::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 /// [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 19:36, 31 January 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 /// [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 02:57, 1 February 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. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 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 {{U|Iridescent}}: {{tq|...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. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 04:13, 1 February 2020
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
Hi, hope all's well. The SWC team have had a bit of a purge and almost cleaned out the backlog, but there's a couple that could do with an admin. Can you edit user scripts? Category:Foo is currently occupied by User:Unit388/popups.js thanks to a passing comment in line 7031, but Unit388 hasn't been editing since May 2017. There's also a couple of user categories that could do with attention... Le Deluge (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Le Deluge. Long time no speak; I hope you are well.
I had seen that the backlog at Special:WantedCategories had grown again, but I hadn't the energy myself to do more than nibble at it. So congrats to those of you who have levelled the mountain.
I used to be able to edit user scripts, but that was changed about two years again some reconfiguration of admin rights. I think I did find some place to ask others to fix them, but can't remember where. I suggest trying WP:VPT.
SWC is now looking a lot happier (for the time being...), at least it's got the decade off to a good start even if I probably won't be able to keep an eye on it going forward. Thanks to any lurkers here who helped out, it really is a case of many hands making light work. I got the script sorted thank you. Le Deluge (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This development will never be built. The developer has gone into administration, the land has been sold off, and planning permission for the proposals expired in 2019.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi BrownHairedGirl, just wondered whether you managed to find a solution to the AWB problem ("Can't find csc.exe") you flagged in October 2019 here? My AWB has just started giving the same error message after I moved to Windows 10. Best regards — Hebrides (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Fraid not. I have two Windows 10 machines, and my main one is fine. It runs AWB without that problem.
The problem arose when my main machine broke, and had to use my backup Win 10 machine. It has similar hardware, but has the csc.exe problem. I tried all the suggestions at that thread, but none worked.
I am OK again now, because I fixed my main machine, but the backup is still as it was in October.
I have a suspicion that my backup machine (a laptop which I bought secondhand) may have been upgraded to Win 10 from an previous version of Win. It has no problems in any other respect, but I wonder if the upgrade process is the source of this error.
Hi BrownHairedGirl and thanks for your reply. I'm pleased to say that my error message problem is now solved, thanks to an explanation by Rjwilmsi – see the thread here. It's a .NET version problem, and as soon as I got past the AWB error message by editing a copy of the AWB settings file and removing the module code, when I relaunched AWB, Windows 10 offered to download and install the version of .NET that was needed. Once that was done, AWB loaded my unedited settings file with its C# module and everything is working. I agree that Custom Modules are an amazing way of extending the functionality of AWB. Hope that works for you too. Best wishes — Hebrides (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram, your comment is at best disingenuous, and might be better described as dishonest.
As you know very well — because we have had this discussion many times before — I do not follow [your] work. I sometimes cleanup Special:WantedCategories, which is routinely cluttered with entries created by you adding articles to categories which do not exist, and which need to be fixed. For example, from yesterday: [3], [4], [5], [6].
A typo is a few characters out of place, but none of those is a typo. Each one of them is a more substantive error.
And in every case, the errors are readily visible as errors: the categories show up as redlinks at the bottom of the page, so they are clearly visible to you when you have edited the page. No need for careful proof-reading; just look for the red text.
Thanks v much for the invite ... but what exactly am I being asked to write about? I could sound off on any one of a zillion topics, but is this a whatever-you-want slot, or do you have some requirements?
It's pretty well explained on the page. Pick what you think is "The most important article created since NOvember 1, 2015" (i.e. in "the last million"). "Most important" is purely subjective. There are plenty of examples on that page. Thanks, Smallbones(smalltalk)00:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh, BHG, thank you for nominating this one. I remember working on it with Nvvchar. Hey, Smallbones, I had had the same question as BHG regarding which article to nominate. I will give this some more thought today. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG. I was also asked by Smallbones to post at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view, but I don't know how. Could you please add the 2017 Laurence Olivier Awards for me? My description is this: These awards are important because Harry Potter and the Cursed Child had a record 11 nominations and a record 9 wins, which demonstrates to all on Wikipedia and beyond that the childhood dreams of countless millions can be shattered to thunderous applause by those who look no deeper then flashy effects and big names. How to grapple with realties far from what we imagined is a skill all who come to Wikipedia must learn to cope with in life, since for good or evil, rightly or wrongly, life never does turn out quite how we imagined it. -NH12 (Added March 2017).
I have already made my nomination,[8] and I wasn't invited to add two. I'm also much more interested in topics which aren't so widely covered elsewhere, whereas Harry Potter is part of the range of topics which are widely covered on en.wp due to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. And for various reasons, I am not a fan of HP.
The case clearly has not gone as we had hoped it would and as I believe the facts dictated. I wish you all the best in your life, BHG, whatever you choose to do. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comments on proceedings
Listen to the good advice I'm giving you. I am not adverse to your interests. I know you don't agree. Just give it a try and give it time. JehochmanTalk16:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the case proposals and talk pages today, the issue that comes up in lights (again and again from ArbCom members), is a concern that while you are a great editor (and admin), will you go to DEFCON 1 in situations where you (believe, and/or) are right, but where it would violate WP:54. They are seeing you appealing their findings because you believe that were right re the subject matter, and that this is an implicit justification for incivility; however, this is where some stop listening to you, and are concerned you don't see this. Britishfinance (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was kindof it, but buried in a larger section saying "I was still right", so it gets lost. You need a new section at the bottom of the TP with just a few lines only focused on clarifying above (with minimal, if any, caveats). It must convince the most suspect of them that you (1) recognize the fault, and (2) will never (ever) repeat it. Britishfinance (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good clarification BHG; the third sentance in item 4. is I think unnecessary (side-track things), and should be replaced by a sentance clarifying your sentiments in the TP/elsewhere, that you will be using community involvement/input (e.g. ANI/RfC etc.), to address those types of issues you might have with editors. Britishfinance (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Britishfinance. It's late now, and I am tired. I will look at this again in the morning, but my inclination is to run with what I have written rather than to polish it further. Part of the reason for putting things the way I did is that in my experience ANI is much less effective at dealing with complex patterns of behaviour than with single incidents (or small sets). The old WP:RFC/U process lacked follow-through (which is why it was abolished), but its structured format was much better adapted to examining complexity than the free-format pile-in environment of ANI. -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good consolidated statement of your position BHG, and can do no more. Wikipedia has always been an "average of things", rather than a "perfection of things"; and it seems to have defeated all attempts to make otherwide. However, I am sure Mr. Encyclopedia Britannicia felt 20 years ago that his product was perfect (at it probably was at that point), but now he is on the street with a tin cup; so in WP's averageness is the power of a community, its unexpected strength. Britishfinance (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, BF. I you'd told me 25 years ago that EB would toasted, I wouldn't have believed you, even tho my work was internet-based from the mid-90s. Poor old EB seller.
Yes, as a crowd-sourced work, en.wp will always be a work in progress, and perfection is not gonna happen. But the successes of the community model shouldn't blind us to its failings. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bit that some people miss is the exceptional persistence of the issues I encountered, which eventually caused me to snap and to start using blunt terms to describe what I encountered. I accept the clear decision by ArbCom that my response was unacceptable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are missing all of that part because they are not willing to look through the wall of incivility (which grew tall), until you clarify, unambiguously, that you were wrong, and that you will never behave in such a way again, even if you believe you are right (is a fear that some have). Explicit reassurance from you at the talk page would help those who might be inclined to take your long-standing contribution into account in forming a final view; some are clearly not sure whether this is a risk worth taking, as you have given them nothing. Britishfinance (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl and Britishfinance, I agree that BHG is often very blunt in her responses, and she certainly lacks passion. I think sometimes her frustration is expressed, perhaps, in the not the best way. That said, I also think that people tend to take WP:CIVIL too literally. The fact that BHG can argue with you passionately, sometimes in ways others would regard as aggressive, and then resume normal dialogue like buddies suggests to me she is, fundamentally, a rational, civil person. Doug MehusT·C21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that you might be demoted from administrator status if you don’t show more willingness to consider the possibility that you were in the wrong. Now is not the time for defiance. JehochmanTalk21:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Jehochman, believe me, I have examined and re-examined this many times. I stand by my analysis of what I saw, but I have clearly stated at the talk page that I accept ArbCmom's decision that my response was not acceptable, and give as clear an assurance as I can that I will not respond in that way again. See [11]. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is not appealable and threats to leave are never taken into account. The Committee will do what they feel is necessary. Editors aren’t sanctioned for being wrong; they are sanctioned for being excessively persistent and arguably wrong. JehochmanTalk21:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, that’s a good theme. Stay on that message. To avoid a possible relapse say that you will avoid the topic where the problem occurred. All of us have areas where we may lose our cool. That’s okay. We just need to avoid those areas. JehochmanTalk21:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this message doesn't rub you the wrong way, but I believe that sometimes being a friend means telling someone a hard truth. It took me the better part of a year to figure out that while it's worth volunteering my time to create a web page or improve a web page, life is far too short to worry too much about what kinds of web pages other people are creating. There are just way too many people and way too many web pages–it's like trying to catch all the rain. We have six million articles and you've just spent a year of your life rather focused on five thousand of them–five thousand of the least-read pages on all of Wikipedia, perhaps the bottom 0.08%. Meanwhile, there are other pages that have millions of annual readers; frankly, they need you more than the portals. I gave up on portal cleanup because I realized that if I didn't, I was going to end up more or less where you are now–having lost my patience and having to suffer the consequences of it. I'm sorry this has gone the way it has, but I think in the end you will view your decision to step away from portals not as a self-restriction but as a liberation. – Levivich03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Levivich. I have no doubt that you are right about what are the right steps for me, and that I should have followed the similar advice which others have in the second half of last year.
