Misplaced Pages

User talk:BrownHairedGirl: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:44, 19 April 2014 view sourceVictorD7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,648 edits →Your premature noticeboard closure.: Addition.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:47, 7 January 2025 view source UtherSRG (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators179,033 edits Restored revision 1267987286 by Consarn (talk): Not appropriate...Tags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots|optout=all}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="display:;">User talk:</span><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl}}
]
{{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Wikibreak }}
]
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner|75}}<!--
{{pp|small=y}}
{{semi-retired|date=August 2023|1=Because I have had enough of pile-ons, timesink dramas, the relentless ] in dispute-resolution, and the fundamentally broken "arbitration" process.<br />For a full explanation see }}<!--
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 31 |counter = 78
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(28d)
|archive = User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive %(counter)03d |archive = User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive %(counter)03d
}}<!-- }}<!--
Line 15: Line 17:
}}<!-- }}<!--
-->{{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/MyArchiveIndex}}<!-- -->{{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/MyArchiveIndex}}<!--
-->'''{{User:BrownHairedGirl/MyTalkLastEdited}}'''
--><div class="NavFrame" style="width:50%; border:1em solid darkblue; background-color:white; padding: 1em;-moz-border-radius: 2em"><!--
__TOC__
--><div class="NavHead" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; padding: 0px;">'''BrownHairedGirl is a Misplaced Pages admin'''</div><!--
--><div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: left; padding: 0px; margin-top: 0.1em; margin-bottom: 0.1em">I have been an ] since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with ].


== Sorry for your trouble ==
I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to
'''.


Hello ]. I have just discovered the giant and overwhelmingly lengthy and detailed narrative of your eviction from the Kingdom of Misplaced Pages.
If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly ''what'' you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.</div></div><div style="float:right">{{UserTalkReplyhere|cat=no}}</div>


It's a shock, and it is disgusting to witness the ejection of one of the most prolific and esteemed contributors to the encyclopaedia. I have not tried to read all of the vast quantity of legal-forensic argument pertaining to this incident (I value my mental health) but it's appalling that the banishment of such an intelligent and skilled contributor could not have been avoided.
==You've got mail!==
{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)}}
v/r - ]] 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, what he said. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::Hey - have you had a chance to read these yet? We really need your input on the Clinton RM.--v/r - ]] 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


This outcome counts as a true convulsion and upheaval in the annals of Misplaced Pages. Three million edits, and now – "fuck off"! It's confounding and upsetting, even for a bystander.
Sorry! Thanks to you both (] & ]) for your messages.<br />I have just finished up some other stuff, and will get onto this case now. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks! I just replied to you.--v/r - ]] 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
::Hey - we don't want to seem pushy, but we'd really like to get this RFC closed. Have you had a chance to review it?--v/r - ]] 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Sorry :( back on the case now. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::::ygm again <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 22:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


Your user ID and mine can be found near each other in the edit histories of many articles but we barely had any mutual contact. My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.
== ] ==


Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice. Your omnipresent work is a waxed thread binding together the calfskin cover and parchment pages of the Book of Everything read by more people than any other, all over the world. ] is your monument.
Hi, I would be very much obliged if you could look at the (many) double redirects to the ]. -- ] (]) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
:Hi ]
:I was just closing a move discussion at ], and what I usually do in such cases is to move the page (plus subpages and talk pages), fix any templates which link to the page, and leave the bots to fix the double redirects.
:But just for you, I have fixed them all in this case :) --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
::Well thank you very much. -- ] (]) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


It must be bewildering to be cast so unceremoniously into outer darkness from a satisfying daily activity to which you devoted so much time. As wonderful as the project is, it is also at times a lunatic asylum of disputation and rows cunningly designed to wreck anyone's delicate psychology – the Hell of Misplaced Pages. I try to avoid getting into lengthy wrangles with other editors as much as possible for that reason: they can be a source of profound and damaging frustration which eat so much of your time, which consume and disappear so much of your life.
== List of successful rickrolls AfD ==


