BrownHairedGirl

[C&B]

BHG is in Ireland, IIRC.

[Poetlister]

BHG is in Ireland, IIRC.

I was thinking of BD2412, who is doubtless advising her and is in the USA.

[C&B]

Ah unless he's been sacked, of course!

[AngelOne]

Just removed the "under construction" template from the RFA as it clearly isn't. Not sure what the delay is but if I had to guess she is maybe waiting for the utter chaos that is sure to follow in the US in the next two weeks to subside.

I thought she might be waiting for the ANI complaint she made against Tisquesusa to be closed. Doing an RfA while an ANI where one's actions are being questioned is still open seems like rather bad timing.

[Vigilant]

She's not getting covered in glory there.

It looks very much like she's out and about picking fights and settling scores and using her admin friends to 'win' disputes.

[C&B]

It's only Iaritmioawp (T-C-L) and Lepricavark (T-C-L) (to somewhat A Lesser Extent) who are Questioning BHG's behavior. The General Consensus seems to be, More, that The Cullen has Veged On Leniency...

But, As Usual, her real Problem is a Total Fucking Inability to Not reply every comment with Text Walls. If She did this In Yon RfA, badgering the Opposition would tank her harder than El Alamein

[Vigilant]

I am sure this ANI bonanza is going to get mentioned prominently at her RfA.

If I were her, I'd get therapy.
I get a very strong Laura Hale vibe from her.

[Wampyre1990]

WTT has deleted the RFA page since it has been stale for an year

Hi BHG. As you've not transcluded the RfA in nearly a year, and given recent events, I've boldly deleted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2. If you disagree, I'd be happy to undelete, though I'm sure the nominations will need updating. WormTT(talk) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)"

The "recent events" in question is the ongoing ANI thread about BHG's latest incivility - link.

[Lyallpuri]

I'm pretty sure it's referring to Chris.sherlock/AAW's oversighted comments on the RFA draft (for which he was blocked) before the thread, the point being that if it's to serve as a troll/harassment magnet, it may not be worth keeping.

[Moral Hazard]

WTT has deleted the RFA page since it has been stale for an year

No matter how many times one gently unties the rope --- and nobody tries more gracefully and effectively than WTT --- some people just keep trying to hang themselves.

[Moral Hazard]

BHG's behavior in disputes was truly appalling.

She had been counseled by many to back away from her position and doubled down instead.

As usual, her real problem is a total [CENSORED] inability not to reply to every comment with walls of text. [edited, KW]

If I were her, I'd get therapy.

The people who are the least likely to seek help are often the people who would benefit the most (from cognitive-behavioral therapy and from psychiatric medication).

FYI, a Lightbulb joke (T-H-L):

Question: How many therapists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: Only one.
The problem is that, first, the lightbulb must want to change.

[Wampyre1990]

I'm pretty sure it's referring to Chris.sherlock/AAW's oversighted comments on the RFA draft (for which he was blocked) before the thread, the point being that if it's to serve as a troll/harassment magnet, it may not be worth keeping.

There does not seem to have been any oversightings done on the RFA draft. He was blocked for violating IBAN, surely he would have been {{OversightBlock}}ed if it was because of oversighted comments?

@Worm That Turned: Thanks. I had already decided not to proceed with another RFA, so there was no no point in keeping it or keeping the bile which my stalker had added to the page history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This implies AAW's comment were still visible in page history before deletion. A few diffs in AAW's talk page were oversighted after the block though.

Regardless, that RFA simply wouldn't have passed if it had gone live. BHG seems to have realized that.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

There does not seem to have been any oversightings done on the RFA draft.

I think I remember seeing some suppressed revisions before it was deleted (though that does depend on the reliability of my memory). There were definitely some comments still visible, in addition to any suppressed ones.

The suppressed comments on AAW's talk page appear to have been the final trigger for the block.

[No Ledge]

The Australian registered a "Strongest possible oppose" vote that succinctly nailed her worse than the wall of text at ANI.

Of course you're not supposed to vote in an RFA before it's been officially started.

