User talk:Obiwankenobi

Inadvertent deletion

Sorry about that. Lot's of edit conflicts and my browser jockeying mucked that up.Mattnad (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all. Let me know if you agree on a general cooling down period. I think continuing to add/war over such categories absent a broader community consensus on inclusion criteria for both is likely to lead to strife.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I see wikibreak is over...

Hi Obi, Apparently you went on wikibreak to avoid sanction and I see you've ended break [[1]], [[2]], [[3]] I would just like to politely ask you to remember what got you in trouble previously and request you keep talk page contributions reasonable in length and volume and make an effort not to bludgeon the process. Thanks. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually still on break. I just broke it in that case to support the suggestion to suspend discussion, to offer an olive branch of removing the cat, and to propose other eds join me in a bit of a break before a focused discussion on inclusion criteria. But yes I will keep volume down.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I wasn't actually criticizing your specific talk page contributions, as I honestly only skimmed 'em. Personally, when I encounter lengthy posts on talk pages, I'm much less inclined to read 'em, and I'm probably not alone in this...just something to think about. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

yeah, if I had more time I'd be more brief (I think twain said that)...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your versatility of interests and basic sense of understanding. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Forumshop warning

Hi Obi, I've noticed before that you like to move a discussion to another forum when participation is low and/or your opinion doesn't outnumber that of your opponents.

The one that springs most to my mind is Category talk:LGBT people → Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, which was totally ineffective and just stalled the discussion.

(I can look up diffs but I suppose you'll remember what I'm talking about)

I've pointed you to the applicable policies and guidelines more than once, but here they are again for your information:

1. WP:FORUMSHOP: policy

Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

2. WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification: guideline

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.
• A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.
• On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).
• On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
  • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field
  • Editors who have asked to be kept informed

The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages. The {{Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.

Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users. (there's still a table in that guideline section, please have a look)

(again, I can provide you with diffs if needed that I remarked this to you on previous occasions if that would be necessary)

I think it's time for a somewhat more official warning:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to provide a link but forgot to - sorry. Anyway it's a different discussion, those are changes I'd been planning in proposing for several months so your edit just reminded me we needed to clarify the language in the cat guideline. Moving that other discussion to LGBT project wasn't forum shopping by any stretch of the imagination.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see a link from the second discussion to the first. "I was thinking of the second discussion earlier" is not an excuse by a long stretch. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you made the link already! :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Then check again... --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent reverts on YesAllWomen

Your recent reverts on YesAllWomen are concerning considering this is an article you agreed to step away from completely following your disruption on article, in order to avoid potential action. This also seems concerning considering you are suppose to be on wikibreak to avoid MRM sanctions from Bbb23. It seems you have decided to just ignore your prior assurances to Dennis Brown and Bbb23. What's going on? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm on a brief wikibreak from my wikibreak. I agreed to step away from the RFC discussion, which I've done. I also stepped away from gender bias page, which again I have done. Not sure what those reverts have to do with MRM?? I've posted my reasoning in the talk page, why not engage their and try to build consensus or develop a compromise wording.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't discuss via edit summaries please

Re. the concept of "sensitive categories" was rejected as a title for WP:EGRS, so trimming this and making it simpler — I couldn't make sense of what you were trying to say there.

Seems like you're falling in your bad habit again of discussing via edit summaries. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem section titles

Please avoid "ad hominem" section titles, as you did here [4] --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

fair enough. Sorry about that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for resumption of edit warring at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Obiwankenobi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

5 days? Seriously? I made 2 reverts, was not making any further reverts, and was already discussing on talk page. Thus there was no ongoing edit war in need of stopping. I think this is excessive and seems punitive vs preventative, as discussion was ongoing and I wasn't reverting further. I think this block should be adjusted to 24 hours to allow a cooling down period, and I will commit to holding to 1RR on that guideline going forward and hope you will hold Francis to the same commitment. Last time I was blocked it was suggested by @BrownHairedGirl: that 3 reverts was too much, which is why I changed my behavior - 1) Not blanket reverting, but adjusting the text added by Francis to be in line with a version I agreed with 2) Not reverting more than twice. I have thus tried to make adjustments to my behavior but I was blocked nonetheless after only two reverts when discussion was ongoing on the talk page. I think 5 days is excessive punishment, and while I acknowledge that perhaps my second revert was perhaps too much, I don't think 5 days is balanced punishment for that single revert.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

When an editor resumes the same behavior that they'd be recently blocked for, it's standard practice to issue progressively longer blocks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You made two reverts today and you made another revert two days ago. However, the block and the duration of the block are because you resumed edit warring after your last block of 36 hours for edit warring the same page. And this isn't an article; this is a Wikipedia guideline that you and the other editor are making your own private battleground. Discussion on the talk page is good but only if you don't revert at the same time. Discussion doesn't give you license to revert. Five days was relatively lenient given the circumstances. And you still don't see anything wrong with your behavior? That's disappointing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm confused. Am I not allowed to revert at all? Only one revert? 2? I have purposefully stayed away from 3 reverts here and am trying to hold myself to no more than two, but if I nonetheless get blocked for 2 reverts what's the point? There is no 1RR applied to these pages. And no, I don't think 2 reverts is excessive - especially if those reverts are mostly removing things ADDED without discussion to this guideline. We should have a BLP-like exception here for policy pages, that undiscussed insertions can be removed by good faith editors without fear of being blocked. I think 5 days is way overblown - as the edit warring had already stopped! I had made 2 reverts and wasn't going to make another and had already started discussion after the first revert. I have tried to learn since my last block but I had no idea 2 reverts would land me a block of 5 days. Would I also have been blocked for one revert? I just ask you to consider if you weren't a bit fast on the trigger here, and if you'd let things continue you would have seen if it continued - it was finished from my perspective.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Once you are blocked for edit warring on a page, your subsequent reversions are held to a higher degree of scrutiny because you are repeating your behavior. Also, edit warring on a guideline or policy is serious. Your block was recent, and yet you continue. How am I supposed to know that you weren't going to make any more reverts after the second one? If you acknowledge that you started discussion after the first revert, then why did you make the second revert? I don't want to punish you for your behavior, but you are an experienced editor, and it doesn't require much to step back and realize that your behavior is disruptive. And, even now, although I think you are sincere, you show little or no insight into the problem. I'm not sure why that is, actually.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

the topic I was reverting was totally different than the one I was blocked for previously. I didn't know any edit whatsoever to this page in the future would have have higher scrutiny. Again, I honestly don't think 2 reverts is disruptive. What is disruptive IMHO is Francis' behavior of making undiscussed changes to guidelines and edit warring them in after he is reverted. I think if you make a bold change and are reverted you should discuss. I also tried to find compromises - eg instead of just reverting Francis' undiscussed changes, in some cases I just made tweaks that brought his changes into consensus with me at least, so I've tried to find a compromise path. Again, in what way are 2 reverts disruptive? As I said I'm staying away from 3 reverts on purpose and am engaging as always on the talk page. Would even 1 revert have been disruptive? Finally I think 5 days is incredibly aggressive especially for the person who was removing undiscussed material from a guideline. Could I have not made the second revert? Yes, and maybe that would have been less disruptive, so for that second revert I apologize, but I need some better guidance here - am I never allowed to revert twice on this page again? Am I allowed to revert once? Can I disuss a revert, explain my reasoning, and re-revert once more after discussion has started? The 3rr rule is useful and by staying to 2 reverts I hoped to avoid accusations of edit warring by staying far from 3rr, and yet, here I am with 5 days. I just think it's excessive. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and yet while I've stated very clearly that I had ceased reverting and discussion was ongoing you don't seem willing to reconsider the length of the block. What could I say to change your mind?-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your questions themselves concern me. You want a precise roadmap as to what's acceptable and what isn't in the guise of guidance. I've pretty much said my piece. Perhaps another administrator who reviews your unblock request and, I assume, reads this discussion, will say something that resonates with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

