User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive30

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

G2 does not apply to the user namespace

You seem to have just deleted a bunch of userpages as "G2: Test page". However G2 explicity "does not apply to [...] pages in the user namespace" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately the popup "Reason" menu does not mention that – I will ask if that exception can be stated there.

In any case I think those deletions would be valid under WP:U5. Do you think I would do well to undelete them and re-delete with an applicable criterion? – Fayenatic London 15:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that U5 does likely apply here, and personally don't really care whether they are undeleted and redeleted - that's up to you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding lack of civility in WP:CFD. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies

Hello, Fayenatic london,

I apologize if I interrupted you while you were fixing broken category redirects. That was not my intention so I stopped what I was doing to let you take care of the task you were working on. I didn't mean to step on your editorial shoes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz – I was not aware of any interaction/interruption, so I guess it worked! – Fayenatic London 07:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Mayors in China

You're correct, it was Lüda. Whoops. Tagged now. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:5th-century rulers in Asia has been nominated for merging

Category:5th-century rulers in Asia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Nederlandse Leeuw: the rationale in the nomination will make more sense if you add 6th, 7th & 8th. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london working on it, just a minute! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

   Done Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry – once again I was confused by the +1 hour time difference! – Fayenatic London 09:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

CfD relists

Hi.

I understand that it's nice having additional closers (I know I find myself commenting more than closing these days).

But I just was noticing there is a newish editor, who seems to have found some new tools (and is asking for more [1]), and seems to be mass-closing CfDs as "Relist". I'm hoping it's just an enthusiastic editor looking to help out. But we've seen "interesting" things before, so just thought I'd put it on your radar.

I hope your day's going well : ) - jc37 22:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting

User:Notrealname1234 has relisted a large number of CfD discussions onto yesterday's log page, including discussions that could easily have been closed instead of relisted. Should (part of) these relistings be reverted? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I was going to suggest we ask them first whether they would mind, but they have already been reverted for similar relists at FFD (see User_talk:Notrealname1234/Archive_1#Non-admin_closure), so I think it would be OK to go ahead with reverting CFD relists too. I could use mass rollback on the category pages if that would help, if you would revert all the CFD log pages. – Fayenatic London 05:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• I can do that this evening, right now I am running out of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • OK. The raw material is here. – Fayenatic London 06:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I'll be asleep by your evening time. Making a start... I've un-relisted June 18, 22, 25, 26, 27; July 3, 4, 8. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The remaining contribs which you might reverse are here, for CFD July 5, 7, 9 & 10. – Fayenatic London 11:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    • •  Done - I noticed too late that you are on holidays, apologies for interrupting that, enjoy the remainder of your stay! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

    im sorry, but im not really new, i created my account in 2021/2020 but started editing this year. Notrealname1234 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

    also, you might change the categories too. Notrealname1234 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks – Done. – Fayenatic London 01:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T342344

@Writ Keeper: please consider adding a note about mass rollback, that after using it on a large number of edits, paging through one's own contribs may skip groups of them, as the reversions may be logged with indistinguishable time stamps. This confused me for some time when trying to check my own work; c. 140 edits in Category namespace timed at 00:45 today are not all shown when paging back in 50s or 100s. – Fayenatic London 07:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That...sounds like something to report to Phab. In the meantime, in case you haven't tried it already, they're all shown if you change the page size to 500--I imagine the bug is when an entire page of contribs has the same timestamp. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the paging could only be fixed if the timestamp of edits is recorded more precisely than hundredths of a second. I may try raising it there after my holiday. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'm already typing up the bug report! No worries there :) One question, though--viewing the last 500 of your contribs shows 137 edits at 00:45 July 20; do you think that's roughly the correct count of edits that you reverted with the script? Trying to get a baseline. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I expected 139, but that's close enough. – Fayenatic London 12:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: I noticed a similar problem after a mass update using XFDcloser. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup, it's nothing unique to the MassRollback script; any edits that are sufficiently close together will exhibit the issue. Based on T200259, which the bug I opened got merged into, this has been known about since 2018, so I'm not optimistic for a quick fix... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I gave you both category barnstars already, but you really deserve a kudos for all that work - Nicely done : ) - jc37 00:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Related nominations

Greetings. I was wondering if you have practice with tools to facilitate the nomination of subcategories of Category:Works by creator nationality (which I've just created) in the related nomination Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_17#Works_by_writer_nationality, please? fgnievinski (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: I would simply copy the six-line template on one of the nominated categories, and paste it into the others, editing the target name. To be fastidious one could change the startmonth, but don't worry about that.