Interesting to see comments like

I was saying her venting was minor. And I was saying they are being targeted by some for who they are, ie a "power user"

from someone who got bent out of shape over my observations at a recent Arbitration Enforcement case.

If you're a "single-purpose editor" none of your venting is minor.

[No Ledge]

And you get indefinite (i.e. quasi-permanent) blocks, requiring you to beg for an unblock, not a piddly one-week timed block.

And that block is preemptively imposed like a "restraining order" while your case is still in progress, not reversed until your case concludes.

</wikilawyering>

[No Ledge]

Why is BHG allowed to continue editing in mainspace?

Shouldn't she focus on responding to her case at ANI?

[Vigilant]

ARBCOM it is

The sacred inquisitors shall judge the miscreant!

[Vigilant]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I probably will not particpate in this case, for reasons that I will set out in full elsewhere, but in summary: my previous experience of arbitration (the portals case) is was it was structurally biased against the person being complained about, and the arbitrators made arbitrary and/or perverse decisions. Plus, I am fed up with being the only person blamed for my responses to the malicious actions of others. I will just note some points about SQL's statement:

At no point does on their talk or in their statement here does SQL acknowledge that the entire episode was stoked by Aussie Article Writer(ex-Chris.sherlock), who repeatedly broke their 1-way IBAN with me[18] to stir trouble on TRM's talk[19] and elsewhere in relation to issues which which they had no other involvement. I specifically broke my disengagement with SQL to note that IBAN-breaching disruption[20]. (Note that AAW has ben indef-blocked for this[21]. Why did SQL omit this crucial background?

The BRFA page as SQL found it[22] contained two posts by TRM of pointless and irrelevant sniping at me. I had hatted[23] it after replying to TRM's first post,[24] but TRM removed the hat[25] and posted more snark[26]. Why did SQL write here that this was two editors "having an argument about things unrelated to the BRFA at hand" rather than acknowledging the reality that it was BHG being goaded by TRM and BHG repeatedly trying to stop the discussion?

By the time SQL posted on my talk, they must have known that TRM's sniping at BRFA were about my oblique reference at BRFA (with no name) to TRM's conduct in discussing my AWB edits, which he himself had described[27] as "boorish behaviout". This info was in my reply[28] to TRM, and since that reply was the prompt for SQL's first post on my talk[29], they should have been aware that this whole episode in fact TRM repeating his "boorish behaviour" and me trying to get back on topic.

SQL's statement notes that they apologise to AAQ for mistaking identity.[30] Fair enough. But that means the only person who gets an apology from SQL is the IBAN-breaching troublemaker. That's bizarre.

SQL has stated several times that they didn't want to get involved. However, they did choose to intervene, but have repeatedly rejected requests to examine the issue more thoroughly to rectify their serial misjudgements. We all make good-faith decisions in haste which may not have the full facts, but SQL's persistence with a partial account is a WP:ADMINACCT issue.

Unravelling just this one highly-misleading account has used up over an hour of time and most of my allotted words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Bu...bu...they made me behave like an asshole...

WHY. CAN'T. YOU. SEE. THAT?!?!!?

I'm not sure what responsibility SQL has to BHG to see things her way or why she is so focused on him.

[Vigilant]

From the previous ARBCOM case

BrownHairedGirl

6) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying ([38], [39], [40], [41]); labeling editors with opposing viewpoints to hers in portal matters as 'portalistas', which she defined as 'those editors who have engaged in misconduct to subvert the application of community consensus to portals' (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl); and questioning the intelligence of those participating in portal edits and discussions with accusations of mendacity, 'Dunning–Kruger conduct', and being a 'low-skill group' (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Portals, NA1K's evidence, BHG's evidence).

Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Not much has changed.

[Mason]

Damn, that’s a lot of recused clerks!

[rhindle]

Damn, that’s a lot of recused clerks!

The one who is not is saying they will not be taking any shit here...

I would like to preemptively warn everyone above (and those who have yet to comment) that I am going to take a dim view to incivility, well poisoning, gratuitous mud slinging, and general nastiness. If a clerk or functionary feels that you have crossed the line, you will receive a singular warning. After that you will be placed on "email everything you would like to say to arbcom-en" status. I hope that this will move smoothly, but my experience as a clerk and arb over the past decade makes me think that this needs to be laid out from the beginning for this case. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

WP:ANI is turning into a 'save BHG' movement with various proposals for 'escalating blocks' if she doesn't stop being an insulting shithead.

