BrownHairedGirl

[rhinoroars]

BrownHairedGirl (T-C-L)
Statement by BHG on the ArbCom decision link

Oh FFS, another decent and immensely hard working editor hounded off the encyclopedia in favor of one who writes garbage. Reyk YO! 22:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Kicking out good longstanding users

RHaworth (T-C-L) appears to be in line to join her
link
Kudpung (T-C-L)may follow soon

[Volunteer Marek]

Damn, BHG is one of the ever shrinking pool of the "old school" crew that actually build this damn thing. If she follows through and leaves that sucks and is really indicative of how wrong things have gone

[Vigilant]

She makes a lot of the same points Fram did.

The WMF has seemingly changed the rules of the game.

[Randy from Boise]

I'm not sure what WMF has to do with it. Don't Be a Dick rules are getting strengthened for Administrators but that has been a trend going on for several years.

I can't help but think that BHG is overreacting: as if an Arbcom finding of fact has any lasting power beyond three minutes after the case is archived!

Probably she is burned out and it's time for a long break.

RfB

[Zoloft]

It’s OK, son, Lassie’s going to live on your uncle’s farm upstate. She’ll get to chase the wild rabbits.

[Moral Hazard]

[RebeccaSaid]

Soooo, is it only me that thinks she got exactly what she deserved & that she's a rude, insincere drama queen, with delusions of grandeur?
I know nothing about portals & I care about them even less; the basis of her arguments may be solid, I have no idea -but her behaviour was obnoxious. I will never understand why people defend that.

[ZettaComposer]

The community wanted and elected an Arbcom that strongly enforces administrator conduct and accountability. That’s what they got. People are starting to realize you cannot have your cake and eat it to.

As for Kudpung, I suspect the BHG ruling may cause his friends to lobby harder for him to keep his tools

[Ritchie333]

Don't know anything about BrownHairedGirl so I can't comment on that. RHaworth has been a long time coming, and it hasn't happened before because he's not actually malicious and happens to be right about 85% of the time. Kudpung seems to have had a few flare ups but I don't see anything worthy of a desysop.

[Poetlister]

Soooo, is it only me that thinks she got exactly what she deserved & that she's a rude, insincere drama queen, with delusions of grandeur? ... her behaviour was obnoxious. I will never understand why people defend that.

On the other hand, she has been a good solid contributor and hard-working admin for most of Wikipedia's existence. That has given her as it were a lot of brownie points. Her departure will on balance surely harm the place more than it benefits it.

[Vigilant]

Don't know anything about BrownHairedGirl so I can't comment on that. RHaworth has been a long time coming, and it hasn't happened before because he's not actually malicious and happens to be right about 85% of the time. Kudpung seems to have had a few flare ups but I don't see anything worthy of a desysop.

Of the three of them, Kudpung needs his shit pushed back in the most.

[Randy from Boise]

It’s OK, son, Lassie’s going to live on your uncle’s farm upstate. She’ll get to chase the wild rabbits.

It's "Timmy" to you, Uncle Bill!

You missed your line, tsk tsk.

RfB

[RebeccaSaid]

Her departure will on balance surely harm the place more than it benefits it.

I get that, I really do. But, after Framgate, is this not what great swathes of the community wanted? For gross incivility &/or harassment to be addressed & to have an Arbcom that will act when the community fails? Numerous admins could've/should've told her to wind her neck in, but they didn't - apart from Diannaa, who was promptly overruled.
Same old, same old.
I doubt the "project" will fall on its arse without her; if she actually leaves at all - not convinced.

[Vigilant]

I doubt the "project" will fall on its arse without her; if she actually leaves at all - not convinced.

I dunno, that's a pretty serious diva quit.

It's not like she's corbetting there.

[Eric Corbett]

I dunno, that's a pretty serious diva quit.

It's not like she's corbetting there.

Don't you mean Vigilanting?

I'm not the one who recently begged ArbCom for my ban to be reviewed, that would be you.

[Vigilant]

Lol.

Touched a nerve there.

I got you a present to make up for my insensitivity...

[Eric Corbett]

So you aren't begging to be allowed back on Wikipedia?

