User talk:BrownHairedGirl

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 future future future + Cumulative index

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

A kitten for you!

I don't agree with how you handled dealing with portals, but I do think you are overall a good admin. I have been there in wanting to get something done to the point where things get personal here on Wikipedia. I hope for the best for you going forward.

Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Knowledgekid87, both for your kind words and for reaching out across a chasm of long-term disagreement. That's very kind of you, and much appreciated.

However, my concerns are not really personal. I have been concerned throughout with the quality of Wikipedia's reader-facing pages and the integrity of its consensus-building mechanisms, and only secondarily with the small set of editors who have impeded that. And the arbitration process is leaving me increasingly fearful that community's resolution mechanisms have an inverted sense of priorities which at odds with those goals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Its possible that no two editors can read consensus the same way, it seemed to me like you were clearly upset calling other editors "liars" and other labels. Once you started doing that you poked the beehive. So the root of the problem here is addressing your concerns which can be done in the future once things have settled down. Out of all the years you have been here though....why was portals your hang up? Have you ever had this pushback before, and if so how did you handle it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Simple: when I ventured into portals I found a morass of appallingly low quality, which turned out to be underpinned by very low aspirations; there was clearly a systemic problem. I had never found such extreme problems before in any other part of en.wp, and I was and remain horrified by what I found, and by the conduct I encountered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

So your intentions were good in wanting to fix the problem, the issue is that you took on a large part of Wikipedia in doing so. When editors began pushing back on you which you felt were in the minority then you became upset? I'm not sure what actions you took, but I would have worked with each portal separately before deletion. Pointing out things such as outdated BLP violations was a huge favor to Wikipedia. Problems arose though as I said when you began stepping on toes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

KK87, the problem was that I found sustained antipathy to tackling the quality problems, and widespread gaming of the system by editors who were intent on preserving that for which they had no plan. I wasn't in the minority; the overwhelming majority of my portal MFD nominations were successful.

The problem was that I severely misjudged the community's willingness to uphold principles that I thought were accepted, such as condemning sustained gaming of the system. In previous contexts, when have seen such behaviour challenged or have challenged it myself, editors who mostly work in other areas have joined in to uphold good practice. But in this case, portals were a backwater which few editors were interested in cleaning up, and the bad practice was much more deeply entrenched than I thought. So the result was escalating drama, and most outsiders were unwilling to examine the substance of what pointed to, and instead attributed the drama to my noting the problem. Since most editors don't care about portals, the just wanted the drama to end rather than the problems to be resolved.

This is a common enough problem in human society. Challenging entrenched malpractice involves noise and drama, and most people prefer to avoid that. So whistleblowers get prosecuted, dissidents get jailed etc. It happens everywhere, and those who rock the boat usually have poor odds in their favour. I thought that odds of Wikipedia upholding good standards were much higher than they actually turned out to be in this case. That's how it goes sometimes.

ArbCom will make whatever decision it makes, and I will accept their decision as binding. But given the likely shape of the decision, I will have to take some time to reflect on how much (if at all) I want to devote further time energy to a project which seems to being deciding as a matter of principle to prioritise form over substance. It's not what I signed up for 14 years ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Comment As noted above, I've seen nothing that ArbCom decisions cannot be revisited. Similarly, I note that Jimbo Wales may be an appropriate appeal venue. Similarly, WMF has said it has no intention of using its office actions authority unless there is a community consensus. I suspect you could find a substantial consensus to condemn, all or in part, of ArbCom's Portals decision and, thus, WMF could overturn ArbCom's woefully flawed ruling. Doug Mehus T·C 17:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by BHG on the ArbCom decision

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.

ArbCom has finalised its decision at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. I stand by my pledges at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision#Statement_by_BHG (see box to the right), and I will observe ArbCom's restrictions for as long they apply and for as long as I continue to edit Wikipedia.

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:

1. It wrongly dismissed evidence of misconduct by other parties, falsely representing me as the sole cause of a wider conflict.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)

• PS. Some time in the next few days I will post a list of the tasks which I intend to complete before leaving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on BHG's statement

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)

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.

Life is too short to give my time to a project which has indelibly smeared me in that way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been smeared in the past on Wikipedia by some editors, as having psychological problems. Apparently, they were wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@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)

Check it out & I'm still here. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@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.) Levivich 04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Are you sure, Hawkeye7?

I have never seen a finding of fact amended, but I don't follow Arbcom closely. Can you point me to any examples of a finding of fact being amended or removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

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. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Very sad. As someone who was also desysopped, I feel your pain. All the best in your future endeavours. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

  Many thanks, FeydHuxtable. But false findings of fact set permanently on my record are a bright line for me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I hear you. There's some small but worthwhile possibilities I'm looking into. FeydHuxtable (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• I don't know what to say in this situation, but the desysop was clearly excessive, and I am saddened by it. BD2412 T 03:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  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".

  Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Very sorry to see this. Of course I hope you will reconsider at some point in the future, but all best wishes anyway. Johnbod (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Desysopped? How ridiculous. All the best for whatever your plans are for the future. I rarely say this to any editor, but your contributions will be missed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  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)

I'm sorry to see that you were desysopped. Let me state for the record that I think they're dead wrong on that and just as you said, think they missed the real case. Sorry this happened to you ! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Necro. Good to know that I am not alone! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

NO problem - hopefully, they'll come to their senses and do the right thing and resysop you ! Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 14:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC) _{PS: Yes, I changed my signature in protest}

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 Beetstra ^{T C} 13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

ArbCom hearing a new case request

ArbCom, 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 Beetstra ^{T C} 13:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"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.

I'm sorry to see you go BHG. Thank you for your efforts over the years. --kingboyk (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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.

I wish you and others good luck in turning the tide. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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 it happen 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)
• Sorry to see you go. This has all been rather shocking to me. Shearonink (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• 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.

Thanks,

Doug Mehus T·C 23:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

FeydHuxtable and any other users considering helping BHG to consider an appeal, I'd like to offer a few thoughts:

1. The Matthew Hoffman (MH) case took 16 months to finally be overturned.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

BHG, would changes along these lines be ones that you see as more fair / balanced / accurate? EdChem (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

So I will reply properly tomorrow.

Again, thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

spirale of justice

• song without words, and yes, I assume you acted in good faith --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 /// –Davey2010^Talk 14:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• 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).
• 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)
• 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. Philbert^2.71828 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

+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)

sysop flag

Hello BHG, per the Arbitration Committee remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#BrownHairedGirl_desysopped, and the associated request at WP:BN, I have removed your sysop flag. You are not barred from regaining this access in the future, and may do so by passing at WP:RFA. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If you would like your userpage unprotected so that you may edit it, feel free to ping me. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: thank you for the notification, and for the note about RFA. However, per my statement above, I will be leaving Wikipedia as soon as I have completed some outstanding tasks. So there will be no future RFA from me ... and If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.

Yes, please do unprotect my userpage. AFAICR, I had protected it after some vandalism .. but before I leave, I will want to edit it to note my retirement.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I respect your decision, and your forthrightness in posting this here. I wish you well. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh no! Have just read about this in the admin newsletter. What a loss for WP. All the best to you; go well, my friend. Schwede66 18:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you remember when...?

I suppose that your account name, BrownHairedGirl, can be taken literally. But I lately realised that it might also be a reference to the Van Morrison song, "Brown Eyed Girl". Is that right?

It's interesting to find that that was one of Boris Johnson's Desert Island Discs. What would you take to your desert island?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Andrew

It's actually kinda both. One rainy day in Febuary 2006, I was googling around for info on the Churchill Barriers, which I had just heard about. I was fascinated by the idea of such a huge civil engineering project in such a place as remote as the Orkneys, so I wanted to know more. I found a fair bit, but then recalled this new free encyclopedia thing that some people were going on about, so I checked it. Nothing. Hey ho.

Over a tea break, I got thinking. This pedia thing is open source, right? How about I spend a few hours writing that article?

I was between projects, so it seemed like an interesting and useful thing to do, and a break from my normal writing about politics. So I checked rules, and it seemed best to register an account, even tho that wasn't needed.

When asked for a username, I decided I'd go for something fully anonymised, but what? Anyway, the Van the Man song had just being playing on the radio, and it was in my head. I like little of Van; he has had periods of fine poetry, but he is also an arrogant, self-indulgent eejit who has produced a lot of pseudo-mystic junk. The only album of his that really does anything for me Saint Dominic's Preview; but I like that song Brown Eyed Girl. Shallow but catchy. Young Van doing good pop before his brief period of real depth preceded a slide into self-indulgence. I gave up on him entirely after he accepted a big pile of money from a still-very-poor Dublin City to perform at the 1988 millennium celebrations, but just mumbled three songs and cleared off. The crowd was disgusted. I wasn't there, but stopped following him.

As I thought of using his song title, I was wrestling with the idea of naming myself after the writing of an eejit. Would people think I was a fan?

But then I thought that I don't have brown eyes but do have brown hair, so that would make sense without mislabelling me as a VanFan. So why not "Brown Haired Girl"? Because it makes me sound like a cute toddler.

After a minute or two of this, I decided I was being daft and overthinking this. It's just a throwaway account that I'll only need for a day or two, maybe only a few hours. Just do it, and at least that name is easier to remember than a random series of letters .

So I created the account, and wrote a start-class article: Churchill Barriers. That much went according to plan, but the rest of the plan to write one article and move on was a failure. One fix of Wikipedia and I was hooked, churning out stub articles on Irish and British politics, joining in CFD and AFD. And within 5 months I was an admin. Still with that throwaway name.

As to my Desert Island, I won't be bringing Boris Johnson; regardless of position on the political spectrum, I don't like people whose word means nothing. I will bring the fattest extant compilation of Irish mythology, so that as I eat coconuts in the shade I can catch up on a topic I have spent far too little time on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that story about how you chose your username. :-) The bit about overthinking it struck a chord with me, as I didn't put a great deal of thought into my username either. If I'd known I'd be using it 15 years later, I might have gone for something different. I don't think the ArbCom case was the right result, but I don't have time to say much more right now, other than to wish you all the best in your future endeavours (whether here or elsewhere or both). At least for this era of Wikipedia, I will forever associate British politics articles with you (and categories as well). Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It was an intersting story, though BHG didnt say what tunes she'd take to the Island. The sounds & images in Sun eyed girl are about quite a few of the same themes as our celtic mythology. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable, I hoped that I might get away with swerving the tunes question! I dodged it for two reasons: one is that the list of recordings which speaks most to me is always changing as my sense of the world evolves, so the answer may shift radically from week to week. The other reason is that some of the songs which regularly float to the top are recordings by niche artists, some of whom are friends, and the intersection of those might help one identify me.