Given that she was deadminned by ARBCOM for this very behavior less than 2 years ago and that an uninvolved admin's 1 week block was almost immediately undone, it only serves to prove that WP:CIVIL is an optional pillar if you have enough friends.

Shades of the ferret molester.

[Moral Hazard]

WP:ANI (T-H-L) is turning into a 'save BHG' movement with various proposals for 'escalating blocks' if she doesn't stop being an insulting shithead.

Given that she was deadminned by ARBCOM for this very behavior less than 2 years ago and that an uninvolved admin's 1 week block was almost immediately undone, it only serves to prove that WP:CIVIL (T-H-L) is an optional pillar if you have enough friends.

There seems to have been a disagreement when Beeblebrox (T-C-L) and I were young and easy under the apple boughs, in which Brown Haired Girl (T-C-L)seems to engaged in misquotation. I do not bother reminding myself of her precise actions, but share a rather precise formulation of WP:Civility (T-H-L) in practice.

I made some modest suggestions as the principles of the decision:

Uneven enforcement of civility

Non-administrators shall accept personal attacks (especially false accusations) and incivility against themselves and other Wikipedia users, particularly when NPA and Civility violations are committed by elites (arbitrators, their clerks, bureaucrats, administrators, their familiars, and sock-puppets posing as new editors), per WP:Non-retaliation and per the uneven enforcement of civility endorsed by ArbCom in 2012. Non-administrators shall stop asking that administrators be blocked or warned for violating WP:NPA and WP:Civility, when accepting a block for civil disobedience. Listing examples of administrative abuse disrupts Wikipedia.

Unless this principle is adopted, there's no reason for you to omit the diffs from Beeblebrox (T-C-L) ("bullshitiness"), from Brown Haired Girl (T-C-L) (misquoting me), etc.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)

[Bezdomni]

I do not bother reminding myself of her precise actions, but share a rather precise formulation of WP:Civility (T-H-L) in practice.

...

Bishonen, you lack the intellectual and political seriousness to merit my attention. I suggest you return to adding smiley facies and lisping on Wembwandt's page that it's not a good idea to call other editors nazis, he-he-he-he, since that seems to be the best you can do.
Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010

source

[...]

Perhaps you are [[Half-Wit|half right]]<!-- e.g., that I be half-witted!, but wtf is some Swedish laté-sipping %#!%#&*!! who has never stood on a picket line in her life calling me a Svergidemokrat ... ARGGGGHHHHH!! --> . . . .
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:14, 8 November 2010

And there I was wondering why you were playing with the pixels over here on the Group W bench...

Do you have any more choice readings for us on old time civility, Moral?

[Moneytrees]

Damn, that’s a lot of recused clerks!

I know huh? It was like a comedy bit- I was just checking in on my watchlist, saw the new case request and all the recusals… and I knew I would have to join them, since I commented quite a bit at the Ani. If the case proceeds and there aren’t enough clerks, we can “deputize” some others.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

How about a reverse ban: Chris Sherlock and BFG are banned from everything *but* talking to each other.

BHG is terrible, but it's hard to blame her interactions with Sherlock. It's not her fault that the community keeps allowing a paranoid nutcase back over and over again because he's moderately useful during his brief lucid periods.

[Poetlister]

This all illustrates the well-known rule that all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others. That rule is one of the main reasons that this site exists.

[Beeblebrox]

I'm pretty sure it's referring to Chris.sherlock/AAW's oversighted comments on the RFA draft (for which he was blocked) before the thread, the point being that if it's to serve as a troll/harassment magnet, it may not be worth keeping.

It was edits he made after being blocked that were suppressed. His edits to the RFA were visible up until now, but they were not anything worth reading. The deletion does seem like housekeeping, the last edit before AAW attacks was ....wait for it... me removing the "under construction" tag last November because it obviously was not being actively worked on.

