<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat_dispute/Update_list&oldid=1166422402 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat_dispute/Update_list&oldid=1166422402 -->
:BHG, I wanted to draw your attention to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat_dispute/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=1166935711] because I noticed that you may have been focused on defending your position in the SmallCat dispute rather than on behavior. Hope that helps? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 18:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
:BHG, I wanted to draw your attention to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat_dispute/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=1166935711] because I noticed that you may have been focused on defending your position in the SmallCat dispute rather than on behavior. Hope that helps? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 18:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks, @[[User:DIYeditor|DIYeditor]].
::But I do think that Arbcom's choice to open a case about conduct rather about substance has been a ''terrible'' decision . It pushes editors down a conflict-deepening path of finding muck to throw at each other, and it rewards editors who devote their time and energy on the wholly unproductive exercise of diff-farming and the vicious, poisonous game of [[quoting out of context]] which opened both the ANI and the RFAR.
::This is a framework which stokes division, and rewards the worst behavior. It actively punishes those who focus on substance. And it not only leaves the substantive issues unresolved: it saps energy away from solving them, and it poisons the atmosphere.
::I am still weighing to what extent (if any) I will participate in yet another conflict-deepening timesink. [[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 19:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Pppery. I had indeed missed it, having not been notified.
Sadly a small tag team of bad faith editors is maliciously targeting my categorisation efforts, as revenge for my opposition to some of her nominations, and these are a part of that campaign.
I mentioned it in the discussion, but I wanted to more formally apologize here. The second part of my comment here did not assume WP:AGF at all on your part. I have now stricken and replied with a retraction but I'm embarrassed it was up for a few days.
Thanks, @RevelationDirect ... but you have left in place the first part which falsely asserts that I threatened the closer. You ave also not struck your bogus allegation that I engaged in WP:POINT disruption.
That discussion raises a number of thorny issues, one of which is the pile-on by editors (sadly including you) who misrepresent the guideline WP:SMALLCAT by ignoring the headline issue of "potential for growth" and instead address only current pagecount.
A closer should apply WP:NOTVOTE and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS by giving little weight to such !votes. Sadly not all closers do so, which makes it a matter for WP:DRV. And if a closer does correctly disregard such !votes, the disregarded may be disgruntled and seek a DRV.
I can see how, from your perspective, my retraction and apology are incomplete. I've sincerely gone over my earlier comments to look for problematic ones but obviously that wasn't a neutral review.
I still have concerns about both your DRV comments and expanding a nomination you opposed. And you have concerns both that I am not acting independently as part of a tag team and that I'm deliberately misreading guidelines to target your categories. (That was a good faith attempt to summarize your views; if I missed the mark let me know.)
Is this something we can talk out here instead of inadvertently disrupting the CFD nominations? Does mediation make sense? Should we both report each other for violating WP:5P4? Despite our recent disagreements, you have a lot more experience in Wikipeda than I do and I still value your input for finding a path forward. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I have no ability to judge whether your repeated ignoring of the actual terms of guideline is deliberate. All I know is that it keeps on happening.
I also do no know whether you are a part of the tag team. All I do know is that you both repeatedly endorse the tag team, and that you repeatedly act as their attack dog by piling on me for criticising them.
accept that WP:SMALLCAT really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really does say that is about "potential for growth" rather than current pagecount.
I struggle to grasp how any competent, good-faith editor could realistically and genuinely fail to understand the difference between "potential for growth" and "current pagecount", and I don't see how any mediation or drama board is going to remedy that.
As I wrote when I added them, I did so to uphold the principle of consistency, by applying the same action to all categories which fit the criteria stated by the nominator.
My work on categories for 17 years has been underpinned by that principle of consistency. With category titles, that principle is what allows editors to apply a category to a page without having to guess its title: consistency means that they can accurately infer the title by applying simple rules.
Consistency of category titles also allows the use of category navigation templates (e.g. {{AllIrelandByCountyCatNav}}); they rely on sibling categories using exactly the same naming format.
Similarly, consistency of category titles allows the use of category header templates, such as {{Railway stations in Great Britain opened in YYYY category header}}; category header templates rely on multiple sets of categories using exactly the same naming format.
