Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brough87. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brough87. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brough87. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must have had a fit - my revert at Germanic peoples indeed made no sense, as you correctly spotted. Sorry! Batternut (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, bud. Brough87 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why are you emptying Category:Australian people of Celtic descent? DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: because the concept of "Celtic" in the modern era is an arbitrary categorisation that is not supported by the required sources, and is causing endless controversy on talk pages. What Encyclopedic benefit does it offer to categorise such groups on a such a spurious basis? Brough87 (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should nominate the categories for deletion, not empty them. You should also use edit summaries. When editors see someone emptying a mass of categories with no attempt at explanation, they are likely to assume vandalism. You should re-populate the categoris, and undo your blanking of the category pages, and then nominate them for deletion if you believe they should be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: unfortunately these categories have been made en mass by one editor over the last few days, with no consensus sought nor explanation given. Brough87 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately, these categories were emptied en masse by one editor over the last few hours, with no consensus sought...". Actually, for example Category:Celtic diaspora which you nominated for speedy deletion as being empty was created in 2013. You need to revert yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the Argentine people of Celtic descent, you just reverted that out of hand. Brough87 (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I see that after you were advised of trhe correct procedure you then nominated the categories that you had emptied for speedy deletion on the ground of them being empty. This is clearly not acceptable. You have also continued not to use edit summaries for these actions. Please stop behaving in this way. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: the categories were not set up using the correct procedure, why have you chosen to go on a mass reversion spree? Brough87 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ping me every time. You have been emptying categories out of process, you hae violated WP:BRD (I not you removed my warning about this here, you are not explaining your edits in summaries, and you are abusing the Speedy Deletion criteria. You are also doing this to some categories which have been around for years, contrary to your claim above. Nominate for deletion following the correct procedure. If you continue I will take this to ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the procedure, you've just gone on a mass arbitrary reversion spree with no explanation and no accounting of the reasons for initial edit. Yes, Category:Celtic diaspora was in existence since 2013, however things like Argentine people of Celtic descent is but one example of a very recent one. Brough87 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To help me understand your recent evidently controversial edits, could you perhaps explain this edit you made, removing a Celtic category from a subject that seems to have good Celtic connections? Thanks. (I'll watch this page) Batternut (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Batternut: First and foremost I believe that the existence of the Category drew an odd link between Ancient Celts and modern ethnic groups supposedly descended from Celts; there is a significant distinction between antiquity and now. I have no issue with the existence of I think that the creation of another would be far more apt, I also have no issue with the existence of for the same reason. If my views were primarily about an overarching political conspiracy (as asserted by my primary accuser) why would I not try and expunge the existence of any category mentioning Celts? Brough87 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]