20. They also tell BHG that her edit summaries are also vague e.g. Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed [51] I note another "sneaky".
• An editor tells BHG that she should not attack NA1K's intelligence. BHG doubles down with a gaming-like argument: if you believe that issues of competence are off-limits, then you should see consensus for that view by nominating WP:CIR deletion. I would be surprised, and deeply saddened, if the community decided that competence was not a relevant attribute in building an encyclopedia, but maybe that's not just your view. But when CIR is deleted, let's talk again. [52]

— Bagumba ( talk) 20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Featured portal process

BrownHairedGirl wrote that the portals project: "Ran a Featured portal process which focused almost entirely on presentation, and almost never even considered the selection of articles. I have found no FP review which examined the portal by a checklist of criteria."

Newshunter12 wrote "The Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as .22historical.22 ended the abandoned playground practice of giving comprehensive endorsements to certain portals, overwhelmingly on aesthetic value only grounds as any reading of the analysis at a FP review discussion will show."

There were agreed featured portal criteria, and many reviewers referred to these in their reviews. They do (on rereading) appear to concentrate on appearance (1b) but 1a, 1c & 1d all touch on content selection. I can only speak for myself, and most of the other frequent reviewers are retired, but in my featured portal reviews I always considered the selection of articles & other content. In general, I don't find filling in checklists (eg reviewing GAs, DYKs) to promote detailed, thoughtful analyses, but I tried to be systematic in my reviews, which often took several hours to complete. It's also worth noting that many successful portals had previously gone through a detailed peer-review process that addressed major flaws, such as content choices.

Looking through the archives, there were some successful featured portal reviews that appear cursory, but others seem to have been more detailed; see eg two of the promotions from Sept 2010: Volcanoes 2, Speculative fiction. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Statement and evidence of Newshunter12

Newshunter12 is listed as a party and has provided evidence. I have been associated with portals on & off since 2007 but have not encountered this editor prior to this case. Their only edits to portals that I can find are 9 edits to 8 deleted portals placing MfD notices. [53]. Nor am I aware of them discussing portals in any of the usual venues. This does not seem to me to be sufficient experience for them to criticise edits to portals from an expert point of view, nor to expound on what might or might not make a portal useful.

Their statement/evidence contains repeated non-neutral wording such as [from statement] "portal advocates/fans", "portal advocates", "shenanigans", "nonsense", "portal fans", "playground" (twice); [from evidence] "hostile takeovers", "playgrounds", "portal advocates", "spam portals", "playground behavior", " playground practice". It also makes generalisations unwarranted in the evidence presented and ascribes motivations to editors, eg [from statement] "Facts, policies, and reality do not matter to this editor.", "They are clearly not in portal space to help build an encyclopedia, they are there to have fun." [from evidence] "they use portal space to have fun".

Some specific points:

[From statement] "At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Monaco, portal advocates Certes and Kusma both respectively 1 and 2 3 displayed incredible cognitive dissonance stating that page views (or lack thereof), a core reason for deleting most of the 1000 abandoned pre-TTH spam portals over the last 7 months, were not a reason to consider deleting a portal. Portals do not have their own content and are useful only for their utility as navigational devices, and how else can a rational person measure this basic utility other then in page views? What mattered most to Certes was that the portal looked good, not that the portal would take nearly five years to get the total number of views the head article gets in a single day, and Kusma displayed the same irrational keep criteria here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Christmas, which ignored the obvious abandonment and decay of the portal. They are clearly not in portal space to help build an encyclopedia, they are there to have fun."

The "low page views merits deletion" notion is not in accordance with any policy of which I'm aware. (I've never, for example, seen it used to delete a category, yet many categories receive low pageviews; eg see [54], a category picked at semi-random from an article I started.) I believe the notion was allowed to pass largely unchallenged in the well-attended MfDs of template-based automated portals because, frankly, almost everyone agreed with their deletion, and didn't want to derail it.

"Portals do not have their own content" is simply incorrect.

[From evidence]: "we have closely collaborated since early August at hundreds of portal MfD's"

"We" refers to BrownHairedGirl and Newshunter12. Collaborating at MfD implies a joint strategy, which I sincerely hope is not correct, and goes against the spirit of independent assessment in deletion discussions.

I have commented on the featured portal process on this page and in my own (brief and ad hoc) evidence. Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

When considering who is here to build an encyclopedia, it may be useful to examine Newshunter12's own contributions. [55] Only 29% are in article space, with 52% to Wikipedia: namespace. My figures are 87% article and 1.5% Wikipedia:, which seems more typical for a constructive editor. 320 of Newshunter12's last 500 edits are to portal MfDs. My figures for that period (since August 2019) are 28 out of about 9000 edits. Certes ( talk) 12:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Espresso Addict The eight comprehensive portal nominations (so excluding the hundreds of other portals I examined at MfD) should suffice as evidence that I have a deep understanding of portals. I only first got involved with portal space in August 2018, when it was abundantly clear nearly every portal is an abandoned, decrepit relic of a solution in search of a problem, so no, I was not going to waste my time trying to "improve" what shouldn't exist in the first place. It's also not my fault that there are editors who treat portals as playgrounds, which is what portals have always been, which is why over 1000 long abandoned portals existed to be deleted last year after being abandoned by their fan-creators. That many editors do not understand worthwhile time use on an organizational level (the Salvation Army doesn't send Santas to collect donations at vacant lots, they send them to busy stores and streets - on Wikipedia, portals are vacant lots with burned out frames of buildings never built, while articles are like Walmart or Macys) or that Wikipedia lacks the central planning to implement common sense is neither my fault nor my problem.

No, @ BrownHairedGirl and I are not engaged in some joint conspiracy against portals. We share many of the same views on portals and any review of the relevant MfD's shows we often cited one another in our own analysis. She also helped teach me how to evaluate portals for MfD and how to write a deletion nomination. Most of the above is also true of @ Robert McClenon. As the saying goes, great minds think alike. I've also discussed portals with others at the Village Pump in multiple separate cases, and was awarded a Civility barnstar by someone I disagreed with for my efforts at VP portal collaboration with all editors regardless of their opinion. Newshunter12 ( talk) 17:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

@ Certes: Be careful with raw numbers, my figures are also heavily skewed towards Wikipedia space (xtools isn't loading for me atm, so can't give numbers). Not every constructive editor edits primarily in article space, for example much of my work is at RfD with the aim of ensuring readers can find the content they are looking for and in project space facilitating content editors (e.g. in venues like this one). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Moved to correct section Thryduulf ( talk) 15:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I think Newshunter12 has acted in good faith all over....the problem is they are simply emulating another editors pov and classifications (I. E. "playground) that is used by another in a derogatory way. I don't think Newshunter12 lack of experience should come into play as every editor can have valid points even if they have never contributed to the portal space..... I don't agree with the point of view that portal editors are wasting their time as well as volunteers you can work on what we wish.-- Moxy 🍁 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to get around to adding this as a proposed principle about volunteers, but I've seen the tone multiple times by multiple editors of volunteers making inefficient use of their time trying to improve portals. This relates to one of the disputed points at WP:POG about portals and page views. It's also been stated that these volunteers will work on areas more useful if portals are deleted. But these are not workers, where their supervisors reassign them to a new task. A lot of Wikipedia editors only work in one specialized area. These portal editors are liable to just leave Wikipedia if "their" portal is deleted. Not a reason to keep portals, per se, but also not a reason to get rid of them.— Bagumba ( talk) 18:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree with Thryduulf that edit proportions are not always meaningful, and also know that not all edits are created equal, but Newshunter12 has 744 edits to mainspace, while Certes has 91,777. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine who has contributed most to building the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict ( talk) 18:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Northamerica1000's edits to one portal

Per the various allegations over his portal work, I have examined the edits of Northamerica1000 to Portal:Maryland, on the grounds that this is still at MfD and thus visible to everyone.

The original portal was a multi-subpage one, with 6 selected articles and 6 selected bios (no BLPs). The articles excerpted were all either FAs/FLs or B/C class tagged by the Wikiproject as of high or top importance. There were also 6 selected pictures & huge collection of On This Day items. All extracts were taken in November 2007. Many were substantially unchanged since then, but three had been improved by editors/IPs other than the creator. One had been copied complete with "citation needed" notes. The latest news was dated 1 November 2007. The creator states that he is semi-retired, and has also been blocked since 1 February 2018, so is unlikely to return to improve the portal.

Northamerica1000 edited on 1 October 2019 to:

• use transcluded excerpts throughout
• add some GAs in a section labelled as GAs
• add some more FAs in a section labelled as FAs
• add "some other select selections to provide a more comprehensive overview of the state" in a separate section. These are predominantly either B class (various importance levels) or C class & top/high importance, but there was one C/Start-class, High-importance ( Battle of Baltimore), as well as one C-class, Mid-importance ( Assateague Island).
• the On This Day material was retained in the subpage model
• the images were expanded, drawing from Maryland and Culture of Maryland
• the news was drawn from Wikinews.

Only one of the articles I checked ( Chicken George (restaurant chain); B class, low importance) did not seem to be entirely suitable as the article is quite short, the topic peripheral and possibly promotional. The C/start class article noted above, Battle of Baltimore, appears to be C class, but has some orange-level tags for sourcing towards the bottom, which should have excluded it.

I also noticed three places where the Lua failed to parse a working link to the article.

Northamerica1000's edit summaries appear appropriately informative and not obviously fallacious. They do not list the individual articles, which are however clearly listed on viewing the portal code, and can easily be made visible by putting the code sections into a page and adding "|showall=" to the options. The portal model he used is the same one I use in my attempt at a fully automated portal dating from July 2018. It might not now be the best currently available, but it was what was being trialled at that time. I see no evidence that Northamerica1000 attempted to hide what content he was adding.

WikiProject Maryland is tagged as "semi-active", although there is some activity on their talk page. Northamerica1000 does not seem to have made any attempt to contact them.

On 12 October 2019‎ the edits were reverted by BrownHairedGirl, with the edit summary: "Reverted to revision 919061811 by Northamerica1000: Revert undiscused change of format; unexplained, sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed (TW))" BrownHairedGirl also made no attempt to engage the Wikiproject, which could be said to have accepted the edits, as no-one there had reverted them in the intervening 11 days.

A little over a month later, the portal was nominated for deletion by Robert McClenon; where he comments: "Examination of the (reverted) efforts to renovate the portal shows that it would have displayed 22 Featured Articles, 30 Good Articles, and 21 selected articles (with no explanation of how the 21 articles were selected). That might have been an improvement, although it should have been discussed. It is very unlikely that any improvement in the portal would increase the viewing rate by a significant factor." but appears to make no attempt to check the 21 articles for appropriateness.

My summary would be that Northamerica1000's actions were entirely reasonable, and could easily have been improved upon further, although it would have been courteous to notify the Wikiproject. BrownHairedGirl's reversion appears suboptimal; the "sneaky" comment appears uncalled for and uncivil. The subsequent MfD is unfortunate, but Robert McClenon is not a party to this case. Espresso Addict ( talk) 09:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is a good analysis, and I too cannot find anything wrong with NA1K's actions here. As I've been looking over this case, there have been a few instances of concerning edits from Robert McClenon so it is rather unfortunate that neither I nor anyone else brought his actions up in evidence. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I indirectly pointed to Robert McClenon's problematic MfD nominations with 2 links [56] [57] in my section on the Evidence page. On those occasions, he was batch-nominating Portals, including Featured and/or well-maintained ones with the sole rationale: "we don't need them". It was pretty obvious what was going on there and in his other nominations. The goal was not to delete poor-quality neglected portals, but to delete as many portals as possible. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Oh indeed you did, I had overlooked that. Sorry. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Although not created or (as far as I can see) used by parties to this case, Template:Portsense and Template:PortDYK may be relevant. Certes ( talk) 20:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

A lot of that is opinion presented as fact and accusations/assumptions of bad faith on the part of those the author ( Robert McClenon) disagrees with. It is regrettable that they are not a party to this case as their incivility has been nearly equal in severity (if not quantity) to that from people who are. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: