This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page
The only one that seems close to 100 is Category:Johnny Cash albums which has 81 but is erroneously included in the tracking category of 100+. Category:Buckethead albums, Category:Jandek albums, etc. I don't see any artist with more than 100 but even if there were only 100, how would a table of contents help navigate it since 200 appear on a single page? I'm just at a loss for how this can be helpful for a category that is used in the Category:Albums by artist scheme. Taking a look at that category, I'm not seeing any 100+ categories, do you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I had done a mismatch, checking for over 80, but labelling the tracking cat as over 100. Now fixed[1]; the tracking cat is now correctly labelled as Category:Albums category with over 80 pages (population: 0).
It can take 24 hours for this to purge, so let's see what the numbers are like when it's all purged.
As to what use, this isn't just "navigation"; it's a table of contents. A cat TOC doesn't just help navigate between pages; it also help navigate within a page, when the listing extends below the fold ... which is why the threshold for {{CatAutoTOC}} is less than the 200 which denotes a full page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, Again, maybe I'm dense here but I'm just not understanding the occasion where someone is using this... Maybe if someone has a media phone with KaiOS and can only display 17 lines on a web browser or something...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, Are you asking if I read the Wikipedia article on this topic? I am familiar with the concept in newspapers. We don't have tables of contents on every category so I'm asking what the function of it is here. If it's something that is meeting a need and we should have it on categories of 80+ entries, then that is a MediaWiki change that should happen. What is the problem this is solving? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: the problem is that the abysmally crude MediaWiki category software doesn't automatically add a TOC to any category, even if the category contains 5409492247492 squazillion pages. That is why editors manually add {{CatTOC}} when they think a category needs it.
The problem which {{CatAutoTOC}} solves is the need for editors to do this manually. Just place {{CatAutoTOC}} on the page (or, in most of its uses in a cat header template), and the software will then automatically add or remove the TOC as needed. It's a simple, easily deployed workaround to a failing of MediaWiki. Just shove it in the category header, then forget about it.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, And why do categories with 80 pages need a table of contents? It's all displayed on one fairly compact page? This is what I'm asking? Who needs this and what does this allow someone to do that he can't do otherwise? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: sorry, but your failure to properly read what I have written is starting to wear my patience. So I will give you one last reply:
once the category listings exceeds a few dozen pages, it extends below the fold. Masses of usability research shows that readers hate scrolling, so a TOC enables the reader to jump directly to the section they want. Try it on e.g. Category:1440s births (currently 115 pages).
on an article page, presence a TOC still displays on plenty of compact pages.
if like me one you are one of the minority of readers who do scroll, and you don't use the TOC, then just scroll past it.
I find it exasperating to discuss things with you. Apart from your long-term reluctance to clearly communicate your own intentions or reasoning, you repeatedly fail to engage fully with replies to you, requiring lots of repetition ... and you don't do your own research. The effect is like trying to work with a student whose attention is elsewhere, or to have a phone conversation with someone who is busy watching television.
I think you've had more than enough of my time for now. I am going to leave this section open in case anyone else wants to comment, but please don't you reply again to this thread unless I ping you. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, Your problem is that I don't do research to substantiate your claims? That's not how it works. It's actually totally fair for me to ask you to show some proof of what you're claiming. I've read books and reports by Neilsen for over 20 years and so I'm willing to believe he's discussed this but I just can't recall it. If you can't actually show that this is a problem that is being solved, then that's not my fault. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again ... writing as if you have not read a singe word I have written. I have shown the problem, and I pointed to the research explaining what the problem is. Yet you reply if you can't actually show that this is a problem that is being solved, then that's not my fault. Not: your repeated failure to read and comprehend what has been written is your problem, not mine.
And I don't believe your claim that you have read books and reports by Neilsen for over 20 years. He has banged on about scrolling for years, based on extensive lab testing.
You also apparently failed to comprehend my request I am going to leave this section open in case anyone else wants to comment, but please don't you reply again to this thread unless I ping you. Since that was not clear enough, let me spell it out very clearly: STOP WASTING MY TIME. DO NOT POST AGAIN IN THIS THREAD UNLESS I LEAVE A MSG on YOUR TALK ASKING YOU TO POST HERE. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I specifically mentioned the front page, not the talk page. For our mutual convenience, let's keep the conversation over there. Nerd271 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya BHG, I found a "prostitutes" cat for Nepal in the article alert today. Naturally, I got curious how a Nepali prostitute could have become wikipedia notable. Turns out the article is Tulasa Thapa. It seems very wrong to me to categorise someone sold into sexual slavery as a prostitute (I find that insulting to both). Is there room for distinctions like that in our cat policies, or does she become a prostitute because the article has the word, and we can do nothing about it? Thought you might know. Best, Usedtobecool☎️21:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, @Usedtobecool ... albeit about an ugly topic.
My own initials thoughts are that anyone whose body is hired out for cash in return for sexual services is a prostitute, even if they are coerced in to doing so ... in the same way that a painter is still a painter even there is a gun to her head while she wields the brush.
Please note that the following is a personal statement, made solely to explain BHG's decisions in response to the ArbCom decision. It is not any way an attempt to open discussion on any of the issues raised.
I have reflected on proceedings so far, and want to say:
I now regret not supporting the request for a portals case back in about March 2018. Earlier intervention by ArbCom could have established less conflictual methods of resolving the mess left by the mass creation of automated portals, and created a better climate for examination of the rest.
Regardless of the outcome of this arbitration process, I commit to no further involvement with portals, in any form. My views on the structural problems with portal space have not changed, but is abundantly clear that my further involvement would serve no beneficial purpose.
Consequent to the above, I will ask that BAG withdraw its approval for WP:BRFA/BHGbot 4.
I will henceforth follow the principle of rigorously avoiding unparliamentary language. In particular, I will not call other editors liars, and I will not accuse them of incompetence, regardless of what facts I see and verify. I remain concerned that the community lacks effective and accessible mechanisms for dealing with such conduct, but I unreservedly commit to abide by the letter and spirit of what the Arbs guide.
I accept that in future, an apparent WP:FAITACCOMPLI should not be addressed by unilateral application of WP:BRD. That was not my understanding of the relevant policies, but I stand corrected.
I remain saddened by the proposed finding BrownHairedGirl_has_used_administrator_tools_to_delete_portals. I have been unable identify any allegation by the Arbs of misconduct in my making of MFD nominations, so I have no idea why that is included under this heading. I have been assured that there is no suggestion that I used admin tools to further my views. I accept unreservedly the Arbs recommendation to take in future a strict view of WP:INVOLVED. However, I feel that it is unjust that I am apparently condemned for my good faith use of admin tools for purely clerical purposes to implement decisions made by others, assisting in cleanup in the context of a deepening shortage of admins within what I believed was the broadly accepted interpretation of INVOLVED.
However, that continued editing will not be for long.
I accept ArbCom's decision to apply a strict interpretation of WP:CIVIL, and to censure me for what amounts to unparliamentary language. I accept that my use of direct language to describe the problems which I encountered was counter-productive, and I accept with regret ArbCom's decision to sanction me for that. But I have not been persuaded that I was materially wrong in identifying serious problems, which have been entrenched by ArbCom's findings.
I believe that ArbCom's decision is seriously flawed in several respects, including:
It wrongly dismissed evidence of misconduct by other parties, falsely representing me as the sole cause of a wider conflict.
It attributed fault to me for clerical tasks which I undertook in good faith, which were uncontroversial, which were supported by many other editors (including at least one admin), and which a significant minority of arbitrators recognised as such. I am very disappointed that the Arbs failed to respond to requests from me and others for even a single example of me using tools to advance my views. The Arbs' support of a principle of strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED may well be wise, but it does not reflect current community norms, and has been opposed in this case by many editors in good standing. As pledged, I will apply that strict interpretation in future, but I object strongly to its retrospective imposition on me personally, especially as a basis for sanctions. I am also concerned that it will seriously damage the community's ability to complete laborious technical tasks which require the mop, since the number of admins continues to fall.
It ignored all the evidence which I produced of systematic poor quality and transparency in edits which I reverted, thereby undermining both the established principle of WP:BRD and the ArbCom-created principle of WP:Fait accompli. I accept the Arbs' decision as future guidance, but I believe their interpretation to be a development of policy which failed to WP:Assume good faith, and censures me unreasonably.
It applied double jeopardy, explicitly reprimanding me for making my case in the course of the proceedings which were supposed to judge my case. This is a fundamental breach of natural justice, and leaves the community without a process for addressing the issues which I raised.
ArbCom decisions are not appealable. So this leaves me no possible path to remove these unwarranted slurs on my character and conduct. They will remain as "facts" for as long I remain on Wikipedia. With my good name shredded through flawed process and false "findings of fact", it is not possible for me to honourably continue as part of the Wikipedia project.
I know that this case presented ArbCom with a huge task, and I thank all the Arbs for their hard work and their sincerity. But the result is a decision that I cannot live with.
Additionally, I believe that ArbCom's decision exacerbates some systemic problems in Wikipedia, which I had hoped that it would try to help fix. I have described these problems in the proceedings, and I won't repeat them here. But I will note that first item of WP:Five pillars is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, which is a work of reference that requires scholarly rigour. Sadly, the development of policy and practice has allowed that overriding goal to be undermined by the prioritisation of secondary considerations. This decision by ArbCom exacerbates that problem.
Over the years, I have seen Wikipedia make progress on many systemic issues, so I have faith that there will eventually be progress on the systemic problems which I encountered. But their entrenchment for now places a serious barrier to editors who try to uphold quality.
So, after over 1.6 million edits in the course of over 14 years as an editor, and nearly 14 years as an admin, I will therefore wind up some incomplete tasks on my to-do list, and then leave Wikipedia. In the meantime I will also provide whatever assistance I can to other editors who would like guidance or tools for the tasks I used to perform. If you would like any pointers, please just ask.
I expect that this will take a few weeks. Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to play a part in building a unique contribution to human knowledge. For all Wikipedia's many flaws, it is overall a huge success, and hope that it will thrive, and find ways to overcome more of its systemic problems without sacrificing those who tackle them.
It has also been a great pleasure to work with so many fine editors who uphold encyclopedic principles and who apply critical thinking to their work. It is a great pity that Wikipedia does not value more highly those who use those critical skills. Instead, in practice it too often values superficiality over reason by preferring glib brevity over analysis, and prefers unchallenged assertion over actual debate. I have especially enjoyed those with whom I disagree, but who conduct a good debate; those debates are essential to any intellectual endeavour, ensuring that decisions are made by scrutiny rather than by cheerleading, and that crowdsourcing does not mean dumbing down. May the goddess continue to grant you strength to work in an environment which is increasingly biased against those who use critical thinking skills.
Please note again that this statement is intended solely as a one-off personal explanation of why I have decided that my time as editor will soon end. Please do not use this page for any discussion of either the numbered points or my wider structural concerns. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't change your mind BHG. But note, for a few years I was under two topic bans & then concurrently, I was Arb banned from Wikipedia for a full year & a month. Never once did I consider retirement. Not only did I return (after my ban was lifted), but I also successfully had my 2 topic-bans repealed? In these last few years, I've proven my detractors wrong & have thrived. If I could do it? so can you. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @GoodDay. But the problem is simple: sanctions can be lifted, but findings of fact are in effect tablets of stone. There is no mechanism or opportunity to review or overturn them. So no matter what I do or how much time passes, the false findings of "fact" will remain as a stick to beat me with.
@GoodDay: my concern is not smears by individuals. It is smears by the community's ultimate decision-making body. It no longer matters whether a squillion editors agree that ArbCom erred (as indeed nearly half the Arbs believe); the smears are now Wikipedia's final word. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BHG: GoodDay was one of the first editors I worked with when I started editing a year ago. GD offered me both instruction and encouragement. I've directly benefitted from GD's decision to continue editing post-damnatum, and I'm glad GD made that decision. I've also benefited from working with you, BHG, over the last year, as have many other editors, and as will many more editors if you stick around. No one would fault you for taking a break if you wanted to, but I hope that if you do, you'll consider coming back. I want to point out to you that FOF9 (admin tools) was 9-5-1, FOF11 (conduct during arbitration) was 8-7, and the desysop remedy was 9-6. The majorities carry under the rules, but they were slim majorities; not exactly what we'd call overwhelming consensus. Two votes is not "the project" or "the community". I think the community wants to have you as an editor and would benefit from it. So I remain optimistic that even if you step away, you will decide to come back, and I look forward to supporting your future RFA whenever that may be. (So please don't scramble your password.) Levivich04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Levivich:, both for your kind words of encouragement now and for the pleasure of working with you at various points.
