This is a difficult case, as it was in March when I first requested that ArbCom take up the issues of portals and conduct concerning portals. The content issues, about the existence and maintenance of portals, are not within the usual scope of ArbCom; but it should be obvious from history that this is a dispute that cannot be settled by the community. The question for ArbCom should be whether to: (1) decline this case, thinking that the community will resolve it in the near future (although I see no reason to support that belief); (2) accept this case, and address the content as well as conduct issues, possibly exceeding the committee's authority; (3) decline this case, knowing that the community cannot resolve it either, referring it to another authority, such as Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation; (4) decline this case, leaving it alone, although knowing that the community cannot resolve it; (5) accept a case, and assess what aspects of the case are within the committee's charter, to try to "break the back" of the dispute. Since I don't think that the committee intends to exceed its authority, as in option (2), and since I don't know who the other authority would be for option (3), I would suggest that option (5) is the wise minimal option. I respectfully disagree with those who think that there is about to be a successful RFC, at least not without discretionary sanctions. The minimal RFC to ratify a set of portal guidelines that had long been standing failed, and I am not optimistic that a different RFC is likely to be more successful at this time. I ask editors who think that ArbCom should decline this case what they think should be done instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The filing party, User:ToThAc, initially listed a large number of editors who are known as portal skeptics, and then amended the filing also to list a large number of portal advocates. I think that there has been good-faith erroneous zeal in listing many parties, and that ArbCom can significantly trim the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I urge that ArbCom first, identify editors whose conduct concerning portals has been disruptive and take action, and, second, authorize discretionary sanctions either for portal discussions, or for XFD deletion discussions including but not limited to portals, an area in which disruption has been an issue in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joe Roe, User:Opabinia regalis, and others - I suggest that anyone who is named in the statement of another editor be listed as a party and everyone else be trimmed out. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give some background.

I have initiated about 200 MfDs for portals since I first became involved in the portal debate in June (all but four of those MfD that have completed have been deleted or merged). Previously, in 2010, I had been maintaining Portal:United States Air Force after that portal's maintainer tapped me to continue his work after his retirement. This portal was one of the first portals I nominated for deletion.

BHG has exhibited some battleground behavior—both with matters large, like deletions, and matters small, such as where and how to point portal redlinks.

In August BHG agreed to discontinue personal attacks against portal supporters. The community adopted a WP:AN resolution, which I supported:

1. BHG has taken the positive de-escalating step of agreeing to refrain from using the word portalistas. She is urged not to use another such word instead and not to accuse her perceived opponents of mendacity but instead to focus the discussions as much as possible on pages and policies rather than on editors or perceived groups of editors.
2. Close this thread immediately as the rest of this is either content dispute or heated feelings over said dispute. There is no indication of anything even remotely resembling misuse of Admin tools.

I can't pinpoint when, but I believe BHG reneged on her commitment to avoid personal attacks. However she did appear to discontinue using the tired "Portalista" expression.

In October BHG reverted en masse dozens of portal changes by NA1000 [28]. I found the reverts bewildering at the time, as the changes helped address a persistent problem with portals being outdated. While the topic selection was not perfect, up-to-date content is vastly preferable to forested subpages of eight-year-old content forks. I've felt that, in any case, one-off improvements would not necessarily stave off deletion at MfD. I did not participate in the unproductive ANI discussion that followed.

On November 7 I nominated Portal:Transport for deletion. I became aware, after nominating, that NA1000 had made improvements to the portal in October, only to be reverted by BHG. I reverted BHG, as NA1000's revision was superior and I did not want to appear to be attacking a straw man. BHG reverted me, but was reverted by another portal supporter.

This MfD appears to have triggered a a proposed resolution to topic ban BHG from portals for six months "for battleground behaviour and incivility." I supported this.

All this is not to scapegoat a single person or say that certain portal supporters have not done admonishable things. I have had issues recently with a portal supporter who I believe has acted vindictively towards me. I am choosing, for now, not to name them here as their behavior has only been relatively recent and has not been repeated, and so as not to invite future conflicts. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully in the loop with all of the drama, but I have seen strong evidence of repeated WP:NPA violations here, something that needs to be investigated and dealt with. NPA all too often goes unnoticed and almost never leads to blocks, an attitude that needs to change if we want to keep editors (especially fresh, easily dissuaded ones) around. I highly recommend ArbCom take the case. ɱ (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past month or so there has been a great increase in the amount of portals taken to MfD. Things took a turn when the bottom fell out of the arguments to delete as the portal guidelines that had been put into place were deemed by consensus to be a failed proposal. In my view some portals certainly deserve to be deleted, but editors are also to assume good faith and be civil. This is per our WP:CIVILITY policy, and there are ways for an editor to take a cool down when needed. This being said, the only side which I witnessed being in my view uncivil was BrownHairedGirl in regards to her edits. Editing Wikipedia is about focusing on content NOT contributor. When you begin to say things that demean another editor, it crosses the line into tedious editing and creates a hostile environment. I will finish by saying that Wikipedia isn't about winning. BrownHairedGirl makes great arguments, sadly it seems like she has not been listening to the advice given to her by other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will also echo Scotty in saying that a constructive discussion is going on regarding potential new portal guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck evidence presented for now, I agree with the comments below though that the fact that an admin had to block another admin is reason for concern. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I only have evidence against BrownHairedGirl as I observed it, and was on the receiving end of it. I can if you wish participate but my evidence is one sided in the matter. There were other editors on the receiving end of it as well which include @Moxy: I believe. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there is much more to add over the several extensive recent ANIs in this area. By way of summary, I offer the following:

1. It is a shame for anybody to go down "on this hill", as the functional obsolesce of WP portals mean that they are dying of their own accord. WP Portals are not "portals" as a casual reader would interpret the term. They are really galleria or emporia of FA/GA rated articles on a topic. The problem is that there is a variable correlation between FA/GA articles and the major articles in a topic area, and it is not obvious that readers are into FA/GA as a concept. Some portals try to add non-FA/GA articles, but only end up FORKING against the better structured and more scrutinized Main Articles (which really are the WP content portal for a topic). Some portals paste-in the Main Article NavBox as a navigation aid, and/or also paste-in FA/GA directory from the WikiProject, but this is duplication. Thus, most WP portals have been rationally abandoned by editors, creators, WikiProjects, readers, and even vandals (e.g. if Main Article needs indefinite protection, like Alaska, the associated portal rarely does), for years now.