The reason I didn't do so is simply that there was a problem which few wanted to tackle, and I didn't see how it would resolved if everyone opted for self-preservation.
Ultimately, this is a systemic issue. The process of removing junk is so onerous and so easily gamed by those muddying the waters that as you found, it places an intolerable burden on those doing the cleanup. The system has evolved to a point where persisting with cleanup appears to be a suicide path.
An arbitration case regarding Portals has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from editing in the Portal: namespace or engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia. She may appeal this restriction in six months.
BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely restricted from interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed in six months.
For numerous violations of basic policies and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability and Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct, BrownHairedGirl is desysopped. She may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to establish a guideline for portals. The committee further recommends that this RfC be kept open for at least 30 days, be closed by a panel of 3 uninvolved administrators, and at a minimum address the following questions:
Topics: How broad or narrow should a topic area be for it to sustain a portal?
Page views: Should there be a minimum number of page views for a portal to be considered viable? How should those page views be measured?
WikiProjects: Should portals be required to be connected to an active WikiProject or other group of maintainers?
Updates: How often should a portal be updated?
Automation: Can automated tools be used in the creation or maintenance of portals?
Links to portals: How should portals be used? Should they be linked on all relevant Wikipedia articles, or should another method be used to ensure that portals are viewed and used?
Please note that the following is a personal statement, made solely to explain BHG's decisions in response to the ArbCom decision. It is not any way an attempt to open discussion on any of the issues raised.
I have reflected on proceedings so far, and want to say:
I now regret not supporting the request for a portals case back in about March 2018. Earlier intervention by ArbCom could have established less conflictual methods of resolving the mess left by the mass creation of automated portals, and created a better climate for examination of the rest.
Regardless of the outcome of this arbitration process, I commit to no further involvement with portals, in any form. My views on the structural problems with portal space have not changed, but is abundantly clear that my further involvement would serve no beneficial purpose.
Consequent to the above, I will ask that BAG withdraw its approval for WP:BRFA/BHGbot 4.
I will henceforth follow the principle of rigorously avoiding unparliamentary language. In particular, I will not call other editors liars, and I will not accuse them of incompetence, regardless of what facts I see and verify. I remain concerned that the community lacks effective and accessible mechanisms for dealing with such conduct, but I unreservedly commit to abide by the letter and spirit of what the Arbs guide.
I accept that in future, an apparent WP:FAITACCOMPLI should not be addressed by unilateral application of WP:BRD. That was not my understanding of the relevant policies, but I stand corrected.
I remain saddened by the proposed finding BrownHairedGirl_has_used_administrator_tools_to_delete_portals. I have been unable identify any allegation by the Arbs of misconduct in my making of MFD nominations, so I have no idea why that is included under this heading. I have been assured that there is no suggestion that I used admin tools to further my views. I accept unreservedly the Arbs recommendation to take in future a strict view of WP:INVOLVED. However, I feel that it is unjust that I am apparently condemned for my good faith use of admin tools for purely clerical purposes to implement decisions made by others, assisting in cleanup in the context of a deepening shortage of admins within what I believed was the broadly accepted interpretation of INVOLVED.
However, that continued editing will not be for long.
I accept ArbCom's decision to apply a strict interpretation of WP:CIVIL, and to censure me for what amounts to unparliamentary language. I accept that my use of direct language to describe the problems which I encountered was counter-productive, and I accept with regret ArbCom's decision to sanction me for that. But I have not been persuaded that I was materially wrong in identifying serious problems, which have been entrenched by ArbCom's findings.
I believe that ArbCom's decision is seriously flawed in several respects, including:
It wrongly dismissed evidence of misconduct by other parties, falsely representing me as the sole cause of a wider conflict.
