User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 035

Council category renaming

Hello BHG. Can I ask that you reconsider your opposition to the council election category renaming? I've spent the last couple of years trying to correct the names of the articles and categories (unfortunately whoever created them at the beginning was unaware that council names are more than just "City + Council"). Having done all the articles and about 90% of the categories, it's a little frustrating to be thwarted right at the last moment. As I noted in my response to you on the CfD page, we have multiple categories that refer only to the current entity over a range of topic areas, including elections. Plus, of course, the current category names are just wrong as there are no such bodies as "Wolverhampton Council" etc. Cheers, Number 57 09:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Very, very disappointed with your response. I feel like two years of work in this topic area has all been for nothing. Number 57 09:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I held off commenting, trying to think of a diplomatic way of replying, and eventually forgot about the discussion until something else brought me back to the CFD page.

However, I do think that you are taking this a harder than is really justified. Renaming the articles on the individual elections is fine, since they had only one name. In many cases, a category aligned with the current name is fine, since there are as yet no articles on elections from a previous era. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Based on your most recent response on the CfD page, you seem to be under the impression that WMBC and WCC are separate organisations, but they are exactly the same organisation. The council was simply renamed when Wolverhampton was granted city status. Number 57 14:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Number 57, you are over-complicating this. Wolverhampton has had council elections to various bodies. Some of them have been new bodies, others have been renamings. A descriptive title includes them all, without creating avoidable anachronisms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are overcomplicating it. In every sphere I'm aware of, we use the current name of the organisation to categorise things. Or do you object to the existence of the likes of Category:Manchester United F.C. players as well? Number 57 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your mistake is to assume that this is about one organisation. Wrong; it is about several organisations within a geographical area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I give up. I had left you a message in the hope that you would understand that I had put a lot of work into this and that you would be understanding and reasonable and help me out with finishing a two-year quest to sort this topic area out. Sadly I see that this is not the case, which is really very disappointing, especially as there were less than 20 categories to go. I assume you will also block any attempt to use the speedy process to rename the remaining incorrectly-titled categories? Number 57 14:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There clearly isn't a consensus to continue your moves, so I am sure that you recognise that using WP:CFD/S would be an abuse of a process designed for uncontroversial moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. Number 57 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry?

I'm not sure what I said that prompted your last comment? LavaBaron (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:BLUDGEON? My comment will make more sense if you do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course I have. I don't really interpret BLUDGEON to mean I must immediately sit quietly in the corner and shut-up, rather is a directive I should stop advocating for my position. I thought thanking Reywas92 and accepting his apology, then suggesting the AfD be closed while keeping all !votes except the two that were provably stacked was a nice attempt by me to both de-escalate the tension and to meet Reywas92 halfway with a compromise solution. I apologize if it was not taken in the way it was intended to be delivered. I again would urge the AfD be closed (as I said, either closed as delete or keep is perfectly fine; my highest priority is promoting an environment of goodwill) to further the process of deescalation and tension reduction. LavaBaron (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: your apology was timely and gracious. Well done.

Sadly, you then spoilt it all by yet again trying to set conditions for the AFD closure. There is a clear consensus at ANI that no action is required, but you seem utterly oblivious to that.

If you really do want to de-escalate, then this is indeed exactly the time to it quietly in the corner and shut-up. You have made your point, repeatedly, and well into the bludgeoning territory. You are now nearing the point at which the outcome will WP:BOOMERANG on you if you don't step back, promptly.

You have posted waaaay too much both the AFD and the ANI thread. The matter you reported has been assessed by lots of admins, many of whom have commented. It's now in their hands, so let it go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Understandable. It has become rather vicious at the AfD so I have no problem self-separating from that. And the ANI has been moved to be closed by both myself and another editor so it seems that is taking care of itself. I apologize if my suggestion for a ruling on the AfD was interpreted as a demand for action. It was not my intent. In re-reading it, however, I can see how some might have interpreted "move to close" as "I'm moving on closing" instead of "I'm motioning / suggesting" it be closed. I, again, apologize. LavaBaron (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jews and Category:People of Jewish descent

Today, Monochrome Monitor left some instructions on these category pages regarding how they should be used. I brought up the issue at User talk:Monochrome Monitor#Category:Jews and Category:People of Jewish descent and wasn't satisfied with their response. I was thinking of deleting the content but wanted to run it by another editor familiar with categories and WP:EGRS to see what you thought.
I wouldn't have found it troubling if it was just a description of how the categories were used but the requirement that editors who chose one category over another have proof to justify their decision while technically justifiable is atypical for how categories are assigned. Also, I just don't think that editors who are categorizing articles ever go to the category pages to read any content they might contain so I don't think any instructions will have any effect except be used in the future disputes should they arise and they shouldn't be seen as representing a consensus point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz

Long time no talk. Hope you are well :)

I agree that editors rarely look at category pages when categorising, esp when using WP:HOTCAT. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea to add guidance there, but it needs to be done with the understanding that it probably won't be widely read. In general, I feel that if a category's specification diverges too far from its title, it is just a recipe for trouble. Basically, our crude categorisaton system modtly relies on fairly simple and self-evident labels.

