User talk:BrownHairedGirl

SEMI-RETIRED

Because I have had enough of pile-ons, timesink dramas, the relentless quote-mining in dispute-resolution, and the fundamentally broken "arbitration" process.
For a full explanation see this post

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of August 2023.

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This talk page was last edited (diff) on 6 October 2023 at 14:21 by Pppery (talk • contribs • logs)

Sorry to see you go

I don't usually keep up very well with controversies and such around here so this has all caught me by surprise. Just wanted to say sorry to see you go and thank you for your service. Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BrownHairedGirl: I hope you have a great time outside Wikipedia and your life will be a bit less stressful. I'm sorry to see you go. You did a great deal of work on Wikipedia and the editors on here, all for the better of the project. You'll be miseed. scope_creep^Talk 01:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm also very sorry to hear this, and wish you all the best. Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You just need a well-deserved break. Everyone requires a wiki holiday from time to time. JMK (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

But I must clarify that you are not accused of simple fatigue, as what you experience is not at all imagined. Has there lately been a change in the operational and healthy functioning of wikipedia? YES. Is there a perceivable downward trend in this situation? YES. Is there a brashness in the way these people are operating, and are they impervious to basic reasoning? YES, and YES. Are decisions that should take half a second to adjudicate stretched out to infinity by time wasters with ulterior motives and conflicts of interest? YES.
  Consequently I placed a note on mr JW's user page on 29 November last year: "I have been active on the wikimedia projects since 2006, and generally encountered people who make good decisions and make the projects pleasant places to contribute to. In 2022 I feel something has changed. Suddenly there are people who cannot understand what you say, force their poor, infantile choices on you, and cannot communicate. All executed like a trickster that employs loaded statistics to get their foot in the door, then bulldoze their way in, and don't flinch when asked to explain themselves. Something has changed."
  Unfortunately the problem is not limited to the Randy in Boise type, but has a foothold in the WM Foundation. I think productive editors (only) should be able to plant a red flag in a situation where a) the ethic of the encyclopedia is impinged and b) normal process don't work. A red flag would mean, I walk away, but only because the system is failing here. This official red flag must be linked to a category and description page, so that the situation is not forgotten, and others can follow up. JMK (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

My 2c. We disagreed, but as I wrote before, I did not think the nuclear option was needed. Hope to see you again in ~12 months or a bit later, when we all will be older and wiser. Take this as a learning experience, if unfairly painful, and remember - there are plenty of other Wikimedia projects which would benefit from your expertise and activity, where you could demonstrate you can collaborate peacefully, paving way for your eventual return here. Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

A Sincere Apology On Behalf of An Ungrateful and Undeserving Community

Already closed by an admin, and doesn't deserve to be the last discussion visible here.Mathglot (talk) 22 September 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Dear BrownHairedGirl, Like other editors have stated in previous sections here on your talk page, I am deeply sad to hear of your semi-retirement. To my recollection, I have never interacted with you on any talk page but likewise have noted the countless contributions you have made to this project on articles to which I have also made contributions and for your service as an administrator. I sincerely doubt that I could ever be as prolific as you have been, and have nothing but the deepest gratitude to those such as yourself who have taken the time out your days and lives to serve as administrators on this project considering the vile and despicable trolling that is sadly too common here. Along with the development of generative artificial intelligence, the departure of people such as yourself will be the end of this project. I believe that the Wikimedia Foundation should have a greater obligation to verify the identities of editors to prevent those with a track record of trolling from continuing to make edits to the site and by law if necessary (just as social media companies should be required to do with their user accounts). I only hope the Foundation recognizes the problems with arbitration and dispute resolution and chooses to address them because this is unacceptable. People such as yourself have contributed far too much to this project to be given nothing but contempt, insincerity, incivility, and harassment in return. As such, I tender to you a sincere apology on behalf of an ungrateful community undeserving of someone to speak on its behalf, but for the sake of basic decency must be tendered to someone who clearly deserves far better. Sincerely, CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) You know, when the committee sanctions a long-term prolific user like BHG, it is normal and expected that there will be disagreement, and that people will post the sort of messages we see above, along the lines of "I'm so sorry this happened and I still think of you fondly" and that's totally fine. In fact I think it is a good thing, we always need to remember that every name we see on the screen has a real person behind it. And it is also normal that a certain segment will feel the need to decry the sanction, and the committee as a whole, that we're the worst committee in the history of the project, etc. On the other hand, I don't believe I've ever seen a message like this one before, one where the user claims to speak for the entire community, and then insults the entire community. Frankly this so-called apology is absurd and pathetic. If you really have such a low opinion of your fellow editors, you should probably find something else to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC) I echo this statement, the committee have the final say, whether it is necessarily the correct say is different, but they still have the final say. The foundation have basically no say in community matters. I apologise to the community for this above message, and I apologise to BHG for being a host of the message. Zippybonzo | talk to me | what have I done (he|she|they) 17:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC) I echo Beeblebrox and Zippybonzo. There is no call for denigrating the community for correctly identifying a problem and doing what was needed to protect the community. While BHG's contributions were certainly significant, her interactions with many people were highly problematic. I was sorry to see that she could not accept how her behavior was perceived by the community, but I was not sorry to see her go. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Collapsed, per... oh, I dunno, how about simple decency. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ouch!

Never expected this! that any awesome editor like yourself could be so at odds with the community. You taught us a lot, BHG, and I sincerely hope that "indefinite", for you at least, is only for a very short moment in time. You will always be awesome in my eyes! Paine  16:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What's up?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It appears this page has been purged by editors who are not BHG. Can anyone please explain who is doing it? Why? By what authority? Sarah777 (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sarah777 The bot archived several threads, routinely, at 04:19 today (see page history): is that what you are worried about?

This new thread should be at bottom, not top, but I'm on my phone and can't move it myself. PamD 04:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sarah777: PamD is right. The talk page archiving bot is instructed to archive discussions after they are idle for at least 28 days. This includes now some of the threads opened during the arbcom case. You will find the recently archived threads at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 077. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Kind of puzzled why someone using the exact same bot to archive their own talk page would be surprised by this. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You are easily puzzled. To the others - thanks for the explanation. Sarah777 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Folks, let's call this one a joke gone wrong and walk away? We're all friends here.--v/r - TP 03:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I second that! Sarah777 (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confused

Can someone please explain to me what exactly happened?
I was wondering why I stopped seeing her name everywhere I go, I feel proud to say that I have learned a lot from her and I believe most of us did.

What did she violate? What exactly happened?
(please ping me, but I'll also be on the lookout for the response(s)). dxneo (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dxneo: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. It's not any one single thing. That's why there was an entire arbitration case. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dxneo: I was wondering the same myself. It appears that it stems from this ANI and escalated through the above arbitration case. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)