It attributed fault to me for clerical tasks which I undertook in good faith, which were uncontroversial, which were supported by many other editors (including at least one admin), and which a significant minority of arbitrators recognised as such. I am very disappointed that the Arbs failed to respond to requests from me and others for even a single example of me using tools to advance my views. The Arbs' support of a principle of strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED may well be wise, but it does not reflect current community norms, and has been opposed in this case by many editors in good standing. As pledged, I will apply that strict interpretation in future, but I object strongly to its retrospective imposition on me personally, especially as a basis for sanctions. I am also concerned that it will seriously damage the community's ability to complete laborious technical tasks which require the mop, since the number of admins continues to fall.
It ignored all the evidence which I produced of systematic poor quality and transparency in edits which I reverted, thereby undermining both the established principle of WP:BRD and the ArbCom-created principle of WP:Fait accompli. I accept the Arbs' decision as future guidance, but I believe their interpretation to be a development of policy which failed to WP:Assume good faith, and censures me unreasonably.
It applied double jeopardy, explicitly reprimanding me for making my case in the course of the proceedings which were supposed to judge my case. This is a fundamental breach of natural justice, and leaves the community without a process for addressing the issues which I raised.
ArbCom decisions are not appealable. So this leaves me no possible path to remove these unwarranted slurs on my character and conduct. They will remain as "facts" for as long I remain on Wikipedia. With my good name shredded through flawed process and false "findings of fact", it is not possible for me to honourably continue as part of the Wikipedia project.
I know that this case presented ArbCom with a huge task, and I thank all the Arbs for their hard work and their sincerity. But the result is a decision that I cannot live with.
Additionally, I believe that ArbCom's decision exacerbates some systemic problems in Wikipedia, which I had hoped that it would try to help fix. I have described these problems in the proceedings, and I won't repeat them here. But I will note that first item of WP:Five pillars is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, which is a work of reference that requires scholarly rigour. Sadly, the development of policy and practice has allowed that overriding goal to be undermined by the prioritisation of secondary considerations. This decision by ArbCom exacerbates that problem.
Over the years, I have seen Wikipedia make progress on many systemic issues, so I have faith that there will eventually be progress on the systemic problems which I encountered. But their entrenchment for now places a serious barrier to editors who try to uphold quality.
So, after over 1.6 million edits in the course of over 14 years as an editor, and nearly 14 years as an admin, I will therefore wind up some incomplete tasks on my to-do list, and then leave Wikipedia. In the meantime I will also provide whatever assistance I can to other editors who would like guidance or tools for the tasks I used to perform. If you would like any pointers, please just ask.
I expect that this will take a few weeks. Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to play a part in building a unique contribution to human knowledge. For all Wikipedia's many flaws, it is overall a huge success, and hope that it will thrive, and find ways to overcome more of its systemic problems without sacrificing those who tackle them.
It has also been a great pleasure to work with so many fine editors who uphold encyclopedic principles and who apply critical thinking to their work. It is a great pity that Wikipedia does not value more highly those who use those critical skills. Instead, in practice it too often values superficiality over reason by preferring glib brevity over analysis, and prefers unchallenged assertion over actual debate. I have especially enjoyed those with whom I disagree, but who conduct a good debate; those debates are essential to any intellectual endeavour, ensuring that decisions are made by scrutiny rather than by cheerleading, and that crowdsourcing does not mean dumbing down. May the goddess continue to grant you strength to work in an environment which is increasingly biased against those who use critical thinking skills.
Please note again that this statement is intended solely as a one-off personal explanation of why I have decided that my time as editor will soon end. Please do not use this page for any discussion of either the numbered points or my wider structural concerns. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't change your mind BHG. But note, for a few years I was under two topic bans & then concurrently, I was Arb banned from Wikipedia for a full year & a month. Never once did I consider retirement. Not only did I return (after my ban was lifted), but I also successfully had my 2 topic-bans repealed? In these last few years, I've proven my detractors wrong & have thrived. If I could do it? so can you. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @GoodDay. But the problem is simple: sanctions can be lifted, but findings of fact are in effect tablets of stone. There is no mechanism or opportunity to review or overturn them. So no matter what I do or how much time passes, the false findings of "fact" will remain as a stick to beat me with.