But even a finding of "fact" by a majority of one has been enough to create an unappealable, unamendable, permanent statement of an unjustified slur on my work and character. I am not sticking around with my record sullied in that way, or and I am not staying in an environment which censures someone for making their case in a forum whose purpose is to hear that case. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, all ArbCom decisions are amendable! They can amend them as they see fit. They can restore sysop status. They can substitute my name for yours. Literally anything at all. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't use this page for any discussion of either the numbered points or your wider structural concerns. Just asking you to reconsider. Your work here and Wikipedia are quite a bit more than portals and ArbCom decisions. You'd be missed. Sorely. ---Sluzzelintalk23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @Sluzzelin. I thought long and hard about this over the last few days, as the shape of ArbCom's decision emerged, and as the Arbs dismissed repeated pleas from other editors. But my hard-earned life experience over more than five decades is that nothing good comes from continued close involvement with people or groups who for whatever reason assert falsehood as fact, as has happened here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about this decision. I'm just interested in making an encylopedia. As one who has been banned before, I would say stop making edits for as long as you want or as the community requires it, but also don't feel constrained from or limited in making useful edits by some kind of complex moral or philosophical reasoning. This is a for-fun volunteer website. When you want to make edits to the encylopedia, make them. When you don't, then don't. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, you're a peerless shining figure on here, not even slightly stained by what's just happened, at least that's my view even as someone who agrees with much of the Arbs findings. Lots would strongly support an RfA if you wanted it. This outcome is painful & I so hope before too long you come to see us less poorly than you do now, and come back to us. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. It's certainly no consolation, but this is harsh. We haven't always agreed but I am stunned to see this. I don't think we've ever seen an unproblematic admin desysopped for a handful of instances of petty incivility confined to a contentious topic area that the community has repeatedly failed to address, and that's not even mentioning that said admin did not abuse their admin tools in any way, and had sincerely acknowledged the problem and comprehensively laid out a voluntarily resolution. I really have never seen a desysop like this before. I've thoroughly read through the progression of the case and I don't get it. When the desysop was proposed in the workshop phase, it was given little consideration, with the overwhelming majority of feedback in opposition. In the proposed decision phase, you laid out a strong argument as to why a desysop, or lesser sanctions, were not necessary, in keeping with our traditional standards of voluntary resolution in lieu of preventative action. No one argued the point that a desysop made sense in the face of your attempt to diffuse the problem. No one really even argued as to why a desysop would have been actually necessary at all. Not even the supporting arbs in their voting statements. It's not like you went to unique extremes of incivility, indeed many people say far worse in heated situations, and we usually have a understanding that tempers flair sometimes because we're all human, particularly in contentious, heated environments, and sanctions in these situations are generally frowned upon. No sanction they implemented resolved an issue that you did not pledge to voluntarily resolve, and no one in any way suggested that your voluntary resolution could not be trusted. I don't see a single credible argument that you have a fundamental problem incompatible with adminship, and that you're anything other than a normal person whose temper flared in a contentious dispute. We have never desysopped over that, especially when the person is saying "my bad, I'll work on it, and it won't happen again". I really don't get it. Both at face value, and reading the documentation, the action is literally not supported by any logical justification. It's very strange and concerning. I don't understand why this happened to you, and I can't understand the mentality of the current Arbcom. On another case I have been chastising them for not taking literal straightforward admin abuse seriously, and yet here they seem to have desysopped a non-abusive admin for little to no reason whatsoever. Arbcom is supposed to be evidenced-based and logical, and it appears they are straying from that standard. I am sorry that I was not around to defend you, whether or not it would have made a difference. You will be a great loss to the community. ~Swarm~{sting}02:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @BD2412, and also for your counsel along the way and for your sadly unheeded attempts to shine a light for the Arbs. But the desysop is actually the least of my concerns. I don't like it, but it might be fixable at a future RFA, and I might enjoy a period of moplessness. There can be a liberation in being free to say that a problem is beyond my pay grade.
So if it was only that, I would probably stay. But even if there was no sanction or reprimand, I will not stay while I am misrepresented by bad judgements which have been erected in tablets of stone as "fact".
Thanks, Lugnuts. I have enjoyed working with you, esp the fact that you are one of those editors who can have strong disagreements on one issue and then treat the next encounter on its merits. You're a fine Wikipedian, and I hope that your skills remain valued. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry too to see this happening, but this is the common way that ArbCom is operating. They either remove the fuel or the oxygen, but never the heat. Unfortunately you are not the first one, and very, very unlikely to be the last one. People still keep voting for members to take their seat in this institute, and hence it continues without reform. --Dirk BeetstraTC13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dirk. One of my underlying fears for the future of Wikipedia is that it is possible for any crowd-sourced project to reach a tipping point where the processes start to serve the interests of the less-talented participants rather than the project's ultimate goals. When that happens, a vicious circle begins where mediocrity can censure those who seek better, making it impossible to reverse the situation.
That's one of the reasons why I am not hanging around. I thought that the tipping point had been reached in only one backwater, but ArbCom seems to be upholding the problem rather than curing it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom hearing a new case requestArbCom, for many years, has been the poster child for this. They have improved, but not enough. Their solution is almost always to remove one editor (and for years, that was by default the named editor, in this case basically: you) and they think the problem is solved. "You were mentioned by 'the community' as the main problem in the Case request, so the problem is you." At the moment a case starts, your faith is set. They are fundamentally incapable to find a root cause. The community here had a problem with what to do with portals and how. So they removed you. ArbCom is not a dispute resolution, it is a bludgeoning tool, a firing squad. And as you say, it is a vicious circle, one that started years ago. --Dirk BeetstraTC13:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"it is possible for any crowd-sourced project to reach a tipping point where the processes start to serve the interests of the less-talented participants rather than the project's ultimate goals". Oh my, that's happening right now on Stack Overflow (amongst other drama) and it's a blood bath.
There's quite a lot I could say, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. So I'll just say I disagree with, and am saddened by, the outcome of this case. Wikipedia will be significantly poorer without you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Boing, both for your comments here and for the pleasure of working with you over the years.
You are wise not to comment more directly. ArbCom has made it very clear that even making a case in the course of proceedings to examine that case is verboten, so caution is needed.