2. The core of the content issue between BHG and NA1K is whether an abandoned portal with no active maintainer/topic enthusiast/WikiProject support should be deleted, OR, whether mass-updates across many portals by a non-maintainer/non-topic enthusiast, are sufficient to keep the portal in place. BHG believes that NA1K's mass-updates across a range of portals are a non-good faith way to prolong portals; she also accuses NA1K of using techniques that are hard to undo (I don't understand this area but Scottywong looked into it here). NA1K replies that previous RfCs on portals give them a right to exist on WP, and that NA1K is not breaking any policy or guideline in the area. The core of the conduct issue between BHG and NA1K is that BHG has accused NA1K of being "sneaky", "a liar", and versions of not having the intellectual competence to understand the error of their ways. NA1K has not replied in kind, and has protested that they are being unreasonably bullied and attacked.

3. ArbCom should go through the last 20 portal MfDs for reference. They are long discussions - longer than most AfDs, and of a higher standard of analysis and debate imho. The MfDs are closed by some of the most experienced closers in WP (I won't name them, but they are obvious to see). I say this because outside of BHG/NA1K's interactions, the process of cleaning up portal-space, while laborious (ultimately, the community decided against a binary decision to delete all portals), is not that inefficient. Unless ArbCom is going to opine/force the community to opine on the content issue in 2. above (favoring BHG's view, we go down to well under 100 portals; favoring NA1K, we can go back to over 2,000 portals), then I would let this process continue. There is an interesting project going on here User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace, which may or may not produce ideas the community will accept to forestall the ongoing collapse in WP portals.

Britishfinance (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that ArbCom take this case. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend that ArbCom takes this case. Please see the statement by User:Vermont, which basically sums up the issue in my eyes. --Hecato (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I actually bothered to look up some quotes. Please see: User:Hecato/BHG for a minor list. --Hecato (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to address that pageview issue that came up below, if ArbCom wants me to. I disagree with User:Levivich's characterization. I understand that this is the wrong venue though. The point of this discussion is convincing ArbCom that there should be an investigation, not discuss who is right or wrong. --Hecato (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see 4 factions, which defend different opinions: - Free portal creation. - Maintenance of everything as it is (or was). - Reduction to a minimum number of portals - End of portals

These factions are facing each other through MfDs and Edit reverts, and in the absence of WP:POG and outdated WP:PORTAL, there is no consensus.

I could suggest that MfDs and new portal creations are paralyzed until WP:PORTAL and WP:POG are updated.

In most MfD discussions, I've argued for deletion of narrow topic portals. I believe there is some relativization by some users of what would be "narrow" to vote for "Keep", but without clear criteria this is a fruitless discussion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I was included as a party, but then I see almost all the regulars of the deletion discussions were so I guess it's fine.

As far as I know, I've not had any heated exchange with anyone in my relatively unremarkable participation to the discussions. If someone thinks I should explain more about my conduct, please let me know.

I came to MfD discussions after seeing that a handful of users were shouldering most of the work of the case-by-case examination of portals which was forced on us by the inconclusive RfC. Furthermore, they were targeted by a relentless mud machine for their efforts. It was impossible to sustain such a climate for many more months: the only option I saw was to keep up the pace (if you have fewer deletion discussions, they just expand to fill all the space and consume all oxygen) and to provide some support to the most hard-working users.

In most MfD discussions, I've argued for deletion on WP:NPOV grounds. My only significant contribution was probably the SQL query to identify decaying portals. I was trying to provide a tool for objective reasoning and to reduce everyone's manual work. Seeing it was mostly ignored, I put it to the test by opening a handful of MfD, which I think were mostly well received and civil. I think most people kept using other methods to identify portals worth deleting, so my role in this saga can be written off as irrelevant. Nemo 22:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe this case is about conduct, not content. We have made sustained progress in improving what remains of portal space in the past couple of weeks alone, and we've consistently voted to keep portals. While there are a number of questions we need to solve in portal space, I am asking ArbCom to review the actions of the users involved, especially BrownHairedGirl, who has led a sustained, six-month harassment campaign against Northamerica1000, for no clear reason other than Northamerica1000 has attempted to improve the existing portals. This conduct should be considered unacceptable in our community, as many different avenues exist to work with and report users who allegedly edit outside the norms. Continually disparaging them is the worst way to solve the problem, and this, combined with the fact no specific rules currently exist for whether to keep or how to improve portals, has directly led to a battleground mentality in this space. I would ask ArbCom to review and mediate this dispute, and I would ask that BrownHairedGirl be at least desysopped for their actions and role in this dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everyone who has ever stated an opinion on these two is “involved”. Ok.

• BrownHairedGirl. BHG
• Northamerica1000. NA

BHG has made harsh criticism of NA. I think the substance of the criticism is between “defensible criticism” (if overstated) and “correct”. The tone is what I would call “uncomfortable”, and “non-collegial”.

NA generally does not respond to her criticism.