@GoodDay: my concern is not smears by individuals. It is smears by the community's ultimate decision-making body. It no longer matters whether a squillion editors agree that ArbCom erred (as indeed nearly half the Arbs believe); the smears are now Wikipedia's final word. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BHG: GoodDay was one of the first editors I worked with when I started editing a year ago. GD offered me both instruction and encouragement. I've directly benefitted from GD's decision to continue editing post-damnatum, and I'm glad GD made that decision. I've also benefited from working with you, BHG, over the last year, as have many other editors, and as will many more editors if you stick around. No one would fault you for taking a break if you wanted to, but I hope that if you do, you'll consider coming back. I want to point out to you that FOF9 (admin tools) was 9-5-1, FOF11 (conduct during arbitration) was 8-7, and the desysop remedy was 9-6. The majorities carry under the rules, but they were slim majorities; not exactly what we'd call overwhelming consensus. Two votes is not "the project" or "the community". I think the community wants to have you as an editor and would benefit from it. So I remain optimistic that even if you step away, you will decide to come back, and I look forward to supporting your future RFA whenever that may be. (So please don't scramble your password.) Levivich04:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Levivich:, both for your kind words of encouragement now and for the pleasure of working with you at various points.
But even a finding of "fact" by a majority of one has been enough to create an unappealable, unamendable, permanent statement of an unjustified slur on my work and character. I am not sticking around with my record sullied in that way, or and I am not staying in an environment which censures someone for making their case in a forum whose purpose is to hear that case. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, all ArbCom decisions are amendable! They can amend them as they see fit. They can restore sysop status. They can substitute my name for yours. Literally anything at all. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't use this page for any discussion of either the numbered points or your wider structural concerns. Just asking you to reconsider. Your work here and Wikipedia are quite a bit more than portals and ArbCom decisions. You'd be missed. Sorely. ---Sluzzelintalk23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @Sluzzelin. I thought long and hard about this over the last few days, as the shape of ArbCom's decision emerged, and as the Arbs dismissed repeated pleas from other editors. But my hard-earned life experience over more than five decades is that nothing good comes from continued close involvement with people or groups who for whatever reason assert falsehood as fact, as has happened here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about this decision. I'm just interested in making an encylopedia. As one who has been banned before, I would say stop making edits for as long as you want or as the community requires it, but also don't feel constrained from or limited in making useful edits by some kind of complex moral or philosophical reasoning. This is a for-fun volunteer website. When you want to make edits to the encylopedia, make them. When you don't, then don't. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, you're a peerless shining figure on here, not even slightly stained by what's just happened, at least that's my view even as someone who agrees with much of the Arbs findings. Lots would strongly support an RfA if you wanted it. This outcome is painful & I so hope before too long you come to see us less poorly than you do now, and come back to us. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. It's certainly no consolation, but this is harsh. We haven't always agreed but I am stunned to see this. I don't think we've ever seen an unproblematic admin desysopped for a handful of instances of petty incivility confined to a contentious topic area that the community has repeatedly failed to address, and that's not even mentioning that said admin did not abuse their admin tools in any way, and had sincerely acknowledged the problem and comprehensively laid out a voluntarily resolution. I really have never seen a desysop like this before. I've thoroughly read through the progression of the case and I don't get it. When the desysop was proposed in the workshop phase, it was given little consideration, with the overwhelming majority of feedback in opposition. In the proposed decision phase, you laid out a strong argument as to why a desysop, or lesser sanctions, were not necessary, in keeping with our traditional standards of voluntary resolution in lieu of preventative action. No one argued the point that a desysop made sense in the face of your attempt to diffuse the problem. No one really even argued as to why a desysop would have been actually necessary at all. Not even the supporting arbs in their voting statements. It's not like you went to unique extremes of incivility, indeed many people say far worse in heated situations, and we usually have a understanding that tempers flair sometimes because we're all human, particularly in contentious, heated environments, and sanctions in these situations are generally frowned upon. No sanction they implemented resolved an issue that you did not pledge to voluntarily resolve, and no one in any way suggested that your voluntary resolution could not be trusted. I don't see a single credible argument that you have a fundamental problem incompatible with adminship, and that you're anything other than a normal person whose temper flared in a contentious dispute. We have never desysopped over that, especially when the person is saying "my bad, I'll work on it, and it won't happen again". I really don't get it. Both at face value, and reading the documentation, the action is literally not supported by any logical justification. It's very strange and concerning. I don't understand why this happened to you, and I can't understand the mentality of the current Arbcom. On another case I have been chastising them for not taking literal straightforward admin abuse seriously, and yet here they seem to have desysopped a non-abusive admin for little to no reason whatsoever. Arbcom is supposed to be evidenced-based and logical, and it appears they are straying from that standard. I am sorry that I was not around to defend you, whether or not it would have made a difference. You will be a great loss to the community. ~Swarm~{sting}02:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @BD2412, and also for your counsel along the way and for your sadly unheeded attempts to shine a light for the Arbs. But the desysop is actually the least of my concerns. I don't like it, but it might be fixable at a future RFA, and I might enjoy a period of moplessness. There can be a liberation in being free to say that a problem is beyond my pay grade.