It is about nine weeks since you stopped contributing so I don't know if you will ever see these belated remarks of mine, if you ever come back occasionally to read late additions to your talk page. You deserve every one of the appreciations and tributes left by other editors but perhaps you may no longer visit here, for the sake of your health.
Hi. {{diff|WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls|603502980|603255197|You closed}} ] as "''merge'' selectively". Would you explain why you chose ''merge'' over ''delete''? Thanks. ] (]) 05:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
:Hi ]
:I saw no particularly strong policy-based argument in favour of any particular option, but the arguments ''against'' keeping it did seem stronger than those in favour of keeping it. The deletionists and mergeists broadly agreed that the list's scope was unclear, and unfixable.
:With !votes split roughly evenly between the 3 options (7d, 9m, 8k, counting those who supported more than one option), that left a choice between merger or deletion; either option would uphold the same position that we should not have a standalone list of rickrolls.
:The arguments in favour of deletion rather than merger were twofold: a) that the list title was an implausible redirect, b) that a previous set of examples was already present in the history of the page ].
:Neither argument seemed very persuasive. The question of whether to just restore ] or port across some of the content from the list can be resolved by normal editorial processes; deletion simply removes the option of copying across any material added to the standalone list, and I saw no particularly strong argument to justify cutting off that option. I accept that the list title may be an implausible redirect, and if created as a redirect it would likely be deleted; but keeping it as a record of the history of the list does no harm.
:Hope this helps. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Thanks for your detailed reply. I agree with your analysis (less a quibble with your vote numbers) up to deletion argument (b). It was not just "a previous set of examples", but exactly the same list with minor edits to two items ({{diff|Rickrolling|583715483|582557278|cross-page diff}}, {{diff|List of successful rickrolls|602507294|583715483|no material changes}}; diffs copied from {{diff|WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls|602679787|602643049|my initial comment}} at the AfD). The misleadingly large diff in ''Barack Roll'' was caused by {{diff|List of successful rickrolls|583758926|583715483|a heading correction/spacing change}} combined with {{diff|List of successful rickrolls|594769794|591375158|a minor view count update}}. Two unsourced examples were added and removed: a ] ] () and "Full Screen Pokemon" (). No one besides me mentioned them, much less argued for their inclusion. If someone had, I would have recommended that they add suitable sources to ] directly. My argument convinced Ansh666 ({{diff|WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls|602822163|602819531|diff}}) and Spirit of Eagle ({{diff|WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls|603249564|603120896|diff}}) to annotate or amend their ''merge'' recommendations. Gongshow, who also recommended ''merge'', {{diff|Talk:Rickrolling|603710133|603552408|had no complaint}} with my ''restore from history'' approach. I feel that you counted ''merge'' opinions as opposing deletion ({{diff|WP:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls|603255197|603105796|addressed by these comments}}) and that you overruled the small consensus (plus BDD) that the history should be deleted. I disagree with a page history having near-zero value being kept at non-zero cost. ] technically violates ] because {{diff|List of successful rickrolls|prev|583715483|its creation edit summary}} does not wikilink ]. I will have to add a ] and {{tl|Copied}}s to fix it. ] (]) 04:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Flatscan}} Thanks for that explanation. You have persuaded me that I should have given more weight to the argument that there was nothing worth preserving, so I have changed my close to "delete". --] <small>] • (])</small> 09:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: as delete. --] <small>] • (])</small> 09:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::::: Thanks much for taking the time to consider my comments and for modifying your close. Happy editing! ] (]) 04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


If I was in your "Current location: Connacht" (according to your user page) I would invite you to share a few soft, creamy pints to wet your sorrows (my family roots reach deeply into dark Connacht turf).
== ANI Reply ==


It will be lonely not to see your name in article edit histories and I hope that after a period of deserved rest and healing you may eventually consider returning, perhaps as the older and wiser ]. . You are missed. ] (]) 00:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to respond at AN/I on this one, since it's becoming a thread that is quite TLDR already ;>


:Dear BrownHairedGirl. I am sorry that you have been banned indefinitely, I hope that you will have a successful ban appeal in August. I only took a quick look at the arbitration, and I believe all sides should at most just go with a topic ban, after this much sacrifice and volunteer time. I think the sentence is too harsh, but it's not necessarily partial, the other side received a slightly harsher punishment than you. I read the scholarly analysis of Arbcom by Florian Grisel of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies which you provided, and it does not appear to apply in this case, and with good reason as you are a giant contributor with three million edits here. I sincerely hope you can be granted reprieve and move past this! ] (]) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I suggested an RfC/U mainly because I don't see the point in seeking consensus for a one week block for this user. Or any other user, really. Bans by the community are discussed for consensus at AN/I. But a block is routinely handed out; quickly and in accordance with the infraction that necessitated the block. They are meant to be preventative, and this guy is not even currently blocked. What disruption is being caused now, while he is unblocked? Handing down a "sentence" of a weeklong block due to an AN/I discussion is totally punitive at this point. If he commits an infraction of the rules, any number of admins can block him. No one has done that yet, possibly because it would be controversial, I suppose. Cheers :) ] ] 05:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
::My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.
:{{ping|Doc9871}} thanks for your msg.
::Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice.
:I see your point, but I think that there are two types of block. One is handed out quickly in response to a clear crossing of a bright line; the other is a response to a pattern of behaviour which may not cross the line quite so starkly in any individual instance. The latter type often results from an ANI discussion.
::], I second this. I don't think I can say all this better. It's one thing to see people I look up to retiring due to fatigue but quite another to see them cast off like this without even being able to reply on their own talk page. Something reserved for the lowest and worst offenders; surely this could have ended less cruelly knowing you and all the work you've done for 15+ years. I avoided reading your case because that defeats the purpose of my wikibreak. I refrain from editing too much or looking into the happenings here but when I see something like this, I cannot ignore it.
:In the case of Skookum1, it's the latter. The ongoing disruption is the low-level personal attacks, the complaints that editors who disagree with him are being disruptive, and the massive verbosity at so many discussions.
::To me, we crossed paths first roughly in the 2014s when I was a mere stripling of an editor. All I saw was an admin who really was approachable and advised me against my way of handling a minor issue regarding vandalism when I approached you. I <s>stalked</s> observed the way you work and learnt things that shaped my own editing pattern and behaviour. A minor editing tip I embraced wholeheartedly was your 99% commitment to ].
:A 1-week block would prevent that happening for a week, and give Skookum1 a chance to reconsider their modus operandi. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
::Hope real life is treating you much better. Wishes from India. ]&nbsp;(]) 07:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think ''you'' issuing the block is necessarily the best thing. You are not only completely biased in this case: you pressed for a week-long block, and when the discussion was closed by a neutral admin, you cherry-picked a diff to block him for 4 days instead of a week. Incredibly bad form. You just lost a fan. Cheers ] ] 10:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:::word ---] ] 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:I didn't "cherry-pick a diff". I looked at . If I were to collect diffs, there would be a dozen from that discussion alone. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You should have let someone else handle it. A neutral admin. ] ] 10:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:I have never had any engagement with Skookum1 on a substantive issue, and do not edit in any common areas; I have no stake in the issues he edits on. My sole encounters have been in an administrative capacity.
:Per ] ''an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area''. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know the involved thingie. It's not my first day here. You've angered him more by being one of his named "enemies" that blocked him. You have perpetuated a cycle. If you don't see how backing off and walking after the AN/I was closed would really be a de-escalation, that's cool. But not with me. Cheers ] ] 11:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


== Opting out of mass message delivery ==
== Tricolor move ==
{{Courtesy link|WT:Twinkle#Blocking notification messages}}


I am boldly adding ] to this page, to attempt to bring some peace and quiet to ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] from this page for some time now. This will hopefully ], and give y'all some time to go out and smell the roses, or write a poem. Or maybe just to ]. BHG doesn't like "{{xt|time-sink drama}}", so I hope and expect she would approve. Cheers, ] (]) 09:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Please see my comment at ]. ]<sup>(])</sup> 12:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