The principle of justifying any categorisation is correct. Nothing should be in any category unless there is a reliable source to justify it. However, the tone used is a little officious, and I don't like the way it is addressed to editors rather -- that feels like a personalisation of a editing issue.

As to the substance of the guidelines, the question of Who is a Jew? is complex and contentious, so I won't presume to make much of judgement on the criteria set. But I do see that Category:People of Jewish descent focuses on Jewish "peoplehood" rather than religion, and that may be a controversial view. You are quite correct to note that any such criteria need a consensus, and I suspect that such a consensus may be hard to achieve. I wasn't thrilled by by the tone of Monochrome Monitor's reply[1] to you. May start a discussion at the WikiProject? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I admit my tone was a bit how you say "bitchy" but that's just because I get defensive during confrontations. And I'm annoyed because the categories are already consistently misused according to their guidelines. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "Peoplehood" makes sense. Also, no need for scare quotes, there's even page on it. When people don't identify as Jewish its not because they aren't practicing Jews. Take Albert Einstein... he was a Spinozist of sorts but he identified as Jewish. The distinction is in the sense of Jewish identity. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an entire archive page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 32) that was devoted to this discussion. Consensus could not be found as there were two very opposing points of view that couldn't be reconciled. I have problems with statements like "When people don't identify as Jewish its not because they aren't practicing Jews" because it is just your point of view, MM, there is nothing to support such a generalization. There might be any number of reasons that a person who is of Jewish descent doesn't identify as Jewish or they could choose to not even acknowledge their Jewish heritage. An editor doesn't need to find proof that an individual "rejected identifying as Jewish"...on the contrary, according to WP:EGRS, evidence must be present that the individual does identify as Jewish, not proof of their rejection of this identity. This is similar to other categories of ethnicity or religion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything you say is good and well and well and good. I'm not arguing with it. I'm simply arguing that since category:Jews is used on thousands of articles of people who never explicitly said "I am Jewish", and that on these same articles "people of Jewish descent" and "Jews" cohabit, it would be much more simple to make our unspoken guidelines conform to the spoken ones. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: Your view is not unreasonable, but there are clearly many different reasonable ways of looking at this issue. Wikipedia resolves these issues by consensus, and since there appears to be no agreement between you and Liz, the pair of you need to involve other editors to help reach a broad consensus. Liz has already suggested that you discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, which seems to me like a reasonable option ... but of course there are other possible venues like WP:VPM. Whatever venue you choose, that discussion needs to happen somewhere, and my talk page is not the place for that substantive discussion.

Mono, I was very disappointed by your comment above that I admit my tone was a bit how you say "bitchy" but that's just because I get defensive during confrontations. I have read and re-read Liz's post on your talk, and it does not appear to me to be confrontational. it sets out a disagreement, which you should discuss. It is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia that it is a collaborative environment in which editors seek a consensus, so challenging another editor's contributions is a perfectly routine step. It's as fundamental a part of a Wikipedia editor's environment as oral debate is of a politician's life.

Per WP:BRD, Liz (or any other editor) would have been quite entitled to revert your edits to Category:Jews [2] and Category:People of Jewish descent [3], but instead cjose to discuss the matter first. She deserved a more friendly response than she got.

I see that Mono's change to both pages have now been reverted ([4], [5])by Debresser. So now all 3 of you need to have that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates‎

Hello,

Obviously we disagree on the this nomination‎ which is fine. I just wanted to let you know I'm not trying to disrespect you are Scotland here, if I've somehow come across that way. Other than random categories, I usually edit in the legal space, albeit with case law. But maybe I'm missing something obvious with this nomination.

I was both surprised and worried that my comments caused you distress. (You don't have to reply, I just wanted to give you that background.) RevelationDirect (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, RevelationDirect.