For the record, I was surprised by your support for the possessive form, as jc37's alternative is in line with your original nomination in the earlier CFD. – Fayenatic London 04:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

19th-century people from the Ottoman Empire

I don't understand your reversion of my edit. "from the Ottoman Empire" is clearly referring to the country, not to the nationality. The empire was multi-ethnic and included Arabs, Turks and Greeks etc. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You surprise me. I thought you had been contributing long enough to be aware of Wikipedia:Category_names#How_to_name_a_nationality by now. E.g.:

British = from the United Kingdom. Nationality categories use the demonym in this and most current cases.

Georgian = from Georgia (country). In this case nationality categories use from + the country name to avoid ambiguity with Georgia (US state).

Ottoman = from the Ottoman Empire. Since September 2022, nationality categories for empires etc generally use from + the compound name.

If I remember correctly, there is at least one editor who prefers the latter naming format for nationalities, but consensus remains for using demonyms in simple cases.

You also surprise me in not understanding that being from a country is generally an indicator of nationality. When people are category as being from a country, that's by nationality. It's only when people are categorised as being in a country that this is by country, and such categories only exist for occupations that include a lot of expatriates, e.g. bishops, diplomats and sportspeople. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that it quite so clear-cut. As you say, we have people in Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire, not so much because they were expats (they probably spend all their lives as subjects of the Sultan), but because they were Greeks (i.e. not Ottomans). Many (most?) subjects of the Sultan were not ethnic Turks / Ottomans. They would never have self-described as such. That category is also parented to Category:Christian clergy from the Ottoman Empire. See how quickly someone is stitched from being in an empire to being of an empire? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not a strong example, as it was renamed from a nationality category (Ottoman bishops) to an "in country" category per your nomination, and has not yet been re-parented as it should be. – Fayenatic London 02:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I received a notification from @Liz: that Category:15th-century European people by country was being nominated for deletion because it's empty. Is it empty because of what we have been discussing here? There may well be a case for deleting / renaming categories such as this, particularly when they are so dependent on the Roman Catholic subcategories, but this unilateral action is not the way to do it. If you have a larger scheme in mind, I think that it would be best to share it with the community at WP:CFD. Otherwise, this just looks like out-of-process emptying. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not leave any categories empty out of process. That one is now empty because of this edit by User:smasongarrison. There are no by-continent categories before Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Europe, but Category:15th-century Roman Catholic bishops contains the subcats by country and they are all in Europe (even Cyprus), so I thought it was fair to add that one there. You may want to create a C15 by-country subcat as you did at Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops by country. Incidentally, you did not get round to fixing the sort keys for that one. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

OK. A bit busy at the moment but will get to it later. Perhaps @Liz: might drop a note to smasongarrison. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not doing my research properly. As mentioned in the nom listed below, it's so difficult to see who does the actual de-populating. Anyway, sorry. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No problem – your assumption was understandable. – Fayenatic London 08:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, so I noticed that I got pinged into this conversation. So looking over my edit comment "not by country; removed Category:15th-century European people by country", I think my reasoning was that they weren't all "European people", by definition even if they were "in [European] countries. Mason (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that your rationale applies equally to Category:16th-century European people by country etc, please consider taking the whole series to CFD for deletion. Pending this, may we repopulate C15? – Fayenatic London 11:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, Laurel Lodged has taken them to CFD for renaming. – Fayenatic London 01:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

By Year

Hi.

We seem to have disparate guidances spread out over several pages, and they are in various states of being up-to-date. So (besides just doing format and grammar adjustments), I've been trying to unify text.

I'm still looking at EGRS and OCEGRS. While I think OC should probably have a related section, I think OCEGRS should mostly just be only referring to the concept of overcategorization - while anything "policy-related", should reside at EGRS. Plus the OC listing is apparently getting out-of-date, as EGRS has apparently become more expanded. Maybe merging it all to EGRS would be better. Any help with this would be most welcome.

Also, I've unified guidance from several places into Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_year_or_time_period. Though it could use more CfD examples, if you happen to come across any. - jc37 15:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Good work at OCYEAR – it's nice and clear. I suggest mentioning sportspeople by period as they are mostly deprecated.

I saw the work re SMALLCAT and would like to contribute there later, but don't find it conducive to do so ATM on a mobile device. – Fayenatic London 04:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the sportspeople situation, but that seems to also be being used for WP:OVERLAPCAT. I wouldn't mind moving those examples, if we can replace them. I wonder - do we have any non-year-related overlapcat examples? - jc37 02:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Nm, I found some : ) - jc37 02:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

So I started to merge some of OCEGRS to EGRS, and looked to see what would remain, and realized that since this really isn't about "category clutter", it should probably all be at EGRS's list of Dos and Don'ts. That said, I was tempted to move Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Specific_intersections back to OC anyway, since the CfD links seem part of the explanation. But if we do that, we're taking it away from the "general conventions", which probably isn't a good idea, from a clarity perspective. Plus keeping everything together should (hopefully) mean that we avoid having guidelines in various states of being "current". Your thoughts are of course welcome : ) - jc37 18:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I saw you had a point - both because of past uses of that shortcut, and that these two sections should probably not be separate for clarity reasons. Thanks again : ) - jc37 19:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Is "Works by" preferable to an eponymous category to collate a few subcats and articles for a musician? WP:EPON could helpfully add a steer on this. See current disagreement at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_28#Category:LeAnn_Rimes. – Fayenatic London 05:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Without expressing my own opinion (partially because I don't have one yet lol - I'll go look at your link in a minute), but just as far as that policy sentence, I just copied that from OC to unify it. I think the idea behind that particular policy was that we want to categorize works by author, but if that's all that we have for it, is the creator's works + a main article, then we shouldn't just be creating a bunch of what are essentially nearly empty, eponymous container cats. If the choice is between to have a tree filled with an eponymous category for every article, or to have a "works by creator" for every creator, the idea was that the latter is preferable and we only create an eponymous one if it's needed. (And by the way, there are times that I'd like to trout whoever came up with the term "eponymous" for these, it's always such a jumble to type lol)

Anyway, that's my recollection of the theory behind it. If WP:CCC, then we can update. But I would be surprised if it has. - jc37 05:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's what it looked like before unification: [2] (second sentence). Do you think it needs a clarifying sentence about not categorising works in the works by X category, and the parent eponymous cat? - 05:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Having looked at it...

Sooooo. This isn't so much about epon, as about smallcat (epon is essentially just an extension of smallcat if you think about it). There's been a debate about songs by artist and smallcat, quite literally since smallcat was implemented, and there's always been some type of an exception fought over. (I linked to it here.)

Your choice is to let everyone fight one way or other over it, and still have it called a localcon, and so this fight will continue on, or just let them keep both cats for now, and if interested in addressing it, start an RfC on works by artist and smallcat/eponcat.

If you look in Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musicians (and subcats), and Category:Wikipedia categories named after Canadian musical groups, you are likely to find a bunch more of these. - jc37 05:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:DisestcatCountryDecade/core

Hey, has there been any updates with Template:DisestcatCountryDecade/core? It's been over 5 months since the TfD. Gonnym (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: we discussed an updated version last year at Category talk:Pages using old version of Template DisestcatCountryDecade. Is this still something that interests you enough that you might finish it, please? – Fayenatic London 01:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It does interest me, @Fayenatic london.

But right now, I am feeling utterly shredded and disillusioned by the antics of a small bunch of people who are furious that I insist that the words in a short simple guideline means what it say, rather than being wholly void beyond te first word of the headline. And because of that there is an almighty drama of out of context quotation etc going on to blacken my name again. So whether I stay around to do anything else of substance remains to be seen. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So if I am still around, ask me again in a month or two when the dist has settled.

Right now, this place literally makes me puke, and it's not healthy for me to engage. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry BrownHairedGirl, I should have looked at how that was going before I pinged you on this minor matter.

