Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence

BrownHairedGirl exhibits unacceptable behavior

 * Throughout this entire conflict, the user BrownHairedGirl has exhibited bad behavior through harassment and mass reverting. Most of the harassment is targeted at the user Northamerica1000, a user who is trying to improve portals. Here is an example of harassment on Northamerica1000. Northamerica is frequently a target as differences like this are common as well. In the recent ANI, BHG created a section called "NA1K is gaming the system again". The name calling and verbal abuse of NA1K is present through other edits such as this. Here is an example of the reverting that takes place. Additional evidence is through this and this. Edit summaries are a frequent location for attack.
 * The harassment has been noticed by the community, with a whole section titled Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl created. User:Vermont/BHGANI sums up the situation at the recent ANI very well.
 * BHG isn't just harassing NorthAmerica, she harasses other users like in this edit. The User:Vermont/BHGANI sums it up well. The behavior is unacceptable in discussions and I have been the target of accusations as well form the users. AmericanAir88(talk) 06:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl should be desysopped as the user violates admin conduct

 * Reasons for Desysop of BrownHairedGirl (Copied from my ANI proposal). Diffs provided above:
 * 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) 06:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl needs to temper her communications with others
I have only one "argument", which is to restate my relevant comments from the discussion proposing this case:

"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."

I have no intention of digging around for further evidence. Others might feel compelled to do so. I do not believe that it benefits the project as a whole to lose BrownHairedGirl either as an editor or as an administrator, but some measure may be required to bar further activity in the vein of addressing the character of disagreeing parties, rather than the subject of the disagreement. BD2412 T 05:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In light of certain other statements posted on this page, I would like to make clear that I do not support proposals to desysop BrownHairedGirl. I believe that the concerns raised can be addressed with lesser measures. BD2412  T 03:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable
Like BD2412 I feel it would greatly hurt the project to lose BHG as an editor or admin. She's made over 1.5 million edits, is fiercely intelligent, cultured, and is sometimes helpful and kind. Yet she does seem to get over passionate on some topics. Possibly leading to a tunnel vision effect, where anyone who doesn't share her take of a situation appears dishonest or incompetent. Coming from such an authoritative admin, the many thousands of words she's posted against pro portal editors may have caused some to think there is equal fault on both sides. So posting a few examples to suggest this is not the case.

There's been little wrong doing by pro portal editors; assertions to the contrary collapse under scrutiny
It's probably more accurate to say it began with WP:ENDPORTALS – as per TTH's own words, the failed proposal to mass delete portals is what "inspired" him to relaunch WikiProject Portals & hence move on to his overly optimistic mass creations. (See talk page for a more detailed timeline of the dispute.)
 * "The disputes began with" The Transhumanist (TTH) ...

The 3 attack diffs in question actually contain zero evidence, merely over-passionate arguments. NA1K had been arguing to the effect that while WP:POG can no longer claim to be a formal guideline, it still has an advisory function (like an essay). Admittedly NA1K didn't word it that clearly, yet it was rather bizarre that BHG seems to read his reasonable argument as evidence of dishonestly. Every other statement I've seen alleging bad faith by the pro editors is either evidence free, or equally unconvincing.
 * "Those three diffs are of edits where I provide evidence to show that NA1K was systematically lying ..."

NA1K's improvements were executed over a period of several weeks, largely including talk page comments, and multiple individual edits to each portal (This can be quickly verified by looking at the tables in this ANI archive section and clicking on a few of the portals to confirm the accuracy.) So it's a bit of a stretch to describe NA1K's improvements as even a minor breach of WP:FAIT, let alone an "extraordinarily huge" one. That description could more fairly describe BHGs "truly shocking" mass reverts, which were all done on a single day. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * NA1K's improvements to ~100 portals were an "extraordinarily huge breach of WP:FAITACCOMPLI".

Rebuttal: Portal advocates have only occasionally presented credible arguments in portal deletion discussions
This is a firm rebuttal to each respective point made by :
 * "The disputes began with" The Transhumanist (TTH)..."
 * In this particular case, I think it's better to look at the bigger picture. While it is true that WP:ENDPORTALS was (I believe) one of the first community discussions calling into question the usefulness of portals in general, it wasn't until the massive portalspam frenzy was addressed that there were two separate mass deletions, which could theoretically be applied to the fact that users observing these portals called into question other portals like them as well (as described in this essay).
 * "Those three diffs are of edits where I provide evidence to show that NA1K was systematically lying ..."
 * The only thing I agree with here is the fact that it was an overreaction, but again, it's time to look at the bigger picture. While NA1k certainly wasn't "lying", his arguments about WP:POG were logical fallacies regardless. The fact of the matter is, he opposed the adoption of POG as an official guideline, and yet based his portal content selections on that failed proposal...?
 * But here's where the real contradiction lies: NA1k claimed that POG could still be used as an advisory essay despite being a failed proposal, yet beforehand...in his vote in the aforementioned RfC, he called POG's lead "an illogical and bizarre syllogism"...? Sounds like a half-truth to me.
 * NA1K's improvements to ~100 portals were an "extraordinarily huge breach of WP:FAITACCOMPLI".
 * The information page WP:FAITACCOMPLI specifically states that massive content changes that are difficult to revert and justified by already being carried out is unacceptable. The thing is, NA1k clearly implemented his "black box" format without formally obtaining consensus. Regardless of whether it was "sneaky" or not, BHG dissented from NA1k because she thought it needed to be formally discussed first, as she repeatedly affirmed in this ANI discussion. Admittedly, NA1k has recently agreed to start discussing the "black box" format, but the point still stands.

See Newshunter12's preliminary statement for more evidence concerning this point. ToThAc (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Hecato
I want to apologize for shortening the quotes, but there is a word limit. Please check all quotes for correctness and look at the corresponding context to get the whole picture. These quotes are from 5 different discussion pages related to portals in 2019 alone. This list is not meant to be exhaustive.

BrownHairedGirl insults other editors

 * "[...] Moxy's deep deficiency in logic and of reading comprehension [...]"
 * "[...] the exceptionally poor writing skills which Moxy has displayed in all the discussions I have seen, it is probably a blessing that Moxy puts their efforts into defending the indefensible chunks of portalspace rather than polluting articlespace with gobbledygook such as [...]"
 * "It is a waste of the community's time for a linguistically-challenged "editor" to be free to unilaterally start to waste the community's time with this sort of straw man game." (Note: referring to User:Moxy)
 * "WARMONGER Certes [...]", "[...] The Transhumanist (TTH) and his cronies [...]"
 * "NA1K's web of lies, deceptions, distortions, misrepresentations, subversions and strategic omissions is a despicable way for any human to behave in any context. NA1K's despicable conduct here will not earn them fame or cash, which are the common motivations elsewhere for such abysmal conduct. But even in this anonymous cash-free space of Wikipedia editing, the ethics revealed by this liar-admin NA1K is the ethical framework of the fraudster or confidence trickster."