I am bewildered and frustrated that you persist in advancing such easily-falsifiable propositions, and maintaining a position without any sign of doing any of the research which a good-faith editor would do before advancing a proposition in discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not certain how (if?) you want people to disagree with you in this discussion. Marcocapelle doesn't reply enough because of a lack of courtesy but I'm a "Randy in Boise" for replying too much and you question Rathfelder's motives for not liking the parent category. I usually agree with Marcocapelle and sometimes disagree with Rathfelder, but I think they both edit in good faith. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect, my complaint is not the disagreement or the replying too much; both of those are valuable parts of any XFD. My complaint is that you are continuing that CFD's pattern of a lack of any apparent checking before making false assertions. It feels like I have been discussing it with an editor who will throw out any old notion and see what sticks :(

And I am not questioning Rathfelder's motives for not liking the parent category; I have some sympathy with those objectives. What I am questioning is RF's desire to degrade another category in order to get rid of the one RF dislikes ... and am criticising RF's lack of any prior checking about what that other category should contain ... and I am questioning RF's failure to respond to corrections of their errors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Grazie!

Thanks for handling the Unframboise situation. It's regrettable it came to a block. He does good work, but it comes with an unfortunate attitude. A couple editors are over there squabbling about some damned thing that probably has very little to do with this situation and a lot more to do with something else. Hopefully, a neutral editor will drive by and close things soon. --Drmargi (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmargi.

It is regrettable, and I'd have preferred not block. But Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors who insist on adopting a WP:BATTLEFIELD approach drive away other editors.

I hope that the block may persuade Unframboise that a different approach is required, but we'll see. I will leave it to another admin to decide when to close the ANI thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for John Watson (solicitor general)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography of Reliable Sources?

Hi, you seem knowledgeable and less likely to bite my head off than this Guy, so I was wondering if I could ask you question? Where would be the appropriate space to compile a bibliography of reliable sources on a particular topic for use by wiki editors? A user subpage? User sandbox? A Wikiproject subpage? Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Annalisa Ventola

Thanks for your message. I suggest that best place to start such a list would be in your own user space, e.g. User:Annalisa Ventola/Sources for foo (whatever "foo" may be).

Depending on how much support there is for your list, it might be appropriate later to copy or move it to a WikiProject or an article talk page.

As a general principle, I'd suggest that it's best to bear in mind that every source on every topic will have some limitations or deficiencies or perspective issues, so a list is most likely to gain some support if it is annotated to acknowledge those issues.

When I glanced at the page you linked to, I was very saddened to see the admin JzG asserting that "The perspective is that of scientific rationalism. Which is Wikipedia's perspective."

That is blatantly untrue, because en.wp's perspective is WP:NPOV. JzG is advocating WP:SPOV, which is not policy and not a guideline.

Sadly, the on-wiki adherents of scientism are as zealous a set of POV-warriors as the most entrenched partisans in heated topics like the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. There are plenty of robust, scholarly critiques of this fundamentalist scientism from academically-esteemed philosophers of science, but the SPOV-fundamentalists ignore all that, and usually win due to their tenacity and to the numerical dominance of their partisan perspective amongst en.wp's highly-unbalanced editor-base. Plus, of course, their naughty stunts like the recent blatant victimisation of an editor who felt bullied by them.

The fact that an admin such as JzG apparently expects to escape sanction for such overt partisanship speaks volumes about the about the scientism-lobby's dominance on wiki. So beware.

I want to stress that I have not sought to examine what perspective you are trying to inject into the discussion, or to consider the merits of any of your arguments .. so please do not take the above as any endorsement by me of your views. I just note that when admins so blatantly scorn a core policy, we have a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I advocate NPOV not SPOV. It just happens that in matters of scientific inquiry the scientific point of view is the neutral point of view, pretty much by definition. In climate change, for example, the scientific consensus view is actually a lot more cautious than many scientists think it should be - the IPCC has been condemned as excessively cautious, and this may well be due to the involvement of politicians with vested interests. The same applies to questions like the age of the Earth, the origin of life and speciation, the efficacy (or lack thereof) of quack remedies such as homeopathy. In other areas, such as ethics, the SPOV is just a POV and is not inherently neutral. And in some areas, including e-cigs, there is, at this time, no scientific consensus view, because there's not enough data.

People who use the term scientism, though, are in my experience always those with strong beliefs contradicted by science. Creationists, homeopaths and the like. I had never considered that you would succumb to anti-science rhetoric and it disturbs me greatly. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

JzG, there is no need for such simplistic black-and-white divisions.

I am not "anti-science" at all, just as I am not anti-algebra or anti-statistics or anti literary criticism. Science is as a very useful tool for advancing human knowledge, but like any method of human inquiry it has limitations and flaws and biases, and it is not the only available tool. I urge you to read the article scientism; it is rather good.

FWIW, I am not a climate change denier or a creationist. I just don't like any form of intellectual dogmatism which seeks to deny and suppress other possible paths to knowledge or understanding.