Same goes for other category rules, e.g. those in WP:OC such as WP:SMALLCAT. Applying those rules consistently allows editors to know when to spend their time creating and populating categories. If categories are randomly deleted on random principles, then editors who create a category cannot know whether they are wasting their time. If your work can be deleted at whim, then it's foolish do that work.
That's why in the late 2000s, a huge amount of work went into agreeing (and often documenting) sets of principles which have been remarkably stable for 15 years.
That lack of consistency is one of the reasons why I opposed LL's nomination. That nom did not even try to consistently apply the same principle to all the subcats of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation. It was an attempt to vindictively and maliciously apply a principle to a set of categories recently created by BHG, with a handful o others thrown in for plausible deniability.
In my view, the principle being applied was a clear misuse of the cited guideline WP:SMALLCAT. We disagree on that, but that's not the issue I want to here.
The principle of consistency requires that if editors want to upmerge the set of "subcats of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation which currently have fewer than 4 pages", then the same action should be applied to all the categories in that set. My addition of the other categories allows a decision to made consistently.
I am very miffed that you chose to ignore my clear assertion of that principle of consistency. Instead you chose to ABF and to accuse me of WP:POINT disruption. (That's a bit rich when you have been posting repeatedly about the need to AGF).
Instead of attacking me for upholding consistency, you should have been asking LL why he had not himself nominated the full set, and why he chose instead to focus on categories create by BHG within the previous 48 hours.
Sadly, that's not the worst aspect of this. By attacking me, you missed the simple fact that the central purpose of LL's nomination was to target my category creations. LL's nomination is a stunning example both of WP:POINT disruption and of WP:HOUNDING. Sadly, you radically misread the situation, and ended up attacking the editor who is the target of the LL/Oculi tag team ... thereby assisting the WP:POINT antics of LL.
So the long and short of it is that you ended up both endorsing the misapplication of WP:SMALLCAT, and relatedly attaching the editor (me) who is being targeted by the vindictive tag team. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed replies; I took some time to think it over before replying. Let's put a pin in our WP:SMALLCAT perspectives for now since I think there are two WP:5P4 civility issues where we're more likely to find common ground, at least in the short term. I'll start with my perspectives on them:
Timing of Populating Categories When you began your oppose vote by pointing out how new your categories were, I didn't realize until here that this was important because you saw it as part of hounding. I honestly thought that was an implicit request for more time to finish up populating the categories.
I was one of three editors seeking a middle ground to buy you time. Thinking this approach was helpful makes sense if you understand how category creation works for me and some other editors. I laid out my process for almost immediately populating categories here, another editor laid out a process with tagging categories as they worked on them here, and a 3rd hinted they take a week here. That's why I was so surprised when you responded to these attempts at moderation by seeing them as bullying. (And I reacted to that surprise poorly, which is my fault.)
Our process of creating categories must be very different. One of your replies said "… I don't usually try at the time to fully populate the part-of-an-established-series categories, and trying to abuse WP:SMALLCAT to demand that I do so would seriously impede my categorization work." That honestly still puzzles me since I see categorization work to be about linking articles to aid navigation, not as something different, but you work on a bigger scale than me.
- Do you think category creators have a responsibility to populate the categories they create?
Expanding a Nomination You Opposed Thanks for explaining your contention that the initial nomination was pointy. I can’t speak to that but, for this conversation, let’s assume that’s true since you feel that context is key. I’ve occasionally expanded nomination with an additional category if it was getting mentioned in the discussion so that the the closer could implement the consensus but this is different since you were trying to make a nomination less terrible.
Putting aside any potential motives, let me just describe my perceptions of this expansion:
You expanded the nomination 4 days after it opened. That’s rare but not unprecedented. You added hundreds of categories to the nomination. That’s unusual. The added categories hadn't been requested by other editors. That's unusual. You did not create a separate follow up nomination to handle the related categories. That’s unusual. You continued to iVote against your own additions. That’s unusual. You distanced yourself from your own additions when another editor expressed surprise they were from you. That’s unusual. And, whatever the original intent of the expansion, it elicited at least two oppose votes, the position you favor.