Sweet merciful crap that ANI thread is a monster. Having a dozen or so competing proposals is never a good path forward. I haven't made up my mind about the case request yet, like several other arbs I'm waiting to see what happens at ANI. I feel sorry for whatever admin decides to actually try and close that thread. It will take a long time to put together and they will immediately start getting yelled at for doing it wrong no matter what they do.

[Moral Hazard]

Turn that frown upside down!

Turn your soul's gnawing void into Schadenfreude!

[Vigilant]

I don't see how ARBCOM can't accept at this point.

Whatever 'proposal' is accepted or not, they're going to be a shitstorm and open warfare among the cliques.

[Bezdomni]

Wut? Are we looking at the same page? I thought everyone was resigned to Awilley's special "no personal comments" sanction, version Vanamonde #3, appealable only to the cheering mob.

Meanwhile, away from the hubbub, Piotrus & BHG have been busy in their corners (the former with rule-bending and cathedral-building, the latter with stress-testing and bot-tuning).

[MrErnie]

The ANI closes with a mild sanction against BHG that will inevitably lead to her indef one day and the Arb case request falls apart after NYB comes out with a decline. If the arb case went forward, I wonder if drastic remedies like an undef for Piotrus until he can demonstrate he understands the canvassing policy and indefs for TRM and BHG until they can demonstrate they understand the civility policy would have been effective.

Llywrch said something in their statement that struck me as really the only way to deal with editors like BHG and TRM - "blocks for a fixed period are no longer effective to protect the Wiki: the only recourse, I regret to say, is an indefinite block. Faced with a block for a few days or a few months, an experienced Wikipedian will simply wait it out, & return just as convinced they have been wronged & less likely to change their ways. But an indefinite block -- which by definition can last anywhere from say 10 minutes to 10 years -- this puts the burden on the sanctioned Wikipedian to admit they need to change their behavior before they return."

Naturally this approach follows the assumption that civility on Wikipedia is just as important, or perhaps moreso, than adding content. The litany of sanctions against TRM were ineffective in part because he doggedly insisted on plowing on with prodigious additions of content which his defenders thought were more valuable than a few hurt feelings.

[ArmasRebane]

Llywrch said something in their statement that struck me as really the only way to deal with editors like BHG and TRM - "blocks for a fixed period are no longer effective to protect the Wiki: the only recourse, I regret to say, is an indefinite block. Faced with a block for a few days or a few months, an experienced Wikipedian will simply wait it out, & return just as convinced they have been wronged & less likely to change their ways. But an indefinite block -- which by definition can last anywhere from say 10 minutes to 10 years -- this puts the burden on the sanctioned Wikipedian to admit they need to change their behavior before they return."

This is probably accurate, but it also ups the ante that, like with BHG, someone will undo it. Admins wheel-warring is practically the one thing that will get you almost certainly desysopped in haste, so no one's going to edit-war to keep the block, which is why "the unblockables" is a moniker.

With that said, in this case probably what saved BHG more than anything isn't the ANI, it's that Sherlock went and got himself indefinitely blocked first. If arbs had taken the case it seems likely it would have been bad for Sherlock and everyone else.

[Poetlister]

Naturally this approach follows the assumption that civility on Wikipedia is just as important, or perhaps moreso, than adding content. The litany of sanctions against TRM were ineffective in part because he doggedly insisted on plowing on with prodigious additions of content which his defenders thought were more valuable than a few hurt feelings.

It must be remembered that few admins are capable of assessing the value of the contributions of any given editor. There are therefore two ways of assessing his or her value: volume of edits (counting them or, for more sophisticated users, total quantity of changes), and behaviour, of which civility is the key indicator. Many here have probably seen Surgipedia, a parody of Wikipedia rules where a surgeon is prevented from saving a patient's life because he is rude to well-meaning but incompetent people trying to treat the patient.

[No Ledge]

BHG is no brain surgeon. She was elevating the temperature at a requested move to 110°, taking it to Move Review. I closed the MR as "relist" and then proceeded to tear down her arguments on the merits, which shut her up. Just avoid all the drama and making it personal.