So I'll throw out a few of the less personal choices which seem to stick feature regularly on the list. In no particular order:

1. Emmylou Harris's recording of the Townes van Zandt standard "Pancho and Lefty": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3LQeRqTBK4
   There is so much to love in Emmylou's work that I could have chosen any of a dozen other songs, and it's very hard not to pick the heart-rending "Boulder to Birmingham" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klh7sAv9hu4) with its stunning imagery and its expression of the rarely-stated core horror of grief: "the hardest part is knowing I'll survive". But this one wins as an exquisite exposition of Townes's superbly delicate attempt to explore the moral ambiguity of a story usually told with less subtlety.
2. Leon Rosselson and Roy Bailey's recording of Leon's song "Abiezer Coppe": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgIjTJa5xR8
   It's a joyous celebration of a thoroughly bonkers but deeply courageous freethinker who illuminated the emperor's nakedness in an era of extraordnary intellectual and religious turmoil.
3. Luke Kelly's performance of Paddy Kavanagh's "On Raglan Road" at the National Stadium in Dublin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv0MxfE8oec
   Luke recorded this song many times, but this is the most tender. It's also full of paradoxes: the product of a dour, rough poet collaborating with one of the great, soft-hearted, working-class bad boys of Irish music; a love song song which is part endearment, part tender lament, part hideous boastfulness, and ultimately an unpleasantly stalky tale of male objectification; and also a skilful romanticisation of the city I was born in. I never hear it the same way twice.
4. Miriam Makeba's "Qongqothwane" (aka "The Click Song"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhgb60Qsjrs
   Just for for its sheer tender beauty
5. Alastair McDonald's recording of Jim McLean's song about the massacre of Glencoe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yYjG6nUwyc
   I am Irish with Scottish ancestry, and this song evokes for me the historical pattern of divide-and-rule brutality directed from London which both Ireland and Scotland have had to endure. Plus, we Irish and Scots love self-pity, and this song has that aplenty.
6. Mozart's Requiem in D minor (K.626): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPlhKP0nZII
   I don't do much classical music, and I usually find Mozart too much like a slightly fermented fruit salad, but the Requiem's deep sense of pain at death is the most life-affirming music I know
7. Horslips "The Snow That Melts The Soonest": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzz5yew1sDI
   Alternatively, "Drive The Cold Winter Away": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJqeZmj6X2Q. Both songs combine Horslips's exceptional musicianship with a sparse poetry of winter.
8. Turlough O'Carolan's "Planxty Sir Festus Burke": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4D5EpGiXU
   Part of me rails against O'Carolan's Europeanisation of Irish music, but at his best he brings great joy like the Beach Boys, and to my mind this is his most joyous composition. It also evokes some places that are very precious to me.
9. The Clash's "London Calling": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfK-WX2pa8c
   The definitive song of the ferment in Britain as the old social democratic order collapsed in the late 70s, ushering the a new era of conflict which I found myself living in when I later followed the traditional Irish path of emigration to England.
10. The Dubliners' 1966 song "Nelson's Farewell": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P50PHCHuwo
    This is The Dubliners at their finest, in their early peak when they revived Irish musical traditions with all the bad-ass attitude which twenty years later was seen globally in punk rock. This particular song is also a glorious celebration of the Irish tradition of cutting through crap to resolve intractable absurdities, while laughing lots along the way and having fun with words.
11. Willie Brady's recording of Percy French's "Slattery's Mounted Foot": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOwNXJkd7E
    I love lots of Percy's wry humour, but much his work is now known mostly through the sugary recordings of Brendan O'Dowda. Bless Brendan for keeping the songs alive, but he somehow missed that Percy's style and sensibility was more music hall than concert hall; his spirit was closer the The Dubliners than to the respectable audiences which Brendan sought. Willie comes closer to Percy's spirit. And I choose this song because it captures so beautifully the mixed emotions which are held simultaneously around the Irish tradition of insurrection: the deeply complex mix of heroism and futility, the lack of resources, the dedication and the desperation which drives people to risk impossible odds, and the intractable combination of horrible violence, noble sacrifice, and the essential ability to laugh at the most important things. Above all, one's a winner for the line "Best be a coward for five minutes than a dead man all your life".
12. Tompall Glaser's "Put Another Log on the Fire": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWpYQjuJ0u0
    I love country and bluegrass music in many many ways; for the twang, for the focus on the little people who don't control their own destiny, and for its ability to laugh at itself. This one does the self-parody brilliantly with an unexpected feminist twist, so it narrowly edges out Dolly Parton's very different but utterly magnificent magnificent "Little Sparrow": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoVXz4cMzxc
13. Sheena Wellington's unadorned 1999 rendition of Rabbie Burns's "A Man's A Man for A' That": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hudNoXsUj0o
    If I had to choose just one song, it would be this. Many of Burns's works seem to make all other poetry redundant, like Now Westlin' Winds, while others such as "Parcel of Rogues" (perfected by Luke Kelly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcm3MmD7uyc) are near-perfect summations of a history. But "A Man's A Man" is a universalist triumph.