- Could you have accomplished your same goal of consistency here with a separate follow up nomination?
You are under no obligation to answer my two questions of course. Regardless, I wanted to give a little background on my perspective (without intentional sharpness) because both items lead to frustration. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am utterly sick of wasting time on your tedious obsession with so-called "civility issues" while you evade the two issues of substance. That is a completely destructive approach, which is guaranteed to rig the discussion against anyone who objects to substantive misconduct, and to favor the miscreants.
Lemme give you an analogy.
Sean goes into town with a big stick. In town, he sees a woman named Mary coming out the hairdressers, and he uses the stick to repeatedly whack Mary, hard. Mary falls to the ground in pain, yelling "Feck off". "Stop hitting me, you mad bastard". "[F-word] off, Sean". "Aaaaargh!!! You've broken my arm, you shithead, And my [F-word]ing ribs". And so on.
This is all witnessed by the Garda Síochána officer, Eoin. Garda Eoin steps in to arrest to arrest Mary for repeatedly swearing. Mary objects vociferously as Eoin applies the handcuffs. "Eoin, you daft [c-word]! I was minding my own business until Sean started using his stick to break my [F-word]ing bones". Eoin responds sternly: "Mary, I don't have time now to investigate your allegations of assault. You are under arrest for the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in a public place with the intention of breaching the peace".
Do you see the problem? Eoin's conduct was an appalling way to behave. He was persecuting the victim.
You are behaving like Garda Eoin. But in fact, your behavior is worse than that. Garda Eoin was a mere bystander until he arrested the victim. But you have been an active endorser of the tag teams's antics, actively endorsing their dismissal of the "no potential for growth" and "established series" parts of WP:SMALLCAT.
To continue my analogy, you are not just like Garda Eoin, who acted with inverted priorities. You are more like a corrupt Garda, the one who is systematically misapplying the law because of how he actively chooses to reject some of the law.
Could you have accomplished your same goal of consistency here with a separate follow up nomination?
Absolutely no. You seem to still entirely miss my point that if the criteria was "subcats of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation with less than 4 pages" then it is utterly wrong to apply that principle vindictively to the work of only one editor. Putting them all in one discussion forces editors to apply that principle consistently.
I had already explained that to you. And I am utterly appalled that you still take no interest whatsoever in the fact that the nomination was designed and built as a selective, bad faith act of malice. Your only concern anyhere has been about how I responded to that.
The substantive issues here are:
The systematic misrepresentation of WP:SMALLCAT by you and others who repeatedly chose to wholly disregard both the "no potential for growth" and "established series" parts of WP:SMALLCAT.
The recent malicious tag-teaming to apply that warped-and-twisted take on SMALLCAT to categories newly created by me.
As to WP:5P4, note that its headline is "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility".
It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to repeatedly disrupt consensus-formation by actively misrepresenting stable, simple guidelines, as you have done.
It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to repeatedly endorse the antics of a bad faith tag team, as you have done.
It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to repeatedly reproach the targets of a bad faith tag team for objecting to the tag team's antics.
It is neither respectful nor civil to other editors to attack them for impeding the efforts of a malicious tag team to create inconsistent decision-making.
And it is actively contemptuous and aggressive to others editors to attempt to use WP:5P4 as a weapon to bludgeon an objector.
You are welcome to discuss how those two abuses of WP:SMALLCAT can be brought to an end. But if you reply with yet more attempts to deflect from your part in flagrantly and repeatedly misrepresenting a simple and stable guideline, then this discussion will be over. And if there is the slightest whiff of any more attempts by you to weaponise WP:5P4 as you have dome above, then you will be permanently barred from my talk. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrownHairedGirl and forgive me if I'm not using the correct protocol while writing this. I'm pretty green when it comes to the style required when making a request on Wikipedia. For some years now I've been requesting changes to the article about Tom Crean and having written a self-published biography about the subject that was released in 2018, I declared a COI which prevented me making those edits as they'd be considered self-serving. In May 2023 my biography was released under the portfolio of an established publisher so I assume this changes things somewhat with regards to the credibility of my knowledge of the subject - Tom Crean and the inclusion and references to my biography. Changes were last made after I submitted my sources to the Royal Irish Academy and because my biography, at the time, was the self-published edition, those changes were attributed to them. I'm seeking to provide a Wikipedia editor with my research in order that an accurate and fuller account of Tom Crean's life and career can form the entry for him on Wikipedia. Currently the article contains a number of errors and requires additional events be added. I'd be most grateful for the help of an editor in my quest - many thanks Timfoley50 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You had my attention as soon as you mentioned Tom Crean. I have huge regard for Tom, as a modest Kerryman who did extraordinary things but never bragged. So it's a pleasure to hear from a biographer of Tom. Congrats on your work, as well on your choice of subject.