BrownHairedGirl calls other editors liars/mendacious/deceitful

 * "If your comprehension was that poor, it would make your comment an unintentional untruth rather than a deliberate untruth. However, the fact remain that regardless of whether you are confused or mendacious, your keep vote is based on an untrue statement."
 * "Note that the comment above by Knowledgekid87 is a blatant lie: i.e. it is a statement which is demonstrably untrue, was known by Knowledgekid87 to be untrue, and made with the intent of deception." (Note: please also note the editing summary: "→‎Portal:Golf: note another portalista lie")
 * "[...]because NA1K is a shamelessly deceitful serial liar[...]", "[...]calculated mendacity in which NA1K is engaging here cannot be mistaken as accidental[...]"
 * "[...] As North America well knows, I don't "attack" editors with whom I have honest disagreements.", "[...] NA1K's sustained pattern of strategic mendacity, and per WP:SPADE I call it out for what it is.", "[...] liar NA1K resorts once again to blatant lying", "Now NA1K responds to my compliant with another demonstrable lie. It takes an extraordinary level of mendacity to double down on a lie like that. The only WP:BAITING here is NA1K's persistent and sustained lying about guidelines and about other editors."
 * "Moxy, either you are either a congenital liar or you have a very poor grasp of facts."
 * "[...]that's a blatant lie (as in something which you stated it when you knew to be untrue)."
 * "What on earth is wrong with you? What are you trying to achieve by continually misrepresenting both the guideline and the discussion? Your campaign of deceit and misrepresentation is is completely transparent, and it is shameless."

BrownHairedGirl bludgeons portal related discussions and makes participation unappealing to other users with walls of text
From various MfDs. I have highlighted comment blocks by user BrownHairedGirl indiscriminately to give a rough visual reference. Diffs are last edit before closure.

BrownHairedGirl insults the work of other editors
"rotten junk", "crud"    

--Hecato (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Updated the 4th image. Accidentally marked too much. --Hecato (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Background information on blocks made by BrownHairedGirl
I don't have evidence that is specifically about the case dispute, but I have some background information. I am posting this because some other editors are commenting about BrownHairedGirl's administrative rights, and I believe that this is potentially useful background related to her temperament and judgment as an administrator.


 * , . Blocks an editor for making an April Fool's joke outside of article space. Block is widely criticized by other editors, and is only begrudgingly lifted.


 * . Re-blocks an editor for making a bad unblock request during a previous block, quickly after the previous block had run its course, without giving the editor an opportunity to respond to the decline of the unblock request. Block is widely criticized by other editors, and is only begrudgingly lifted.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kusma
Tracking and describing the entire dispute is beyond both my abilities and my current free time. Here are just a few selections from the dispute that touch on my personal experience. The committee should definitely review the ANI reports in the case request, which contain a lot of evidence, and also this AN case is well worth looking at.

Early portal deletions were not too controversial
Portals were created sometime in 2005, as topic specific mini Main Pages. Many portals did age poorly and were unmaintained for years, bringing the entire namespace in disrepute, leading to WP:ENDPORTALS. In response, The Transhumanist started a revival project, first introducing new tools that made maintenance easier (many users helped with the technical side of this), later mass-creating portals on all kinds of topics. TTH also replaced manual portals by fully automated ones, annoying me and other old-style maintainers quite a bit. Many others were annoyed by the mass creation, which also changed portals from being a "mini main page" to being a navigational aid, similar to outlines but more visually attractive. In April 2019, a huge number of the quickly-created fully automated portals was deleted in this well-attended MfD, which was started by BHG. NA1k noticed a flaw in the nomination, told BHG about it, she fixed it, everybody thanked each other nicely.

There was disagreement what WP:POG meant and it was difficult to resolve
I didn't pay any attention for a few months, mainly because of Framgate. Next thing I noticed was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia, where the debate between BHG and NA1k is already in full swing. It seems to be mostly about how to understand WP:POG and what its famous statement "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" means. The main interpretations were (A) "Portals should be about broad topics, and we can find out whether a topic is broad enough for a portal by checking whether it is maintained and has lots of readers" and (B) "Portals should be about broad topics, because that makes it more likely to find maintainers and readers". The interpretation (A) brought us such gems as Newshunter12's claim "Culture is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers." (although this is part of a large series of similar (templated?) delete votes:, , and many more). The counterclaim was that supporters of interpretation (B) ignored maintenance concerns. I thought it could be beneficial to separate the "broadness" and the "maintenance" requirements. My update to WP:POG (trying to state the fact that portals need maintenance and removing details about update schedules) was reverted by BHG, who claimed these changes were controversial but also seemed to oppose having an update schedule there. I stopped trying to improve the guideline afterwards, as I do not enjoy arguing with BHG.

Portal MFDs are not governed by agreed upon rules
One general problem with portal MFDs is the lack of applicable policies and guidelines (WP:POG was never really written as a guide to MFDs, and an approach to make it a formal guideline failed), leading to ad hoc guidelines being created by portal MFD regulars, but never turned into real guidelines. Many arguments both on the keep or delete side tend to be arguments to avoid, for example pageviews. For an example how this plays out, here is an experienced editor arriving at their first ever portal MFD: . Rules are currently being worked on at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace, a page where discussion between portal supporters and portal critics has been mostly productive and de-personalised. (Discussion may seem to have stopped, but in my view that is just because Scottywong, who has moderated the discussion so far, is apparently on a break. I expect us to continue when SW returns).

Discussing with BHG is unpleasant
Several people have left portal-related discussion after finding interaction with BHG unpleasant, including me here or Moxy here. BHG's confrontational approach to portals and especially her personalising of many issues feels like bullying, and has at times significantly decreased my enjoyment of Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 21:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Good portals
There are some rather good portals out there that still work well as "mini main pages", combining "showcase", "navigation", and "invite collaboration" elements to some degree. Examples include Portal:Cheshire, Portal:Opera, Portal:Japan, Portal:Law, Portal:Canada. I hope Portal:Germany, the only one portal I have really worked on, also belongs in this list. In any case, all of these are serious attempts at presenting Wikipedia content, inviting people to read and to contribute. —Kusma (t·c) 20:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Portals can be abused
I stumbled over a technical issue with the portal namespace in May 2019: An article namespace redirect for a living person ended up on an obscure Portal:Current events/2016 November 1 sub-page. The redirect was deleted, and I reported the general issue on the WP:SPEEDY talk page, CSD:R2 does not cover the portal namespace, among others.