Sad to see this BHG, however, per my (poor) attempts to convince ArbCom to take the route that the high majority of the community favored at the previous mega-ANIs on this case (topic + i bans), a core of ArbCom was not for turning. Per the ANIs, which underlined the obvious respect for you as an admin outside of the recent portal-incivility (even by those you were uncivil to, to their credit), I never thought this was going to end up in a deysop. However, when I saw some of the Proposed FOFs (FOF #6 and FOF #9, and even FOF #11), I was concerned. Deysoping is one of the least effective ways to handle the issues raised (unless you believed FOF #9). While ADMINACCORD is important, so is a contribution history of +1 million edits in some of the more technical, and least supported, areas of Wikipedia. There were better ways to handle this, but unfortunately, there is no DRV to ArbCom. Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s cliche, but I cannot believe this. None of it makes sense. A little human directness, in a contentious area, occasionally slipping into incivility, should not be able to lead to this. How could anyone get to this conclusion. And while it’s not a numbers game, some leeway has to be given for far over a million edits, and care for many important but often-neglected tasks. I call this irrational, self-defeating, harmful to the project - and, respectfully, seems just plain wrong. BHG has been a quiet inspiration for all these years, and this bizarre decision will not change my mind on this - but leads me, like many others, to wonder about the project. I suggest many members of ArbCom need to consider their own positions, if they can take the inputs of this case and produce such an outcome. And all this for a part of the project most readers do not seem to value or use. I could cry. Best of luck BHG!SeoR (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password... I ask of you to not do this. Please don't do something you'll regret; I'd hate to see ithappen again. Feel free to leave, to take a long break, whatever- but this is not worth you losing your account. The less people we permanently lose, the better. On the topic of feeling down over the FOFs, there's been users before, like Rootology, Everyking, and Floq, who suffered some sort of blow and reprisal against them, but went on to become some of the most legendary users to edit. It's your choice, but I do not believe this is the end for you. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI!20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My interactions with BrownHairedGirl have been limited, but always pleasant. She is somewhat of a rarity among Wikipedians—that is, she is a free and independent thinker, on most things, generally speaking, and from my limited observations of her. She does not "buy in" to the partisan-controlled narratives in much of the mass media. She does her own independent research, and makes her decisions based on that thorough research. Did she say some unsavoury things in the admittedly, very heated Portal: deletion discussions? Perhaps. But is that a de-sysop-able offence? The answer is...it depends. I think ArbCom made a huge mistake here in not looking past the supposed "evidence," and instead considering BHG's intent and the general climate of the situation. I don't think anyone can legitimately say BHG loathes Northamerica1000 or meant what she said as something that was said. Moreover, BHG makes a compelling case of potential double jeopardy, which is worthy of exploration.
BD2412 said it best here...the desysoping was excessive. Moreover, Northamerica1000 is not faultless here. And, even if they were, the dissenting arbitrators rightly, in my view, note that a two-way interaction ban would not necessarily have implied fault, but rather is an acknowledgement that their non-involvement and ignoring BHG can be seen, broadly speaking, as passive aggressive retaliatory behaviour.
I would've preferred BHG to seek a new RfA, if only as expressing the community's distaste for ArbCom's decision. A swift re-sysoping would be seen as a stunning rebuke and, to those ArbCom members who won support in the fall 2019 elections with the narrowest of margins, they are likely to end their term on ArbCom as "one-and-done" arbitrators. The general and prevailing early consensus among Wikipedians, from what I've been able to glean and gather, is that the community disapproves of this process.
For that reason, I will be semi-retiring from Wikipedia, effective at the end of this week.
I am extremely saddened to see this, BrownHairedGirl. While blocking - the worst fate for a normal editor - is, as we admins are constantly reminded, supposed to be prevention rather than punishment even for the most uncivil and unruly editors, it does at least come with possibilities of appeal, but one can only wonder how in desysoping cases like this, how such an Arbcom outcome can be anything other than a pure, harsh punishment and one with no route for appeal. Busy admins walk on precarious ground and will automatically accumulate enemies and vindictiveness - even among sitting arbitrators so it's hardly surprising that so few users are prepared to run for office, and why it has become a trend for so many to voluntarily lay down their tools. Swarm and Beetstra put it well, and while my efforts for Wikipedia are paltry compared to yours, it looks almost as if the community is looking for reasons to rid the project of older, long-term productive admins and I may well therefore be the next admin to suffer a similar fate. Arbcom is prosecutor, jury, judge, and executioner, they appear to take the witness evidence on face value so I'm not encouraged to even put up any defence. Like others here, I thank you enormously for all you have done for this great knowledge base. It will be a long time before anyone else can match your contribution to it - if anyone ever does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, you asked above about FoFs being modified. I know of one precedent, the Matthew Hoffman case. The case was decided in February 2008, modified by motion in December 2008, and finally overturned by a motion in June 2009. This motion explicitly stated that the adverse findings related to the sanctioned editor were nullified and ArbCom offered an apology both to the editor and the community. No other examples of overturned cases or modifications of findings after a decision is posted come to mind for me (as opposed to removing sanctions, which is a regular occurrence), though there may be other examples. NYB probably has the best knowledge of prior cases and ArbCom actions, FYI. But, Hawkeye is correct that they have the power to modify findings by motion and there was at least one example where a dreadfully unfair decision and injustice was corrected. EdChem (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for this EdChem. This is what I was looking into per my comment above – you've saved myself & probably others much time digging this out. If BHG wishes to proceed with an appeal, these are possibly the next steps:
1) Clarify which FoF BHG needs changed.
2) See who is available to help her with this. ( This is too important not to at least ask some of the big name & wisest editors like Iridescent & JHochman, IMO.)
3)Ask if BHG wants to contribute to the wording, or if she'd want to leave it in our hands. (BHG would likely at least have to sign the appeal though.)
Depending on the answers to 1) & 3) we should probably ask at least one of the Arbs to clear if its ok for BHG to discuss these matters on a sub page in her user space. For now, I think it's safe though for her to answer a simple yes/no question about 1).
@BHG, would it be sufficient if we got just 'conduct during arbitration' & 'used administrator tools' struck as FoF? (PS -if your answer is 'No', I'll bow out of this process & leave it to others who seem more completely aligned with your PoV on this, like EdChem. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FeydHuxtable and any other users considering helping BHG to consider an appeal, I'd like to offer a few thoughts:
The Matthew Hoffman (MH) case took 16 months to finally be overturned.
Arbitators who participated in a case can be unwilling to spend much time reviewing whether there was a mistake when they already have a view that they did not, which is an understandable human failing. It's one reason that a review / appeal generally goes before a different panel.
The MH case spanned two Committees as it started in December 2007 and some of the concerns related to the changeover. That is not the situation here.
The MH case was initiated by a member of ArbCom, who recused but continued to monitor the mailing list (I know this for certain as that arbitrator replied to an email that I sent to the list about the case). ArbCom procedures should now prevent such behaviour and in any case I know of no comparable issue in the BHG case. That recused Arbitrator's actions prior to the case were also problematic but went unexamined by ArbCom.
In the MH case, a non-recused Arbitrator proposed and voted on adverse findings and a desysop motion within 13 hours of the case opening. This was about 7 hours after the targeted sysop had posted to the evidence page that they had exams in a week and was unlikely to have time to look back at a two-month-old block until they were done. This kind of prejudging of a case and apparent bias was ultimately viewed as an irregularity in process but was actually evidence that the decision was unfair (in my opinion).
My point is that getting ArbCom to agree to modify its original decision is difficult and time-consuming, even when there are issues that seem like obvious problems to outsiders. The situation is comparable to the one faced by a wrongly-blocked editor. Arguing the block was wrong is generally pointless, but arguing it is no longer necessary (even if the editor believes that it never was) is often effective. With ArbCom, eidence of a restriction no longer being needed is more persuasive that arguing it was never needed (which is easily taken as IDHT). BHG, it might be easier to ask for modifications of findings that you could accept as balanced. For example, ask to change:
8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log)
to something like:
8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log) In some cases, after an MfD that BHG had started was closed, she implemented the consensus decision at the request of the closer (as proper deletion of portals can be complicated). The Committee notes that some of these actions can be interpreted as technical violations of the WP:INVOLVED policy, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.
assuming this is accurate. Another wording might be: The Committee is divided on whether or not such actions fit within the "routine maintenance" exception to the policy against administrators using their tools in situations in which they are involved, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.
Equally, perhaps you could ask for a modification of:
10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. BrownHairedGirl violated this injunction by discussing an MfD in which she had participated. BrownHairedGirl also used arbitration case talk pages to insult and belittle other parties in the case. (BrownHairedGirl's talk page, talk page for main case page)
to something more like:
10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. In a subsequent post at BrownHairedGirl's talk page(link), BHG (appropriately) confirmed that she was not permitted to discuss deletions of Portals. However, she then linked to an earlier comment that she had made in an ongoing Portal MfD and then indicated the outcome she saw as correct. This addition was inconsistent with the injunction. BrownHairedGirl also made comment(s) (link(s)) on arbitration case talk pages in which she argued her position with insults and by belittling other parties in the case. Greater than normal freedom is given to editors making a case before ArbCom but parties are also expected to maintain decorum. Casting aspersions or making ad hominem comments does not advance an argument and may reflect adversely on the commenter's adherence to Wikipedia's fourth pillar.
Huge thanks, EdChem for all the effort and thought that you are putting into this. I am very grateful.
It's late now, and I need to do some CFD tagging before I go to bed, but unlike that AWB job, I need both braincells to think carefully about these issues.
@EdChem: I am sorry for taking so long to reply to your kind offer. I have found myself overwhelmed by the kindness and support of so many editors, and I needed a lot of time to think about all this, much more than I thought I'd need.
Having mulled it over, I see no point in going back to ArbCom, especially not for the minor changes which you propose. Some of them would help, but others make little difference. And in any case, I don't have the stomach for it.
As a senior politician once said to me in my lobbyist days when he withdrew support for my amendments to a bill, "we've got everything out of them that we can get for now" ... and frankly, if any of the Arbs was wiling to abandon the follies which led to that decision, we'd have heard from them by now. Since the leopard has not changed its spots, I see no point in wasting more time on them.
We have never interacted (to my memory, but it may be flawed), so you can take or leave my comments as you wish. Like everyone else commenting here, I find it sad that a valuable contributor, to what is an important endeavor, decides to give it up. However, even if I knew you much better I would not persuade you to stay. We are volunteers, we need to get something back from the time we commit. If you feel insulted, or disparaged for your work, then why commit your time? You'll be happier elsewhere and I wish you all the best. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The desysop makes no sense and it's something I don't at all agree with, I know we've had our differences in the past but you're a great editor and was a great admin and it's sad not only to see you desyopped but also seeing you leave, I wish you all the very best and hope one day you pop your head back here!, Take care BHG and my best wishes for the future, Thanks, Dave /// –Davey2010Talk14:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear that you are thinking about retiring from Wikipedia; we haven't interacted much, but we did have some fruitful discussions about list-making at WiR a little while ago and your name often crops up in subject areas I edit. I just wanted to thank you for everything you've done for this project, and wish you all the best for the future if you do decide to leave. —Noswall59 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
There has been so much discussion on the slowing rate of sysop appointments. And so little discussion on retaining sysops. How much work is necessary to develop a new Wikipedia editor into a mature administrator? In this era of alternative fact, rampant promotionalism, and attacks on social order, Wikipedia needs administrators that can function for years at the level of BrownHairedGirl. This desysop decision was not wise, nor in the best interest of the project. Arbcom should revisit their decision. — Neonorange (Phil) 04:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly lurk and so never got involved in Portal discussions myself, but I appreciated your efforts to clean up the namespace. This Arbcom result is very disappointing. Philbert2.7182800:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also my understanding that ARBCOM decisions can be directly appealed to Jimbo, I've seen it recently a couple of months ago. He declined the appeal, but you can always try. Sir Joseph(talk)02:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see I'm late to the party, but here are some thoughts of mine.
I hesitate to make comments relating to the arbcom case and its consequences, as you may well feel you have had far more than enough, but I really feel I have to add a few of my thoughts. For quite a while now I have thought that most of the members of the arbitration committee are fools, and your case has confirmed that belief to a large extent. (I thought of saying which of them I regard as exceptions to that generalisation, but that would turn my generic expression of contempt for an unspecified majority into personal attacks on those I didn't name as exceptions, so I'll leave it at that.) The conclusion that the abrbcom came to is absolutely absurd.
I wholeheartedly agree with the essential points of your view on "portals". I can't imagine why some editors think it worth putting their time and effort into those things instead of into useful work for the encyclopaedia. I therefore think your initial attempt to do something constructive about them was totally laudable. However, it seems to me that this whole stupid affair grew out of the fact that, when it became clear that your totally constructive and laudable attempts to deal with that crap were not going to achieve much, you allowed yourself to get sucked further and further in, instead of deciding that it wasn't worth pursuing, and walking away. Unfortunately, you got so involved that you lost your sense of proportion, and at times got carried away. Some of the things you did therefore deserve criticism, but deserving criticism for sometimes not keeping things in proportion is not the same as deserving the treatment you got. I also think that it is a gross miscarriage of justice for arbcom to present their conclusions as though you were the only person at fault. That was far from being the case. I should also say that, despite my negative comments about the arbitration committee, the vote for desysopping was only 9:6, so a very significant proportion of them (40%) had the sense to keep things in proportion. In the discussion, as you no doubt know, several of them said things to the effect that since the problems were restricted purely to the portal area there was no justification for removing your adminship, as opposed to just keeping you away from portals. I totally concur.