I have urged BHG, that if she has evidence of NA’s behaviour being unbecoming of an administrator, three times, she should seek his desysop, or other remedy, at WP:AN. That she should not make further repeated allegations in lower level discussions. This dispute between two administrators is highly detrimental to the project. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Com must keep out of Portals, they are content, and existing community processes are at play.

Arb Com must referee the debacle of long running acrimonious conflict between admins. Admins are supposed to be exemplars of Wikipedians. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the *only* real parties here are BHG & NA. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I am considered an "involved party" with respect to this request. My only involvement has been as an uninvolved administrator closing some portal MFD's, as well as writing a few brief votes on portal RFC's and related ANI threads. I also don't think that most of the other "involved" editors should be on the list either. User:ToThAc's opening statement only mentions the conduct of BHG and NA1K. In my view, they should be the only involved parties in this request for arbitration. If other users are to be investigated, then please amend the opening statement to include the specific incidents where these users are purported to have behaved inappropriately. Additionally, it's unclear to me what the scope of this request is. It clearly seems to be asking the committee to investigate the behavior of BHG and NA1K, but it also seems to be implying that the committee should investigate whether or not portals should exist at all, or that the committee should make some kind of decision that imposes inclusion criteria upon portals so that users cannot create "spam" portals anymore. I disagree that arbitration is the right forum for the latter investigations/decisions. ‑Scottywong| [spill the beans] || 00:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed myself as an involved party in this request, per a message from ToThAc on my talk page. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 01:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that perhaps the net has been cast a bit wide in identifying "involved" parties, but I will provide a broad statement of my opinion on the matters under examination within the next 24 hours or so. BD2412 T 23:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of the administrators

For full disclosure, I have twice initiated discussions on User:BrownHairedGirl's user talk page, archived here and here, to suggest that she refrain from characterizing editors with whom she has policy disagreements as liars. These discussions generally arose in response to statements made in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Golf and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ohio State University, which are worth examining. I do believe that she has toned down her invective following these discussions, but still evinces a tendency to view such disagreements through an ill-fitting moral lens in which those who think differently are harshly characterized as dishonest or incompetent.

For his part, User:Northamerica1000 has tended to edit boldly where cautious editing would have better served the interests of the project. I have alluded to this in one of the more recent ANI threads on this topic, but have not taken it up with the editor specifically.

Portals, generally

With respect to portals generally, I would note that the community has repeatedly rejected binary proposals to eliminate portal space. Furthermore, while there have been hundreds of successful proposals to delete specific portals, there have also been roughly a hundred proposals for portal deletion that have resulted in either an absence of consensus for deletion, or an outright vote to keep the portal in question. It is therefore apparent from practice that the community wants some number of portals to exist. The problem is extremism of views constrained by two-dimensional thinking on both sides. Some editors appear to want to save as many portals as possible, and therefore engage in a flurry of activity to revive moribund portals without instilling a sense of confidence that this level of maintenance will be sustained. This is understandable to the degree that it is how things work in article space, where an article nominated for deletion due to specific defects can be saved by remediation of those defects, but this is generally not how things work with portals, which must be somewhat dynamic to serve a purpose distinct from that already served by articles. Other editors appear to want to delete even those portals that are relatively well-attended and consistently well maintained. Editors need to stop pining for one extreme or the other and find a middle ground. BD2412 T 13:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a party to this case. I urge Arbcom to take this case. the rhetoric used in cases pertaining to portals has continually included various disparaging terms used by some editors for other editors with whom they disagree. Arbcom is sorely needed to review editor conduct. this includes some editors who are admins. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Comment. your statement below is highly beneficial, but with respect, the RfC highlights the problem; the editors who dislike portals refuse to accept any existing consensus that portals should exist as a whole. Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: with respect, there is no issue concerning the existence of portals. the fact they exist is because the Wikipedia community did and does want them to. that is one aspect of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I don't have any objection to occasionally getting rid of portals that are too obscure or that no one is maintaining. but the effort to discredit or to diminish portals as a group is getting a bit overboard, with all due respect. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance if creating this section is improper in any way. I just have some minor question. I'm hopeful we can retain this section here as a place for general queries like the one below.

• If someone does not have the actual link to this page, where else is this case posted for others to find? I went to the Arbcom main case page, but didn't see this case listed there anywhere.
• On a similar note, what is the meaning of the url for this page? It simply refers to this proceeding as "case"? Is that usual? thanks.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this case is taken, it will prolong for some weeks the festering sore that has been caused by our inability to properly decide on the role of portals in Wikipedia. It may result in sanctions for one or more sincere individuals who differ on the issue and have failed to find a proper consolidated venue to hash out these differences and obtain wider community consensus. The dispute has been going on for a long time and led to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals and other discussions including Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153 § RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019).

Put simply, we do not have a consensus as to the role of portals, the parameters which might govern their creation or deletion, and even the true status of the guidelines we use to describe them. This is a recipe for dispute, and that is exactly what has happened. The number of active disputants being small, and the merits of most of the arguments being hard to objectively decide on one side or the other, we have failed to deal with the problem.