yes, I do need more guidance as to how to avoid being blocked. You said Five days was relatively lenient given the circumstances. which suggests this is a punishment. After I made my first change 2 days ago @Sillyfolkboy: actually thanked me. I will commit to no more than 1RR on this page if you would reconsider the length of the block and bring it down to 24 hours for example. Sillyfolkboy do you have any thoughts or comments on these edits?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment anymore, but ... Escalating durations for the same behavior is common; it doesn't imply punishment. Just because someone agrees with you doesn't entitle you to edit-war. If you think the other editor is disruptively reverting against consensus, then you raise that problem in the appropriate forum - you don't revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I did raise the problem, on the talk page, which seems the first best place, and I had stopped reverting. Additionally, I'm proposing to hold to a 1RR on that page. What else can I do to help you reconsider the length of the block?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR, and then go to the talk page to seek agreement, is an excellent way to engage in a disagreement. It would be a very good thing if OBK committed to it, and he should be rewarded for doing so. Also, consider WP:HEC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to commit to 1RR for the WP:Categorization of people page. It would be great if @Francis Schonken: would consider agreeing to the same given his tendency to make bold edits on that page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• 'question to @Ohnoitsjamie:: You said When an editor resumes the same behavior that they'd be recently blocked for, it's standard practice to issue progressively longer blocks. However, in this case my behavior has been DIFFERENT than the last time, as I noted in my unblock request. Instead of reverting the multiple undiscussed additions Francis made to the guideline, I instead made tweaks to align his changes so that they were acceptable - this is exactly the behavior that is suggested in Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary for example - I was attempting to find compromise wording. I also explained my changes in the edit summary in detail. When Francis undid my change, I reverted and explained further that his additions were undiscussed and I didn't agree with them, and proposed keeping my compromise version or just reverting back to the pre-dispute version. I also immediately opened up a talk page section and started discussion. He just reverted w/o comment, so I reverted again and continued the discussion since I don't think novel additions to a guideline should stand if they are disputed. I've already noted that the second revert went too far, but this was still very far from a violation of 3RR and was only a very lightweight edit war, accordingly a 5 day block seems excessively punitive. As noted above, I'm proposing to hold to 1RR on that guideline going forward - is there anything else I can do or say to help you reconsider the length of the block? I feel like I'm being punished after I had specifically worked to adopt my behavior in the edits here by staying far from 4 reverts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

By "same" I mean "same type of behavior," not "exactly the same reverts." Edit warring not only includes flat-out reverts, but includes WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality editing as well. As Bbb23 mentioned, if you are blocked for edit warring, it's in your best interest to hold your edits to a higher level of scrutiny. When in doubt, propose your changes on the talk page first and get some measure of consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it's not about the same reverts - but as I explained above, I have indeed changed my behavior. I don't see a battleground here either, it confuses me that you use that term. To recap, I stopped blanket reverting of Francis' undiscussed/no consensus changes, and instead tweaked his changes towards a version I agreed with, and am now committing to following 1RR on that guideline. I fail to see how 5 days in the penalty box will help prevent further disruption given those commitments.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

re: Nigel Pap

I'm blocked so can only respond here, @Nigel Pap: pinging Nigel, you said Are you saying that the fictional women would be treated unfairly by being "segregated", but that women (real women) should be split off in the category that contains non-fictional people? No, what I'm saying is more subtle. The final rung rule in WP:EGRS exists to prevent gendered categories that, by their very nature and structure, are more likely to ghettoize - e.g. leave women for example in only a gendered category. When there are no diffusing siblings, as is the case here for the fictional categories, then the Fictional women engineers category ends up being a final rung of Category:Fictional engineers, since most of the contents are likely to remain in the parent (the existing diffusing siblings are not sufficient to empty the parent), and it should thus be deleted (or, really merged up to the neutral parent and then deleted) as it violates that guideline. The "real" women engineers category is fine, since it has neutral diffusing siblings such as Category:Engineers_by_nationality, Category:Engineers_by_specialty, Category:19th-century_engineers, etc, so bios are much less likely to be segregated only in the "women" category (you'll notice the parent, Category:Engineers is mostly empty of biographies, as it should be.) This is the same reason why Category:Women historians is a valid category while Category:Women flight attendants would not be (since Category:Flight attendants cannot be otherwise diffused).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You say that the real women engineers are "fine" because there are "neutral diffusing siblings" but that ignores the larger issue at play here. Why does a gendered category exist at all? It is 2014. It is no longer unusual for a woman to be an engineer. Yet, here is Wikipedia with people like you defending having a separate category for female engineers based on the fact that it was at one time remarkable for a woman to hold such a position. I've just read WP:EGRS and it does not seem to agree with any of the arguments I have seen you make. With reference to that policy, what is the justification for separating women engineers? Nigel Pap (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's a much larger question Nigel. I was responding to your specific question re: fictional women engineers. If you want to know why "Women engineers" is permitted as a category, WP:EGRS says a gendered category can be created when gender has a special relation to the subject. So, is "women engineers" a topic of special study? We have societies committees news stories scholarly studies and even and so on and so forth, so yes, even in 2014, even if it's becoming more normal for women to enter engineering, there is still a gender gap and still a ton of ink spilled on the topic. Also, please don't say "people like you" - it's offensive - as if you're grouping me with some unnamed group of nasty people. The gendered categories we have, and there are around 6000 for women, and roughly the same for men, have been forged through consensus. I myself have nominated and argued for the deletion of dozens of women's categories - more than most here! But I have also defended and populated and deghettoized dozens of other gendered categories - more than most here! My north star is WP:EGRS and WP:NPOV - I'm not "for" gendered categories and I'm not "against" them, I think if they are unlikely to "ghettoize" and the topic is well studied, they are reasonable and should be not only kept but fully populated. If the topic is not well studied, or if the structure makes them likely to ghettoize, then, the whole category should be deleted. I think it's actually a very good sign that I'm on the side of neutrality if I'm simultaneously criticized for deleting such categories and at the same time criticized for defending them. I remember during CategoryGate (which you may or may not have missed) a ton of outsiders were outraged that wikipedia had a separate category for American women novelists - and yet few of them questioned why colleges and libraries and amazon and the library of congress have separate bookshelves and awards and categories and classes and degrees for women's literature - wikipedia simply reflects our broader society, and in our current society, there are a great many topics where women + X is a topic that is studied separately from X (If you want to really watch blood boil, try suggesting that there might also be topics of men + X, that really fires people up). You say we are "separating women engineers", but if the articles are properly categorized, the women will not be separate - in wikipedia a book can be on multiple shelves. So a given women engineer will be in the Category:Women engineers category but also in Category:American engineers or whatever, e.g. she will be on the same shelf as her male peers - that's what "deghettoization" means. I'm opposed to any system whereby women would only be in a women-category (with the exception of sports/actresses, which are fully split by both genders, but that's a different topic) - but actually DOING this correctly is rather tricky. You may want to read an essay I wrote, or a draft essay at User:Obiwankenobi/On_categories which gets a bit technical but goes into the details of how to detect ghettoization, and how to fix it (hint: the solution is rarely "stick it in the parent").--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You used the "scholarly study" argument in another discussion, but it does not seem to agree with either the text or implication of WP:EGRS. What is the special relationship of gender to engineering? Do female engineers perform a different role than male engineers? Do women who study engineering get different training and graduate with a different degree? Are there separate professional governing bodies for male engineers and female engineers? Are there different professional standards for male engineers and female engineers? Nigel Pap (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

EGRS says "As another example, a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, though it does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male." The language I hew to is thus "topic of special encyclopedic interest"; I also consider "special relationship of gender" to hold if reliable sources have discussed the relationship of gender to the job. If there is scholarly research, professional societies, news articles, etc around the topic, then a gendered category can be created (provided it doesn't violate other rules like final-rung) - another criteria is whether women have traditionally been excluded from that particular job for example - so while a fair bit has probably been written about women +nursing and women+feminism, since women have dominated these fields, we have instead Category:Male nurses and Category:Male feminists. The final rung rule also prevents us from having things like "African-American lesbian writers of Cuban descent", even if someone once wrote a scholarly article on same. We used the scholarly sources argument to defend categories like Category:Male writers, as people now study writing by men as a special topic (as opposed to an "ungendered" look at such writing.) As to your other points, no, I don't think women engineers have different training/degrees/standards, the actual practice of engineering is the same. If it were different - like it is in some sports for example, where men/women compete in different leagues, play sports with different sets of rules, etc. - then we would gender separate the whole category, which isn't the case here. The arguments you make (e.g. women don't perform the job of engineering differently than men) have been made before by others, but they usually haven't gained consensus in terms of actually deleting such categories. One thing that is true is that WP:EGRS does not reflect well the full extent of reasons people have used to keep and delete such categories, so the whole thing needs to be fixed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

re: talkpage

Umm, Obi, as a good faith reminder, and since you've just been blocked for editing behavior regarding categorization of people, you might not want to try to edit or influence discussions about categorization of people by proxy on your talk page. I'm not sure if OhNoitsJamie, Bbb23 or others would see it as a form of WP:BLOCK EVASION, but I'm sure you can see how it could arguably be seen as that. Probably bettter to stop digging and all that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Blocked_users, talk page access is permitted for editors to contact a blocked editor. I don't see any policy issue with discussing issues re: ongoing discussions I was involved in with other editors here - if you can point to the relevant policy please let me know. I'm not engaging in discussions re: the page I was blocked for (the discussions, if they implicated a policy, would implicate WP:EGRS, nor am I asking editors to make specific edits on my behalf. In the case above with @Nigel Pap:, I was simply answering a question that was posed to me. The case below, which I wrote before your post, is about literature.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Because I was pinged by Elaqueate, I'll comment very briefly. Regardless of whether I like what you're doing, I think the consensus generally is it's not prohibited by policy. Perhaps it'll help you get more used to discussion on talk pages rather than reversions and edit summaries. I must say, though, that for a blocked editor you're a pretty busy guy. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

well, you caught me during a busy period, and I was involved in a number of discussions, I'm going on vacation at the end of the week, so your block was, shall we say, ill-timed :). Since I have you here, I do wish you'd reconsider shortening the time. 5 days for 2 reverts seems really heavy. Is there anything I can say/do to change your mind?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like the block and the beginning of your vacation will overlap. I think you should enjoy your vacation, forget about categories, blocks, and all things related to Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is still unfinished business and discussions I'd like to respond to... I'm looking for a compromise position here. Is there any way you'd reconsider? I've admitted the second revert was bad, and committed to 1RR on that category guideline. What else am I missing?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If Bbb23 thinks it's currently non-actionable, I won't worry too much about it and it's good to hear their opinion on it. But I will say that this: I'm not engaging in discussions re: the page I was blocked for is demonstrably untrue and is probably not a line of argument you should rely on in the future. Both conversations you've initiated directly regard and reference the page you've just been twice blocked for your behavior on. You've made that connection in both discussions yourself explicitly. In any case, if you can splinter the discussions or lobby the deletion of categories from your talk page without being too disruptive, I probably won't pay it more mind myself. But I think you’re getting into WP:ROPE territory that I would’ve thought you’d been smart enough to avoid. Good luck. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

EQ, there's a fine line between good faith advice and tattle-telling. Stick on the advice side, or walk away. And where, perchance, did I ever reference the categorization of people page? Oh, that's right, I didn't. I wasn't blocked for edits to WP:EGRS, and the discussion above is about WP:EGRS. I do hope you'll find something better to do with your time than watching my talk page for signs of nefarious activity. In any case, all such nefarious activity is actually done by one of my multiple well-hidden socks which go by the code names BHG, JPL, etc. And where did I lobby for deletion of categories? Above I'm lobbying for retaining them. Whose damn side am I on anyway?? :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Women's literature

@Aristophanes68:, I'm currently on a forced wiki-vacation :), but wanted to comment on your contribs to the discussion on ethnic women's literature. I agree that it's problematic that only 4 American ethnicities+women are called out, but I think it's also problematic since these categories will tend to segregate women's literature separate from the neutral parents - a number of the individual books, as well as the "books by X" categories are only present in the ethnic+women category, and not in the parent (thus, "ghettoized"). It is, I believe, the structure of these categories that tends to create this problem - they are (at least in some trees) what we call "final rung" - with no diffusing siblings.

I also have another question for you, re: the Category:Literature by women category - I think one problem with this category as it currently stands is the scope is unclear. We have a massive Category:Literature tree and books can be sorted by year, by nationality, by theme, etc. However, as currently populated, the Category:Literature by women category seems to mostly contain individual author categories, and doesn't include books which don't have authors. Do you agree that it should remain this way? I think it makes sense, and I don't think it would be that useful to create a category with thousands of articles of Category:Literature by women when we have a well developed neutral tree in Category:Literature. I can see the value in calling out, under Category:American literature, specific ethnic splits (and grouping the authors in there as well), but I don't think given the number of women writers we have (we have I think over 1500 American women novelists alone) that grouping all of the individual books into Category:Literature by women or even Category:Literature by American women (which would, if created, also violate final rung rule) would be useful. If you agree, we may want to rename Category:Literature by women to be something like Category:Women's literature by writer which would just be a container that would only contain subcategories where we actually have them created for women writers, similar to Category:Works_by_American_writers--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I too noticed the weirdness of the Lit by Women cat, since it contains only "works by" cats and not individual titles. And renaming it Women's Lit by Author would definitely fit the scope as it currently is. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Is "Women's literature" the same as "Literature by women"? Interesting question... But yes, Category:Women's literature by writer would seem to better fit the intended scope and be more workable to boot. I suggest we wait until the July 14 category discussion finishes, and then consider a broader discussion at the lit project on the women's lit category and intended scope (once my sentence is served out), and then we could perhaps suggest a rename of the category based on that discussion. It is probably missing some elements as well, I'm a bit surprised there are only ~200 entries. I notice a massive inconsistency in how books are categorized. While we have a deep category tree, most books are not fully categorized within.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A separate question, as well. Should Category:Asian-American literature (and subcategories) be populated with all books by any author who identifies as Asian-American? IOW, is this a "genre" category or it is an "ethnicity of the writer" + "book they wrote" category? The lede suggests the latter. But if that's the case, these also seem woefully underpopulated, given the number of books we have - and I noticed a few books are _only_ in the Category:Asian-American literature category, so there's also some ghettoization in this tree (and other ethnic trees) it seems. I think you've been curating some of these categories - how do you think they should be used?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)