Historical background, cross-namespace redirects (XNRs) were deletion reasons about 14 years ago. The root cause of this case could be a 10 years old technical issue. –84.46.53.86 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Northamerica1000
(BHG) has engaged in a long-term smear campaign and pattern of ongoing, extremely uncivil behavior toward me and other portal editors. Over the course of many months, BHG has continuously violated multiple conduct policies ad naseum, including:


 * WP:ASPERSIONS
 * WP:HOUNDING
 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * Harassment
 * WP:BATTLEGROUND
 * Ownership of content
 * Edit warring
 * WP:GAMING

Conversely, improving portals on Wikipedia is not deviant, wrong or improper, and is congruent with building an encyclopedia.


 * Furthermore, BHG violated Arbcom's temporary injunction regarding portals on 17 December 2019: here.

BrownHairedGirl was blocked on 17 November 2019 for personal attacks
BHG continued their personal attacks and was blocked for them on 17 November 2019:.

Prior to the block, several users asked BHG on their talk page to stop making personal attacks:, , , , ,. BHG did not heed these requests, and was subsequently blocked.

BHG posted an unblock request which led to a block reversal. However, four users then objected on the unblocking admin's talk page, stating that the block was proper:, , ,.

BrownHairedGirl has performed ongoing continuous personal attacks, uncivil behaviors and the casting of WP:ASPERSIONS
At the main arbitration case page here, many users have already directly stated that BHG has been committing highly unacceptable conduct violations, including Moxy, Mark Schierbecker, Knowledgekid87, Kusma, Certes, Hecato (also see User:Hecato/BHG ), SportingFlyer, Vermont (also see User:Vermont/BHGANI ), Lepricavark, AmericanAir88, Lightburst, WaltCip and Narutolovehinata5.

BHG continuouosly badgers and derides me and other users, yet never provides diffs to qualify their claims, in direct, constant violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. This has been an ongoing serious problem for many months.

BHG has engaged in personal attacks to such an extreme level that I turned off receiving pings from them in my preferences some while back. All too often, their pings led to a barrage of attacks against me and others. Other users have also asked BHG to stop pinging them:,.

At the AN discussion titled “ Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl ” that was closed on 15 August 2019 (here), the OP and I both provided many links demonstrating BHG's ongoing problems with personal attacks. In the discussion, BHG agreed to stop attacking, but later reneged on this. For months, BHG has smeared others as being dishonest, deceitful, etc., resorting to name calling such as calling users “a liar” etc. when BHG disagrees with their opinions. The user also has a habit of misrepresenting the views of others during discussions and in later discussions.

The following is a sample of BHG's ongoing various breaches of conduct policies; further examples exist:
 * July 2019:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


 * August 2019:, , , , , , , , , , ,  (directly misrepresents previous user comment) ,


 * September 2019:, (tells user to f*** off) , ,


 * October 2019:


 * November 2019:, , ,

BHG has also cast aspersions against me in areas I have not even contributed to: thread. entire discussion.

BrownHairedGirl attacks by proclaiming users as unintelligent
BHG has a very poor habit of making negative, attacking armchair proclamations about how they perceive the intelligence of other users:


 * July 2019:, , ,


 * August 2019:, , , ,


 * September 2019:


 * October 2019:


 * November 2019:, , ,

BrownHairedGirl does not heed advice of others to stop attacking
At the most recent ANI discussion, titled " Portals ", that was closed on 18 November 2019 (here), many users directly stated that BHG needed to immediately stop violating conduct policies such as making personal attacks, acting uncivilly and engaging in battleground conduct:, , , [, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  ,

In addition to comments at this ANI discussion, BHG has been repeatedly asked to desist elsewhere, for months now:
 * April 2019:


 * July 2019:, , ,


 * August 2019:, , , , , , , ,  ,  , ,


 * September 2019:, , ,

BrownHairedGirl violates WP:OWN, WP:Edit warring and WP:Gaming
BHG obstructs portals from being maintained, expanded or improved. On 12 October 2019, BHG performed mass reversions of many portals I had been working on, many over the course of months, in a rapid, drive-by, knee-jerk, fashion using a copy/paste rationale, all in one day. See the table, listings and specific information at User:Northamerica1000/Portals (perm link) for details. In doing so, the user places themself in an unjust position of absolute ownership over these portals, essentially holding them hostage by obstructing any improvements from occurring. In instances when others have undone BHG's reversions, BHG has at times quickly reverted to their preferred version, such as occurred with Portal:Australia, Portal:Transport , and at thirteen more at the portal pages listed here. This ongoing ownership makes improving portals impossible.

At the ANI discussion titled " Portal updates reverted " that was closed on 16 October 2019 (here), most users in the "Should BrownHairedGirl's mass portal reversions be reverted..." section (here) were against BHG's unilateral reversion spree and for the reversions to be undone, but the entire discussion was abruptly closed. At that discussion, I also denoted how BHG literally broke many portals when reverting, apparently not even bothering to check them after their series of one-click reverts:,.

This is all very concerning, because BHG is one of the top nominators of portals for deletion, and in the process of reverting any and all improvements to portals, the user acted to gratify their preference for the deletion of most portals, which the user has previously stated:,. Keeping portals in an inferior state makes deletion easier to obtain, whereas improved portals are typically more difficult to get deleted.

BHG has engaged in cherry picking policies to excuse their reversions after the fact, to support a confirmation bias for portal deletion based upon their preconceived notions. This occurred after they performed the drive-by, rapid-fire reversions, not before. The user has cited WP:FAITACCOMPLI, but this does not hold water: I have been working on many of these for months, but admittedly not all of them. Others have also disagreed, such as here. In this process, BHG is also WP:GAMING the WP:BRD process, making it impossible for portals to be expanded or improved, which further reinforces their preconceived notions that most should be deleted.

BrownHairedGirl orders what can and cannot be done with portals
BHG engages in enormous levels of badgering, instruction creep and scolding on portal talk and discussion pages, making it difficult for any progress to occur. Some examples include:, , and.