Right now, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Portals guideline is looking to resolve the root cause of the issue. I would invite the Committee to suspend judgment for now, I would like to propose that:

Sm8900 I do not think that is actually true, and even if it is, a well-conducted RfC with substantial input will be impossible to ignore. I see no attempt to burn all portals since the earlier RfC. I don't see any evidence that anyone is acting on the absolutist stance you describe, even if it their view privately. I could be wrong: let's see, via the RfC. Guy (help!) 17:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned you are right, but my feeling is that if we divert all the participants to that page, then consensus may emerge - at least if it is their last chance to avoid an arbitration case. That may be hopelessly naive. I admit my view is coloured by the presence on both sides of admins whose mops and usual good humour I would sorely miss. Guy (help!) 17:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark It is not true that BHG has failed to demonstrate bad faith on the part of NA1K: there is clear evidence of WP:GAMING. Guy (help!) 20:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. What Thryduulf said, and may $DEITY have mercy on the souls of all those involved. Too late. I feel guilty that I did not propose the above months ago and push for it via the admin boards. Guy (help!) 01:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imho, if this would be accepted as a case, ArbCom should look at all behavioural issues regarding the area of conflict. The case proposal limits behavioural issues to one, i.e. civility. If one party is WP:GAMING, and another counters with incivility, only the second party would be scrutinized, while the first walks free while their reprehensible behaviour would be outside the scope of the case? If limited to a single behavioural issue, I'd suggest that ArbCom declines to take the case.

Note that at least one of the currently proposed involved parties has already been "punished" with a block (the reviewing admin evaluated the block as punitive) in this matter: non bis in idem is not necessarily a principle for ArbCom proceedings, but one could also say: enough suffered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replies to User:Sm8900 (in the #Questions to Arbcom clerk section belowabove):
  • The request is listed in {{ArbComOpenTasks}}, a template that is displayed for instance on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests page. That's, for instance, where you can find open requests.
  • The url contains "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case" (my emphasis): in other words it is a request for an arbitration case, not an opened case. Other requests, i.e. not for a new case, include requests for "Clarification and Amendment" of earlier concluded cases (WP:ARCA), where the content of the {{ArbComOpenTasks}} is also displayed, and which has also .../Requests/... in the url.

Hope this helps. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC) (updated, questions moved to proper section 15:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

• I would urge the committee to accept, and to hold until the 2020 group of Arbs are seated. This will be a long and likely difficult case, and the more eyes the better. — Ched (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC) .... (add) Since it's only the legal talk that is usually heard here: I suggest the case be accepted and Held in abeyance. 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• note 1: I suspect that you'll need to modify the list of parties involved. — Ched (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• note 2: I'd like to request that one of the clerks (Guerillero or Liz), or the Arbs if that's required to address a concern I have with the party list. Jehochman added Diannaa to the list[29] (see: reasoning here). My request is that a clerk either remove Diannaa, or add JBW to the list as the unblocking admin. (and not without controversy, see here. Also note that it appears resolved.) I've made a direct request to Jehochman, but he is apparently declining in favor of allowing me to add additonal parties. Personally I'd prefer Diannaa be removed from the list (unless she desires to be there for some reason) because the block and unblock are not directly related to Portals, and the issue can be addressed either by statement here, or via an evidence phase which would make clearer how appropriate it is to have them on the list. There are plenty of actors here to choose from for a list of parties, and since neither Diannaa or JBW appear to be active in the Portal areas, it makes sense IMO to restrict the number of people to only those most directly involved in the topic of the case request. Thank you — Ched (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all attempts at discussion is they get derailed by editors assuming they haven't been heard and who repeat their arguments over and over, including accusations of poor behaviour such as lying. This fails to acknowledge that other editors can still want to discuss and investigate possibilities that are in disagreement with these arguments, whether it is to brainstorm new options, or because the others don't agree with the analysis. This stalemates any discussion to move forward, and as it generates antagonism, it discourages collaboration. This negative behaviour should be examined and appropriate remedies enacted. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will likely be presenting more evidence later, but see WP:AN/I#Previous portal discussions (permalink) for an extensive but incomplete list of discussions about portals. For evidence of behaviour in the topic area see also just about any MfD discussion about portals.

In this request, and if the case is accepted (which I recommend), then I very strongly encourage the arbitrators and clerks to take a very firm line regarding both personal attacks and word limits (a skim read of any of the previous discussions should explain why). Also the scope should be conduct in portal space and in discussions of portals, not just deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that doesn't seem to have been highlighted is the battleground attitude of some, characterised by assigning everybody into one of two groups regardless of what their actual argument is. Most frequently this treating someone who disagrees with deleting one or more portals or favours less restrictive guidelines than them as if they personally endorse(d) mass creating thousands of portals, but the same attitude is also in evidence from some who are in favour of portals generally (it is not limited to BHG and NA1K). There are examples in this request, and in most of the discussions already linked. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been following this issue since a disagreement between myself and BHG over the portal for Vermont (now deleted) resulted in myself being labeled as incompetent and a "portalista" back in August of this year. As such, my statement focuses on BHG’s conduct; I have not sufficiently looked into that of NA1k.

In the recently-closed ANI thread about this subject, BHG referred to other contributors, mostly NA1k, with the terms: “incompetent", "mendacious", "habitual lying", "idiot", "poster-child for the Dunning–Kruger effect", "incapable of conducting rational discussions", "a liar or incompetent, or both", a "mix of stupidity and mendacity", "anti-truth", "bad faith", "low-skill group", "very low-competence editors" (which she went on to name Moxy and NA1k), and various other phrases. I had confronted her on her talk page with that list, and in her reply she referred to NA1k’s actions as stonewalling and their arguments as “word soup which conveys nothing”. I replied, using that exact phrasing to describe her argument as to why her insults are justified, which she then described as “spectacular rudeness”, bad faith, trolling, uncivil, and disruptive, subsequently kicking me off her talk page. In the same comment, she wrote, “So sustained incivility directed at me is fine, but my incivility in response is unacceptable?” This establishes that she recognizes her actions are uncivil, and evidently believes that when responding to people whose arguments she sees as incorrect, namely portal proponents, WP:5P4 does not apply. As such, I urge the Committee to take this case and take action to ensure a civil and welcoming community contributing environment. Vermont (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to share this quote by BHG (from Nov. 8) on whether this case should go to ArbCom: "So if this goes to ArbCom, then ArbCom faces some ugly choices. Does it say to the angry portal fans that their low skill level is a breach of WP:CIR, and that they should back off? Or does it say to the likes of me who are trying to uphold encyclopedic quality that no matter how persistently dishonest or incompetent other editors are, that their incompetence and dishonesty must not be explicitly challenged?" (link) Vermont (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. In her statement here, BHG is quite uncivil, naming editors she labels as incompetent, generalizing "portal fans", coining "Moxy-follies", referring to the actions of editors who disagree with her as "sustained disruption", admitting to incivility, and again trying to justify her actions by blaming NA1k. Vermont (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend accept – but to resolve by motion. Something like an indefinite no fault 2way iBan for BHG & NA1K, and then perhaps delay any further action to see if the outcome of various active RfCs & other discussions produces a calming effect.