So if it was only that, I would probably stay. But even if there was no sanction or reprimand, I will not stay while I am misrepresented by bad judgements which have been erected in tablets of stone as "fact".
Thanks, Lugnuts. I have enjoyed working with you, esp the fact that you are one of those editors who can have strong disagreements on one issue and then treat the next encounter on its merits. You're a fine Wikipedian, and I hope that your skills remain valued. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry too to see this happening, but this is the common way that ArbCom is operating. They either remove the fuel or the oxygen, but never the heat. Unfortunately you are not the first one, and very, very unlikely to be the last one. People still keep voting for members to take their seat in this institute, and hence it continues without reform. --Dirk BeetstraTC13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dirk. One of my underlying fears for the future of Wikipedia is that it is possible for any crowd-sourced project to reach a tipping point where the processes start to serve the interests of the less-talented participants rather than the project's ultimate goals. When that happens, a vicious circle begins where mediocrity can censure those who seek better, making it impossible to reverse the situation.
That's one of the reasons why I am not hanging around. I thought that the tipping point had been reached in only one backwater, but ArbCom seems to be upholding the problem rather than curing it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom hearing a new case requestArbCom, for many years, has been the poster child for this. They have improved, but not enough. Their solution is almost always to remove one editor (and for years, that was by default the named editor, in this case basically: you) and they think the problem is solved. "You were mentioned by 'the community' as the main problem in the Case request, so the problem is you." At the moment a case starts, your faith is set. They are fundamentally incapable to find a root cause. The community here had a problem with what to do with portals and how. So they removed you. ArbCom is not a dispute resolution, it is a bludgeoning tool, a firing squad. And as you say, it is a vicious circle, one that started years ago. --Dirk BeetstraTC13:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"it is possible for any crowd-sourced project to reach a tipping point where the processes start to serve the interests of the less-talented participants rather than the project's ultimate goals". Oh my, that's happening right now on Stack Overflow (amongst other drama) and it's a blood bath.
There's quite a lot I could say, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. So I'll just say I disagree with, and am saddened by, the outcome of this case. Wikipedia will be significantly poorer without you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Boing, both for your comments here and for the pleasure of working with you over the years.
You are wise not to comment more directly. ArbCom has made it very clear that even making a case in the course of proceedings to examine that case is verboten, so caution is needed.
Sad to see this BHG, however, per my (poor) attempts to convince ArbCom to take the route that the high majority of the community favored at the previous mega-ANIs on this case (topic + i bans), a core of ArbCom was not for turning. Per the ANIs, which underlined the obvious respect for you as an admin outside of the recent portal-incivility (even by those you were uncivil to, to their credit), I never thought this was going to end up in a deysop. However, when I saw some of the Proposed FOFs (FOF #6 and FOF #9, and even FOF #11), I was concerned. Deysoping is one of the least effective ways to handle the issues raised (unless you believed FOF #9). While ADMINACCORD is important, so is a contribution history of +1 million edits in some of the more technical, and least supported, areas of Wikipedia. There were better ways to handle this, but unfortunately, there is no DRV to ArbCom. Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s cliche, but I cannot believe this. None of it makes sense. A little human directness, in a contentious area, occasionally slipping into incivility, should not be able to lead to this. How could anyone get to this conclusion. And while it’s not a numbers game, some leeway has to be given for far over a million edits, and care for many important but often-neglected tasks. I call this irrational, self-defeating, harmful to the project - and, respectfully, seems just plain wrong. BHG has been a quiet inspiration for all these years, and this bizarre decision will not change my mind on this - but leads me, like many others, to wonder about the project. I suggest many members of ArbCom need to consider their own positions, if they can take the inputs of this case and produce such an outcome. And all this for a part of the project most readers do not seem to value or use. I could cry. Best of luck BHG!SeoR (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will permanently disable both my main account and my bot account, by removing the email link and scrambling my password... I ask of you to not do this. Please don't do something you'll regret; I'd hate to see ithappen again. Feel free to leave, to take a long break, whatever- but this is not worth you losing your account. The less people we permanently lose, the better. On the topic of feeling down over the FOFs, there's been users before, like Rootology, Everyking, and Floq, who suffered some sort of blow and reprisal against them, but went on to become some of the most legendary users to edit. It's your choice, but I do not believe this is the end for you. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI!20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My interactions with BrownHairedGirl have been limited, but always pleasant. She is somewhat of a rarity among Wikipedians—that is, she is a free and independent thinker, on most things, generally speaking, and from my limited observations of her. She does not "buy in" to the partisan-controlled narratives in much of the mass media. She does her own independent research, and makes her decisions based on that thorough research. Did she say some unsavoury things in the admittedly, very heated Portal: deletion discussions? Perhaps. But is that a de-sysop-able offence? The answer is...it depends. I think ArbCom made a huge mistake here in not looking past the supposed "evidence," and instead considering BHG's intent and the general climate of the situation. I don't think anyone can legitimately say BHG loathes Northamerica1000 or meant what she said as something that was said. Moreover, BHG makes a compelling case of potential double jeopardy, which is worthy of exploration.