The user has repeatedly engaged in the unilateral dictation of their instruction creep as demands that must be met, sometimes reverting portal improvements when they are not.

At MfD discussions, the user has based deletion in part upon portal subpages existing as content forks and yet, as per their edit summaries in their mass reversions of my portal work, the user also in part disapproved of the utilization of transclusion templates that provide verbatim, up-to-date content in portals relative to that in articles. This philosophy leaves portal editors with no way or recourse to improve or expand portals: BHG considers either method to be improper, essentially blocking any improvements from occurring. Meantime, I initiated an RfC to obtain community input regarding formalizing the use of transclusion templates, which has received overwhelming support:. It can also be said that an implied consensus already exists for using transclusion templates, because many portals that I have not contributed significantly to are already using them, such as those listed here:. This implied consensus has been strengthened per the obvious overall support for transclusion use in portals at the RfC.

BrownHairedGirl interrogates inappropriately in attempts to smear
BHG asks the same questions on multiple discussion pages, and when a user doesn't respond at each one of them, they then say they're being ignored. This has occurred even when BHG is aware that a response has been provided. For example, the user questioned my citing of page views here. I responded on their talk page, and also provided more information at my talk page , yet long afterward, BHG acted like they never saw my post on their talk page, complaining months later about an already resolved matter:. Users should not have to follow another user around everywhere to see if they are being continuously maligned. BHG has used this tactic deliberately to smear my reputation, and doesn't seem interested in my actual responses. Another direct example of this problem exists at ANI here.

BrownHairedGirl games WP:POG
BHG has scolded for referring to WP:POG after it's demotion from being a guideline page, yet BHG engaged in the exact same behaviors, after it was demoted, as demonstrated in my ANI comment here. The lead of POG is ambiguous, and BHG makes continual assumptions that their personal interpretation is correct, stating repeatedly that those who disagree with them are dishonest, or lying. Part of the reason POG was demoted is because 1) it did not have any formal consensus to be a guideline, and 2) it was not intended to be a guideline page. For more information, see WP:POG2019RFC (here) and refer to my comment and links there:. I was for POG's demotion based on the principle of the matter. Period. However, editors still refer to it because most portals remain based upon its suggestions. I have also further explained my stance regarding POG and deletion discussions here. Also of note is that BHG noticeably appears to never castigate delete !voters at MfD who refer to aspects of POG after its demotion.

– North America1000 05:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Barkeep49
I've noticed that there hasn't been a lot of evidence submitted. That's not because there isn't any. For instance at just the 3/19 AN thread you have (when looking at only involved parties):
 * Certes (18 replies in 13 threads - 1 duplicate !vote struck by another editor)
 * Supports portals. Ex:
 * BHG (18 replies in 10 threads)
 * Presents timeline of dispute to that date
 * Core concern seems to be time spent to cleanup ex:
 * Strong support for "any other restraint on TTH, up to and including perma-siteban" Twice writes Transhumanist has not been acting in good faith and supplies supporting diffs.
 * Certes and willingness of portal creators to "clean up the mess created by the WikiProject and its members" (after this Certes does show willingness to do clean-up example)
 * Is already "Tired of [NA1k] defending the indefensible" and suggests NA1K "need[s] to desist from defending this flood of portalspam." and is "at best reckless; at worst, it was wilful disregard of consensus"
 * Kusma (8 replies in 7 threads)
 * Favors portals being cleaned up ex:
 *  Northamerica1000 (12 replies in 9 threads)
 * Opposed to mass deletion, wants "case-by-case basis", defends portals they've created  later softening to  supports fairly broad set of possible portal topics (e.g. air conditioning
 * Accuses Legacypac "as having a penchant for scolding content creators on Wikipedia"
 * No participation by Moxy, ToThAc, and Newshunter12

As I'll quickly run out of diffs if I keep that up I'll just note the other AN/ANI threads in hopes that the arbitrators will look at the many examples of conduct with-in that points to issues in the portals space:
 * 3/19
 * 4/19
 * 4/19
 * 4/19
 * 8/19
 * 10/19
 * 11/19
 * 11/19

I'll conclude by noting that Legacypac was indef blocked owing to portal related behavior.

NorthAmerica1000's sub-par contributions to portal space
NA1K has repeatedly added content to portals in a sloppy, haphazard manner. On Portal:Ghana, they re-made a long abandoned portal and inexplicably left a sub-page about a dead person the portal said was alive, and when called out, took 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, edits to make a very basic short response. The same type of halting behavior happens on portals themselves, such as Portal:Moldova, where NA1K rapidly made reams of undiscussed updates without clarifying what, how, or why changes were made: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. How can any reasonable editor have the time (let alone the required high level understanding of portal space) to sift through that to study what changes were made or try to discern if this creates a balanced topic list? It's an example of NA1K's "black-box" portal plan as described by BHG in detail here 1, 2, 3 It greatly unbalanced the POV of dozens of portals in hostile takeovers NA1K hid from all other interested parties (e.g. associated WikiProjects), including in their generic edit summaries on the portals, until called out by BHG. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Djibouti, a portal NA1K re-made was deleted yet again for being junk and  Brown HairedGirl 's nom describes in detail how poor NA1K's update was. An editor with such conduct does not have the competence or judgement to participate in portal space constructively. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Certes and Kusma both view portals as playgrounds, not useful encyclopedia tools
At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Monaco, portal advocates Certes and Kusma respectively 1 and 2 3 stated that page views (or lack thereof), a core reason for deleting most of the 1000 abandoned pre-TTH spam portals over the last 7 months, were not a reason to consider deleting a portal. Portals do not have their own content and are useful only for their utility as navigational devices. A rational person measures this basic utility, to judge if editor-time overhead is worth it, in page views, which are typically 100-1000 times lower for portals then their head articles. What mattered most to Certes was that the portal looked good, not that the portal would take nearly five years to get the total number of views the head article gets in a single day, and Kusma displayed the same completely aesthetic keep criteria here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Christmas, which ignored the obvious abandonment and decay of the portal.