A 2 way iBan probalby isn't fair, but may be pragmatic. BHG & NA1k seem to be almost supernaturally energetic editors, and it could take many hundreds of hours to give careful attention to the enormous past arguments they've generated. It doesn't help that the anti-portal side rarely seems to use diffs to clarify what they mean. Take the seemingly non-neutral opening statement for this arb request as an example. There's a hand wave to the 12,000+ word transport portal MfD, with nothing specific to point out how it shows any fait accompli or other problematic behaviour by NA1K. IMO it shows the opposite. NA1K had for many weeks been carefully updating portals, partly to address BHG's concern that portals were going unmaintained. Then on 12th Oct, in violation of WP:FAIT , BHG mass reverted improvements to ~100 portals, which had clearly took NA1K at least dozens of hours, totally overwhelming his ability to respond without edit waring. (Tables showing the ~100 portals are in ANI archives ) BHG made a long but unconvincing argument that NA1K's improvements were an "extraordinarily huge breach of WP:FAITACCOMPLI". Yet at the ANI, a clear majority supported BHG's reverts being undone, though not quite enough to establish consensus. In the specific case of the Transport portal, even the person who put it up for MfD judged that NA1K's edits were "an improvement".

Given the insults listed above by Vermont, some might think BHG would be getting off lightly with a no fault iBan. But having spent a couple of hours reading some of her arguments, she does seem sincere. Occasionally calling out what you perceive as blatant lying probably is the right thing to do. And with her phenomenal 13 years of contribution, she surely has earned a little slack for occasionally getting passionate about the project. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG Lepricavark was correct, there's been no bad faith by NA1K. Please either support with diffs or strike your inaccurate maligning of NA1IK's good character. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it is within ArbCom's remit to make policy decisions with regard to portal space, but there are protracted behavioral issues here which need to be resolved. While this is not my preferred venue, other options have not worked. Vermont has clearly laid out the case regarding BHG's behavior and while BHG has repeatedly insinuated bad faith on the part of NA1K, she has yet to present evidence that supports her claims. Moreover, if this case is to be accepted, I urge ArbCom to scrutinized the actions of Newshunter12, who has been noticeably disingenuous in their replies to Vermont in this discussion. Given the well-established fact that BHG has repeatedly attacked NA1K, there is no possible explanation for Newshunter12's feigned ignorance that could reflect well upon their motives. This is an encyclopedia, not a middle school playground, and Newshunter needs a reminder of that at the very least. Lepricavark (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I second FeydHuxtable's call for evidence of bad faith on NA1K's part. I'm willing to change my mind if presented with convincing evidence, but so far I have not seen anything of the sort. Lepricavark (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lepricavark that policy decisions are not what this ArbCom case should be about. This should be about holding a user accountable for their actions. On the ANI discussion board, I provided examples of BHG harassing and attacking other users, such as NA1K. From my ANI: "BHG is violating WP:HARASS through examples like: this, this, and this. What is even more concerning is that BHG is an admin, a privilege that is meant to be a role model for examplar Wikipedia behavior. NA1K is a victim of harassment from someone who does not learn from their previous mistakes. It is unbelievable that an admin can be this disrespectful of their peers." My personal recommendation was a proposal to desysop BHG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Desysop of BrownHairedGirl (Copied from my ANI proposal):

1. Harassment. Plenty of evidence is prominent through diffs and this discussion. Targets other users. This violates WP:ADMINCOND and is against Wikipedia policy through the pilars.

2. Violation of WP:ADMINACCT. BHG does not reason properly as she erupts into poor judgement and accusations. She breaches multiple policies

3. Reverting and edit warring. Violation of WP:TOOLMISUSE by reverting other admin's edits. She reverts other users edits without consensus and does not consider WP:ALTREV and WP:ROWN.

4. Not a role model for non-admins. Administrators are meant to be examples of Wikipedias who excel in the pilars and understand all policies. They are meant to cooperate and help build an encyclopedia. BHG being able to commit activities I mention above is not what an Admin stands for or what ANY Wikipedian should be doing. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from #Statement by ToThAc: @ToThAc: I am not asking for you to change the request. I am stating that BHG needs to be held accountable and that in my opinion, the idea of desysop should be floated around. It is a statement from me, not a request for a case change. I agree that this needs to encompass everything. Hope that clarifies it. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made a comment on this at AN/I, but I would like to reiterate my stance that personal attacks cannot be tolerated; but I should hope that the Committee, if they choose to accept this case, would choose to hold this case (which is indeed likely to be long and protracted) in abeyance, pending the installation of the new Committee at the conclusion of this term. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) recently blocked BrownHairedGirl related to this issue. When one administrator feels the need to block another administrator, that's a sign that the dispute should go to arbitration, because the admin corps is too divided to deal with it. ArbCom could be useful identifying bad behavior that obstructs the formation of consensus. As JzG suggests, stop the bad behavior and the underlying issue will then resolve. I don't agree, however, to wait for the moribund RfC to end. I think people can write guidelines and have a bunch of MfDs to clear up this portal mess. Jehochman ^Talk 04:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) continues to maintain a high volume of anti-portal activity, including uses of the administrative toolkit (Log), although she has not taken the time to respond to this request. It is unwise to continue the disputed behavior pattern while neglecting a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appears to have declared a vacation after the filing of this request[30], yet they also continue to have time for other things and working on portals.[31][32][33]