As for the exhortations in another section of this page to run an RfA, I am not so sure as those who have taken that line. My guess is that you've had more than enough of the whole affair, and don't have any interest in taking it even further. If you were to go for it, who knows how it would turn out? There would be many editors who, like those who have already commented on this page, would support you, and I would be among them. However, there would be those who would be against, some for stupid reasons, some for better reasons. My guess is that an RfA would succeed, but as I said, who knows? If I were in your position I don't think I would have the stomach for RfA, and I certainly shan't blame you if you don't. On the other hand I would very much like to see you take on a successful RfA, because we would regain one of the best administrators we had. I was going to say "and also because it would convey a message to arbcom", but on second thoughts it probably wouldn't: they would just think the RfA got it wrong and they were still right.
My very last comment is that I am delighted to see that so far you have continued to edit, despite what you said about leaving. See you around. JBW (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on this, BHG: "[S]anctions can be lifted, but findings of fact are in effect tablets of stone. There is no mechanism or opportunity to review or overturn them. So no matter what I do or how much time passes, the false findings of "fact" will remain as a stick to beat me with. ... [M]y concern is not smears by individuals. It is smears by the community's ultimate decision-making body." Worse, this generally also applies to anything WP:AE does, because AE is ArbCom's delegated enforcement squad, and ArbCom will virtually never contradict what AE admins decide (it would undermine ArbCom's precious WP:AC/DS regime), much less expunge anything that AE wiki-cops decide to lodge against you, no matter what proof you have that the claims are false. Other editors have quit over the exact same "scarlet letter" effect you are feeling (both due to ArbCom findings and AE ones) and have been doing so for nearly a decade that I know of, probably longer.
I did myself for a year, but through blind luck a third-party got ArbCom to re-examine false AE claims against me, via ARCA (despite third-parties not normally being allowed to do that), and got the accusation against me modified to no longer be a blatant lie. That was sufficient for me to come back, but the odds of anyone getting a "justice" result like this today are probably like 1% or less. :-( ArbCom claims to be not bound by precedent but tends not to live up to this. Even when it modifies an old case page via motion, it just does strikethrough on the original nonsense and tacks on a revision, nor is there any way to get rid of the original version in the diffs, so people can always find a way to use old WP:DRAMA against you. The only salve I've found is time, and even that is not a cure. E.g., I've had that same case and related AE drama from around 2012 thrown back in my face recently (which someone claiming that me making them unhappy on some page was part of a "long-term pattern of abuse" based on ancient ArbCom crap). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: @Timrollpickering, that should all now be fixed. I have updated Template:Year in country category, so that it now takes a pair of parameters |newname= and |newsnamestart=. This allows intelligent handling of namecahnges.
I have't yet updated the documentation (because a number of other changes are underway), but the usage is fairly simple, as in these examples:
Category:1960 in Nyasaland — {{Year in country category|Nyasaland|Africa|the British Empire|newname=Malawi|newnamestart=1964}}
Category:1977 in Burma — {{Year in country category|Burma|Southeast Asia|newname=Myanmar|newnamestart=1989}}
Enough, long ago. This has been one of the least edifying episodes I have seen on my talk page for a long time, so I am closing it and giving myself the final word. (It's my talk page, so I get the final word here).
I also reckon that that this is on a path towards WP:ANI, so I am summarising the saga here to provide background for any ANI thread.
Francis Schonken then piled on with repeated attempts to bully me into withdrawing the nomination, and Gerda joined in the discussion. So the pair of them had effectively forked the CFD discussion onto my talk ... but Gerda then resumed posting to the discussion page (at 06:48, 25 March 2020[3] and 11:03, 25 March 2020[4]). So the whole basis of coming here was baloney, and WP:MULTI applies. Both editors are sufficiently experienced to know not to fork discussions.
The substantive position of the pair of them is a series of specious arguments thrown out in a blatant FUD exercise to support their WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance:
Gerda has been posting away at the CFD, but has explicitly refused to even read the list of nominated categories[5], and accused me overlooking a category[6] even though it was explicitly mentioned in the nominating statement. Gerda also claims that adding 8 characters to the category names will make them cluttered.[7] Spouting away in an XFD discussion without reading either the nominator's rationale or the list of nominated pages is blatant disruption, because it wastes the time of other editors who have to point out the errors made by the decision not to read, and of those who might read the saga of falsehoods and corrections.
As to Francis, he repeatedly makes the false assertion that WP:NCM requires the use of the bare word "compositions", rather than musical compositions. This is utter nonsense: there is no guidance anywhere on that page about using "compositions" rather than "musical compositions" in any context. The only mention of the Bach category which Francis cites is in the section WP:NCM#by_last_name_only, which is explicitly about disambiguating personal names, not about "compositions"/"musical compositions". Francis did this three times: (06:14[8] (rebutted 11:21[9]), 11:43[10] (rebutted 12:04[11]), 12:44[12] (rebutted 13:11[13]). Repetition of falsehoods is a disruptive attrition strategy.
To top it all, Francis has been using his barrage of falsehoods as a tool in his attempts to bully me into withdrawing the nomination (which I can't do, per WP:CSK, because the proposal has supporters). Francis has tried this three times at CFD (11:18[14], 11:43 [15], and 12:44[16]) ... and twice on this talk page (9:01[17] and 12:19[18]).
I was getting fed up with this nonsense, so at 12:27[19] I explicitly asked Francis not to post here again ("get the hell off my talk page" .. "Do NOT reply to this here", edit summary "GET LOST"), but Francis replied here at 12:49[20], again claiming that the discussion is a terrible time sink. I reverted that post.
I don't believe for a second that Francis is unable to understand "get the hell off my talk page", "Do NOT reply to this here" and "GET LOST". His decision to ignore that was just WP:HARASSMENT.
The only time sink here is Francis's strategy of disrupting consensus formation by barrages of FUD and falsehood. Creating a shitstorm and then claiming that the said self-started shitstorm is a time-sink is a WP:GAMEing strategy, and Francis's contempt for truth extends even to claiming in his post at 12:19[21] that the CFD is is going nowhere good, even though at the time the CFD page showed 7 editors backing the proposal, and 3 opposed.