I assume that you came to me because of this edit[1] I made to the categories on that article. That was just a quick drive-by edit to populate Category:20th-century Irish explorers, and I have no other involvement with the article.
When I read your message, I did consider getting stuck in, but I quickly thought better of it.
Sorry to say no, but here's why.
Tom Crean (explorer) is a Featured article, the highest standard of article on Wikipedia. To get that badge, it is has been scrutinised in very fine detail by a bunch of experienced editors whose attention to detail is as legendary as their lack of mercy. (They do rigour, not favours). Their standards are very high, so I am wary of making any substantive changes to such polished prose. In this case, there is a list of books as sources, but I have read none of them, and I would not want to wade in without being thoroughly familiar with the sources. That would be kinda Randy in Boise conduct, and I deplore that sort of editing. Before using a new source, I'd want to wait to see how it was reviewed, and how its scholarly credibility is weighed by historians.
I do get your concern. You have done a lot of research, a lot of writing, and taken the long march through the nightmare of 21st-centry book publishing. You believe that your hard work has significantly advanced the state of knowledge on Tom Crean, and you would like to see other works updated. You would probably also like a wee bit of recognition.
All of that is fine and and laudable, and understandable. In your shoes, I'd feel much the same.
However, I think that with the best of intentions, you seem to be overdoing things a bit. Or maybe even a fair way more than a bit.
You also stared another thread in 2020. In fact, since you started the thread Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)/Archive 1#Changes_to_the_Tom_Crean_Wikipedia_entry on 22 July 2018, the talk page has discussed nothing at all but your book and your edit requests. Those discussions now make up more than half of the talk page, which will be 18 years old on 24 July 2023. So there can be no doubt whatsoever that any editor with a serious interest in the article is very well aware of your book. It seems to me to be quite likely that some of them feel that they are far too aware of it.
In that context, going behind their backs to approach me was a very unwise move. It looks very much like WP:Forum shopping, and it is deeply disrespectful to the editors who have already given you a lot of their time.
I have taken a peek at your userpage and at your contribs list, and I have to say that if you are not already in not being here to build an encyclopedia territory, then you approaching it at speed. I do understand your enthusiasm, but you are way way way overdoing it.
Wow!! An entirely unexpected rant and a simple 'no, sorry' would have sufficed. The first few paragraphs of your reply were fine but whatever sparked the complete change in tone thereafter is anyone's guess.
Yes, I've been relentless in my pursuit of alterations to the article that reflects the facts because readers digesting what is already written there are being misinformed. I am not, as you seem to believe,'promoting my book' I am attempting to ensure that additions and alterations are made to enhance a reader's knowledge of Tom Crean's life and career.
What nonsense is this "Going behind their backs" accusation you level at me?
I really did not need to know your 'here's why' diatribe and why would you tag previous editors in who've corresponded with in the past? It's not like you require their support for unnecessarily sticking the boot in? You did a fine job of that in your response without any help.
The facts are that the article has required change for many years yet as simple as that task would be, there has been a reluctance to do so.
I state right here that the sources I submitted to the Royal Irish Academy can be provided in order that the changes can be implemented. Strangely, there appears to be a continuing reluctance to do this. If the title 'Feature article' means it is given greater prominence than others then that's all the more reason that it should be improved.
Yes, you're correct, I did come back to you because of the recent adit you made but with hindsight, I was too hasty to make this request of you because I can see from previous interactions with others here, that being disrespectful and offensive is a trait you display quite often.