In the highly unlikely event that I was ever asked to appear among the great and the good who get invited to Desert Island Discs (pigs might fly!), I'd only be allowed 8 tracks. And I am already way over that tally without even including most of the songs that I treasure the very most. I'd have to make some sort of random choice ... or maybe just make them play "A Man's A Man" 7 times, and top it off with "Wild Mountain Thyme": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I6K9HTa--I. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There is also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuG6Ga2Zlno (a perfect track from a duff album which I bought long ago expecting the delights of Astral Weeks). (Perhaps you could do us a favour by leaving Boris on a desert island.) Or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kQ2uxkws8 Oculi (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I must say that it is sad to read this enjoyable list as a farewell item. But thank you anyway, it is inspiring, especially for a fellow Emerald Isler. If you do go, I imagine these pieces will be good company. I can only join others above in hoping that you think further, and consider seeking corrections of some of the so-called Findings of Fact. When in the UK for work, as so many from Ireland now aged 50-60, I eventually ended up a "lay" justice, so I would never be too hard on those who volunteer for thankless work such as Arbcom. I would also counsel them, however, to be very careful with determinations of fact, harder than motive, so often. I would have, as user BritishFinance, who may be one of the fastest-learning novices I have seen, also suggested, stuck to an admonishment and a ban or two. I am, for health reasons, an occasional contributor, but I lurk too. In doing so I have seen just a little of how much you do, with those 1.6 million edits, half on articles. I still hope the community can learn to take better care of the few who do so much (1000x my humble input, and 1.2 million times the random member-of-public editor. Best wishes from Dublin to Connaught! Twilson r (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If ever you're on DID they should give you double the normal allocation. Your exposition & track selection was more interesting / stirring than anyone I've heard on it (not that I listen to DID that often). Maybe it's a good thing for the wider world if you devote some time to writing, where your sensitivity won't be as constrained as it is here. Here's 3 things that might help, first two are new & maybe obscure. The 3rd you almost certainly already know. Claus Levin on time management I'm sure you have your own effective systems, but I've been told by someone who's experienced with lots of these that Claus is the best, & everything he's offering is totally free. Can't hurt to have the best for the blood, sweat & toil of serious writing. Quite a few accademics are saying the roam app has totally transformed how they organise their knowledge, especially new things they find on the web. It's free & has zero learning curve, at least for the basic functions. Lastly, song to the siren. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I was very interested to read how you started editing, and how you chose your user name. Thinking that your user name didn't matter because it was "just a throwaway account that I'll only need for a day or two, maybe only a few hours" was in a way similar to what I did. I didn't put any thought into what user name to use, because I thought I would never use my account for anything other than very occasional trivial corrections to errors I came across when here as a reader of the encyclopaedia, not an editor. Also, even for doing that kind of trivial editing I thought I would rarely if ever use my account, as I didn't expect to bother to log into my account unless I was affected by an IP block. (It was because of an IP block at the local library that I created the account.) In one way that was very different from your experience, as you thought you would just create one article, whereas I didn't expect I would ever create an article, but like you I was then stuck with a user name that I would never have chosen if I had any idea that I might become a long term editor and administrator, associated with that name by countless people. I see that Carcharoth also said above "If I'd known I'd be using it 15 years later, I might have gone for something different." I wonder how many more of us are in that situation. JBW (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Please Help with inappropriate Discussion for Deletion

Hi Brown Hair Girl!

You helped with a recent edit for categorizing article: Lesa Wislon and I am very NEW and don't edit on her ever, so this was VERY helpful. To give you a backstory: My client: Lesa Wilson is an actress and model based in the Atlanta-area. Her credits span from DC's Doom Patrol, Bluff City Law, STAR, Necessary Roughness to her most recent, DC's StarGirl debuting on the CW Network Spring 2020. So I went to Wiki editing to ensure she was categorized as an actress instead and updated a filmography chart for reference plus updated photo instead of the 2006 pageant head-shot.

THIS WAS NOT A PAID PROMOTION/EDIT*** Instead, I manage public relations for this client and there is a significant issue with my client's search stating she's a pageant queen and/or American Idol contestant and referencing a misspelled name of "Lisa Wislon" and an out-dated image of her as well all dating back to 2006...NOT RELEVANT/Active information on her and misleading, so my edits were to merely revise her category to most up-to-date works and she IS a relevant actress notable for Wikipedia. Her works are credible and can even be viewed on-screen and via her demo reel linked here.

When logging in today, the page is now up for deletion and the user started a discussion BASHING my client and my edits seemingly out of spite and this spread of slander and hate speech towards my client's past on American Idol and as Miss GA USA are NOT to be a topic of discussion considering they date back to 2006 and are not relevant to my edit of her category to actress and updated filmography section for current works + photography. I again am not skilled at editing and do not work on wikipages or platforms of any sort- simply assisting a client to ensure the correct and most up-to-date information is out there.