This pair of truth-averse, tag-teaming bullies have wasted several hours of my time. The community is entitled to expect much better from a pair of experienced editors. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... I am trained (by arbcom) to make two comments per discussion, no more, - it's a wise thing, just please don't think I'm not polite in case you miss a reply ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a principle, it's a saver of time and other ressources. I invented it (in my arbcase) to shorten infobox discussions, then they turned it against me in the decision, and I spent unpleasant time on AE for making a third comment. I need none of that any more. When I see that I will not be understood, I rather leave early. I tried harder here, only to feel more wounded than if I had given up sooner. Call it self-protection. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
while then it would no longer conform to the actual WP:C2D guidance. This is a time sink for editors who have better things to do than point out to categorisation experts what the actual rules are, and prevent them from embarking on a
recategorisation scheme proposal that would mean a massive breach of elementary rules (no matter how many editors you already convinced of wandering from actual rules based on an erroneous reasoning). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read it, that's why I suggest BrownHairedGirl *retract* their proposal. If the proposal passes for all 1,342 categories, the next step would be a CfD in the other direction, exactly by that last criterion, while e.g. "compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach" is unambiguous in mainspace article titles. In other words, whoever wrote that last criterion should have invited to make the thought experiment that if categories included in the set proposed for renaming have *eponymous mainspace articles* then the C2D rule applies to these individual categories too, and that, unless these mainspace articles support all instances of the set renaming, proposing the set makes no sense while shooting in its own foot. I expect categorisation experts like BrownHairedGirl to realise that, whether or not it is explicitly stated in the guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: what I see happening is the "soldiering on" syndrome – which has caused so much damage before. Never taking a step back, never taking a minute to ponder someone else's take on the issue at hand. The last time I saw it happening I could in the end no longer support your stance, while the "soldiering on", irrespective of circumstances and meaningful thoughts by others, only further demonstrated your stance was untenable. Please retract your ill-conceived Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical compositions proposal. This is going nowhere good – and frankly, the "time sink" aspect is becoming overwhelming. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaged in an exercise of disruption and FUD, and you are trying to bully me into withdrawing a nomination which has clear majority support, despite the efforts of you and Gerda. (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical_compositions is currently showing 7 editors backing the proposal, and 3 opposed). So, this is far from what your claim as going nowhere good. It's going in the direction I wanted, albeit with a noisy barrage of WP:IDONTLIKEIT disruption by you. The only 'time sink' aspect is your disruptive antics.
I will NOT be bulled, by you or by anyone else.
The pair of you have engaged in a series of mischievous attempts at specious argument, including:
Gerda's attempt to claim that the word "composition" is unambiguous because everyone knows that Bach composed music. That's blatant cherrypicking: there are over 900 subcats of Category:Compositions by composer, and the vast majority of those composers's names are unknown to the general reader for whom we build Wikipedia.
Your utterly dishonest attempts to claim that WP:NCM guides the use of "compositions" rather than "musical compositions". It says no such thing. That is pure fabrication on your part.
Your blatantly false assertions that "musical compositions" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "compositions" or "compositions in YYYY". As noted in the nomination, the page composition is a dab page.
Your repeated attempts to disrupt the readability of the nomination by dumping the full list of categories into the discussion page, even though the full list is already on the talk page, where it is more readable because it is grouped under headings.
Your disruptive conduct is on getting close to being an ANI issue, and your attempt to bully me into withdrawal is completely unacceptable.
Now get the hell off my talk page, and clean up your act while there is still time. You are welcome back here to discuss other issues, but on this topic, please stick to the CFD page. (And for clarity, this is my talk page, so I get the last word here. Do NOT reply to this here). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fiction set in years and decades of the 10th century
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for correcting the Bob Winston article; it was a misspelled mistake and I should had paid better attention. I did added the corect category to he article. My thanks and apologies - RFD18:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After RexxS's repeated lies and vile smears, RexxS becomes the first editor who I ask to stay of my talkpage forever. No expiry date, no exceptions ... just no never. I really thought that I had already seen the very worst of Wikipedia, but RexxS's despicable conduct today has plumbed depths an order of magnitude worse than I have seen before. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've now drawn your attention to WP:INDENTMIX twice. I would like to know why you insist on mangling the discussion for anybody trying to follow it with a screen reader. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS, I post the way that I usually do, which has never gotten complaints before. It is also the same way that most others post and that and other CFD pages.
However, the biggie is that you have now twice removed my post: [23] and [24].
The biggie is that you refuse to abide by our accessibility requirements, which have community-wide consensus. You've now done that five times in that debate. That is not acceptable - just because you've always been inconsiderate to the visually impaired in the past, doesn't give you carte blanche to do so forever. Figure out how to post acceptably and fix your posts now or quit posting. Otherwise I will remove them. --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS, nothing in WP:TPG allows you to remove my posts because of a minor formatting issue. As noted before, if you remove any post of mine again, it's straight to ANI.
Plenty of other posts on that page are formatted in the same way as mine, but you have chosen to pick on me. So you are very transparently using this as anther FUD tactic to disrupt the discussion. Stop this. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS, to clarify: per WP:TPO, feel free to fix minor formatting issues if you want to. But nothing in WP:TPO justifies removing the comments of an editor with whom are discussing a disagreement at an XFD page.
That is one of the most fundamental issues in consensus-forming discussions, and your behaviour is an utterly outrageous attempt to use a minor formatting issue to remove a post which you don't like because it nails your fallacies. You are behaving like a angry-but-clueless newbie, whereas in reality you are an admin who has been editing for 12 years ... so you have zero excuse for this attempt to censor me.
"Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a heading to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
This is your final warning: if you are unable to abide by the standards for decent treatment for those less fortunate, I'll take any and all steps necessary to ensure that your posts no longer pollute discussions. It is absolutely disgusting to see you dismissing the problems you cause the visually impaired by your wilful disregard of agreed formatting. You are behaving like a spoilt brat who can't have their own way and attempts to bully all who disagree with them. You should be ashamed of your behaviour. Learn how to format your posts You've been here long enough to be able to figure that out. --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS, you still trying to weaponsie that guideline as a lever in an CFD discussion. You aren't pursuing this with anyone else in that discussion, even tho many others are posting in the way that I post. Nor, as far as I can see, are you pursuing it in any other place. You are blatantly targeting me, simply because we disagree at an CFD.
You have the outrageous temerity to accuse me of "bullying", which is pure projection. I have not been removing your posts in a discussion; you did that. I have not selected you as the sole target for weaponising a widely-ignored point of formatting guidance; you did that.