I urge the Committee to stop waiting for statements from NA1K and BHG. The apparent gaming of the system by both parties should not be condoned. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to BHG, she seems to have been unsure how to respond. I gave her some tips and she was very thankful. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I urge Arbcom to take this case. The overriding concern should be to stop the disruptions on the project and restore civility and confidence in administration. The incivility and personal attacks by the administrator Brown Haired Girl are a major concern. An administrator must have credibility in warning or blocking editors for personal attacks; Brown Haired Girl has lost that credibility. Brown Haired Girl's mass reverting of the edits of a fellow administrator North America 1000's were a major disruption to the project. What followed was a long, drawn out, disruptive public feud which has taken time and energy away from the project. The administrator North America 1000 has tolerated abuse in the form of personal attacks and insults from Brown Haired Girl. I lament the fact that policies are not applied evenly on the project. Administrator's are at different levels of competence: some administrators are punitive or worse. However at a minimum every editor and administrator on the project should follow the guidelines and policies and especially the fourth pillar WP:5P4. If an ordinary editor behaved as Brown Haired girl has behaved, they would get an indefinite block. I believe that Brown Haired Girl should be Desysopped. In addition, as Usedtobecool has correctly stated this disruptive feud should not have gotten to this point: the many administrators who failed to act to protect the project and North America 1000 should be addressed. Only one administrator had the courage to finally block Brown Haired Girl for the behavior and that was only after this very long disruption.I !voted to topic ban Brown Haired Girl at ANI Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been waiting to see if this actually comes about, ever since the October ANI discussion (one of the longer ones I've seen) whose close I read as "parties who might possibly be considered for any sanction are too big for any individual admin to have the courage to apply it to, even assuming they were willing to wade through the mountain of evidence, so take it to ArbCom". I think this case should be accepted because:

1. It's starting to look like admins are held to a lower standard, not higher, in both how involved admins have (/allegedly) behaved, and how uninvolved ones have chosen to !handle it.
2. If NA1K's conduct is found to be so unseemly that all of BHG's accusations (and word choices) are judged to be on the mark, not only might we need serious sanction/s against NA1K, and possibly others, but also clarifications/rewrites to much of our policies, because it would mean that there's so much confusion among editors on this that BHG's accurate characterisations have, so often, been discredited as breach of civility/personal attacks.
3. If BHG's conduct is judged to be completely unacceptable, ArbCom needs to look at the conduct of admins who've refused to take sides and basically said "you both are grownups, go figure out yourself", essentially falling short of their obligation to protect NA1K, and possibly others, from ongoing abuse.

Personally, I hope it turns out to be the exact middle where everyone is half-right, with the other half being simple good-faith misunderstandings, so we can all just appeal to human imperfections and move on. But we won't know, unless ArbCom elects to undertake the risks involved in choosing to actually go through all the evidence. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToThAc: There's an error in your statement in regards to In April 2018, The Transhumanist started an RfC on deprecating portals - twas I who started the RfC. I wonder where starting that RfC ranks in WikiHistory for single actions leading to the most amount of drama... Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom should accept this case because the community has failed to agree any substantive action regarding the behaviour of BHG and NA1k[34] and delegation to Arbcom was agreed to as, seemingly, the only solution.[35] It is important to show the community can indeed deal with behavioural problems.

For uninvolved people like myself the committee could determine whether frequently repeated remarks such as "NA1K's mendacity and incompetence" and "NA1K's lies and smear tactics"[36] are "derogatory comments" which, by WP:NPA, could and maybe should have been removed by any editor (such as myself). Also, although I have seen many criticisms of NA1k's editing and behaviour, I am still unclear what they have done outside Wikipedia norms. The evidence phase of this case and the subsequent dispassionate assessment would help people like myself understand where disagreeing with a majority over a series of discussions becomes "gaming". Thincat (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to pretend to understand in full the complexities and eccentricities of the portal-space debate, namely the creation (and subsequent deletion) of hundreds upon hundreds of "junk portals" as well as the purpose that portals serve in this community in general. To me, this whole debacle resembles the Infobox Wars in the amount of vitriol being spilled between what would otherwise be very competent editors and administrators. But from my point of view, I find the heavy-handed incivility and personal attacks by BHG - even if they are even REMOTELY justified in some small fashion - to be counter-productive to an atmosphere of collegiality. This affects not merely the editors who are directly being called out, but also editors who are merely tangentially involved, as they may be dissuaded from contributing or collaborating further.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure that blocks or topic bans are the answer to this. Portals are a problem for which there have been multiple attempts at resolution or RFC, but each time, no consensus arises from it. I think ArbCom needs to take the unenviable position of setting a policy in stone regarding portals and holding everyone to it under threat of discretionary sanctions. Only then, I think, can the conflict be deescalated. In any case, the situation has coalesced to a point where it's impossible for ArbCom to continue kicking the can down the road any longer; the community has clearly proven itself incapable of solving it.--WaltCip (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree word-for-word with Thryduulf. However, I would add something I'm not seeing said yet: This isn't just about WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA / WP:ASPERSIONS matters, but also WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAITACCOMPLI, on at least two sides. The "delete almost all the portals" crowd have made such accusations about the (mostly a year or so back) mass creation of portals (which has stopped, and which may be too stale for ArbCom to address). Currently, though, many of us skeptical of mass deletion of portals (even if leaning pro-deletion on most of them when we actually have time to analyze particular WP:MFD requests) have raised similar concerns about the "firehose" abuse of MfD to list portal after portal after portal, generally with no individual distinction or consideration of current or future merits (or lack thereof) on a per-topic basis, and at such a rate that no one sane could keep up. It's a WP:NOTHERE + WP:WINNING + WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior pattern, of obsessing over portal-nuking, and crushing opposition or even the ability to ask some questions, by engaging in such a rate of deletion demands that it's impossible to respond to it all unless you devote 100% of your time to deletion discussions about portals.