The discussion is linked here for your reference:

https:/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lesa_Wilson

Please so kindly HELP me to correct this article appropriately and flag such future inappropriate discussions from taking place in the future on her page.

Thank you!

19:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2018PR (talk • contribs)

Hi 2018PR

Please see the policy WP:NOTPROMO: Wikipedia is a not a PR forum for you and your client, or for anyone else. If you want advertising, go pay for it.

See also the policies WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#How_to_disclose, both which you failed to follow when you edited Lesa Wilson.

I have also seen your edit[1] to User talk:John from Idegon. Your allegations of "cyber-bullying" against the experienced Wikipedian User:John from Idegon are bogus, and amount to carry an implicit legal threat (see WP:NLT). I am glad to see that Drmies has acted promptly, and that you have been indefinitely blocked from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.[2]

Anyway, thanks for pointing me towards WP:Articles for deletion/Lesa Wilson. I will go there to support deletion.

And a suggestion for the future: next time you want to promote a client, buy an advert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom decision redux

Nobody cares about an Arbcom finding of fact three minutes after it is archived. Don't scramble your password just yet; take a month or two off finding other things to which you might volunteer your time. If working on Wikipedia still makes sense after a period of cooling off and looking around, come back strong! There are many here, myself included, who hope that you do. If other ways to volunteer make sense for you, do those. Just make like an Ent and don't be hasty. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @Carrite. I am thinking a lot about all the wonderful encouragement and support I have had in the last few days from you and others. It has been quite overwhelming to find so much kindness from so many.

But my three-score-and-ten is ticking away towards its limit, and I need to think long and hard about how to use whatever years are left to me. There's a time for everything, and the discomfort of this ugly episode may be a sign that I should finally take firm action to clear space to do the substantive writing which many of friends rightly accuse me of dodging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, bravo!! there is plenty of other great ways to use your considerable talents. if you have friends encouraging you to write, then I say go for it. Wikipedia will still be here whenever you want to come back. We all have a certain amount of time to use our talents. I think you should pursue any creative areas that seem worthwhile for you. good for you! I hope all's well. best wishes. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I've cut my WP content writing time way, way, way back for a couple years now to work on a book series so I know exactly of what you speak. I'm the last person to fault you for that decision. But there's no need to scramble a password even if you do go that route — let it sit. Come back if it feels right and seems important; correct two typos a year if it doesn't. If you're like me, you'll be using WP as a book-writer even if you don't write much for WP when you're so engaged. All the best either way, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I want to add my words of support to what my friend Carrite wrote above. Take some time off, as long as you like, but please don't do anything irrevocable. I know that you are hurting right now, with a lot of justification. However things turn out, I just want to say that I am very grateful for all of the excellent work you have done for this project. Thank you so much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

My three-score-and-ten came and went and I'm ticking along on borrowed time according to my physician, so I hardly have time for those who use their claims of PSTD as an excuse for their behaviour to insult, harass, and bait admins in the hope of a reaction they can complain about, or get away with paid editing. I haven't forgotten Jimbo Wales' 'civility' speech 2014 in London and the message he was trying to impart without directly naming names of people who have deliberately made breaches of civility their stock-in-trade for years. At Arbcom, defence is characterised as 'doubling down' , so in my case I'm not even watchlisting Arbcom. In the words of Iridescent: ...something as blatantly "verdict first, trial later" as this one. I've semi-joked before that it's possible to predict the outcome of arbcom cases before they even take place just by looking at the personal grudges of the participants and calculating how far they each think they'll be able to push their preferred outcome and still call it a compromise, but I'm not sure I can recall an example this blatant before. When It's all over and done with, I'll also probably be scrambling my password, but maybe not until I've had the opportunity of meeting some friends and enemies alike at the next Wikimania which will be taking place in a few months right on my doorstep. And then I'll have more time to spend with my adult grand children, get back to composing some serious music, and write some more books. BrownHairedGirl, your work on Wikipedia will be sorely missed, but I know how you feel. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This is actually exactly a reason to take a break, not to scramble the password.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur 200% with all of the above; you could scramble your password, for security purposes, but don't remove the e-mail link just yet. If nothing else, I would encourage you to seek a new RfA, which you would undoubtedly win handily, as a method to rebuke the ArbCom decision. Notionally, Wikipedia has no rules, so there's nothing in set in stone that ArbCom can't pass a motion to refine the wording of its previous rulings, to the extent that anyone cares about ArbCom rulings as @Carrite and GoodDay: have pointed out. I haven't read the GoodDay ArbCom case because, frankly, I spent all of two minutes with it, and it was a grossly erroneous smear job. GoodDay, like you, is one of the finest and hardest working editors Wikipedia has. Doug Mehus T·C 16:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, even after seeking and winning a new RfA, whether or not the ArbCom decision is amended or not, you could still decide that you've got other priorities in your real life you want to take care of, so could retire your mop shortly thereafter anyway. But, crucially, you would give yourself the satisfaction of knowing ArbCom was dealt a crucial blow to their credibility with your re-election as an administrator. Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Doug and Kudpong. You have your life to live; still, Arbcom should be forced to examine its actions, however little good it will do them. Consider your de-sysopping a blessing in disguise. Life is too finite and uncertain to donate your blood time any further.