Do me a favour, pretend I never contacted you and if as you state, you're an admirer of Crean, bring yourself up to speed with other facts or did you not realise that my 'cause for state recognition' ceased being a cause for me when it was granted him in January 2021? Timfoley50 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my reply was entirely respectful, and it was not a rant. Far from that, it was written as a friendly warning to someone who I believed meant well, but who had gone way out of line. I took a big chunk of my time to actually explain my reasons, rather just give you a terse "no" or a blunt "no way, self-promoter".
As a matter of courtesy, you should have notified @Guliolopez, Factotem, and Spintendo that you were asking another editor to make the changes you want. A good faith contributor would welcome such notifications instead of raging at them, and your fury that they were informed is sadly very informative.
To me, this was a long way from ANI at it best. If the responses had been a steady stream of admins saying variants of "great work writing the book, Tim. Now please leave uninvolved editors to decide what use to make of it", then it might have ended with an amicable withdrawal by Tim. Smiles and cookies all round.
But instead, you and @Guliolopez were two of the few contributors at ANI who stayed on point. Some of the responses at ANI were tangential, and some were bilious endorsements of his disruption. Not for the first time, ANI was a bit of a brawl.
So yes, there was a favourable outcome in that Tim Foley's endless badgering of Wikipedia editors has now been curtailed. However I really deeply wish that it had not been so ugly. This needed calm review by calm heads focused on the core issue, but yet again Wikipedia's problem-solving venue looked more like a late-night bar fight than a measured review of the situation. If we are really here to build an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs a very different way of discussing issues such as this. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your absolutely right, it was sad, but I feel that it was perhaps necessary. Another editor had said something along the lines of "he's been here 5 years, why is this the first his behavior is being mentioned", which overlooks what is likely a larger group of people that had experienced his "hidden just below the surface" anger and didn't have the fortitude to take it to AIN. But you did. There are situations where it becomes "sink or swim", and for him, that was his moment. But it failed. If there's a bright side for him, all this has spurred me to seek out and purchase his Tom Crean book. I love history, and if his writing style is as fiery as he is, it should be a decent read! Take care Spintendo02:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right about Timfoley50. He did indeed seem to have a lot of anger in him, so maybe there was no chance of a soft landing. But I still wish that ANI had done more to keep that option open.
I am wondering if there is, perhaps, some middle ground that can be reached on the CFD issues. I will post something there shortly. BD2412T18:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where there can be middle ground between my assertion of what the guideline WP:SMALLCAT actually says, and those who use cries of incivility as a weapon to try to shut down criticism if their sustained misuse of it.
In the end, I just had to oppose in the CFD. I was thinking that there could be more supercategories within the structure of people of Northern Ireland, but that would be uninviting towards the creation of new articles in these fields. BD2412T18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it's just not that. There is a WP:SMALLCAT exemption for established series such as fooers-by-natinality. If that is not applied to Northrn Ireland, then the categories need to be merged to their British and Irish counterparts, as well as to their Northern Irish parents.
That creates three problems:
Neutrality. Identity is a deeply divisive topic in Northern Ireland, which is why the catgory naming convention is the oddball "Fooers from Northern Ireland". Upmerger results in the articles beig placed in categories labelled "Irish" or "British" In any given case, it is likely that one of those labels will be offensive.
Category clutter: these upmergers replace each nominated category with at least three other categories. (e.g. "Male Fooers from Northern Ireland" -> "Fooers from Northern Ireland" + "British Fooers" + "Irish Fooers". In some cases, there are four or even five parent categories. When multiple upmergers happen on one page, te result is horrendous.
Awful navigation. The Northern Ireland occupational categories are nearly all built from templates which offer built-in category navigation, so smallness is not a pressing issue. But merger lumps those articles in with slews of other articles in their undiffused parents. That's a real impedient to readers.