There is also precedent for shutting down such playground behavior. The Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138 ended the abandoned playground practice of giving comprehensive endorsements to certain portals, overwhelmingly on aesthetic value only grounds as any reading of the analysis at a FP review discussion will show. Both Certes and Kusma are ignoring the spirit of the above consensus about ending aesthetic-only valuations of portals and the consensus reached in many hundreds of MfD's about the usefulness of page views, as they use portal space to have fun. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, a valuable contributor to portals and Wikipedia
@ Brown HairedGirl  and I met over categories at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7 and initially clashed over many longevity CfD's because I didn't know what I was doing, as can be seen. We further clashed over longevity matters, which a troll worsened by creating a hacking dispute, which resulted in me leaving Wikipedia for awhile and comparing BHG to Alex Jones. Months later, we clashed again over longevity matters and I called her a troll. I later apologized to her over the hacking misunderstanding, and we have closely collaborated since early August at hundreds of portal MfD's. We have also closely collaborated to clean up the empty categories, long un-carried-out delete decisions, and other debris left behind by portal MfD's: 1, 2 3, 4. She also helped encourage and foster my skills at evaluating and nominating portals for deletion, as seen in this thread, which led to eight comprehensive nominations ( 1, 2, 3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8), all of which closed as delete (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Special operations was SNOW delete). At my MfD's, only a single keep vote was cast at one MfD by the portal's creator. This is all thanks to the portal evaluation and nom writing skills BHG taught me.

BHG is a selfless, talented, and forgiving editor who has demonstrated an ability to turn unproductive (and dare I say nasty) relationships into close, productive ones for Wikipedia. That is who the evidence shows she is. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Espresso Addict
I don't recall ever participating in arbitration before, and as I've been avoiding portal discussions since May for reasons ably summarised by Kusma I was planning to sit this out.

Response to Newshunter12 re the featured portal process
However, I'd like to respond to Newshunter12's comment on the featured portal process: "the abandoned playground practice of giving comprehensive endorsements to certain portals, overwhelmingly on aesthetic value only grounds"

Featured portal candidates often underwent a peer-review process (formally or informally) where major concerns with content were ironed out prior to the formal featured review. Several featured portal reviewers considered utility as an introduction to the area, originality, topic balance including regional/language bias, breadth of coverage, tone, relevance, accessibility, currency and other non-aesthetic considerations. See eg reviews of Literature, Freedom of speech, Society, Arts, Conservatism, New York City, European military history, to list just a few.

I'd also add, the tone of the remark I quote from, originating from someone whose only apparent contribution to portalspace is to request their deletion, feels typical of the hostile climate that made me walk away from portal discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl bludgeons and discourages debate with ad hominem attacks
A 2018 RfC found a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time. Many more portals were created, some on narrow topics and containing errors, but almost all were soon deleted. The deletion process then turned to existing portals. Early MfDs correctly targeted the worst portals but relied on WP:POG (now recognised as not a guideline), WP:CONTENTFORK (applicable only to articles) and low page views (WP:NOBODYREADSIT: an argument to avoid). The numerous examples include Nigeria and Statistics. Later MfDs relied on early results, leading to a Woozle effect in which two thirds of established portals disappeared within a year. All protest was bludgeoned away, leading to uncivil personal conflicts between BHG and NA1K, BHG and Moxy, BHG and me, ... it is hard not to see a pattern emerging. The pre-emptive attack became a feature, for example:. The were repeatedly described as  and similar. If no statement alone gives cause for concern then their sheer volume does – for dozens more examples, see this AN discussion. Meanwhile, NA1K's valiant efforts to improve portals were undone. If some were WP:IMPERFECT, they should be improved further, not bulk-reverted with Twinkle. This is far from being a symmetrical dispute between two groups who need to be admonished equally. It is verging on ownership of the Portal: namespace. Stewardship is welcome, but not when that steward's clear objective is to delete most of the pages. Certes (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Rebuttals
judges that I support portals. I agree, though even in the selected quotes I state that We should certainly delete portals which have too narrow a scope or are of poor quality. Barkeep goes on to say that after this Certes does show willingness to do clean-up, accompanied by a diff in which I mention fixing three portals which caused Lua errors. Although cleaning up other editors' work is not compulsory, I had already assisted throughout the preceding year by creating and maintaining that Lua software which allows portals to avoid content forks. Editors not involved with portals describe it as a great feature - easy to use and one of the best ideas I've seen to improve Wikipedia in recent years, have copied it to several other wikipedias, and are pursuing a WMF grant to extend it further. Certes (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

repeats the claim that I prioritise page quality over page views. I repeat that this is sound practice. I stand by the : a civil, reasoned opinion that an otherwise good page should not be deleted simply for lack of incoming links; hardly the sort of conduct for which we drag editors to ArbCom. I deny the accusation that I treat portals as a playground, for which no evidence was presented. Certes (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I should also resolve a misunderstanding. I have occasionally opined that a portal "looks good". I mean that its scope, mechanics and accuracy seem adequate. Those words have been misinterpreted to imply that I enjoy the visual appearance and consider other aspects unimportant. That was not my intended meaning, and I regret the ambiguity. Certes (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreement with Evidence Entered by Other Parties
I agree with and will refer to the evidence entered by and assertions made by User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Newshunter12. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Opening Statement by User:BrownHairedGirl Is Evidentiary
The statement made by User:BrownHairedGirl is of an evidentiary nature, and documents the tendentious conduct of User:Northamerica1000 and other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thousands of Low-Quality Portals
User:The Transhumanist and other editors (acting as a task force) created thousands of low-quality portals by automation in the second half of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, before an otherwise inconclusive discussion at WP:AN resulted in a moratorium on the creation of portals. The reasons for the creation of thousands of portals were never clearly stated, but it is clear that some editors consider creating portals to be fun, and some editors think that portals are technically neat. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of the Thousands of Low-Quality Portals at WP:AN
These portals were discussed at length by the community between February 2019 and April 2019 at WP:AN, in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive307#Thousands_of_Portals Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 Engages in Rescue Squadron Behavior with regard to portals
User:Northamerica1000 engages in extensive hasty updates to portals that are being nominated for deletion. These edits make the portals under discussion moving targets, and difficult to evaluate as to whether they serve an encyclopedic purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Portal Guidelines
User:Bagumba has provided a history of the document that served as the Portal Guidelines for more than a decade. I agree that the history is correct. This guideline had never actually been approved by the community, but was widely used as if it had been approved by the community. In the middle of 2019, some editors began noting that it had never been ratified. I submitted a Request for Comments to ratify it, which instead resulted in a failure to ratify the guidelines, which were then downgraded to a failed proposal. As a result, there are no guidelines for portals other than Using Common Sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional evidence for "BrownHairedGirl, a valuable contributor to ... Wikipedia"
See above, third subsection of (my emphasis added in what follows):"BHG is a selfless, talented, and forgiving editor who has demonstrated an ability to turn unproductive (and dare I say nasty) relationships into close, productive ones for Wikipedia. That is who the evidence shows she is." My evidence to support that is a long discussion I once had with another editor on BHG's talk page here (which I call the "walled garden" discussion) – with excellent result: through BHG's patience and diligent approach the crux of the conflict got defused. She continued to extend her hospitality where other editors might have given hints someone was outstaying their welcome. The discussion took over two months, with only sparse, but very much ad rem, comments by BHG, who thus was very helpful in resolving the conflict (in surplus of "harbouring" the safe place for two other editors to discuss & come to terms). Through that interaction I came to understand BHG has a very sound and thorough understanding of "walled garden" type of endeavours in Wikipedia.