:I've noticed another Twinkle template message on here which I've removed, seems like some thinking will be needed in order for peace and quiet on this talk page and bloating the page history. ] (]) (]) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:: Hmm, I guess those are not considered mass-mailings, then. I wonder if there's another way to block them. See ]. ] (]) 08:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The only way I think would be to apply full protection to the talk page. But then that would block out people who want to leave genuine messages for BHG for any reason (assuming she actually reads them, we have no idea on that point). Perhaps a way around that would be to start a sub-page on which genuine messages could go, and which would presumably not be used by Twinkle messages. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::: I liked the (]) suggestion of creation of a {{tl|no twinkle}} template. ] (]) 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


== You can come back ==
Can you please move this category in line with ], per the recent requested move? Thanks, ] — ] 15:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|RGloucester}} Now . --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Editors with as many edits as you who have been blocked indefinitely have come back before, even after a long hiatus. See the 3-year gap in {{lnc|Rich Farmbrough|15|202401021340|ns=0|disp=this user's edits}}. So, don't lose hope; you can, too, if you want to. ] (]) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks very much. ] — ] 17:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


: I second this motion. In six weeks' time, you can appeal your Arb ban, per the wording of the ruling. ] (]) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
== Wording use in a close ==
::Yes, please come back. Just the other day I was joining in the frenzy of editing our newly-elected MPs, working on someone who'd had an article for a while for some reason before being elected MP, checked to see whether they had a redirect from the full Sunday version of their name... and, yes, it was there, created by BHG years ago. We need your helpful and thorough editing. ]] 09:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

:Absolutely, BHG, there are too many elections and not enough yous. Hope life is treating you well elsewhere, meanwhile. ] 10:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I just saw . I am curious as to how I am misrepresenting the guideline? I said that the guideline "already supports the un-disabiguated title". Which is true and I accept that it also supports other possibilities too and is what I said at this current . My remarks were directed at Kwamikagami, in this case but other people as well, who has maintained that the guidelines mandate the articles must be at "Foo people" or "Foo language". See and for a couple of examples. Cheers. ], ], <small>]</small> 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom --] (]) 11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:Hi ]
*'''Support''' so automated messages provided by Twinkle can stay on this talk page, and also to get this user to the 3,000,000 edit mark. ] (]) (]) 21:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:My concern was that the way your comment was worded appeared designed to convey the message that the guideline justified the move. As we agree, it supports either title, and it would have been much better for your !vote to acknowledge that explicitly.
*'''Support''' per nom, in principle. I expect that a discussion in a more formal venue would need to take place. ] ] 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:There is a wider problem here, in that the specific guidelines on naming this type of article are repeatedly contested, so they do not appear to represent a community consensus. An RFC is needed. --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' to having this conversation here at this point in time. Please shut this down and wait. - ] ] 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