I'm kind of a centrist in this, having joined WikiProject Portals (mainly to suggest some material for a "WP:Manual of Style/Portals") then having been critical of the creation of so many pointless and redundant portals, but also alarmed at the deletion, with basically no meaningful discussion, of various portals on major topics that are certainly viable. PS: I agree that the "ongoing" portal RfC is not ongoing. It has completely stalled out, because of too much trench-digging to even agree what the RfC should ask.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This case should be accepted and held in abeyance per Ched. Discussion is at this point intractable. Pick any random ANI thread or contentious MFD and you will find walls of text that make any kind of discourse difficult. Additionally there are routine assumptions of bad faith, name calling, and a collective failure of uninvolved editors to intervene per WP:RPA. The straw that broke my back is this ANI thread where I attempted to get BHG and NA1K to find a mutually agreeable solution; it quickly fell apart and exemplifies the problem faced in collective/discussion-based solutions. I agree with Smokey Joe that there are serious problems in this dispute of editors casting aspersions that need to be considered, and an arbitration case will examine those complaints and require substantiation. The central issue is not content but patterns of conduct issue that makes contributing in portal space unpleasant. This leads to problems such as false consensus since a broad portion of the community, including myself, is wary of wading into this dynamic. It has gotten to the point where MfD has an option to filter portal debates so that even MfD regulars don't need to get involved. Social dynamics like these break our typical consensus building processes and is a classic case of CommunityDoesNotAgree similar to the Infobox issues in 2013. ArbCom can hopefully remedy the conduct issues so that regular editing and consensus building can function properly and make the environment less toxic so that editors are willing to contribute to portal discussions. 06:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Given Joe Roe asking about who should be included as parties beyond BHG and NA1k, I would point to this edit from BHG which suggests Certes and Moxy seem to have significant history in this dispute. There are likely others, but it would largely be based on whom I've seen around these discussions rather than whose conduct is at issue. 06:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I urge the committee to accept this case because the central issues transcend content.

This case is the result of an astounding and creeping failure of WP:AGF. IMHO from before the commencement of WP:ENDPORTALS, portalspace has been batted about like a shuttlecock between those who see more potential in portals (trying to improve individual portals and assert keep) and those who see less (and regularly attempt to move/merge/deprecate them, often asserting delete). Perhaps due to the adversarial tone of ENDPORTALS and the deletion process itself, tiny but motivated tribes have formed with somewhat rigid views and approaches. This tribalism, rigidity and its corollary defensiveness has inspired an occasional failure of AGF on the part of the most committed, trusted and energetic editors.

This failure of AGF isn’t a binary yes or no; it exists on a continuum of 1 to 10. I have myself failed the project in this regard.

Because of my deep interest in military history I took over a poorly completed Portal:American Civil War early in my wiki-career and while over time I have blown hot and cold with effort, I have been a listed maintainer and performed maintenance continuously. In addition I have watched over Portal:American Revolutionary War and have listed myself as maintainer on several other war-related portals, some recently deleted. I rarely find myself in an MfD discussion; some dead wood must be pruned. I have tried to assert constructive notions on WikiProject:Portals, a strange place where some of the most dedicated contributors oppose and impede portal improvement. Despite these contributions editors like myself have been called portalistas, members of the portal platoon; we live on Planet Portal Fan. Instead of treating our disagreements with good faith, we are “othered.”

If accepted, the evidence phase of this case will not be kind with the behavior of at least one involved administrator. User:Vermont has adequately documented this for now.

Putting aside the ease of destroying something rather than creating it, I believe that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is always poor practice. We are almost out of low-hanging fruit these days. Currently, Portal:Weather is up for deletion (a massive and essential subject matter portal which hasn’t seen maintenance recently) and Portal:Painting similarly facing deletion. Neither are broken nor reflect poorly on the project, but those opposed to portals are implementing tried and true tactics.

For my part, I’d like to see an immediate injunction against any further portal creation or deletion nomination while these proceedings are in process. To break the back of the dispute we must reacquaint ourselves with good faith. Temporarily stopping the deletion allows us time to rebuild such good faith. BusterD (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to register my opposition to postponing this to a new committee composition (or even opening it to new committee). The boil is already ripe for lancing and holding this over for a new committee or composition could have the perverse impact of making the ArbCom election a referendum on Portals. I understand this is not likely in light of the amount of bytes expressed earlier this year regarding a specific ban, but it could call into question the neutrality of any new committee members. Hasteur (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my exposure to the conflict between BHG and NA1K has been limited to occasional lurking of WP:MFD, and I will also admit that I'm more of the side of the "Portals had their time but have been superseded by newer features and are now redundant" camp, but the comments mentioned above quoting BHG's comments are very worrying. Considering that, and the fact that the community has been unable to find a compromise between the pro-portals and anti-portals camps, it seems that there is really no other option but for ArbCom to weigh in. I did not comment in the earlier request, but I would have supported such too had I commented. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent to portals myself but have seen that there's too much bad blood and so a case is needed to clear the air. One point which might be addressed is the proliferation of structures. I keep coming across new ones and, so far, have counted over a dozen including: broad topics; categories; contents; directories; disambiguation; glossaries; indexes; infoboxes; lists; navigational templates; noticeboards; outlines; overviews; portals; projects and set index articles. This seems to be feature creep which will tend to cause a variety of difficulties. In particular, it must be difficult for the WMF to support all these structures as they develop the underlying software – aspects like the visual editor, mobile apps, interfaces with other projects and so forth. There ought to be a technical roadmap to help everyone plan for the future and avoid wasted effort. If one doesn't exist, then perhaps the need for one can be a finding or recommendation. Andrew D. (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not examined any participant admin's conduct and have no comment on same, but as multiple parties above have raised an issue of admin conduct, that needs to be examined. Despite the obvious difficulties of lack of consensus with portals, there needs to be some more structured RfC to get some consensus. Wikipedia has done it with notability, where there is a margin folks work around despite the views of many that it should be much tighter or looser. They are the two foci. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see it's already accepted as a case.

I would specifically like to ask for interim injunctions (especially since the case has at least 2 big reasons for delay) - moratoria on the creation and deletion of portals - any case should be focusing on how to make the community do its consideration of the issue in a less hostile fashion, not just the big 2 names. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't really been involved in this too much, I've heard that both sides have been uncivil. I'd also like to bring up things such as this bad closure of a contentious MfD discussion that I performed a while ago. While this close didn't cause anything bad from what I remember, I am bringing it up because it does show a bit of incivility from BrownHairedGirl, who says "It's long past time for those editors to stop defending this abysmally-made, redundant, unused junk."

I'd also like to mention Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 162#Proposal to delete Portal space, showing incivility from both sides. Here's a basic summary of what happened:

• Hecato makes a comment.
• BrownHairedGirl says that Hecato is being "shamefully disruptive" by "misrepresenting [her] comments." She also says that Hecato's actions are the result of either stupidity, malice, or dishonesty.
• Hecato asks BrownHairedGirl a question about statistics she also presented.
• BrownHairedGirl asks Hecato if he can read English, and accuses him of cherrypicking.

This goes on further, and you can read the discussion if you'd like. I've also heard of incivility from the pro-portal side as well, which makes me believe that an ArbCom case is, unfortunately, a necessity. Invalid^OS (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the behavior complaints regarding the admins in question are limited (exclusively?) to their work as editors, not with the tools. WP:ADMINCOND states Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Curious to see how ADMINCOND is interpretted here.—Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InvalidOS's writes above that "Hecato makes a comment" but doesn't mention that the comment was a completely false statement: There is a pretty small-scale consensus going on of users who decided to delete most of the portal space. When I asked one of those users what their endgame is, they told me they wanted to delete at least 93.8% of the portal space, or 848 portals of the 904 remaining ones in July 2019, which they picked based on pageview numbers. [37] AFAIK, Hecato never asked BHG "What their endgame is", and BHG has never said that she "wanted to delete at least 93.8% of the portal space". When pressed by BHG, Hecato pointed to this discussion–one in which Hecato did not participate (so he couldn't have asked anything), and BHG never said her endgame was to delete X number of portals–rather, she proposed a guideline based on page views, which is quite different. In fact, in another discussion back in July, BHG specifically told Hecato I never set a pageview target. So when Hecato said in September that he asked BHG and she said she wanted to delete 93.8% of portals, Hecato must have known that was not a true statement. Now, in November, InvalidOS is critical of BHG for saying that Hecato's actions are the result of dishonesty, malice, or stupidity. Well, those are harsh words, but those are also the only three options that would tend to explain Hecato saying "I asked X and she said Y", when in fact, he never asked X, and she said the opposite of Y. It's either intentional dishonesty or incompetence. What else can it be?

All this apparently because shortly after creating an account in June, Hecato recreated the deleted Portal:Climbing (Portal:Rock climbing had also been recently deleted, shortly before Hecato registered their account), and the portal was nominated for deletion again, and BHG !voted to delete in that discussion.

Arbs, in the evidence phase, you will see multiple editors present evidence of BHG saying something is dishonest or incompetence or the like. In each case, please take the time to dig into the accusation and see whether or not BHG's words are, in your view, 100% accurate. What I think you'll find is that there are a small group of editors (some of them new accounts like Hecato) who have been repeatedly making false statements about BHG for the better part of a year now. This is what explains BHG's harsh language. (Note that Hecato has been working on an anti-BHG evidence page for this arbitration–overall, a lot of axe-grinding by an editor with a new account.) – Levivich 16:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, actually. Invalid^OS (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know what the best thing to fix this is. The rationale/guide for each portal. I know what will provide it. A tree of knowledge. It's a traditional part of the finest encyclopaedias. Examples include the Propaedia and File:Cyclopaedia, Chambers - Volume 1 - 0015.jpg. We have many content trees, but none which explain themselves as they go/no visible guide.

• It could take a long time to build, but with a tree of knowledge as a guide to the key points of knowledge, the essential portals, for instance, would be conceivable.

• We need a tree that suits Wikipedia and the modern age. We need to build our own tree of knowledge and not wait another twenty years to even propose doing it. Twenty years is a generation.

• The tree is an indispensable part of the finest encyclopaedias through history.

• The research for it is mostly done already throughout the site, between deciding things like which portals are essential, vital articles, category, outline, overview trees and many more.

• It's one of the earliest requested features for the site which was never rejected, only forgotten.

• It would eventually act as a guide to all content browsing systems, perhaps even replace the main contents page/finally validate it. And it would validate all portals by defining the key points of junction in knowledge.

• It just needs a group willing to research and discuss it.

• Can I please have a tree of knowledge in my favourite book please, that I didn't just write myself, and it will solve all this confusion, into the future, thanks. ~ R.T.G 17:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]