I've little to add about Portalspace specifics, which for me is somewhat of a playground in another galaxy compared to what I normally do in Wikipedia, but I'm sure, as in, not a shred of doubt, that BHG does excellently in that universe, and is indeed the kind of editor we need for Portalspace, if its dynamics is gliding (currently at a fast pace apparently) towards a walled garden enterprise. Also, BHG is an editor who is sure to call a spade a spade in such circumstances, and indeed, as is explained in the WP:SPADE essay, those who take offence often do so "not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review". Through all the mis- and out-of-context quoting of what BHG said in discussions, when I've read some of these discussions myself (e.g. this one), I don't really see any exaggeration in BHG's qualification of behaviour by other editors, when she's confronted with some rather egregious examples of such behaviour. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has gamed the system and engaged in battleground behaviour in Portal Space
The difficulty with this type of case is there's lots of potential evidence, but the discussion here is a very good example and outside of the MfD where most of the discussion/negativity occurred. In this discussion, there were a number of editors interested in improving the portal, and I made an attempt to identify each of the points BHG brought up here. However, BHG continued to block the consensus-building process - see my comment at 02:25 on 4 November trying to gauge the consensus.

This is in addition to the large number of personal attacks BHG levied mostly at NA1k but also at anyone who had a different opinion on portals, which are all evidenced above, such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Australian rules football. As I mentioned on ANI once, this was so unpleasant it nearly drove me off Wikipedia.

I also don't know if anyone has mentioned BHG's mass reversion of NA1k's edits through gaming WP:BRD, even though BRD clearly did not apply per WP:BRD-NOT.

There are also some anti-portal arguments which have stuck, namely that they're "fun," "fun to create" and "technically neat:" I simply find portals to be a good navigational tool which also highlights featured content. They're not "fun" at all, they're rather difficult to put together. Also, the "low-quality" edits, largely by NA1k which relate to their use of the "black box" portal which makes portals significantly easier to maintain, have since been backed by consensus, and some of the small problems which arose from those edits were quickly and easily fixed by the template creator (see the Portal talk:Australia discussion above.) This is not a competence issue - it's a disagreement over content. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

BHG has made aggressive accusations of dishonesty
BHG's mistreatment of NA1K has been discussed in detail, but let's not overlook her behavior at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ohio State University. In that discussion, she repeated attacked by accusing him of dishonesty. Her posts in that discussion are littered with derisive terms such as pack of lies, pile of lies, stream of lies, and lying habits, all of which were direct at Ɱ. Most of the other participants in the discussion, aside from Newshunter12, were able to participate in the discussion without lashing out at Ɱ. Regardless of whether Ɱ was guilty of making false statements, BHG's outburst was unacceptable and inflammatory. She has shown time and again that she is not willing to respect our civility policies. Her conduct is unbecoming of any editor, admin or otherwise. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Moxy
As seen demonstrated many times on-this page we have an admin that does not have the objectivity to debate anyone in a reasonable manner when it comes to portals. Lack of civility even if they may be right on some points should not be tolerated - especially by an admin representing the admin community and Wikipedia itself. As seen at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020 the community at large does not agree with the statements   about  being "sneaky, lying, no talk started, etc.." and has fixed the so called "black box problem" that was not understood by most - even Browns proponents for a long time. What is needed is a fresh start for Brown as they are great at category stuff and other behind the scenes essential edits. I acknowledge my wording may have been harsh at times but I have moved on.. and amended my slight in behavior.... this is something Brown needs to do. I hoping that input from this "Arbitration" can move   User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace forward. Also would be best we explain to newer editors that terms like "portal advocates" or " playground" shows bias on the posting editor side and is considered a personal attack by many.-- Moxy 🍁 12:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Voceditenore
I'm primarily a content editor. In my 13 years on Wikipedia, I've created over 700 articles on opera and arts-related subjects. I helped bring Portal:Opera to featured status in 2009 and have been one of its principal maintainers for the past 10 years. My direct involvement in the present Portal controversy has been fairly minimal:
 * I opposed the wholesale deletion Portal space at the first RFC closed in April 2018 as "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals"
 * A group of editors soon decided to "revitalize" WikiProject Portals. The results were ultimately disastrous. They developed a tool to fully automate portals, turning them into glorified navboxes with no human input as to the choice and quality of the articles and images. They then started converting every portal to this "improved" version unless the portal had a designated maintainer. I consequently listed myself there as Portal:Opera's maintainer. Some members of the group went on to create literally thousands of poor-quality, hopelessly narrow portals which was the genesis of the current controversy.
 * I participated on 4 portal MFDs, !voting "Delete" on one, commenting but not !voting on another and "Keep" on this one and this. This latter one was so unpleasant, that I was basically driven off participating in any future discussions on improving portals, like several other experienced editors.
 * In the September 2019 Village Pump proposal, I once again opposed deleting portal space

However, I've observed many of the other interactions which have resulted in this case, e.g.,.

BrownHairedGirl's persistent denigration of editors with whom she disagrees
Both sides have become entrenched leading to sometimes heated exchanges and talking past each other, but I have failed to see any evidence of statements by Northamerica1000, Moxy, Certes, or Kusma in the various debates which are remotely equivalent to BrownHairedGirl's persistent denigration of editors with whom she disagrees. Her describing them as liars, idiots, unintelligent, and incompetent is amply demonstrated in the diffs by other editors here. It completely crosses the line and makes any kind of reasoned discussion about portals or compromise impossible.

My experience at the TfD discussion for Template:Featured portal is a microcosm of the problem (my first and only interaction with her). BHG continually bludgeoned participants who disagreed with her, including me. I finally wrote "I find the accusations of editors being "knowingly false" when you simply disagree with what they say, the use of the sarcastic soubriquet "portalista" to discount any views contrary to your own, and the characterisation of anyone who disagrees with you as indulging in "group think" not only unpleasant but also very counterproductive.". Nevertheless, she kept it up.