Wikipedia will miss you far more than you will miss Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of the workings of ArbCom, yet, from reading every post in this thread, I am somewhat appalled that they would choose punishment over rehabilitation.

Let them eat dirt cake; you are a hero(ine) to the many Wikipedians familiar with your show trial case, and an inspiration as well.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi BHG, I was away for 3+ months from October to February, and I missed all of this. I think it's just ashamed you were de-sysopped and I think that decision was a poor one. I can't think of anyone who has so tirelessly and humanely contributed to the encyclopedia. I'm shocked at this result and can only shake my head in disbelief. I know you want to decrease your time spent here, but lifespans are very long these days and I hope we will continue to be blessed by your presence. In terms of "ArbCom decisions are unappealable", I'm not sure that is entirely correct; I've seen many ArbCom decisions revisited and overturned down the line, usually at least a year or two later so fresh Arb eyes are in play. I think if you want the tools back, you'd pass an RFA even today with flying colors.

It's so sad to see female admins leave or be desysopped or both. I hope you will stick with us. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes Dennis Brown Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [3]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

RfA

TonyBallioni (centre right, with hat and very smart side-parting) prepares to give the oration by the graveside of Arbcom's once-good judgement.

Just so you know, I would support an RfA this instant, and I suspect many others would as well. This is the only time in memory where I’ve seen a desysop where I’m convinced the arbs got it wrong both in my gut and after reading through the case. Thank you for your years of dedication to the project: you are the reason many of us got more involved in Wikipedia. Anyway, take all the time you need, but if you were to run, I’m confident it would be a vindication of the trust many of us still have in you. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I second that. Reyk _YO! 07:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes please. An RfA is the way to demonstrate your wide support. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 here as well. Doug Mehus T·C 22:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Unsure. Would people treat it as an assessmwent of BHG or an assessment of Arbcom's desysop? Some might support BHG because she has been a superior editor, but who also believe Arbcom was justified. Expect a lot of neutrals. Moriori (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Not trying to stop you from writing or any other activities you see more deserving for your brain, energy, and time. I fully respect whatever decision you take, and (per Moriori) of course I'm not sure either. But you'd have my support, with bells on. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 here as well. Cbl62 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I really would personally suggest, just as my own personal opinion, that perhaps BHG might be better off pursuing other activities? serving as an editor of Wikipedia is fine, and I hope she continues to do so. Why pursue adminship again, after all that has happened? who says that would be beneficial? I am not an admin, never have been, and never want to be one. my own personal highly-insignificant personal opinion on this is that, after all that has occurred, I think that BHG deserves a wiki-break from the admin role itself. I am really speaking based upon my own subjective experiences of life, and not for any other reason. you guys simply need to see the wider world around us. BHG gave the admin role their best shot. I don't think we are necessarily doing BHG a favor, by suggesting this so soon after the whole proceeding. I truly mean this as an idea of a positive nature, and I hope my input is seen that way. I appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe the thinking is that BHG ought to be able to quit or move away from WP on her own terms, rather than on the terms set by ArbCom.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis, Exactly, and I don't think they've successfully prosecuted the case for an ArbCom-directed desysop, either. Certainly, we've had experienced and administrators alike who have used unparliamentary language in their discussions. I do also think BHG raises important points on the lack of procedural fairness employed by ArbCom, and on their (lack of) factual accuracy in their decision. Doug Mehus T·C 18:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 ミラP 20:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 I suppose there's no limit to the number of nominators one can have, eh? Schwede66 05:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Schwede66, Nope. I assume the nominators would be implied votes of support and thus not need to actually !vote in said RfA? A potential new RfA for BHG may well break wikirecords in terms of the number of co-nominators; would be funny if they had to recode the RfA template to reflect the implied votes of support into the "support/oppose/neutral" template maintained by Cyberbot due to the co-nominees not being reflected in the "support" total. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus Nominators do vote in RfAs. Schwede66 18:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Schwede66, Oh, in addition to their nomination? Doug Mehus T·C 18:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Schwede66 18:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Schwede66, Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 00:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 Please consider this path carefully—not just for yourself, but also for all those who benefit from your good work building an encyclopedia. Neonorange (Phil) 07:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 (Goodness, all this had escaped my notice entirely.) As discussed above, the FoF can be challenged. As revealed here, it has little impact on the enormously high regard in which you are held by many fellow editors and admins. I've had the privilege to see some of your behind-the-scenes activity on self-populating navigation templates rolled out, and they are works of genius and beauty. If you leave, you'll find other good things to do with your life, but you've been a great fit with this project, and it does not have to end here. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 Lourdes 17:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