*:Agree in this, I should wait until the appeal date so I can give my view there. ] (]) (]) 17:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
::OK, you are right I could have made it clearer. There is a bit of a problem with starting a RfC. It would be required to cover two different but related guidelines, ] and ], as both are causing problems and can't be seperated. Second, at ] #2 says "Note that the "Policies and Guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article." But from my point of view the problem is how the guidelines are being applied and I don't see a need to change them. And of course at this point I'm just not sure that I could "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue". ], ], <small>]</small> 12:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''', obviously. But is there anywhere I can get information on why BHG was banned? ] (]) 23:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: if there is no consensus on how to apply the guidelines, then then they ain't working. Or if they are being applied with some consistency in a way you dislike, then they need to be updated to reflect actual practice.
*:] - ] ] 00:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:::There is no prob with an RFC addressing an issue which relates to multiple guidelines. In fact, an RFC is the best way to address that sort of issue. If you don't think you could draft one neutrally, why not find an editor who disagrees with you, and work together on a draft which you both feel is fair? --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' because of ]'s proven record of high excellence and hardworking dedication – assuming she retains any appetite for involvement here after her painful experience. She would be warmly welcomed back and appreciated by many. ] (]) 02:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' per nom. Subject meets the ] as a notable Misplaced Pages editor. Multiple sources have avowed her importance, and even if they didn't, per ] subject should be Kept and returned to active editing. ] (]) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
== Redirects for discussion ==
There are several redirects for discussion at ] in which you may be interested. --] (]) 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC) *:This sounds like an argument at ]. It would belong at ] if there were an article called ]. ] (]) 14:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes, it's a joke. <small>And tells you all you need to know about the average Misplaced Pages editor's sense of humour.</small> ] 14:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Restore''' per nom. Sorry I missed this due to my own (voluntary) wiki-retirement. Best of luck, BHG. ] (]) 02:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
==Disambiguation link notification for April 14==
* This is one of several cases that led me to write the essay ]. ArbCom (and, by extension, one faction of the community) has chosen a path I consider to be wrong and dangerous. The other faction of the community is expressing their sympathy here. This disconnect cannot, and will not, ever be resolved, so we will have to deal with the carnage. ] ] 03:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

*:Site bans for minor misconduct is a violation of ] ''policy'', I support the essay. ] (]) 23:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
*'''Support''' appeal now that a year has elapsed, in my opinion, appealing the merits might be less effective to appealing the fairness of the site ban. ] (]) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Its time to get yourself sorted out and back into shape. The project needs you. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Query''': Should all deletion notifications be removed if there's a potential for return? ] (]) 23:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:. --] <small>] • (])</small> 08:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
*:I too am curious about that <sup>Thanks,</sup>] ] 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

*::If the editor ever chooses to return, she would be able to find those deletion nominations by checking the history of this page if she was inclined to do so: nothing disappears completely. ]] 14:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
== Skookum1 block ==
*'''Come back''' ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - per Nom. ] (]) 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
BHG, Skookum1 contacted me and has now your block. I see you mentioned his behavior at the ] in your rationale, though neither he nor anyone else had touched it for 11 days when you blocked him. This concerns me a little, as blocks are preventative, not punitive and all that jazz. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Thanks,--] ]/] 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The decision was too harsh against you. Please come back. You are not alone. ] (]) 03:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hi ]
*'''Support''' She is an incredible worker who contributed extensively to Misplaced Pages for nearly two decades and did not deserve to be banned. ] (]) 19:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Sure. I had been closing a large bunch of backlogged RMs, including a cluster of discussions which had been opened by Skookum1. The Chipewyan discussion was a particularly severe example of the sort of disruption which had been ongoing for months. I can collect diffs if you like, but I hope that you can take the time to read the discussion yourself.
*'''Support'''. <small>We edited on and off for more than a decade, turning intermittently to BHG and others of comparable good heart and sense, when the arbitrariness and capriciousness of our local, transient majoritarian decision-making system went awry with regard to obvious and true Western understandings of justice and fairplay. It is an absurdist tragedy to see that through one of the same type of decisions-sans-justice, sans-accountability that WP has lost yet another productive worker.</small> We of course support her return. It would be a small justice should she be allowed to, a small blessing should she choose. But we trust, if we remain unblessed, that others will be in our stead. Our loss, other's gain. ] (]) 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:The unblock does not acknowledge that there was a problem with his conduct in that article. Do you agree with my assessment of that discussion?
:Secondly, the battleground behaviour has not stopped. Look at some more recent diffs:
:12 April:
:11 April: repeating a misrepresentation of policy . The reality is that it depends entirely on the topic; in some cases a partial match ''may'' be used for something more fully referred to by a longer name. Variants on this comment have been spewed into countless debates. It is perhaps more of a competence issue than a conduct one, but when repeated so often it is highly disruptive. (See for example more of this at the and at where he simply dismisses the other alternatives without checking the evidence. In the latter case he pronounces that "")
:9 April: dismissing yet another complaint about excessive verbosity `"
:There is a real, ongoing problem here. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your assessment that his behavior in the RM was problematic and part of a pattern of similar problematic behavior that is potentially disruptive at RM and elsewhere. My concern is that your rationale suggests you blocked him for something he'd done 11 days before, which doesn't really sound like a preventative measure. Understandably, his unblock request focuses on that, arguing that he's toned it down since that RM.<br>
::I won't be unblocking him, since it's clear the real problem isn't just his comments in that RM, but a pattern of behavior (which you touched on initially with the "fork in the road" remark, and gave examples of here), and he hasn't shown much sign of addressing that. I guess we'll see if another admin thinks differently. Thanks again,--] ]/] 21:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Didn't you vote in the ANI thread BHG? Why would it have been closed by you? By the way, can't blame someone for becoming disruptive in response to fly-by voters on RMs that had diddly knowledge in what they were talking about. - ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Floydian}} We can't control what others post. Everyone has a choice about how to respond. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