However, homeopathy is an interesting case. The scientific methods used so far cannot account for the demonstrably powerful effects that I have witnessed of homeopathic treatments. Leaving aside the question not whether any homeopathic preparations are successful as cures or remedies, I have seen them produce extraordinary reactions in people which are not explicable by current scientific theories. I don't need to be an advocate of homeopathy to know that there is something happening which science cannot currently explain ... so maybe other knowledge structures have something to say about it all. I despair of people who indulge in cheap name-calling like "quackery"; that's the terminology of insult-trading, not of intellectual debate.

NPOV requires us to present various perspectives, in accordance to their weights across a broad range of sources. We do that wrt to religions, economics, social sciences, and a range of other topics, and it works well. Sadly, it is only the adherents of scientism who insist on turning articles into demolitions of other perspectives. That appals me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, there actually is. As I said, the only people (and I really do mean the only people) I have seen making any significant use of the word "scientism" are homeopaths and creationists. Scientism is either a meaningless pejorative designed to pretend that science and belief are simply viewpoints, or a neitral term describing the belief that the scientific method is the best way humanity has ever devised for separating truth from fiction, in which case it is an unalloyed good and the term itself is largely pointless since the evidence speaks for itself. I don't know of any other usage.

The idea that there is something happening in homeopathy that science cannot explain is simply false. Science has an explanation for homeopathy whicih is complete, coherent, fits all observed facts, and is both internally and externally consistent. Every single observation fits with combination nonspecific effects and confounders including expectation effects, observer bias, regression to the mean, natural course of disease - collectively, the placebo effect. There is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever. More than that: there is no reason to suppose it should work (like does not, after all, cure like) and no way it can work, unless we are profoundly wrong about rather a lot of things, including the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the law of conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, and all of current knowledge on disease processes, human physiology and pharmacology.

That's why homeopathy is such a perfect litmus test. Any system which claims to be based on objective standards, but nonetheless accepts homeopathy, has a fundamentally defective mechanism for separating truth from fiction. It is the medical equivalent of astrology or creationism.

Science does not "suppress" things. It does, however, ignore them if there is plainly no question to answer. Science pretty much ignores psychic phenomena, because the evidence for it has turned out to be crap and there is no new evidence to indicate anything worth looking at. Creationists claim science suppresses creationism, in fact science simply has no evidence for special creation and that places it in the box of religion, see non-overlapping magisteria. Homeopaths claim that science "suppresses" homeopathy, but it doesn't, it simply shows the beliefs of homeopaths to be unfounded and, where testable, wrong. Parapsychologists claim that science "suppresses" psychokinesis, but it doesn't, it merely looks back on decades of shoddy evidence from shoddy studies and effectively says "come back when you have something that would at least fool a child of ten".

As Brian Cox memorably put it: "The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!"Guy (Help!) 23:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, I don't have time for a long reply now. But I will just note three things:

1. the concept of scientism is not some sort of hippy/religious idea, even if they make use of it. It draws heavily on the work of Foucault, Popper and Hayek, who are some of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century, and there is a serious body of academic work on it in the philosophy of science. Feel free to disagree ... but dismissing that body of scholarship in pejorative terms is, frankly, as crass as the creationists who dismiss Darwin 'cos the bible is literally true.
2. on homeopathy, there are indeed demonstrable physical reactions which science does not explain. Furthermore, a lot of the scientific claims about homeopathy are based on research which is essentially prosecutorial in nature, driven by people who are (like you) ideologically committed to disproving homeopathy. That sort of research bias always produces bad results in any field, and it is shameful that so many advocates of science have become so consumed with partisan zeal that they allow their craft to be corrupted in this way.
3. I'm afraid that you seem determined to hold to the maximalist position of scientism: that scientific knowledge overrides all other forms of intellectual inquiry. That sort of axiomatic view is found other intellectual traditions, such as some strands of christianity and marxism, and it is unpleasantly self-sustaining wherever it appears. Some practitioners of science, and especially the fundamentalist prophets of the new atheism, have warped and degraded the science by failing to acknowledge a whole range of limitations, such as the provisionality of all scientific knowledge, the huge effects of cultural bias on science, the high-pressure political and economic framework within which science works. This triumphalism and intolerant insistence on the sheer wrongness of any other framework is a faith position, just like religion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Re scientism, we are talking at cross-purposes. You cite scholarly usage, I refer to informal usage. As I say, the only people who have used the term in my sight have been homeopathy believers and creationists.