Persistent trivialisation of portal editors
BrownHairedGirl and at least one other vocal editor dismiss portals as "playgrounds" and by implication, those who work on them as children. Ditto referring to them as mere "hobbies" which have no place on Wikipedia, as if portal editors are a priori not valid contributors deserving respect in disagreements e.g., , ,. 

Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No portal guidelines
Currently, there are no portal guidelines that debates can refer to. However, Portal/Guidelines (WP:POG) was marked as a guideline for over a decade until recently. Here is its history: —Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 23 Oct 2008: Tagged as content guideline
 * 18 May 2019 Tagged "needs to be updated"
 * 2 June Tagged as disputed
 * 2 July Disputed tag removed
 * 20 July "Update" and "Guideline" tags removed, tagged as guideline under discussion
 * 26 Sept Under discussion removed, tagged as information page
 * 4 Oct Marked as failed proposal

Deadlines and compulsory work
With articles, WP:BEFORE states If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.. WP:NOEFFORT suggests for AfDs: An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline.

Should portals be different? One MfD was opened with the main rationale of Neglected portal along with a few fixable errors. I explained that the errors were fixed and that "'Four never-updated entries' is a red herring, unless there is something out-of-date" BrownHairedGirl supported the nominator's deadline rationale: Nobody wats to maintain ether portals I explained that someone fixed it, so "nobody" is incorrect, and the lack of portal guideline makes for a "kangaroo court". SportingFlyer wrote, I also sympathise with the 'kangaroo court' argument BHG made arguments about needing volunteers that to me go against WP:NOTCOMPULSORY.—Bagumba (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

NPAs at inappropriate forums
BrownHairedGirl makes personal attacks at inappropriate forums.

On her talk page:
 * "You aren't making the case effectively about gaming the system, because all that can be seen is your anger, and not a technical explanation of the issues."
 * BHG response:"And NA1K's choice ... was just plain devious and manipulative"

At a portal MFD:   

—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Admin accountability
BHG holds other admins to a higher standard as editors: —Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "This is almighty mess: an admin has sneakily and avoidably built a massively POV portal ..."
 * "Thryduulf is an admin, and should know a lot better ..."
 * "It's a very sad indicator of the state of portal-space that an actual admin describes ..."

Walls of text
In addition to no guidelines, there is seemingly not even developed essays on portals, perhaps explaining the walls of text posted for MfD !votes (that overwhelm non-regulars)

MfD ex. 1
 * "The wall of text above this comment is not appreciated ..."
 * "I didn't read every point in your wall of text, ..."
 * BHG response: "if you choose to not even speed-read a numbered list of points, that is your choice."

MfD ex. 2 —Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "... since we aren't arguing within any guidelines here, there's no 'statutes' we can fall back on, so instead of simplifying the argument ... we get drawn into long tangents ..."
 * I agreed:
 * My proposal: "It also doesn't seem common sense/IAR to delete to this non-portal regular. An essay which organizes the deletion thoughts would perhaps be a helpful reference to outsiders."

Some of the allegations made against BHG don't stand up to scrutiny
The MFD for Portal:Ohio_State_University has been mentioned above by several editors critical of BHG. The relevant edits are:


 * BHG - " Lots of of maintainers . This portal was created ... by ... who also seems to have been its only significant contributor."


 * Mj - " Lots of of maintainers : Lots of prominent editors with tens/hundreds of thousands of edits here, most probably watchlisting the page ... [list of editors]"


 * MS - "Look at who you are calling maintainers. [One of them] added [one word] which was immediately reverted''."


 * Mj - "I didn't call them maintainers. Simply many of them are highly active editors likely watching the page, who would be able to stop vandalism and make small corrections."
 * The 1st sentence is clearly untrue (unless perhaps the meaning of the word "call" is twisted). The 2nd sentence is incorrect (and Mj probably knew it was incorrect) - and misleading (e.g. even if those editors who were doing gnome work had watchlisted the main portal page they probably wouldn't be watching the portal's subpages e.g. for vandalism).


 * BHG - "that is a staggeringly dishonest, bad faith summary. ..."
 * That's blunt (and not the words I would have used), but in wp discussions we can't rely on other editors understanding subtle hints so being blunt should be a much lesser "sin" than being dishonest (or being reckless about whether the statements one's making are true).

I've also seen incorrect/misleading statements made in portal related discussions I've been involved in; it make's it very difficult to have a sensible discussion.

Evidence presented by Andrew Davidson
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

The MfD process is not reliable
I've not had much to do with this portal matter but just read the DRV for the MfD for the Weather portal. The main point here is that this portal was deleted as being unmaintained but it appears that it was being maintained regularly and that the main maintainer only discovered the deletion when he turned up to find that the portal and all its pages had vanished. The maintainer had not been notified and so is naturally upset by this result. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidence presented by BrownHairedGirl
Much I need to say about this case is in my opening statement at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals, whch should be read as part of this evidence. The core issue is as noted there: portals have become detached from content creation and from WikiProjects, and are now largely the domain of editors who specialise in portals. Those editors (mostly active at WP:WPPORT) have collectively demonstrated low competence in maintaining and managing portals, e.g. they
 * collaborated in the creation of about 4,000 spam portals, mostly created at rapid speed by @The Transhumanist (TTH)
 * Ran a Featured portal process which focused almost entirely on presentation, and almost never even considered the selection of articles. I have found no FP review which examined the portal by a checklist of criteria.
 * Did not establish community connensus for the purpose or structure of portals. WP:POG was tagged as a guideline for years, but the portal fans had it delisted when it was applied to support deletion of junk portals: see [|RFC]
 * Did not mainatain systematic assessment of portals. In May 2019 I noted that 1127 of the ~1400 remaining portals remain in Category:Unassessed Portal pages.

When the deletion of the automated spam portals was complete, the editors who had learnt how scrutinise the complex portals then moved on the many other abysmal portals, and brought them to MFD. This brought organised resistance from the dwindling crew of portals fans.