She's playing with fire, getting into these skirmishes with other senior editors. So far she's gotten the better of RexxS and Sherlock but shouldn't count on always getting the better end of these affairs. When she's rude to a well-meaning but not incompetent editor, that may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[Beeblebrox]

Speaking only for myself, while I'm certainly glad NYB is back and always value his input, it was more the comments from the community that led me to change my mind about taking the case. A substantial number of them asked us to let the community handle this. There was also the complication of the "fruit of the poison tree" with Chris Sherlock being in the middle of the whole thing and getting thoroughly kicked out in the middle of it all.

We took a lot of crap for desysopping BHG, and there was a point there where she probably had a decent shot at passing that RFA, but that's clearly over now and she's said as much herself. I'm comfortable with giving the community one last shot at getting her to rein in her attititude, I think even her biggest apologists recognize she is right on the brink right now.

[eagle]

I found this recent exchange on BrownhairedGirl's talk page:

Contact with William Bill Collins
Good Day. I am in process of trying to scout my father's college track and field teammates. He turns 70 and lives in the Bahamas. I think Mr. Collins may have even stood as best man at my parents wedding. Can you contact me please if you know his whereabouts or how to contact him?

Many thanks. 2600FB3:423F:4833:61E5:8D2A:5665 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You are in luck!
I know all the friends and former acquaintances of everyone over 70 everywhere on earth!
Just pay me 1 million euro in used banknotes, and we can proceed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

[Lyallpuri]

For context, BHG made the two most recent edits to Bill Collins (athlete) (T-H-L).

[eagle]

Thank you for that context. However, there is always the danger that the newbie will take BHG literally, without realizing the attempt at humor.

[Midsize Jake]

Thank you for that context. However, there is always the danger that the newbie will take BHG literally, without realizing the attempt at humor.

Someone should tell him to pay her in new bank-notes, just to see how pissed-off she gets.

[Silent Editor]

Someone should tell him to pay her in new bank-notes, just to see how pissed-off she gets.

Or bitcoin.

[Beeblebrox]

This type of thing does make me wonder, if this were a paper encyclopedia, would they be writing a letter to World Book asking for personal details?

Sadly, the answer is probably yes.

[Vigilant]

Someone needs a mental health block.

BrownHairedGirl and bot-like editing (at ANI)

[No Ledge]

She's solidly established herself at #2 on this list, taking a 500,000 edit lead on former #1 Koavf, who's been blocked since December 2020, and seems content with staying that way for now.

What's amazing to me is that Ser Amantio di Nicolao has established a two million-edit lead, on the backs of similar low-value edits which surely also flood some watchlists, yet he apparently somehow avoids noticeboard discussions like this one.

[Beeblebrox]

She's solidly established herself at #2 on this list, taking a 500,000 edit lead on former #1 Koavf, who's been blocked since December 2020, and seems content with staying that way for now.

What's amazing to me is that Ser Amantio di Nicolao has established a two million-edit lead, on the backs of similar low-value edits which surely also flood some watchlists, yet he apparently somehow avoids noticeboard discussions like this one.

I don't think anyone really cares about authority control templates or hidden short descriptions. Except that guy.

[Vigilant]

Taken to ANI for the shit she always does.

Makes it worse at ANI.

Gets a 12 hour block.

Makes it worse on her talk page.

[Vigilant]

I used to have problems with BHG but came to realize they are a fundamentally good-faith editor who does really difficult time consuming work (bare links) and well if you just ignore the occasional rants then you get the desert. And we need a bull like BHG to do that work as sometimes there are roadblocks that need clearing it's not for the feint of heart. Now, there is no question BHG will automatically turn on "bad-faith mode" whenever confronted with a disagreement and often goes too far in turning around what was a work disagreement into a personal one. On the other hand BHG can be quite supportive in a personal way when working with editors which is not that common. Maybe the trick for BHG on Wikipedia is focus on the issue not the person when dealing with criticism because the consequences of being right, clever or devastating to the other side are not worth it if it becomes personal, rather becomes a dumpster fire. -- GreenC 15:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That's the trick with every other unblockable turd too.

"Buh, buh, buh, look at all the good work they do!
They're only toxic assholes every other week....

