User:Caroig/Arbitration/file

Geobox and categories

 * Initiated by  – at 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel very uncomfortable from bring this case here yet I see no other alternative after so many objections and discussions very ignored. I think, and so do many other editors, the categories are useful for improving Wikipedia and as such they should be acceptable. What they should be named is a fair question, left for a consensus which can't be reached if some admins just delete first. This is all I ask for, to allow a discussion, consensus and fair treatment. My previous thorough account has been copied to User:Caroig/Arbitration.

I'm the main author of the Geobox template which is a universal infobox for any geography related feature. After a request from some users I added code which put the pages with Geobox to some categories. I had checked WP:CAT and the categories seemed in accordance with these guidelines (as I understood them). User:Darwinek put a "suggestion" on my talk page in which he raised objections to the template without clearly stating what the problem was, just very vague statements. He also a part of the Geobox code without any rationale which I reverted. I re-read the policy, found the line I thought he was relating to and responded. There was never any answer, User:Darwinek started another "discussion" in which I was accused of claiming ownership of the template (no reason given), refusing cooperation (I answered every post, since the beginning I had been suggesting the categories will go if they indeed broke any rules), claiming they were needed (which I never did), they suggested removing the Geobox, there were completely off-topic comments and various other accusations. I only learned about this discussion when User:Darwinek put those categories at CfD. Countless times I asked everyone to discuss the issue at Geobox template talk page.

There I acknowleged the naming scheme was not perfect and I wrote I was working on an improved version. There were many comments and suggestions, yet User:BrownHairedGirl closed the debate while no solution had been agreed on and wrote the outcome was to delete which left me agape again. She wrote she expected objections and asked them to be first discussed with her, which I did.

I was waiting for an answer for almost two weeks but it never came. In the meantime I was working on a new, improved version which would address, in my best faith, the major objections. I first put it at Rfc, which didn't get much attention and later added the new code and manually created some categories for regions where users were systematically adding Geoboxes. Yet User:BrownHairedGirl deleted the code as recreated contents though the categories were generated on a completely different basis, without reading any of the previous posts, introducing a bug to the template. After my many objections she filed a Deletion review but only after I suggested arbitration. This CfD didn't dealt with the merit of the thing at all. I tried to address this by a longer answer in which I tried to explain the issue (as requested by another user). Yet this answer was dismissed by her completely, stating it was off-topic (part of those tried to answer her own off-topic comments).

Involved parties



 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * Request for Comments - no answer from involved parties
 * announcement on the new categories - no comment from involved parties
 * Deletion review - my comment (requested for) completely dismissed
 * Template talk:Geobox - running discussion at the time the CfD was closed
 * Village pump (policy)/Archive 2 - repeated requests for a discussion
 * Original CfD - efforts to start a regular discussions and dismiss false accusations
 * In some of the discussions User:SEWilco acted as a mediator, correcting mistakes, hist posts were never answered by the involved parties

Clerk notes

 * (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)