Re homeopathy, you are objectively wrong, sorry. There are no repeatable empirically verifiable effects at normal homeopathic dosages. The doctrine that like cures like was founded on Hahnemann's belief that because the symptoms of cinchonism are "like" those of malaria, thus cinchona cures malaria through symptomatic similarity. This is incorrect: it contains quinine which kills the plasmodium parasite that causes malaria. It has nothing to do with symptoms. There is no evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of cure, or that things which cause a symptom also cure it as a general or even common principle. Like simply does not cure like. It especially does not cure like when it is diluted past the point where none remains. And there's no property of matter by which this could work, and if there was, it would have to be transferrable via evaporation from water/alcohol to sugar, it would then have to survive the enzymes of the mouth, transfer across the cellular barrier to the bloodstream, and do so in a quantity sufficient to be bioavailable at the appropriate site. Every bit of the chain of evidence required to make it plausible, is absent or broken. So it's hardly a surprise that there is no good evidence it works beyond placebo, as three separate government level reviews have found (Switzerland, the UK and Australia). As I say, it's a litmus test for having a faulty mechanism for telling truth from fiction. And this is not even remotely controversial medically - everything in medicine from the time, with only a few relatively minor exceptions, is now known to be wrong. It was a time when people believed in humours.

The fact that all scientific knowledge (inductive knowledge anyway) is provisional, does not, as Dara O'Briain put it, leave you free to fill the gaps with whatever fairy tale takes your fancy. That is the "god of the gaps" fallacy. Sure, we can't prove that homeopathy is bullshit, but we don't have to, because the burden of proof lies wiht the homeopaths, and they have absolutely failed to carry that burden. No part of their doctrines stands up. It has the same status as the unicorn in my back yard. Scientifically, the only question that merits further study is why people believe these things work. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will do a subpage of my user account as you suggested. Another (perhaps trickier) question: some of us editors have been the targets of bullying and uncivil behavior, and I've noticed that it takes more than a couple of diffs on a noticeboard for admins to take action. Is there an appropriate space on Wikipedia for editors to collaborate and collect evidence of this sort of behavior? Again, perhaps a user or wikiproject subpage? Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk: Rare revert

You performed a revert to "restore threaded discussion, so that comments are not removed from their context". I can understand that you are probably getting a bit hot-headed dealing with the two editors in question, but I cannot understand why you actually did a revert (even if only de jure, without pressing the relevant buttons). I left links to the comments where appropriate - i.e. each spot, to each respective section - as advised in WP:TALK. If you were really worried about "context", you might have just copied the "original" comment into the relevant section as opposed to re-burdening the !Vote area. If you want, I will include the "original" comment in the sections, but the continued discussion between yourself, Jaguar, Czar, et. al is becoming a problem for the RM thread as it is quickly approaching a bludgeoning limit. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Will you perform a self-revert on your move, or must I do it for you? I will expect a response or I take it as you having given silent agreement. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am writing a longish reply. Please gimme time to complete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doctor Crazy

I really should have msged you after that revert, and I'm sorry for not doing so. Thanks for taking the time to come here.

Look, I do understand your reasons for trying to refactor things, and I do appreciate that you took great care to try to cross-link. You clearly acted with v good intent, and put a lot of work into it. I would have liked to be just able to just say "v well done, thanks".

However, the format you were aiming for -- of separate areas for survey and discussion -- is the norm for RFCs, but it is not how RMs are usually done. I thought it would be helpful to look back at some previous very busy RMs, so I took a peek at Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 19#Requested_move_7 (where I was one of the closing panel). There I see separate survey and discussion sections, but the survey section is not just a list of votes; there is a lot of discussion there too.

When I am acting as a closing admin, I find that helpful. If a rationale is advanced, it's much handier not to have to search for another section to see whether the rationale was critiqued, and how well the difft views are based in policy ... and then try to return to my jumping-off point in the first section.

Same if I am participating in the discussion. Like XFD, RM is not a vote -- it's a discussion in which evidence is weighed against policy, and where propositions are tested and debated. So in my experience it's better to have that debate about the merits of !votes at the point where !votes are cast.

I'm aware that may involve some scrolling, but such scrolling is easily done, and for someone who wants to avoid the extended discussion, it is easy to find the next !vote because it will be outdented and bolded. So the current format is best for the closer, and best for an editor wanting to follow the debate.

I know that such a lengthy debate makes the edit window disruptively bulky for an editor wanting to add a new !vote. The conventional solution to that is to add subheads between some threads, usually with a title like "arbitrary section break 1", "arbitrary section break 2", etc. That makes it easy for new !votes to be added, without disrupting the flow.

So I would be very happy if you added "arbitrary section break" headers, and willing to do it myself if you prefer.

However, if you try to reinstate the major refactoring, I will revert again, because it disrupts the debate.

Just to give you an example of how a major refactoring such as yours has a disruptive effect (which I'm sure is unintended), look at the data tables added in my comment of 06:31, 1 February. That data is significant counter-evidence to core assertions made by Jaguar and Czar, and the pageview data in referred to a few comments later by Grutness. A refactoring such as yours would move that data to after Grutness mentioned an addition to it.