BD2412 said it best here...the desysoping was excessive. Moreover, Northamerica1000 is not faultless here. And, even if they were, the dissenting arbitrators rightly, in my view, note that a two-way interaction ban would not necessarily have implied fault, but rather is an acknowledgement that their non-involvement and ignoring BHG can be seen, broadly speaking, as passive aggressive retaliatory behaviour.
I would've preferred BHG to seek a new RfA, if only as expressing the community's distaste for ArbCom's decision. A swift re-sysoping would be seen as a stunning rebuke and, to those ArbCom members who won support in the fall 2019 elections with the narrowest of margins, they are likely to end their term on ArbCom as "one-and-done" arbitrators. The general and prevailing early consensus among Wikipedians, from what I've been able to glean and gather, is that the community disapproves of this process.
For that reason, I will be semi-retiring from Wikipedia, effective at the end of this week.
I am extremely saddened to see this, BrownHairedGirl. While blocking - the worst fate for a normal editor - is, as we admins are constantly reminded, supposed to be prevention rather than punishment even for the most uncivil and unruly editors, it does at least come with possibilities of appeal, but one can only wonder how in desysoping cases like this, how such an Arbcom outcome can be anything other than a pure, harsh punishment and one with no route for appeal. Busy admins walk on precarious ground and will automatically accumulate enemies and vindictiveness - even among sitting arbitrators so it's hardly surprising that so few users are prepared to run for office, and why it has become a trend for so many to voluntarily lay down their tools. Swarm and Beetstra put it well, and while my efforts for Wikipedia are paltry compared to yours, it looks almost as if the community is looking for reasons to rid the project of older, long-term productive admins and I may well therefore be the next admin to suffer a similar fate. Arbcom is prosecutor, jury, judge, and executioner, they appear to take the witness evidence on face value so I'm not encouraged to even put up any defence. Like others here, I thank you enormously for all you have done for this great knowledge base. It will be a long time before anyone else can match your contribution to it - if anyone ever does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, you asked above about FoFs being modified. I know of one precedent, the Matthew Hoffman case. The case was decided in February 2008, modified by motion in December 2008, and finally overturned by a motion in June 2009. This motion explicitly stated that the adverse findings related to the sanctioned editor were nullified and ArbCom offered an apology both to the editor and the community. No other examples of overturned cases or modifications of findings after a decision is posted come to mind for me (as opposed to removing sanctions, which is a regular occurrence), though there may be other examples. NYB probably has the best knowledge of prior cases and ArbCom actions, FYI. But, Hawkeye is correct that they have the power to modify findings by motion and there was at least one example where a dreadfully unfair decision and injustice was corrected. EdChem (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for this EdChem. This is what I was looking into per my comment above – you've saved myself & probably others much time digging this out. If BHG wishes to proceed with an appeal, these are possibly the next steps:
1) Clarify which FoF BHG needs changed.
2) See who is available to help her with this. ( This is too important not to at least ask some of the big name & wisest editors like Iridescent & JHochman, IMO.)
3)Ask if BHG wants to contribute to the wording, or if she'd want to leave it in our hands. (BHG would likely at least have to sign the appeal though.)
Depending on the answers to 1) & 3) we should probably ask at least one of the Arbs to clear if its ok for BHG to discuss these matters on a sub page in her user space. For now, I think it's safe though for her to answer a simple yes/no question about 1).