== CFD/W ==

I notice that you fully protected ] back in 2009. At the time, there was no other feasible option to prevent abuse of the page. However, I'm currently involved in closing CFD discussions to help clear out the backlog. Could you reduce CFD/W to template protection so that I can perform the closures properly, by activating Cydebot? The number of is far lower than the number of admins; I believe that these users can be trusted with access to the page. Thanks. ] (]) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

== Tintin RM ==

Hi BrownHairedGirl, you closed the RM at ] as no consensus, and at the bottom there remains <nowiki>{{subst:rm bottom)}}</nowiki>, which I presume is meant to be a template? Thanks, ]]<span style="color: #800080">.</span>] 15:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
:Ooops! Thanks for pointing that out. Now . --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks, and thank you for taking the time to review the discussion. Best, ]]<span style="color: #800080">.</span>] 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

== ] of ] ==
]] has been nominated for merging with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice-->] (]) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

== ANI notice ==

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. — ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 03:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|The Bushranger}} Thanks for the notification. I have in the discussion. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

== Your premature noticeboard closure. ==

With respect, I think you prematurely closed this section (). EllenCT straight up claimed I had "repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the ] Foundation", and in the later instances claimed I was inserting "paid advocacy". What the hell else does that mean? How could she logically be talking about sources when virtually every source is "paid", and many, including the ones she's championed, advocate? Her comments were certainly personal attacks (contrary to Specifico's claim), and at the very least can be reasonably interpreted as meaning ''I'm'' being paid to insert such statements, which the only other editor to directly comment on them so far had taken her to mean. I haven't even added "statements" from the source she cited, underscoring the interpretation that she was accusing me of acting as their paid agent. When I repeatedly warned her not to accuse me of paid editing she didn't deny that's what she was doing. Isn't an admonishment that she be clearer if that's not her intent at the very least in order here, lest she simply continue to level the same false accusations? ] (]) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|VictorD7}} On the evidence presented, you are mistaking a complaint about sources for a criticism of you. I haven't tried to assess the merits of those sources, or the validity of EllenCT's description of them ... but even if she is wrong about the sources, that's a content dispute not an attack on you. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Your mistaken view is understandable since you aren't familiar with the disputes or the fact that I haven't added "statements" from the source in question, but what about my request that you admonish her to at least be clear about her accusations, since I posted proof that her claims, at best, can be taken by others to mean that I'm being paid? She's proved that she'll ignore my admonishments, but she might listen to an admin. who asks her to clarify that she's ''not'' leveling such a charge. Isn't that a reasonable request? ] (]) 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::::I really think that you would do better to let it go. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Isn't that what you should be telling her? She's the one engaging in the repeated behavior, making a false personal accusation (false in either interpretation). If that continues unchanged I guess my only remedy would be to bring it back to the noticeboard, and hope for a more satisfactory hearing. ] (]) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::What happened when you posted to her talk page to ask for the clarification? --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::So it only counts if it's on her talk page? She ignored multiple opportunities to clarify what she meant when I gave her specific warning elsewhere, as my noticeboard links showed (, ). The last time I posted on her talk page (apart from giving her notice about this report) was a few months ago when I asked her to justify a blatantly false claim she made about a source by providing a single quote supporting what she said, and she completely ignored me, never answering (). BTW, that's despite the fact she was already discussing me before I showed up. I was the "he" in the above posts in the diff. She was upset that another editor who shares her politics was acknowledging that I had made legitimate points and was admonishing her for her insulting and excessively partisan posting style. This isn't an editor prone to reasonable, productive discussion. ] (]) 20:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:47, 7 January 2025