It would arguably have been better if this discussion had started out with separate survey and discussion areas. As above, I'm not persuaded of that, but I can see the case. However, refactoring afterwards has a disruptive effect, despite your good intents. It means that the debate is no presented in the order in which it actually happened.

I am aware that you reckon that I became hot-headed in that thread. I disagree, but I accept your point that I was repetitious. However, I believe that was justified by the actions of Czar and Jaguar in repeatedly advancing claims which had already been clearly falsified, such as their multiple assertions that policy requires the exact opposite of the very clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, or that Czar's wp:involved closure is supported by closing instructions which allow an exception for unanimity -- even tho the debate closed was split 2:2. When editors repeat falsehoods on points of policy, and refuse to discuss or acknowledge those falsehoods, then leaving those repeated falsehoods unchallenged warps the debate. I find it very hard to see how editors can be regarded as acting with competence and in good faith when behaving like that, and I am particularly disappointed that the admin Czar has acted so shoddily and without apparent self-examination. When participants in a discussion do misbehave like that, it inevitably adds to the degree of meta-discussion. That effect is visible not just on en.wp, but in other places of debate, such as boardrooms, parliaments, and local council chambers.

I may not have persuaded you on any of this. But I note that you are yourself involved in the debate, and that you are a relatively inexperienced editor, with only 2210 edits. AFAICS from the edit summaries in your contribs, you have participated in only 2 previous RMs. We all have to start somewhere and you clearly bring a lot of conscientious thoughtfulness to en.wp ... but I don't see evidence of the great experience in RMs which I would hope would underpin any repetition of a contested refactoring.

If you still disagree with me, then rather than taking it upon yourself to re-impose a contested refactoring, please will you ask for an uninvolved admin to consider doing so? A post at WP:AN or WP:ANI which links to our discussion here and to the RM will probably bring the scrutiny of several uninvolved people whose judgement has already been tested by the community at WP:RFA.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries about the messaging, I knew where to find you to ask. But now to "condense" your response with my response.

I should have looked at prior MfD structures then, as the Hillary Clinton discussion seems to have been ... intensive seems an understatement, but understood about the effect - especially if that had of occurred with that discussion. I'll admit that I was convinced the discussion was shifting from discussing the move to discussing the editors, hence the refactor, but after re-checking some of the comments I did see I moved some of the move discussion as well. Apologies for that.

I still think you may be getting hot-headed while dealing with those two, but it is certainly justifiable hot-headedness - especially by this point. I may ask for some uninvolved admins to come in, but to curb Jaguar and Czar, not to scrutinise you or effect a refactor. In saying that though, would you mind adding in said section breaks? I'd probably go overboard with them as the threads are a mixed bunch of editor and move discussion and while parts are useful to the move discussion, perhaps some comments could be collapsed for reasons of "straying off topic"; as you say though, you do have a wealth of experience on these types of discussions and I'll leave it to your discretion.

At any rate, you do seem to be a good Admin, doing good (and thankless) work, and with a good understanding of policy, but maybe just keep an eye on how your words get interpreted and the impact they may have as some of the comments - while correct without doubt - leave a bit to be desired for resolving the conflict, perhaps a touch-up of WP:FOC might help. That is/was my main reason for suggesting a short break, and then come back on to "crack some heads". I should probably go see if I can cut the fuses off the two editors for starting to bludgeon the conversation. Wonder if they'll listen?

Apologies if I seemed harsh in my comments, but I'd rather a good editor (yeah, even good Admins too) get admonished and try to be better in future, than to waste time on slapping bad editors/rogues who'll possibly dodge around your back and stab you with a boomerang (yeah, WP:ABF is bad, but needed in small doses). Maybe a brief de-mopping/probation, or at least a wrist-slapping, session is in order for the admins - but what would be your opinion on this? Have a good day and Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum

Copyright - Own work Images

Hello and Good Morning I see that you are an administrator, I am posting a general qyestion in regards about Copyright Permission. So basically I took this image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_goal_(basketball)#/media/File:Grover_field_goal_mens_lague_basketball.jpg) from my phone and uploaded it to Wikimedia to be used in an article on the English Wikipedia and I was wondering if the details I put in to prove that it was my own work are sufficient enough to prove it? --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Sanjev Rajaram

Thanks for your msg, but I'm sorry to say that I am not much of an expert of image licensing. I could read up on it, but I don't want to mislead you, so I think you'd do better to ask someone more familiar with the policies in that area.

I am not sure what's the best place to ask, but I am sure that a post at WP:VPM will catch the eye of someone who can help.

Sorry I can't do more. Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sanjev Rajaram: We are generally allowed to take peoples word on copyright claims as long as it is reasonable to do so. I see no reason why anyone should doubt the copyright claim on that image. HighInBC 18:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for helping out, HighInBC. I hope that resolves Sanjev's concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much User:BrownHairedGirl and User:HighInBC for your help I truly appreciate it very much. If you both need help in return with any articles or require images (I am an avid photographer) please don't hesistate to let me know. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders in 2015#RfC: What would be a gender-neutral description for the Cook Islands royal representative?

You are invited to join the discussion at List of state leaders in 2015#RfC: What would be a gender-neutral description for the Cook Islands royal representative?. Greetings, BrownHairedGirl. Just wondered whether or not you could give your opinion on this long-running dispute. Many thanks indeed. Neve-selbert 04:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

DYK for David Brand, Lord Brand

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects

Hello. I noticed your edits at 1896–97 Small Heath F.C. season. I'd always thought that we shouldn't edit just to bypass redirects, as per WP:NOTBROKEN, and that in general it was perfectly acceptable to use a redirect rather than a piped target. Has the guidance changed, and it just hasn't reached the documentation yet? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the guidance hasn't changed. It was just that that list was bugging me, so I reckoned it wouldn't do much harm to fox it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Re this undo. Sorry, I pressed send before finishing the edit summary. You seem to have replaced [[Alloa Athletic]] with [[Alloa Athletic F.C.|Annan Athletic]], a different animal entirely. Not just at Sandy Cochrane, at other pages as well... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Struway2: Thanks for the the revert, and for the pointer. I just found the glitch in my long list of AWB settings, and will find and fix the others. Only Alloa was affected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

All 43 fixed[6]. Thanks again for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for William James Cullen, Lord Cullen

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Conservative_Wikipedians

If this category isn't useful, then why does Category:Liberal_Wikipedians exist? I'm at a loss on this one. So I started the CfD. I'm notifying you because you seemed to be involved; you restored Category:Conservative_Wikipedians in 2007. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jsharpminor: Thanks for the pointer, and for starting the CFD.

My restoration of Category:Conservative Wikipedians was purely procedural. Mercifully, all such categories were subsequently deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/August 2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories. I recommend at CFD that the solution for this one is: speedy delete per WP:G4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would you be so kind as to suggest the G4 or to do it yourself? J^♯m (talk | contribs) 05:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have suggested it at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thinking of an ANi thread - want your opinion please

DRAFT: I'd like to politely note LavaBaron is developing quite a habit of WP:BLUDEONING LavaBaron bludgeoned an AfD here [7] and User:BrownHairedGirl closed with an ANi thread [8] on 24 January 2016 with "LavaBaron is warned to avoid hyperbole in any further ANI reports, to stop bludgeoning processes, and to count themselves very lucky that this thread didn't WP:BOOMERANG on them." With 23 separate signed edits to an ANi thread with my name and a prejudicial title, LavaBaron's behavior continues without a break. If this behavor is OK, as a minimum we should keep this thread open for 25+ days at the top of ANi by editing it over and over and over again so that their name can be forever associated with bad behavior. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Stats

Hi

I am Mark Kerr pro footballer I currently play for Falkirk Fc.Just a couple of questions about my stats hopefully can help thanks. The wikipedia information on appearance made for each club is not quite right and also goals scored I am wondering if the stat is based on starting appearance and not including substitute appearances as they are missing from each club I have played for. The goals scored for Dundee United are wrong it says I have scored 2 goals that is true for league games but I have scored 3 cup goals 1 against Elgin 1 against Queen's Park and the other in the Europa league against MyPa of Finland. The appearances Asteras tripolis says 2 but I made 12 substitute appearance and also Partick thistle I started 5 games. I have updated this as it's accurate information and could name all the these games and teams they were against. I would be greateful if you could help update this information and if possible include substitute appearances to my stats.

I look forward to hearing from you and thanks to taking the time to update previous information.

Thanks Mark Kerr Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.93.202 (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

dashes

Perma-angry editor who is unable to AGF doesn't seem to understand "get off my talk page, and stay off it". So maybe hatting the thread will convey the message more clearly

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

---

Can you explain why you are reverting per WP:BRD, it is clear you knew a discussion was taking place and its clear you are ignoring. This was the edit where BRD came into effect. Your supposed to be an admin & a clearly involved one at that.Blethering Scot 23:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Your continued following of my edits is starting to border on Wikipedia:Harassment. That and your attitude towards me from our first encounter has been substandard. Your behaviour was noted to be substandard as much as mine. If this continues then we clearly need to go back to AN. I will not feel harassed by an Admin with a grudge.Blethering Scot 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Blethering Scot, my watchlist showed changes to one of those pages which seemed perverse, so I checked for more. That's not stalking and its not harassment.

You really should try to let go of your severe WP:OWNERSHIP issues, and of your apparent inability to WP:AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is harassment. You have followed my edits constantly since we first clashed at the St Mirren article & your watch list showed it because you added it to your watch list. At no point prior would you have had any reason to watch that patch. Your attitude towards me was unacceptable, you made false statements against me which I had to prevent evidence that you were wrong. You had to apologise yet still was adamant you were right. Tonight you edit warred on an article you knew was being discussed about clearly contrary to WP:BRD. You are harassing me and you are an admin. Its clear from this statement that its simply your opinion not based in fact and that simply because you don't like something doesn't make it policy. You keep sighting AGF, hard to even remotely consider this given your attitude from the word go. Its sad but if you continue to stalk my edits then we will be back at AN pretty quickly.Blethering Scot 23:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And sorry wanting an article to be consistent is not an WP:OWNERSHIP issue. Its a Consistency issue. You know full well you are involved, you know full well the behaviour expected from an admin yet you display the opposite. You clearly felt like edit warring tonight and clearly knew a discussion was taking place. You need to seriously consider whether your involvement with me have shown the behaviour befitting an admin of this site. An admin does not edit war, they don't bring personal opinion into things, they follow policy not opinion and they don't harass or victimise editors because there opinion differs from theres, they dont constantly accuse them of arguing that F.C. should actually be FC & muddying waters when actually it was another editor entirely. Take a hard look at yourself and tell me that throughout this whole saga you have AGF with me.Blethering Scot 23:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

BS, I have had more than enough of your insistence that every time our paths cross (which is very rarely) that it is evidence of harassment.

I have had more than enough of your WP:OWNership of articles -- which has been noted by others too, most recently at WT:FOOTY.

I have had more than enough of your insistence on turning every small misunderstanding into an insistence that I am a liar. One example of that is when I confused your desire to remove "F.C." with another editors desire to change it to "FC". As I and other editors pointed out, both were proposals which could and should be considered separately from the dot in "St.", and that your use of that RM to raise that issue was muddying the waters. When you raised the "F.C." convention at WT:FOOTY, you got zero support.

Since you won't AGF, get off my talk page, and stay off it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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

I've been there

Get well soon BHG!! I went through all of the winter cold stuff at the end of January and it was no fun at all. I wish I could edit the "BrownHairedGirl has a cold" article to remove the offending (uncited) germs. Best wishes for a quick recovery. MarnetteD|Talk 22:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, MarnetteD. That's a very kind thought.

I just begun to get used to having a nastily broken arm when the fever hit, so I was feeling pretty horrible for a few days ... 'cos every time I coughed or blew my nose, it rattled the unset bones. Luckily some witches potions have taken the edge off the bug, so I'm still feverish but at least I'm not rattling.

So maybe I'm not ready to be fed to the lions just yet <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oooouuuccchh BHG. I am glad that the potion is alleviating some of the pain. Cheers to continued healing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Unframboise

Both parties agree that the next stop is ANI, so this thread has outlived any usefulness. But I do that both editors will try again to reach a consensus without escalating to the drama-board. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

---

BHG, sorry to bother you, but would you go look at User:Unframboise's latest antics on his talk page, at DRN, and at User Talk:AussieLegend? We're disagreeing on something that's not a huge deal in the article Code Black (TV series), and he's trying to play the bully card. He's long had ownership issues that lead to these little episodes, and is latest post on his talk page is well beyond appropriate. --Drmargi (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. How long can these attacks continue? --Unframboise (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A little disappointed not to hear from you, but at least Unframboise has removed his latest dramah/attack post from his talk page. I'm getting weary of abuse from editors who take a revert personally, to the degree they engage in thus sort of behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drmargi

Sorry for not replying. I'm ill with a fever at the moment, and I can do bits of mechanical editing, but I haven't the strength for tussles like this.

If you still need admin assistance, may I ask you to take it to ANI? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're not well! There is some nasty flu going around. Unframboise is sort of at "Next Stop:ANI", but I don't have the stomach for the drama, so I thought I'd take a less aggressive approach. For now, as long as he knocks off the tortured soul crap, it's fine. Feel better. --Drmargi (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Unframboise isn't taking an aggressive approach. Unframboise sought advice from other users, who agreed with him, and the page has now been updated as per consensus and wiki conventions that have since been brought to my attention. Unframboise doesn't see your issue. Next stop is not ANI, next stop is you accepting you were wrong. Thanks but no thanks. --Unframboise (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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