Sadly, the nominator and their tag team pals are wholy unintersted in any of that. They see only the category's current article count, and flaty refuse to even consider the other issues. I find myself seriously wondering whether here is any point at all in categorising articles when such destruciveness has to be repeatedly challenged. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl, could you expedite the diffs that you said you would show regarding the behaviour of certain editors? The ANI thread seems to be moving towards a conclusion, and I would not want to opine strongly without knowing both sides of the story. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to do so, but sadly today Laurel Lodged has opened up a new front: see my post[2] starting a new thread at WP:ANI#Disruption_by_Laurel_Lodged.
After doing a few using the visual editor, I was about to get going adding the template to the Wicklow TDs using AWB. I noticed that the program is halfway through another task, but heads up that I'll look after Wicklow later today or tomorrow. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing, tho. I have been asusmuming that we wwould hold off widespre deloymnt until we had made some decisions on the unresolved issues with {{Constituency Teachtaí Dála navbox}}, esp those which you and @Spleodrach had raised in our v productive discussions at WT:IRELAND.
I foolisly never said what I was thinking, and nobody is oliged to mindread, and it's entirely reasonable for anyone to decide it's good enough so far. I am kinda pleased!
But there are still only 11 articles with this style of navbox, so I assumed that others were taking a simlar view. As the tenplate coder, I have been tring to create options but not assume that it had the green light.
So where do you reckon we are at? Green light all round, green for only some lanes, amber, or difft lanes for difft cases? Or do you reckon Wicklow is a pilot case to see what feedback there is? BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We might be at amber light for some cases, I can see there are matters still to be resolved or discussed further. Wicklow may be a good test case, because it has just a single table, and we can see from that if there's any feedback. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BrownHairedGirl at CFD and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, @Black Kite. It is all very odd: Paul August did not even have the courtesy to leave a notice here about the block. That seems hard to reconcile with WP:EXPLAINBLOCK.
This block not only prevents me from proceeding with my two active streams of substantive work (see WT:WikiProject Ireland#IMOS_COUNTIES_cleanup and WT:WikiProject_Ireland#Rollout_of_TD_navboxes); it also prevents me from participating in the ANI thread, and -- crucially -- excludes me from WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case where there is an open request aimed squarely at me. It relates to edits by me which were all more than two weeks ago (some over 4 weeks ago), so there was no urgency ... and using a block in relation to a past issue breaches WP:NOPUNISH.
The block in relation to an open WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case request seems to be in effect forcing the hand of the arbitrators by creating a fait accompli. It imposes a sentence before Arbcom has even ruled on whether to take a case, and before the ANI discussion has closed. I am more accustomed to the principle that the trial comes before the imposition of sentence; even in the case of a fixed penalty notice, if the FPN is challenged then collection of the fine is suspended for the duration of any court proceedings.
@SilkTork: thank you for requesting[3] that @Paul August unblock me. However, I was surprised by your comment that You may impose a restriction on BHG to forbid them from editing elsewhere. What is the basis of any such restriction? My active work relates wholly to two uncontroversial and productive collaborations: WT:WikiProject Ireland#IMOS_COUNTIES_cleanup and WT:WikiProject_Ireland#Rollout_of_TD_navboxes. I have open AWB jobs relating to both. How would it help anyone to stop that? Also, i am not aware of any community sanction or editing restriction that allows me to be selectively barred in this way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: please see WT:WikiProject Ireland#Comment_on_previous_debate_about_succession_boxes, where Laurel Lodged (who is a a party to the Arbcom case request) has been engaging for several days in disruptive sniping. As I and two other editors (@Bastun and Spleodrach) have noted there, LL is not trying to do anything remotely productive or collaborative; Bastun and I have both explained how LL is wrong on multiple points.
How would it help Wikipedia to allow LL's sniping to continue whilst banning me from productive work? In what way would that be just, or helpful to the community? BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG. In addition to commenting here with a ping to the committee's clerks ({{@ArbComClerks}}), you may email the clerk team at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org with any requests to submit an additional statement. However, note that your request for a word limit extension awaits a response from you by email, which I don't think we've received. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t· c) 15:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: I emailed '@Barkeep49 about 15 hours ago to request an extension. I had checked my email regularly, but i had received no reply or acknowledgement.