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 Misplaced Pages as of August 2023.
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives 
  1. Jan 2006
  2. Aug 2006
  3. Oct 2006
  4. Jan 2007
  5. Mar 2007
  6. Apr 2007
  7. Jun 2007
  8. Jul 2007
  9. Sep 2007
  10. Nov 2007
  11. Dec 2007
  12. Jan 2008
  13. Mar 2008
  14. Apr 2008
  15. May 2008
  16. Mar 2009
  17. May 2009
  18. Dec 2009
  19. Feb 2010
  20. Mar 2010
  21. Aug 2010
  22. Nov 2010
  23. Jan 2011
  24. Feb 2012
  25. Aug 2012
  26. Oct 2012
  27. Jan 2013
  28. Apr 2013
  29. Oct 2013
  30. Feb 2014
  31. Mar 2014
  32. May 2014
  33. Jul 2014
  34. Jan 2015
  35. Dec 2015
  36. Jun 2016
  37. Aug 2016
  38. Feb 2017
  39. Mar 2017
  40. Apr 2017
  41. Jul 2017
  42. Feb 2018
  43. Apr 2018
  44. Oct 2018
  45. Dec 2018
  46. Feb 2019
  47. Mar 2019
  48. Apr 2019
  49. Jun 2019
  50. Jul 2019
  51. Jul 2019
  52. Sep 2019
  53. Oct 2019
  54. Nov 2019
  55. Nov 2019
  56. Feb 2020
  57. Mar 2020
  58. Apr 2020
  59. Jun 2020
  60. Aug 2020
  61. Sep 2020
  62. Oct 2020
  63. Mar 2021
  64. Jun 2021
  65. Jul 2021
  66. Oct 2021
  67. Nov 2021
  68. Dec 2021
  69. Feb 2022
  70. Apr 2022
  71. Jun 2022
  72. Aug 2022
  73. Sep 2022
  74. Jan 2023
  75. Jun 2023
  76. Jul 2023
  77. Aug 2023
  78. Post-Aug
  79. future
  80. future
+ Cumulative index

This talk page was last edited (diff) on 7 January 2025 at 18:47 by UtherSRG (talk • contribs • logs)

Sorry for your trouble

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I have just discovered the giant and overwhelmingly lengthy and detailed narrative of your eviction from the Kingdom of Misplaced Pages.

It's a shock, and it is disgusting to witness the ejection of one of the most prolific and esteemed contributors to the encyclopaedia. I have not tried to read all of the vast quantity of legal-forensic argument pertaining to this incident (I value my mental health) but it's appalling that the banishment of such an intelligent and skilled contributor could not have been avoided.

This outcome counts as a true convulsion and upheaval in the annals of Misplaced Pages. Three million edits, and now – "fuck off"! It's confounding and upsetting, even for a bystander.

Your user ID and mine can be found near each other in the edit histories of many articles but we barely had any mutual contact. My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.

Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice. Your omnipresent work is a waxed thread binding together the calfskin cover and parchment pages of the Book of Everything read by more people than any other, all over the world. Your neverending contribution history is your monument.

It must be bewildering to be cast so unceremoniously into outer darkness from a satisfying daily activity to which you devoted so much time. As wonderful as the project is, it is also at times a lunatic asylum of disputation and rows cunningly designed to wreck anyone's delicate psychology – the Hell of Misplaced Pages. I try to avoid getting into lengthy wrangles with other editors as much as possible for that reason: they can be a source of profound and damaging frustration which eat so much of your time, which consume and disappear so much of your life.