+100000000 Puddleglum ^2.0 01:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 Would support a RFA in a heartbeat; although we quibbled in the recent past, your record and long standing demonstrated integrity speaks for themselves. Agreed with every word and analysis points you made in various portals discussion before the arbcom...fiasco; have always acted like a true content orientated admin. Obviously you have brought huge value to the project and have for years been just irreplaceable. Your closing statement above is one of the most considered, graceful and optimistic I've read on the internet. Really, really really hope you reconsider staying with the project. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 removal of administrator access was a net negative — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I wish I had said something when you were wronged by ArbCom. I didn't, because I have never really interacted with you, you don't know me, I'm just a nobody, I had nothing to do with the case, and because I'm a coward. I'm very sorry that I did nothing to help you. You deserve so much better. Should you decide to to try to regain adminship through an RfA, whenever the time is right for you, I'd be very happy to support you. Vexations (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 ! What unmitigated poppycock. You are and will ever remain one of the best to have wielded a wikipen. 🌤️ – SJ + 21:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 You and I have had our run-ins and disagreements in the past and some of the exchanges were not as polite as they could have been, but I never thought you were acting out of spite, only conviction as I was. I cannot believe that desysopping was considered necessary. Like you, I have considered leaving Wikipedia in the past due to my treatment by other editors here (including when I was briefly desysopped myself when my account was hijacked through no fault of my own - the attitude of some editors was not edifying), and continue to do so on occasion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Necrothesp, Exactly. BrownHairedGirl argues passionately in her arguments, but I've never construed those arguments being made with malice or spite. Like the RHaworth case decision, this was another example of ArbCom coming to the wrong decision based on procedural flaws in weighing the arguments. Doug Mehus T·C 14:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs! Hope you're well, you were always a good admin, hope everything is OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you! +

I know it is not much coming from me, and I have not had the years of experience on this site that you have had. However, I do think it is a mistake for you to give up on Wikipedia now.
In politics, we have what's called a Second Act. BHG the superstar admin who wields the mop with righteous fury may be no more, but that shouldn't stop you from finding something new to become.
Regardless, Wikipedia can use your help now more than ever!
–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Seconded (so to speak). Surely you joined Wikipedia to edit, not to admin? --GRuban (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Good luck BrownHairedGirl in whatever you choose to do. Many thanks for your awesome contributions to the wikipedia. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

re: Sikivu Hutchinson and David Silverman (activist) articles

I noticed that you edited the Sikivu Hutchinson article in the past and that you are also a former Wikipedia admin. My edits for the Sikivu Hutchinson and the David Silverman (activist) articles are being reverted in relation to the content relevant to Sikivu Hutchinson. I asked a Wkipedia admin to resolve this matter at this talk page.

Could you please add your commentary to the talk pages of David Silverman (activist) and Sikivu Hutchinson.Knox490 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. There is more on this at Talk:Sikivu Hutchinson, which I moved from my Talk page. I might have done more to help but I have been out of web connection for most of the past four days. Deb (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Deb

Sorry, but I can't help, because I am no longer an admin. See above: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Statement_by_BHG_on_the_ArbCom_decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that until today. But you might still have a view although I'm not really sure what Knox490 was looking for from us. Deb (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Year in nationality music category

Hi BHG, is there a way that you can modify the template for {{Year in nationality music category}} so when it is utilized it will go into the parent category "Decade in Fooish music". Changing to this template has created a bunch of empty categories that are now appearing in Wikipedia:Database_reports/Empty categories. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Done[4].

Many thanks for pointing that out. It was in my drafts, but somehow got snipped before the template went live. Facepalm

It usually takes a few hours for the category pages to be purged, but it should be done sometime later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1951 Brazilian television series endings

A tag has been placed on Category:1951 Brazilian television series endings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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) 03:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Swiss television series endings by decade

A tag has been placed on Category:Swiss television series endings by decade requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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) 04:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: Please can you leave off the TV chronology categories? I am in the midst of a big restructuring/cleanup, and some categories are not populated immediately. That one was only 16 hours old when you tagged it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course, thanks for letting me know. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

TV-related category templates

Hey, I have a question regarding your latest TV-related category templates. Was there a reason why you created both "debut" and "endings" templates, instead of just one?

Take Template:Nationality television series debuts category for example, it checks the pattern "^.+ television series debuts$", but you could just do here a "if pattern1 (debut) ok, then pass debut-params, elseif pattern2 (endings) ok, then pass endings-params, else error. Then to Template:Nationality television series debuts category/core you currently pass "country" and "nationality", but here you can also pass either "debut" or "endings" which you can then use in the category (or header text where present). So here, for example [[Category:Television series debuts by country|{{{nationality}}}]]" can be [[Category:Television series {{{type}}} by country|{{{nationality}}}]]". --Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gonnym

Thanks for your question. These things are a bit of a toss-up. Over the years I came round to the view that category header templates are a good thing for many sets, especially if they can a) handle all except a few edge cases, and b) are intelligent and don't require parameters. They make it much easier to create new categories, reducing errors and creating consistent parenting and presentation across the set. That's good for both readers and editors.

The problem is that both A and B increase complexity, which reduces maintainability. In general, I think that maintainability gets less critical as usage levels increase. So the cite templates use Module:Citation/CS1, which is an utter monster of a code farm, but it's used on over 4 million pages (nearly all in article space), so I reckon it justifies requiring expert maintainers. Similarly Template:Infobox, with ~3.5 million transclusions.