@BHG, would it be sufficient if we got just 'conduct during arbitration' & 'used administrator tools' struck as FoF? (PS -if your answer is 'No', I'll bow out of this process & leave it to others who seem more completely aligned with your PoV on this, like EdChem. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FeydHuxtable and any other users considering helping BHG to consider an appeal, I'd like to offer a few thoughts:
The Matthew Hoffman (MH) case took 16 months to finally be overturned.
Arbitators who participated in a case can be unwilling to spend much time reviewing whether there was a mistake when they already have a view that they did not, which is an understandable human failing. It's one reason that a review / appeal generally goes before a different panel.
The MH case spanned two Committees as it started in December 2007 and some of the concerns related to the changeover. That is not the situation here.
The MH case was initiated by a member of ArbCom, who recused but continued to monitor the mailing list (I know this for certain as that arbitrator replied to an email that I sent to the list about the case). ArbCom procedures should now prevent such behaviour and in any case I know of no comparable issue in the BHG case. That recused Arbitrator's actions prior to the case were also problematic but went unexamined by ArbCom.
In the MH case, a non-recused Arbitrator proposed and voted on adverse findings and a desysop motion within 13 hours of the case opening. This was about 7 hours after the targeted sysop had posted to the evidence page that they had exams in a week and was unlikely to have time to look back at a two-month-old block until they were done. This kind of prejudging of a case and apparent bias was ultimately viewed as an irregularity in process but was actually evidence that the decision was unfair (in my opinion).
My point is that getting ArbCom to agree to modify its original decision is difficult and time-consuming, even when there are issues that seem like obvious problems to outsiders. The situation is comparable to the one faced by a wrongly-blocked editor. Arguing the block was wrong is generally pointless, but arguing it is no longer necessary (even if the editor believes that it never was) is often effective. With ArbCom, eidence of a restriction no longer being needed is more persuasive that arguing it was never needed (which is easily taken as IDHT). BHG, it might be easier to ask for modifications of findings that you could accept as balanced. For example, ask to change:
8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log)
to something like:
8) BrownHairedGirl has used her administrator tools to delete over 2000 portal pages since April 2019 and has nominated dozens of portals for deletion. (log) In some cases, after an MfD that BHG had started was closed, she implemented the consensus decision at the request of the closer (as proper deletion of portals can be complicated). The Committee notes that some of these actions can be interpreted as technical violations of the WP:INVOLVED policy, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.
assuming this is accurate. Another wording might be: The Committee is divided on whether or not such actions fit within the "routine maintenance" exception to the policy against administrators using their tools in situations in which they are involved, but also recognises that none of these actions have been challenged or reversed.
Equally, perhaps you could ask for a modification of:
10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. BrownHairedGirl violated this injunction by discussing an MfD in which she had participated. BrownHairedGirl also used arbitration case talk pages to insult and belittle other parties in the case. (BrownHairedGirl's talk page, talk page for main case page)
to something more like:
10) During this case, a temporary injunction was enacted to prevent BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from editing or discussing portals. In a subsequent post at BrownHairedGirl's talk page(link), BHG (appropriately) confirmed that she was not permitted to discuss deletions of Portals. However, she then linked to an earlier comment that she had made in an ongoing Portal MfD and then indicated the outcome she saw as correct. This addition was inconsistent with the injunction. BrownHairedGirl also made comment(s) (link(s)) on arbitration case talk pages in which she argued her position with insults and by belittling other parties in the case. Greater than normal freedom is given to editors making a case before ArbCom but parties are also expected to maintain decorum. Casting aspersions or making ad hominem comments does not advance an argument and may reflect adversely on the commenter's adherence to Wikipedia's fourth pillar.
Huge thanks, EdChem for all the effort and thought that you are putting into this. I am very grateful.
It's late now, and I need to do some CFD tagging before I go to bed, but unlike that AWB job, I need both braincells to think carefully about these issues.
We have never interacted (to my memory, but it may be flawed), so you can take or leave my comments as you wish. Like everyone else commenting here, I find it sad that a valuable contributor, to what is an important endeavor, decides to give it up. However, even if I knew you much better I would not persuade you to stay. We are volunteers, we need to get something back from the time we commit. If you feel insulted, or disparaged for your work, then why commit your time? You'll be happier elsewhere and I wish you all the best. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The desysop makes no sense and it's something I don't at all agree with, I know we've had our differences in the past but you're a great editor and was a great admin and it's sad not only to see you desyopped but also seeing you leave, I wish you all the very best and hope one day you pop your head back here!, Take care BHG and my best wishes for the future, Thanks, Dave /// –Davey2010Talk14:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
I have also seen your edit[12] 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.[13]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
.jpg)
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