FWIW, if you will accept this from an editor you should rightly consider as an ally: when I last took in what the complaint was about, it wasn't really about a guideline, but about your history of personalising disputes by calling other editors' competence and good faith into question, when you could instead have just written about the facts and merits of the case. Things would go so much better if you would recognise this habit and step out of it. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: the facts and merits of this case are that a bunch of editors have wholly misrepresented a simple guideline, and have persisted in doing so long after their error has been pointed out to them. That is inherently a competence and good faith question. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Just because you can see it doesn't mean you have to say it. That's a choice. When you choose to write out your views about other editors as well as your views on a policy issue, it generally does not strengthen your case. Instead, the main result is that everybody concerned gets upset, and what began as a discussion about a proposal becomes something deeply unedifying. AFAICS it's not just unnecessary – it's always counter-productive.

I'm still here because it's place where I can do useful stuff and where I'm still learning. I hope you will conclude likewise. – Fayenatic London 05:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london, in this case a small group of editors has repeatedly insisted that black is white, on a very simple matter. That is a competence and good faith question which needs to be resolved.

In this case, some of that group have engaged in retaliation against me, vengefully trying to destroy my work. I have tons of evidence of this, and it would be helpful if you would withhold judgement until you have seen the evidence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Help on Swati tribe page

Dear admin I found your talk page from recent active admins and I wanna explain a issue regarding a propaganda on our tribe. I am leader of Swati tribe from Pakistan and We speak Pashto. Around 60-70% of our tribe Speaks Pashto and we strictly follow Pashtun Culture but there are some users which you can see in edit history of that page like Sutyarashi. They were trying to prove Swatis of Hindu races like Dardic. They are very much active on our tribe page and edit immediately whenever I or anyone made changes. I provided them a lot of reference but they said these references belongs to Colonial era i.e Written by British Government which are not acceptable on Wikipedia then I provided references from old books and then they said It should be publish by a good publishing company. Then I open their reference through which they were trying to change our origin and on the same page there was mentioned Swatis are maybe arabs which was totally opposite to their citation text. Then he agreed to me on his talk page and then I provided him the reference from the current research of Hazara University in which Swatis are mentioned as Tajiks and which is correct research according to Wikipedia rules and he accepted too this but still he didn't write tajik on page and again find some references in which some Dardic tribes were refered as Tajiks but Swatis are not mention in that reference. I checked. But Still they trying to impose that on page again and again and not writing Tajik Or Pashtun but Dardic without any reference Please I need help. I don't know much how to use Wikipedia but please save us from their propaganda. Khan Of Naral (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Personalising disputes

Hi FL

Further to your comment[3] above of 08:39, 27 July 2023 about your history of personalising disputes by calling other editors' competence and good faith into question, when you could instead have just written about the facts and merits of the case

See User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive29#Cfds (permalink) where you had a long exchange with Oculi, which began when Oculi asked [4] you to close as withdrawn two CFDs nominated by Oculi: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Expatriates_2 and WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates A-G.

I have several WP:ADMINACCT questions for you:

1. See my opposes to each of the CFDs in question: [5] and [6]. Is it your view that those !votes were personalising disputes?
2. Since you object to personalising disputes, why did you not challenge Oculi's personalising of the dispute as 2 thoroughly BHG'ed nominations of mine?
3. Since you object to personalising disputes, why did you not object to Oculi's vicious personal attack on me[7] at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_9#Expatriates_2?
   It was the last of only two responses to a nomination which you studied enough to opine on its merits, so it would have been hard to miss.
4. You had been approached in your capacity as admin. So why did your reply[8] take a WP:INVOLVED stance, not only expressing support for the nominations, but suggesting two more categories which you believed could have been included?
5. That same reply[9] correctly noted that these were SMALLCAT-based nominations. So why did you in your admin capacity express support for mass nominations which did not even mention WP:SMALLCAT, and which made no attempt whatsoever to address either the "potential for growth" or "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" exemptions in WP:SMALLCAT?

You did indeed close both discussions as withdrawn, but in each case your close ([10] & [11]) made no mention of where the withdrawal requests had been made. That omission is a minor oversight, but it wasted a lot of my time in trying to track down why a pair of CFDs had been closed as withdrawn despite there being no such request in the CFD discussion. If a simple diff of the request has been included in the closure, I would have seen your discussion with Oculi much sooner. I finally found it while preparing my evidence for WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Your replies (or lack thereof) may form part of my evidence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I am intending to reply to this before doing other substantial work on Wikipedia, but will be out and about today. – Fayenatic London 03:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Fayenatic london. I have enjoyed our interactions over the years, and look fwd to your substantive response. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BrownHairedGirl:

Many times over the years, you and I have expressed strong appreciation and support for each other on Wikipedia, in something that looks like friendship bar the anonymity. I thought that this would be a strong enough basis of relationship to offer some personal advice to help you understand how you come across and why it is self-destructive. I didn't have anything to say that couldn't be said in front of others, hence my writing on-wiki rather than by email.

The whole business makes me sad, which is partly why I haven't kept up with the latest, but I am all the more sad that you appear to be taking my words as a betrayal.

Anyway, you have asked me some specifics and you deserve a reply, so here goes.

1. Characterising someone as having a history of something does not mean that they do it all the time at every opportunity. So: No, I am happy to confirm that in your initial opposes on those two follow-up CFDs, you did not make any personal attacks.
2. (making no comment on Oculi) You are of course not the only one at fault. Sometimes I'm at fault. I only bring up faults if I think some good will come of it.
3. I interpreted that edit by Oculi as meaning that such interactions with you were tending to cause him to lose the will to live. Hence his early quitting on the follow-ups. If someone said that to me it would prompt me to self-examination rather than counter-attack.
4. By mentioning limited support for the ex-nomination, I intended to express surprise at the early quitting, and sadness that Oculi could not face another instalment of the debate in the form it had taken. I saw no bad practice in my disclosing, after implementing the withdrawal, how I would have !voted if the discussion had run its course. As for the two categories, you did not check the context – those were not omissions from the nomination, but categories in the nomination which had not yet been de-tagged.
5. It was a passing comment, not intended as a comprehensive analysis on "potential for growth". I could ask how on earth you interpret my referring to the recent CFD treating disestablishments differently from establishments as "no attempt whatsoever to address"... "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". (Note: I am not asking for a reply on that.)

Sorry to have wasted a lot of your time by not linking to the withdrawal request. Naturally I did not anticipate that it would be required in evidence. Of course, time zones allowing, you could simply have asked me. – Fayenatic London 03:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what to say

Fayenatic london - I don't know what to say. I'm only merely one Wikipedian, so I won't presume to speak for the community, but I just want to apologize to you for the above.

I read that and it was so shocking to me, I was at a loss for words.

In my experience, even if you were to say you two weren't friends, you and BHG have been friendly for as long as I can remember.

I read your comments above, similar to how I read Valereee's and others' - as an intervention to a friend who really seems like they are on a path of self-destruction.

I said an AN/I that I didn't think this would go anywhere. I guess I was wrong. You apparently saw where this is going more clearly than I was.

There was a time when I was friendly with BHG, and enjoyed interacting and collaborating with her. Until I was repeatedly pushed away and attacked til I just couldn't bring myself to want to step into that firefight anymore. And now seeing that start to happen to someone else...

Anyway, I have no doubt that BHG feels like the world is against them right now, and if only she shows these and other diffs she'll be exhonerated and the world will be a better place again. I honestly think she doesn't see that that that is going to make little difference anymore.

Even if everything she shows is correct and the editors were being awful. They (like her, several times in the past) are likely to get advised or admonished. Maybe a interaction or topic ban handed out for anything above and beyond.

But I think nearly everyone is seeing that BHG is likely facing "This user has exhaused the community's patience". That's a site ban.

I don't want to see that.

For all of the attacks, the ad hominem, and everything else, BHG does do good here. When not in battleground stance, she answers questions, she helps out others, and so on. I still side on the side of the line that the Wiki can be a better place with her here than without her here.

But the tone of the above. I don't know. If she can't find a way to address how she comes across. To address her ad hominem tactics. I don't know what will happen. I've watched arbcom a very long time. And every Arb is different, but even the ones who are the most generous and offer the most oportunities for change... I just don't know.

Anyway, after seeing the above, I just wanted to reach out and say that regardless of anything else, you too are valued. Very much so. And I am sorry to see this happen.

I sincerely wish you well. - jc37 16:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The only ad hominen in any of my post above to FL is Oculi's vicious personal attack on me.[12]

But your post is almost entirely ad hominem. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)