I feel that in these cases the transclusion count will range from ~100 (for the container cats) to the low thousands for the by-year cats, and they are used on the relative backwater of categories (much lower viewing than articles) which isn't a big enough or sufficiently widely-viewed set to attract many coding wizards. I have stretched the complexity about as far as I want to go for this level of usage. The crudity of the Lua-based pattern-matching matching would make the code even more complex if if I added that extra layer, esp because parser functions don't do if/elseif/else, just if/else, so it would take quite a lot more code (or some hacks which produce code that is less verbose but more obscure). I could write that code easily enough, but each step of added complexity creates a corresponding fall in maintainability.

Over the last 4 decades, I have had several occasions where complexity led to abandonment when key personnel changed, so I am very wary of creating similar problems on en.wp. So in this case it seemed better to just fork each type of template, and have one template for each type of category.

That last para is a judgment call about fuzzy boundaries, and I won't swear that I have got the balance entirely right. What do you think of that explanation? If you can demo a version which does both without getting too ugly, I'd be happy to take a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand your point about the complexity (which is part of the reason I would have gone the Lua way, as I find template code horrible in that regard). The reason I brought this up was because I changed something in one of the other templates, only latter noticing the same issue, which was when I noticed that the debut/endings template call different /core templates. I'll make a mock up later today as I've used if/elseif/else in template code before without any hacks needed. I'm pretty sure (but I might be wrong) that it won't add any layer of real complexity to the code. --Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

See Template:Nationality television series debuts category/sandbox and Template:Nationality television series debuts category/core/sandbox on how this works without any problems with barely any change to the structure. In Lua this can be a bit more efficient, as there isn't need to find the title parts multiple times. --Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Clean-up categories from 2021

A tag has been placed on Category:Clean-up categories from 2021 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Your edit warring on Carl Huntington

AGF? Please. You're the one initiating silly, bullshit, tit-for-tat edit warring. How many of the 30 articles remaining in that category have you similarly scrutinized? Are you really going to venture into JPL territory and tear down the encyclopedia simply because some other editor didn't jump through all the hoops you expected them to jump through without them knowing what those hoops are? Wikipedia:Six million articles is a steaming crock of shit in that it invokes the Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge". This project is nowhere near that stage despite being around for 19 years. Some editors have spent years making countless edits per day every day and have never sought to achieve that. If you spent even a tenth as much time actually improving content as you do running scripts, this project would have been much better off and I would have more incentive to spend time here helping to improve it. As it stands, you appear to be another editor who is only about passing judgment on the content contributions of others without having much to contribute to content yourself. In other words, you're sitting back expecting others to do the real work for you. When you make hundreds of edits a day, you're setting the standard. Expecting casual contributors to do the heavy lifting and then viewing them as "second-class editors" like I saw in someone's comment a few years ago speaks volumes about what that standard really is.

The creation of the Huntington article is emblematic of Wikipedia's problems. A newspaper archive search clearly establishes his notability. Numerous sources refer to his mushing feats as something special and to his fame during the height of that period. That wasn't why the article was created, however. The article was created because he holds a particular title, namely Iditarod champion. This is the same thing driving the creation of other musher biographies, often at the expense of more historically important (read: notable) persons. The editor who created the article performed only the minimum effort necessary to collect a hat over at DYK, as evidenced by the numerous sources overlooked because they couldn't be obtained by picking low-hanging fruit. In the thirteen-and-a-half years I've been here, there are only two statements I've read which I agree with 100 percent. One of them is that DYK encourages self-promotion and bad writing. I'm no longer emotionally invested in this project, where it appears you are. It's very easy for me to walk away and abandon my efforts to improve this article, leaving it for what it really is, a blatant attempt on someone's part to collect a hat (your actions thus far have already proven that if I do walk away, the article will only be torn down, not built). The countless times I've pointed this situation out with articles nominated at DYK or ITN/C has not resulted in any appreciable improvement to the content in question, only the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. In other words, this evinces the notion that Wikipedia regulars believe readers to be too stupid to know any better or that readers don't actually read encyclopedia entries in depth. This makes your claims of AGF a case of Wikipedia being "the blind leading the blind". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: per the notice at the bottom of this page, I prefer to keep discussions in one place. But in this case I think that moving your post across to User talk:RadioKAOS#AGF_please as a reply to my post[5] would be perceived as as hostile, so I won't do that.

Bluntly, RK, you chose to misinterpret my routine cleanup edit[6] on Carl Huntington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as persecution of you, and used your edit summary as an opportunity for a rant[7]. You ignored my reply to you, and now came here to post a longer rant because I removed[8] one of the two categories which you added, since it refers to an attribute not mention in the article: see WP:CATVER.

There are indeed many problems with en.wp, but I don't see how any of them will be resolved by adding an unsourced assertion. If it was a mention in the article text, I would have left it in place and added a {{fact}} tag, since the article is not a BLP. However, there is no way of tagging a category as unsourced, so I removed it.

And as to the rest of your post, you appear to be using me as the outlet for your anger about those wider problems ... so I don't think that further discussion is likely to be productive at this time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)