The nature of their resistance is well-summarised in their own evidence to this case. e.g.:
 * Hecato objects to my posting of detailed rationales. If the arbitrators believe that such objections to reasoned analysis are well-founded in policy, then I invite ArbCom to assist making a summary finding to that effect, in which case I will promptly withdraw entirely from en.wp, thereby saving us all a lot of time.
 * Hecato demonstrates WP:OWNership by depicting my comments on content as "insults the work of other editors"

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its contents are subject to a process of continued improvement, which requires critical analysis. Many of the editors defending portals appear unable and/or unwilling to engage in that process. See e.g. MFD:Portal:Painting, where I demonstrated that it was spam, after about a dozen editors had failed to spot the problem ... but despite that evidence, the MFD was denoubced as ideologically-driven portal deletion.

By far the worst has been NA1K, whorepeatedly cherrypicked guidelines, and persisted when challenged. WP:POG said "Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", but NA1K repeatedly omitted the crucial second part of the sentence. e.g. ,
 * caused long dramas due their failure to understand very basic statistics. NA1K posted the total pageviews for a period, rather than the daily averages used by every other editor. See e.g., and  with my reply
 * misrepresented guidelines (e.g. my reply at)

NA1K's complaints are all about their sustained misconduct being directly challenged, rather than about the substance of their disruption of MFDs, and their abysmal work on portals. There is no acknowledgement by NA1K of their abysmal work on multiple portals, e.g. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana, [WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana]], WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport.

NA1K's evidence here is so full of misrepresentations and counter-factuals that I don't have space here or time to rebut them all, but here are some examples:
 * NA1K accuses me of OWN, editwar and gaming. In reality, in each case I was trying to uphold established consnensus-building processes. For example, one of portals which I had reverted was Portal:Transport, where NA1K cites the diff where I reverted to the status quo ante. The reality can be seen in he discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport: that NA1K is WP:GAMEing the sytem by creating a smokescreen of FUD to obscure fact that without discussion or notification or transparecy, they had created a massive breach of WP:NPOV.  That is what led me to write that NA1K is either an idiot or a liar or both.  There has been much criticism of that comment, but while my choice of words was harsh, I stand by the substance: that NA1K's work was not that of a competent editor acting in good faith.
 * NA1K says BrownHairedGirl orders what can and cannot be done with portals. But look at the examples NA!K cites:
 * : Northern Ireland, where NA1K made widespread changes to an page subject to WP:TROUBLES sanctions without any attempt to engage the relevant Wikiprojects, and failed to even meet their own simplistic criteria (see my statement of case), and objected to challenges to their recklessness
 * : Australia, where nearly all my points were upheld in discusison.
 * : Australia, where I challenged the use of partisan canvassing of a discussion

In the same section, NA1K claims that I objected both to the use of content forks in portals, and of transclusions. Not so: I repeatedly supported th use of transclusieons provided that a linked list of the transcluded pages is displayed on the face of the portal.

NA1K claims that BHG games POG. This is an inversion of the truth, whch I set out at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport.

Some other falsehoods in evidence:
 * AmericanAir88 asserts that:
 * I engaed in harassment. Not so: calling out another editor's misconduct where it occurs in not WP:HARASSMENT
 * I does not reason properly. No evidence is offered in support of this claim
 * I enaged in edit warring. Not so, and no evidence is offered.
 * I was in Violation of WP:TOOLMISUSE by reverting NA1K's edits. False: I did not use admin tools for those reverts. I used WP:TWINKLE.

The problem here is and remains that portals have become the playground of editors who do not demonstrate effective skills either in building portals or or analysing the, and who resent critical debate. The most extreme example by far is NA1K, whose repeated inability to acknowledge the abysmal standard of their work (see portal MFDs for Transport, Ghana, Djibouti) is accompanied by huge skill at using diffs to repeatedly misrepresent my actions and views. I have not found any instance anywhere of NA1K acknowledging what a poor job they did in those case, or how their failings went undetected for so long because of their failure to notify other editors or to transparently disclose what they had done.

This whole saga has been a sustained effort by a small crew of portal fans to defend by any means their huge collection of abysmal, abandoned portals, and the abysmal quality of the efforts of NA1K to indulge in WP:ARS-style "rescue" efforts to remedy technical problems whilst )in NA1K's case) demonstrated sustained incompetence at the core editorial task in portals of selecting content and collaborating with editors who have some expertise and experience in the topic to review and assess the work down. Instead, NA1K and their vocal enablers repeat their uncritical mantra of "improvement", object vociferously to analysis of that improvement (e.g. NA1K's denunciation of my analysis of NA!K's efforts wrt Australia: ... and are evidently sincerely outraged that anyone would dare be so appallingly rude as to apply the sort of critical analysis which should be central to the intellectual task of building an enyclopedia.  So they respond by complaining of personal attacks, and complain that the critiques are "impeding progress".

I joined Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia, and I expect to work with editors who act in good faith, are willing to acknowledge errors, and who welcome critical debate. For 13 years, in wide range range of forums and topics, I have found just that. But in portals discussions I have confronted a sustained pattern of poor skills and hostility to critical analysis, and it has left me deeply disillusioned with Wikipedia as a whole.

After 14 years editing Wikipedia, I find it very hard to persuade myself that it there is any point in continuing to volunteer my time to a project which indulges the sort of low-competence/high-bluster antics displayed by NA1K and some other editors who have given evidence here. When faced with this wall of half-truths and falsehoods, I lean to the conclusion that Mark Twain's advice may be right.

That is why I have been slow to write evidence, and have not engaged in detailed diff-farming. When faced with such widespread antics such as NA1K's bluster, or Moxy's repetition of counter-factual follies at multiple venues, or AmericanAir88's readiness to testify the demonstrably false assertion that I engaged in WP:TOOLMISUSE, I am led to believe that some sort of tipping point has been reached in at least part of Wikipedia's editor base, where hostility to critical analsyis has gained critical mass. Sadly, this seems to extend even to some admins: User:Diannaa even went so far as to give me my only block in 14 years for challenging the good faith and competence of another editor, asserting that I fail to see that making judgements about other people's motives and questioning their intelligence is a personal attack ... yet as I noted in reply, both WP:GAME and WP:VAND would be inoperable if that was the case. I have now have little faith in the ability of Wikipedia's processes to sustain the principle that we are here to build an encyclopedia, that this requires competence including the ability to acknowledge error and to recognise the limits of one's own competence. If Wikipedia is to be a place where NA1K's combination of sustained incompetence, verbose bluster and aversion to critical debate us to be a protected characteristic, then we will have lost something very precious from our goal to build an actual encyclopedia rather than just a playground for people who like making pretty lists by robotic methods and feel hurt by the application of critical thinking. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.