[Vigilant]

So you aren't begging to be allowed back on Wikipedia?

No.

Your reading comprehension must be slipping in your twilight days.
Or, perhaps, dial back the ethanol self medication efforts.

[Dysklyver]

BHG will be a loss, R. Haworth could probably be replaced with a bot with no loss, and Kudpung is just a grumpy idiot.

[Anroth]

BHG only has herself to blame. She repeatedly called people liars and accused them of acting in bad faith without a shred of evidence. She knows she can't do that. Her position is in part expected to enforce that behaviour on others. She was unrepentant and still maintains her opinion trumps the policies. So she had to go.

[Jans Hammer]

I am extremely saddened to see this, BrownHairedGirl. While blocking - the worst fate for a normal editor - is, as we admins are constantly reminded, supposed to be prevention rather than punishment even for the most uncivil and unruly editors, it does at least come with possibilities of appeal, but one can only wonder how in desysoping cases like this, how such an Arbcom outcome can be anything other than a pure, harsh punishment and one with no route for appeal. Busy admins walk on precarious ground and will automatically accumulate enemies and vindictiveness - even among sitting arbitrators so it's hardly surprising that so few users are prepared to run for office, and why it has become a trend for so many to voluntarily lay down their tools. Swarm and Beetstra put it well, and while my efforts for Wikipedia are paltry compared to yours, it looks almost as if the community is looking for reasons to rid the project of older, long-term productive admins and I may well therefore be the next admin to suffer a similar fate. Arbcom is prosecutor, jury, judge, and executioner, they appear to take the witness evidence on face value so I'm not encouraged to even put up any defence. Like others here, I thank you enormously for all you have done for this great knowledge base. It will be a long time before anyone else can match your contribution to it - if anyone ever does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 4:26 am, Today (UTC+0)

He surfaces after 5 days absence, blows hard and disappears..... Note how he is unable to avoid making it about him.

[Beeblebrox]

She makes a lot of the same points Fram did.

The WMF has seemingly changed the rules of the game.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that as it could be taken more than one way.

If you meant that they directly influenced our decision in any way, that is entirely incorrect. We received no communication from them about this case.

If you meant the Fram case may have made some arbs more likely to vote for a desysop, I suppose that's possible but nobody brought it up.

As you can see from the decision this was not unanimous, there was disagreement both on the remedies and the findings, but the evidence that she behaved in a manner incompatible with adminship for a prolonged period was pretty overwhelming. For me personally, as I stated in the case, if I come to the conclusion that a user needs to be subject to an arbcom-level editing restriction in order to prevent disruption, that user is not fit to be an admin, regardless of their other contributions.

[Eric Corbett]

As is usual with Kudpung, his logic seems faulty to me. Is he really suggesting that being desysoped is a greater punishment than being blocked?

[Poetlister]

Note how he is unable to avoid making it about him.

That's a common issue with Wikipedians and indeed ex-Wikipedians. You may have noticed one or two people here with a similar viewpoint.

[Vigilant]

She makes a lot of the same points Fram did.

The WMF has seemingly changed the rules of the game.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that as it could be taken more than one way.

If you meant that they directly influenced our decision in any way, that is entirely incorrect. We received no communication from them about this case.

If you meant the Fram case may have made some arbs more likely to vote for a desysop, I suppose that's possible but nobody brought it up.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I meant that prior to Fram, this is not a possible outcome for the evidence presented nor the acts described.

The terrain has changed.

[Osborne]

As is usual with Kudpung, his logic seems faulty to me. Is he really suggesting that being desysoped is a greater punishment than being blocked?

Yes, he is. He's also suggesting that blocks can be appealed, which we know is the privilege of very few blocked editors. Less than 1%, not counting the spambots and socks.

[Osborne]

If you meant that they directly influenced our decision in any way...

Wait, you were on ArbCom last year? Did I miss something?

[Beeblebrox]

If you meant that they directly influenced our decision in any way...

Wait, you were on ArbCom last year? Did I miss something?

No, referring to the portals case.

[Captain Spalding]

BHG only has herself to blame. She repeatedly called people liars and accused them of acting in bad faith without a shred of evidence. She knows she can't do that.

No she thought she could get away with haranguing editors with impunity. Just look at this ANI situation from last summer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... HairedGirl

[Eric Corbett]

I've never appealed a block, or even been tempted to. Nor would I know how to do it anyway if I couldn't edit my talk page. But Kudpung does seem to have a very haughty attitude towards non-admin editors, for which reason alone I would be happy to see him desysoped.

[Curiousityandthecat]

RHaworth (T-C-L) has also lost their tools. Is this some kind of record? I don't remember hearing about 2 desysops in a week before.

[el84]

There has been a lot of murmuring on BHG's talk page about the decision (and BHG's reaction to it), with a lot of them complaining about the decisions. I don't know why none of them bothered to provide evidence in the case.

TonyBalloni says it is because the case was titled Portals, so he didn't want to read through it. The mind boggles.

[Icewhiz]

The decision was unexpected. It seems ARBCOM did some digging on their own internally and some members thought that BHG violated INVOLVED in implementing deletion decisions on subpages in portal space.

The case wasn't really go towards a desysop without that - and this did not come in the evidence or workshop - but rather ARBCOM reached this decision on their own in their internal list (not visible to anyone, and of course the deletion stuff is fully only visible to admins - and is in the one big mess of 1.6 million BHG edits...).

BHG supporters probably would've been fine with her banned from portals and admonished for incivility.

A desysop, finding of INVOLVED fault, and a 1-way TBAN? That is adios Wikipedia. Pointless editing from the BHG account with those restrictions in place.

[Osborne]

A desysop, finding of INVOLVED fault, and a 1-way TBAN? That is adios Wikipedia. Pointless editing from the BHG account with those restrictions in place.

Yeah, it's pointless to edit wikipedia without being an admin, we know that...

[Icewhiz]

The 1-way IBAN is probably worse than the desysop, though the latter (+the absurd finding of INVOLVED) is more of a slap in the face.

Editing with an IBAN with a high-edit count account that does many edits a day (and is not trying to "trap" another account into an IBAN vio - irrelevant for a 1-way) - is a sisyphean challenge - requiring checking long article histories before each action. Without much care - it's a surefire way to escalating and very long blocks.

Editor who concentrate, in depth, on one article at a time - can navigate an IBAN easily. Those who scatter-shoot edits all over the place (more BHG's style) - are left with long checks before each edit.

I see little cause for BHG to continue with the account.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

I don't know why none of them bothered to provide evidence in the case.

Perhaps because it's not the evidence that's disputed, but the judgment?

[Boing! said Zebedee]

...ARBCOM reached this decision on their own in their internal list (not visible to anyone...)

So how do you know?

[turnedworm]

...ARBCOM reached this decision on their own in their internal list (not visible to anyone...)

So how do you know?

Indeed. I wish someone had told me....

[ArmasRebane]

There has been a lot of murmuring on BHG's talk page about the decision (and BHG's reaction to it), with a lot of them complaining about the decisions. I don't know why none of them bothered to provide evidence in the case.

TonyBalloni says it is because the case was titled Portals, so he didn't want to read through it. The mind boggles.

Arbitration cases often go the way of laziness, where many people assume either the verdict is already reached, or that someone else is going to provide the evidence, and then everyone seems surprised when their preformed expectation is not validated because input was not provided.

[Icewhiz]

...ARBCOM reached this decision on their own in their internal list (not visible to anyone...)

So how do you know?

Oops.

[Carcharoth]

There are calls on her (BHG's) talk page for an immediate RfA. That probably wouldn't end well. User talk pages tend to be echo chambers where the amount of support for someone is magnified and those opposing never appear there. Kudpung has hilariously (in a sad way?) said he is not even following or participating in his case. I may have met RHaworth (T-C-L) once, and that might be the saddest of all the cases. He clearly is devoted to Wikipedia and what Ritchie says at Iridescent's talk page:

I have met Roger on several occasions, and I'll say this: It's very easy to post online "Abusive admin - violates policy, desysop please!" but try arguing your case politely and fairly in front of the person you want to throw under a bus to their face, particularly when that person is confused and upset as to why you're doing it. I wonder how many editors here can do that?

[Ritchie333]

I did chuckle at Jni (T-C-L) having a bit of a hissy fit on RHaworth's talk page. Checking his RfA from January 2005, I find his answer to Q2 includes

Call me odd, put I also like List of people by name, and have done lots of cleanup and additions there.

Where's the article now? Deleted and salted by RHaworth as a "vandalism magnet".

Ironically, in that instance RHaworth was right.

[Cla68]

BrownHairedGirl says this in her retirement speech:

So this leaves me no possible path to remove these unwarranted slurs on my character and conduct. They will remain as "facts" for as long I remain on Wikipedia. With my good name shredded through flawed process and false "findings of fact", it is not possible for me to honourably continue as part of the Wikipedia project.

This appears to me to be an acknowledgement of the "MMORPG" nature of Wikipedia's culture, in that you rely on your reputation to help you win arguments/debates with other administrators over procedures, decisions, actions, and sometimes edit/content conflicts. Is she saying that she can't edit Wikipedia once her "BrownHairedGirl" good name has been permanently sullied? Looks like it to me.

We've spent a lot of words on here and WR over the years discussing how the MMORPG culture of Wikipedia works, but one reason for it is because everyone is technically anonymous and no one (except DocJames) is allowed to claim authority or expertise from their real-life persona. So, "established" editors and admins build their "cred" over time and once they've been sanctioned, with "findings of fact" as she puts it, their cred is destroyed.

[Eric Corbett]

I don't think you've got that quite right.

I opted for better or for worse to edit Wikipedia under my real name. I didn't do it to claim any kind of "cred", only to try and shed all the garbage surrounding my original user name. In retrospect it was a poor decision, but that's life.

One of Wikipedia's many problems is that everything you've ever said or done is kept forever. There's no statute of limitations except for admin candidates. Why is it that WP doesn't delete old block log entries, for instance? IIRC here in the UK motoring offences are deleted from the record after six years. And if you successfully appeal against a conviction it is expunged from the record.

[Poetlister]

I have met Roger on several occasions, and I'll say this: It's very easy to post online "Abusive admin - violates policy, desysop please!" but try arguing your case politely and fairly in front of the person you want to throw under a bus to their face, particularly when that person is confused and upset as to why you're doing it. I wonder how many editors here can do that?

I expect that many editors would be very happy to arguing a case in front of the person they want to throw under a bus to their face, particularly when that person is confused and upset. Of course, doing it "politely and fairly" might not come into it.

[Poetlister]

We've spent a lot of words on here and WR over the years discussing how the MMORPG culture of Wikipedia works, but one reason for it is because everyone is technically anonymous and no one (except DocJames) is allowed to claim authority or expertise from their real-life persona. So, "established" editors and admins build their "cred" over time and once they've been sanctioned, with "findings of fact" as she puts it, their cred is destroyed.

The Wikipedia establishment was badly burnt by Essjay, and they never want that to happen again. Also, letting anyone claim authority or expertise goes against "anyone can edit", WP:V and so forth. It's essential that anyone, however ignorant, can wave a "reliable source" and use it to refute someone else, however eminent an authority. How you decide what a reliable source is, other than by relying on experts, is an arcane mystery.

[10920]

RHaworth has also lost their tools. Is this some kind of record? I don't remember hearing about 2 desysops in a week before.

What? There have been multiple past ArbCom cases which resulted in multiple admins being desysopped.

[The Garbage Scow]

One of Wikipedia's many problems is that everything you've ever said or done is kept forever. There's no statute of limitations except for admin candidates. Why is it that WP doesn't delete old block log entries, for instance? IIRC here in the UK motoring offences are deleted from the record after six years. And if you successfully appeal against a conviction it is expunged from the record.

John Vandenberg told me once that the software didn't allow for the deletion or revision of block log entries. This was 8-9 years ago, though.

[Eric Corbett]

The MediaWiki software probably doesn't, but anyone with access to the database can delete whatever they like.

The question is why, after 8-9 years, does the software still not allow the deletion of block log entries?

[Vigilant]

The question is why, after 8-9 years, does the software still not allow the deletion of block log entries?

I thought you said you were leaving.

Do you need help finding the door, old man?