What you are doing is plain bullying, to which you have now added a personal attack: behaving like a spoilt brat. That is unacceptable conduct.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I know the code your are correcting comes from the instructions related to setting up categories for the article assessment system. I read/used those instructions last month. I will try to hunt them down and update them for {{CatAutoTOC}}. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG, in an hour and 10 minutes it appears that you made in excess of 1000 edits (page 1, page 2, all with the summary "{{Category TOC}} → {{CatAutoTOC}} on categories with less than 100 pages". Could you please elaborate on this for me? I am concerned about the speed that this is going at. How many total are you foreseeing doing? --TheSandDoctorTalk08:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~riley, Ah, I was saddened that we didn't have a bot doing such a repetitive task. At least we have one of the primary source templates updated so we shouldn't get here again. —¿philoserf? (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Another case of a country changing its name with the category redirect getting populated by templates. I can't see what's caused this particular problem. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo BHG, Your edit to category:Stubs makes life slightly more difficult for me: I have a bookmark for Stubs beginning with "P" which I have a personal challenge of always clearing by stub-sorting. I then like to have a quick look at the rest of the category, to sort out any stubs which clearly need a DEFAULTSORT, or which have a disambiguation and might not have access through their base name title, or which look like interesting women, or suspiciously general-looking titles which might be a problem (overwriting etc) or anything else. Usually I click on "top" from the TOC line. Today I have to use "Previous page", but then see just the first couple of entries: there doesn't seem a very quick way to see the whole category listing, typically under 20 items. So for me, personally, your edit has a negative effect. Are there big benefits to it, or could you possibly revert it for the sake of one regular stub-sorter? Thanks, and stay well. PamD08:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian, y'know, this isn't my first rodeo: I have made about half a million edits to category pages, and built many of the cathead tenmplates.
I have built that set of tracking categories, and and now in the process of restructuring it as the process develops.
If you looked at my recent edits, you would see e.g. this[28], with edit summary "tweak cat names".
This (and several related creations) seems to me to be missing the word 'sports'. However as the creator is BHG no less, perhaps I am mistaken. Oculi (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi, sorry for not replying sooner. I seem to have missed this one.
Fayenatic is right: it draws from the Olympic terminology. When I created the decade categories and filled in gaps, I used the existing naming convention for the year categories, e.g. Category:2015 in equestrian (created in 2014) and Category:2006 in equestrian (created in 2012).
ISTR that some of the cathead templates I created for the Olympics assume that the Olympic name for sport matches that used elsewhere in en.wp categories, but I can't recall which template(s) that applies to. ---BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Because the state was known as Orissa until 2011, so in creating the decade categories, I used the name that was in use at the time, and created redirects from the new name. See the subcats of Category:Decades in Odisha.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mistake about the date and the year, the CFD happened since April 11 (this CFD needs to end as soon as possible. I don't want the CFD to become more of a drama. We tried be unbiased but no effort was made) SpinnerLaserz (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SpinnerLaserz, confusing a day and a year isn't a good start, but thanks for clearing that up.
Now, please explain on what grounds you think that CFD should be closed? I don't see any problem, but since you seem to think there is a problem, please explain it to me. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's about background cultures of characters and we tried to debate it with unbiased reasons but no effort was made. If there is no problem regarding this, maybe explain in your thoughts on the matter. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems to me that your posting here is not about any procedural problem, but just an attempt at WP:CANVASSing. That is something which can get you into big trouble.
I also agree with User:DexDor that your very-heavily edited post timestamped 18:02, but edited repeatedly over the two hours[30] is incomprehensible. That does worry me, because you are making tons of edits to the page and still not writing coherently.
So I suggest that you should step back from that discussion. Whatever is going on, you are not expressing yourself with enough clarity to help the discussion, and continued contribution in that manner will not help your case. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sample I checked all seem to be using the abominable {{year by category}}, which I am on on a mission to eliminate.
My approach is to modify a sample category using {{Title year}}, {{Century name from title year}} etc, so that it readjusts to any year. Then if the set is big enough or has variants, I create a cat header tenmplate and apply that ... otherwise I just apply the code directly.
The trick is to keep any {{Commons category}} template. I have a setup to do that in AWB, but I'm not sure if JWB supports the more sophisticated regexes which allows that.
Oh, by all means, press on, if you have the time and inclination! (I should have asked you yesterday, when I just did the minimum on another set.[32])– FayenaticLondon18:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just took a look at the luge categories to see how it's done. Looking good, except that you seem to have put them into themselves, e.g. Category:1929 in luge; maybe based on something else that had decade categories, which don't exist here. – FayenaticLondon21:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues was that some cats are parented in a pair of season categories of the form YYY1–Y2. That was a divil to code for, so I made a special template for it; Template:Make YYYY–YY, which I think will have many other applications, especially in sport categories. It needs a sister template, Template:Split year range, which I will try to get around to later today. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that work! The new template has an excellent set of flexibilities built in from the start, well done. Just BC handling to go... I jest! – FayenaticLondon07:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I forgot that I had listed one of those as "no bots" only to avoid incorrectly moving the contents twice, since that new category was also the name of an old category.
Timezone? I am in HMBATCWHIIILAICDAOTTISBDST ... i.e. keeping-myself-busy-around-clock-while-Ireland-is-in-lockdown-and-I-can't-do-any-of-the-things-I-should-be-doing standard time. . --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As they seem to be mostly your sole work, would you mind if I simply renamed them summarily and adjusted the template, under G7 / IAR? – FayenaticLondon20:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found the speedy nom[34]. I am surprised that it was a WP:C2B. I wasn't aware of any convention either way, and I have been using "by foo by bar" because it seems to me to clearer about the order.
I agree that it would be good to standardise, but would prefer to standardise of "by foo by bar". Is there any evidence that "by foo and bar" is actually the convention? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using C2B to implement "by foo and bar" for a few years.
Thanks for your inputs on the article- Masoumeh Aghapour Alishahi, specifically with the categories. Please I need your help further on them. I want to add these templates... {{wikiproject women}}, {{wikiproject COVID-19}}, and {{wikiproject Women's health}}, but I don't know how to go about it. Although I added it on the talk page of the article, I'm not sure if this is right. Then there is this campaign to create or edit more articles during this covid-19 pandemic that was started by a Wikipedian by name Sarmad Said. So participants were advised to put the category: covid-19 challenge articles to indicate articles created within this period. That's what I was trying to do but not sure I did it right too. Please I will appreciate your assistance with doing them the right way. (Ptinphusmia (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
ohh! I see now! Sorry, I didn't know that earlier. But where are the templates suppose to be placed so it will be known the article fall into those categories? (Ptinphusmia (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Done
@Timrollpickering: now fixed, in this edit[26] to Template:Year in Wales header.
Facepalm. Thanks, Fayenatic. Now fixed, in these edits[33]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
– Fayenatic London 07:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)