Let's give them one final, final, final, absolutely final chance... again"

They were desysoped for this exact behavior.
If that didn't wake them up to their assholish behavior and the need to change it, then nothing will.

All of the other editors that they savage in their inimical fashion are worth losing to have BrownHairedGIrl edit more.
Shades of Eric Corbett here

Fuck that, Indef time.

[Vigilant]

The Kafkaesque nature of this saga ramps up another level.

I described UtherSRG's actions as "nasty" and "sneaky" because they went behind my back to seek sanctions on me for an issue they had not raised to my face, and they did so two days after I had disengaged.

I stand by that description, unequivocally. I will nor rephrase it, retract it, or withdraw it. This was nasty, sneaky conduct.

But now because I described that nasty, sneaky conduct I am blocked from a discussion about me. And that exclusion of me is somehow not sneaky.

As an exercise in the theatre of victimisation and of bizarre logic, this is quite the show. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Making it worse.

[Vigilant]

At wbm1058's talk page

Making it worse.

Given her editing restriction, this post alone should get her blocked.

BrownHairedGirl Behavior probation

Should BrownHairedGirl behave uncivilly or make personal attacks, she may be blocked first for twelve hours and then for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion.

ANI discussion 2021-08-16 Indefinite

Which spawned from this clusterfuck.

TL;DR

There is a general consensus that BrownHairedGirl has engaged in conduct that falls well below our accepted requirements of civility and has engaged in personal attacks, and must cease to do this. Proposal 3 ("BHG subject to escalating blocks") attained community consensus, so BrownHairedGirl is subject to the restriction that she may be blocked, first for twelve hours and afterwards at the blocking administrator's discretion, for any violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding civility and personal attacks, and that such a block must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion.

[Vigilant]

Well well

This is turning out to be a very interesting episode. Several editors have commented at WP:ANI#Unblock request about how they regard it as utterly unacceptable to describe another editor's actions as "sneaky", or "nasty". AFAICS, none of those who has expressed that view has made any criticism whatsoever of the admin who had made a series of very bad closes, and who sought revenge for WP:ADMINACCT by trying to get me blocked (the nasty bit) and who actively sought to do so without notifying me (the sneaky bit).

This is absolute textbook victimisation: punishing someone for making a complaint in terms which some feel are excessively blunt, but failing to even properly consider the substantive complaint.

I want to be absolutely and unequivocally clear about where I stand on this. Victimisation is a hallmark characteristic is a dysfunctional institution, aa is using tone-policing to suppress and dismiss complaint against authority.

I will not in any way concede to either of these tactics. I am over 50 years old, and have spent most of my adult life one way or another engaged professionaly in campaigns against injustice, most of them successful. I have worked at all levels of authority, up to meeting ppl at cabinet-level in government, and I have taken campaigns from being untouchable to having their goals legislated as statute law. So I have seen a lot of how those wit power handle dissent. I have also had significant experience in my own personal life of abusive conduct, and of the consequences of various strategies for handling it (I have tried most of them).

Over these decades I have learnt that those who behave badly will often try to deter criticism and to deligitimise their critics. This is a tactic used by institutions, by gangs, by political groups, and by individuals. It is an old tactic, and it often works -- which is why it keeps on being used.

But it is a tactic which is always used to divert attention away from discussion of the substance. And that's what's happening here.

If that is going to how Wikipedia is run, then that is sad. But no matter how big the pile-on in support of victimisation, I will not in any way bend to the victimisation.

I am aware that we are now into the re-victimisation phase. My objections to the sneaky actions of UtherSRG have been explicitly treated at ANI as being extra problematic because they follow me accurately describing as sneaky the actions of another editor more than two years ago.

Again, that is part of the pattern. The critic of bad conduct can be treated more harshly now because they had previously described bad conduct.

And of course, this pattern is common to many organisations, most of which start out with noble goals, but which in time ossify, and lose the ability to self-critique. So no surprise; just sadness. Wikipedia had a chance of being better, but seems to be choosing a culture of polite mediocrity which supresses debate and dissent. It's a old story. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Making it worse.

Talk page access revoked.