It is about nine weeks since you stopped contributing so I don't know if you will ever see these belated remarks of mine, if you ever come back occasionally to read late additions to your talk page. You deserve every one of the appreciations and tributes left by other editors but perhaps you may no longer visit here, for the sake of your health.

If I was in your "Current location: Connacht" (according to your user page) I would invite you to share a few soft, creamy pints to wet your sorrows (my family roots reach deeply into dark Connacht turf).

It will be lonely not to see your name in article edit histories and I hope that after a period of deserved rest and healing you may eventually consider returning, perhaps as the older and wiser GreyHairedGirl. May you always dream of dmy dates. You are missed. O'Dea (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear BrownHairedGirl. I am sorry that you have been banned indefinitely, I hope that you will have a successful ban appeal in August. I only took a quick look at the arbitration, and I believe all sides should at most just go with a topic ban, after this much sacrifice and volunteer time. I think the sentence is too harsh, but it's not necessarily partial, the other side received a slightly harsher punishment than you. I read the scholarly analysis of Arbcom by Florian Grisel of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies which you provided, and it does not appear to apply in this case, and with good reason as you are a giant contributor with three million edits here. I sincerely hope you can be granted reprieve and move past this! Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.
Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice.
O'Dea, I second this. I don't think I can say all this better. It's one thing to see people I look up to retiring due to fatigue but quite another to see them cast off like this without even being able to reply on their own talk page. Something reserved for the lowest and worst offenders; surely this could have ended less cruelly knowing you and all the work you've done for 15+ years. I avoided reading your case because that defeats the purpose of my wikibreak. I refrain from editing too much or looking into the happenings here but when I see something like this, I cannot ignore it.
To me, we crossed paths first roughly in the 2014s when I was a mere stripling of an editor. All I saw was an admin who really was approachable and advised me against my way of handling a minor issue regarding vandalism when I approached you. I stalked observed the way you work and learnt things that shaped my own editing pattern and behaviour. A minor editing tip I embraced wholeheartedly was your 99% commitment to meaningful edit summaries.
Hope real life is treating you much better. Wishes from India. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
word ---Sluzzelin talk 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Opting out of mass message delivery

 Courtesy link: WT:Twinkle § Blocking notification messages

I am boldly adding Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to this page, to attempt to bring some peace and quiet to all those editors who have been patiently removing mass-mailing messages from this page for some time now. This will hopefully put a stop to it, and give y'all some time to go out and smell the roses, or write a poem. Or maybe just to switch over to editing something else. BHG doesn't like "time-sink drama", so I hope and expect she would approve. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed another Twinkle template message on here which I've removed, seems like some thinking will be needed in order for peace and quiet on this talk page and bloating the page history. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess those are not considered mass-mailings, then. I wonder if there's another way to block them. See WT:TW#Blocking notification messages. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The only way I think would be to apply full protection to the talk page. But then that would block out people who want to leave genuine messages for BHG for any reason (assuming she actually reads them, we have no idea on that point). Perhaps a way around that would be to start a sub-page on which genuine messages could go, and which would presumably not be used by Twinkle messages.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I liked the (archived) suggestion of creation of a {{no twinkle}} template. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You can come back

Editors with as many edits as you who have been blocked indefinitely have come back before, even after a long hiatus. See the 3-year gap in this user's edits. So, don't lose hope; you can, too, if you want to. Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I second this motion. In six weeks' time, you can appeal your Arb ban, per the wording of the ruling. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please come back. Just the other day I was joining in the frenzy of editing our newly-elected MPs, working on someone who'd had an article for a while for some reason before being elected MP, checked to see whether they had a redirect from the full Sunday version of their name... and, yes, it was there, created by BHG years ago. We need your helpful and thorough editing. PamD 09:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely, BHG, there are too many elections and not enough yous. Hope life is treating you well elsewhere, meanwhile. ——Serial Number 54129 10:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: