Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Statement by Bagumba: bigger issue: continue, regardless of ANI outcome |
|||
Line 212:
=== Statement by Piotrus ===
Being, in Ritchie333's classification, the one who "started the above ANI thread", that makes me a party to a potential ArbCom, the first time in a decade+ (IIRC) I had this dubious pleasure. Oh well :/ . There is very little I can add to my OP at ANI, which is already linked by Ritchie; for readers convenience I'll link my ANI op diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1037764494] <small>(side note: heading was changed later by party I haven't identified and with no explanation I was made aware of)</small>.
Anyway, I am not overly familiar with BHG; the events of the past few days are my first interaction with her that I recall, which is why I consider myself still reasonably uninvolved (in the big picture here). By themselves, the few personal attacks BHG made against me, while problematic, do not, IMHO, warranted a rise to ArbCom level, and could have been easily resolved if BHG de-escalated by apologizing and refactring the few diffs (this didn't even had to go to ANI; I politely asked her to refactor and apologize on her talk page, in an attempt to de-escalate, only to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=next&oldid=1037748813&diffmode=source called a troll]). Neither did she attempt to de-escalate at ANI; where instead she posted at least one more PA accusing me of trolling yet again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1037781060&diffmode=source]. All that said, personally, I would still be fine with de-escalation, even now, if she would just apologize and refactor her comments.
Unfortunately, as I understand it, the situation is much more complicated than I realized at first, since apparently BHG has displayed similar behavior (violations of CIV/NPA/AGF/BATTLEGROUND) to a number of other parties over the course of many years (initially I just thought she might be having a few stressful days and I expected she would back down after being [[WP:TROUT]]ed/warned by the community). Further, for various reasons, she seems to be considered one of the [[Wikipedia:Unblockables]], which is why the ANI thread, after mulling around a few days, seems to have resulted in the ball being passed to the ArbCom - presumably since after the quick unblock, no single admin seems to be willing to [[User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_why_so_many_admin_heads_are_seen_sticking_in_the_sand_when_push_comes_to_shove|take the heat]] of being the one to call the shot here.
For what it's worth, I think that the ideal outcome would be no blocks or bans one exchange for BHG [[User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_deradicalization_of_editors|recognizing]] that she has a behavioral problem, promising to fix it, and apologizing to editors she was rude towards. Since voicing my opinion on how likely it that is might run into AGF/ABF issues, I won't. But if BHG [[User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_most_dangerous_of_mindsets|continues to claim she has done no wrong]], a community-imposed sanction of some sort might be necessary. All things considered, I'd advocate relative leniency ([[User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#When_to_use_the_banhammer_-_and_when_not_to:_a_simple_math|no blocks]]), but the pattern of rude behavior and stubborn refusal to admit one was wrong needs to come to end. Some sort of civility restriction/topic ban from commenting about others, with the stick of escalating blocks to back it up, may be required here. In all honesty, Wikipedia has 20+ years of history, don't tell me we don't have a previously crafted tool to apply in such a situation? Surely they have been similar editors before (constructive most of the time, uncivil enough for this to be a recurring complaint, yet connected enough to end up in front of the ArbCom instead of getting a quick block at ANI ([[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067#Very_inappropriate_attitude_on_talk_(violates_NPA,_CIV,_BATTLEGROUND)|case study for comparison]]), who needed to be reminded, by the Committee, more or less harshly, that [[WP:CIV]] is a ''policy'' and even, supposedly, [[WP:5P4|one of the five pillars]] of this project?). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 04:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
=== Statement by GeneralNotability ===
I gave BHG a week's block because, in my opinion, she was significantly violating our core civility policies. I specifically opted for a week because the diffs in the AN/I thread clearly showed that this was not a one-off occurrence, BHG has previously been the subject of an ArbCom case revolving around similar behavior, and overall she has been around long enough that I do not believe there is any excuse for that behavior. Llywrch unblocked BHG shortly after I issued my block; obviously I disagree with the unblock, but I knew going into this that it would be a contentious block and I do not plan to raise any sort of fuss about it.
| |||