BrownHairedGirl, I apologize for the delay in notifying you of your block. Unfortunately, there was something that came up that I needed to take care of. I also apologize for any other slow responses (I'm operating under some "disabilities" which makes commenting by me very tedious). Paul August☎14:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul August: I am sorry to hear about your disabilities. I wish you well in overcoming them and/or managing them.
But see WP:ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.
If you are for whatever reason unable to do admin tasks in accordance with policy, then you should simply refrain from taking them on. I note that your actions have been roundly denounced at ANI, so you seem to have made poor decisions both about whether to become involved at all when you are sadly constrained and about your choice of action. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to pings. My request to the blocking admin was based on Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocks_in_temporary_circumstances in which someone can be unblocked in order to allow them to take part in a discussion which relates to their block, but which restricts them from editing elsewhere. I don't have a strong opinion on if your block should be totally or partially lifted, but I do feel that it would be more convenient if you were directly able to join in the discussion rather than have others copy and paste your words. As regards your extension request, Barkeep has asked you a couple of questions which you would need to answer before that request is granted. SilkTork (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: I emailed '@Barkeep49 about 15 hours ago to request an extension. I just checked my email yet again, but i have received no reply or acknowledgement. I have also received no ping or talkpage message from Barkeep49.
Thanks, @Barkeep49. Now that I have seen the email, I see that your reply was indeed wonderfully prompt. Thank you muchly for that, and sorry about my software flaw.
My previous email client was barfing regularly at Gmail so for my rarely-used BHG email account I switched over to Thunderbird. Now it seems that out Thunderbrird's spam-filtering is wildly overactive. From frying pan to fire
Thanks again, @Barkeep49, both for your prompt responses and for granting the extension. I will of course treat the new limit like a speed limit is supposed to be trweted, i.e. as a limit, not a target. My pedal goeth not unto metal! BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating your editing restriction, as documented at WP:EDRC, as a consequence of uncivil statements as documented at "BrownHairedGirl's lack of civility in CFD". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Yes, @Spleodrach, I will. I think you are right that it's the only one left.
But unmerges are a little more complex than unsplits, so I will leave it until the morning, when I am at my freshest. Hope that's OK.
And while you are here, congrats on your massive work on deploying the {{Constituency Teachtaí Dála navbox}} navboxes. I dunno how you do so much without AWB, but it has been great work. We are about 85% done now, only 7 days after the first (buggy) working demo of {{Constituency Teachtaí Dála navbox}}.
We have had our moments in the past, but I have enjoyed working with you (& @Bastun and Iveagh Gardens) on this. I also enjoyed our collaboration on the 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, which was basically only a few tweaks short of WP:GA standard by the time the votes were counted. All involved did great work there, and I think it might even be a suitable FA candidate. Here's to yet more of these productive collaborations! BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What with Wikipedia having no deadlines, I was planning to get to these after my week's hiatus, although I given how quickly the navigation templates deployed, I can understand the desire to finish the job. I had been planning on leaving Leitrim–Sligo for further discussion; I was just over at Dublin South, where a constituency named in the legislation as South County Dublin is linked here as Dublin County South, and there doesn't seem to be any more synthesis in combining in the case of a switch in county name order. That being said, I think we've probably done this conversation to death for the moment! If I do ever have the urge to bring those two back together, I'll certainly let you know! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
I didn't want to just keep eating up your extension with a back-and-forth. Your recent reply:
I see why you fid my words about El_C to be harsh, ut I urge you to re-read that discussion. El_C themselves stated that they did't understand my complaint, and they were objectively wrong as a point of fact in insisting that it was about CFD. It was in no way about CFD.
El_C then threatened with me sanctions, insisted that my post was disruptive, and accused of my bad faith because I objected. That is terrible conduct, and the malice is clear from El_C's failure to apologise at the time, from their attempt here to weaponise their misconduct against me, and their bogus allegations against BMK.
And I note that yet again, the only concern so far expressed here is about how I described the misconduct, rather the substance of an admin repeatedly doubling down their misbehaviour. This is a pattern on Wikipedia :(
What I would find persuasive:
I see why you fid my words about El_C to be harsh, ut I urge you to re-read that discussion. El_C themselves stated that they did't understand my complaint, and they were objectively wrong as a point of fact in insisting that it was about CFD. It was in no way about CFD.
El_C then threatened with me sanctions, insisted that my post was disruptive, and accused of my bad faith because I objected.
And I note that yet again, the only concern so far expressed here is about how I described the misconduct, rather the substance of an admin repeatedly doubling down on a mistake.
To me, that's an objective statement of what happened and assumes wrongheadedness rather than actual malice, which is the crucial difference. How you describe misconduct is the entire basis of the ANI, this ArbCom request, and the entire history of civility complaints against you. It's literally the ONE THING you need to understand, and it seems like it's literally the ONE THING you can't get through your very useful and highly-valued head. From someone in the audience, it feels like you have a missing pixel there.
I am sure you mean well, but I deplore this notion that it is appropriate to focus all your attention on my words That is terrible conduct, and the malice is clear from El_C's failure to apologise at the time, from their attempt here to weaponise their misconduct against me, and their bogus allegations against BMK. ... rater than the piles of bile posted at Arbcom by El_C in their statement, let alone their ANI antics of wielding a big stick when they clearly understood nothing about the issues.
ALL the scrutiny is placed on the complainant's wording, while the miscreant goes unreproached. I AM UTTERLY SICK OF THIS.
I do believe that you are trying to help, and not just 'cos you wrote that here. You have repeatedly stood aside from the pie-on, and I thank you for that. But I really really really hate this Wikipedia game of disregarding substantive misconduct 'cos the complainant is blunt. This inversion of onus is no part of my values or of the cultures I have lived in, but I am beginning to think that is dominant in Wikipedia and that I am wasting my time here i thinking that we are here to bild an encyclopedia, and should therefore place a lot more value on truth and substance rather than on the bluntness of challenges to falsehoods asserted by someone who fails to read.
That issue of "falsehoods asserted by someone who fails to read" is both what El_C's antics started with, and what the whole SMALLCAT dispute is about.
Sorry to dump all my anger on you, but I need to set out just how invidious this all is. The principle of verfiability is at the core of Wikipedia's purposes, but I am in the midst of a huge drama in which I am assailed by people who not only make verifiably false assertions, but go on the attack against their critics. It seems that in this respect, Wikipedia's collective values are actively hostile to our claimed purpose: we have an environmnent where falsifiers thrive and lead lynch mobs. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG, can you take a look at Cork Borough (Dáil constituency)? There is an issue when an efn has a ref inside it. See Liam de Róiste. I updated the noteslist to use the name of the efn and this displayed it inside the navbox on Liam de Róiste, but the ref also displays beneath the naxbox. Curiously, neither the efn note nor the ref appear in the main Cork Borough article. Also, efns without a ref do not appear in the consitiuency article, see Carlow–Kilkenny (Dáil constituency), but do appear in the TDs article. Tx Spleodrach (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spleodrach, thanks to your very clear report, I was able to track this down quickly. I think that this wee edit[5] has fixed both glitches. (Just one stray | character!)
@Spleodrach: I hope so, but with so many layers of templates involved, there may be something else.
My next task is to finally document the {{Irish TD table begin}} series of templates, which I created back in 2009. You have done great work using them and tweaking them without docs, but if both of us disappeared from en.wp, they might be a bit opaque for other editors.
BHG, I wanted to draw your attention to [6] because I noticed that you may have been focused on defending your position in the SmallCat dispute rather than on behavior. Hope that helps? —DIYeditor (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I do think that Arbcom's choice to open a case about conduct rather about substance has been a terrible decision . It pushes editors down a conflict-deepening path of finding muck to throw at each other, and it rewards editors who devote their time and energy on the wholly unproductive exercise of diff-farming and the vicious, poisonous game of quoting out of context which opened both the ANI and the RFAR.
This is a framework which stokes division, and rewards the worst behavior. It actively punishes those who focus on substance. And it not only leaves the substantive issues unresolved: it saps energy away from solving them, and it poisons the atmosphere.
Administrator changes
Novem Linguae
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org with any requests to submit an additional statement. However, note that your request for a word limit extension awaits a response from you by email, which I don't think we've received. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
