228:. That is, B2c could put the bulk of that initial post an in an essay page and copyedit a bit, then if someone took it to MfD it would be kept (I would know; I've tried to MfD a number of essays, and it's remarkably difficult to get a result more stringent than a userspacing, even for pages that do nothing but attack WP itself and its editorial pool). Some bits of it are critical of the judgement/priorities of the close (and thus of the closers), but it's really mild compared to a lot of people's outright rants about "badmins" and so on. It quickly gets back to a reasoned and reasonable point: 'n practice, I think closers are far too reluctant to override consensus of the participants by consensus of the community "as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions", whenever there is a conflict.' This is actually a quite common view (not just about RM closers, admin or otherwise, but also about RfC closures (admin or NAC), and about various admin decision-making actions). More to the point, the reasoning in it is entirely policy-correct; it's the very reason we have
209:
and B2C doesn't hide anything about it being the inspiration for the question, and he and others do discuss and even argue about it a little, it's not a relitigation of the outcome at all, and it didn't derail the discussion (even if policy didn't change as a result of it, either – but when does that ever happen, on the first try, right after a controversy?). B2c makes various valid, perhaps even important, points in that thread, that we don't talk and think enough about, much less do anything to resolve, like how much WP may be skewing names in the real world. (Also raised in the big WT:RM thread below, which was actually earlier; he brought it up in a very valid counter to something someone said there about the alleged sourceability of an uncommon but real name.)
2273:
editors, judging from the outcomes of various past discussions. Our title policy specifically acknowledges that what makes a good title can vary from case to case, and that it's appropriate to weigh some goals more highly than others depending on the circumstances — a process accomplished through discussion and consensus-building. This is how USPLACE and many other longstanding title conventions came to be: not by "whims" or by "blurring" the rules, but by following established processes to reach a consensus-based solution to the unique requirements of certain subjects. Insofar as USPLACE gives weight to considerations
892:, disclaimed it being an AE or DS block, he uses the AE request as the sole basis for it, so that's basically meaningless semantic game-playing. None of the admins suggesting this version or that version of sanctions to impose as a condition for B2c return have any actual basis on which to impose them, because they have no DS to wield here, and the community did not impose such sanctions, nor a block. There is nothing else they can be other than invalid discretionary sanctions, being applied where DS are not authorized, and being mislabeled something other than DS. I'm of half a mind to open yet another
253:
corresponding arguments were available to us from the beginning?" His answer: "I think it's because participants all too often ignore NPOV and offer JDLI or WIKILAWYERed rationalizations ... and closers pay too much attention to consensus of participants and not enough to CONSENSUS of community ..." (redundant detailia elided). A shipload of RM regulars would agree with this completely. I might even bet money that a majority of them would. This central issue might just come down to: if B2c makes this point in a dozen venues per day, then we have a problem. But he didn't do anything like that.
343:. I don't see anything untoward here. While there is another of the hyperbolic "it's indisputable" comments, grandiosity isn't against policy. Nor is calling out rationalization (a criticism of an argument, not a person), though it may not be a correct criticism. The message is actually noteworthy, because B2c finally changes gears, and stops talking about "rules" and instead (twice) couches it in terms of "our conventions" (i.e. our weighty record of consensus decisions), and "our policies". This is actually a major step forward compared his rhetoric in the huge-ass debate.
141:, including getting 2 of his more "remake WP title policy in my own image" essays MfDed several years go. Not all that long before this Sarah Jane Brown-related dispute broke out, I made a testy response to him in an ANI (a case mostly about someone else - not the one about B2c that TonyB cited at AE). My STFU feeling was predicated on assumptions that he was "up to his old tricks" (which is what it looked like to me), i.e. still pursuing exactly the same agendas as in the old essays, and I ended up suggesting a topic ban similar to the one now in effect.
1030:
that between B2c; he really has been changing). The issue here is (as I detailed above) the block and sanctions aren't actually procedurally valid, and the evidence presented doesn't support most of the actual claims that were made at all. B2c can be a thorn in the side, and a bit of a broken record, but that's not grounds for what was done to him, which has pretty grave implications. If it's not corrected, it'll be a strong signal that anyone can take someone to AE with insufficient evidence, made a
31:
1117:
204:, it does appear to be exactly what he said it was: an interpretation and do-we-need-to-clarify question posed for open discussion, at the forum probably most relevant for asking it, and with a lot of quality commentary all around. I was prepared to vehemently disagree with what he said there, and ended up agreeing with a lot of it, at least in theory/principle, if not at the pragmatics level (in an earlier 2017 discussion at WT:DAB, I proposed a "just declare by community
799:"Let's hear B2c re-plead his case again" thing. Rather, it's meta-analysis of the evidence and disciplinary consequences, and a suggestion that it went too far, as might have the pile of "you can only come back if" restrictions proposed. The restrictions themselves might even be sensible, but only if limited to 6 months or something. Or maybe a much narrower set of restrictions that's indefinite. Heavy restrictions that are indefinite is unjust overkill.
257:(Guy) makes a solid point that B2c's "win" with Big Ben may have been a bad result. Lots of random discussion elided. B2c makes another reasonable if wishful point: "The idea is that don't anticipate every possible scenario, but instead distill general principles of that can be applied effectively in any scenario, including scenarios not yet anticipated." While that's not a practical call to action, it makes sense as a
365:
what got indeffed and TBANned, like a wicker effigy. When I think back on someone who had to be TBANned from MoS, the disruption level of that party was an order of magnitude greater, with very frequent actual policy violations, not just a general vague sense of being garrulous, and not just tedious and irritating like this same over-literal AT interpretation is.
635:, saying "You guys have done an exemplary job", in hindsight, is something I shouldn't have said and would like to retract. I don't recall exactly what I was thinking at the time, though I recall feeling pretty exhausted by the process at that point. I don't recall whether I even thoroughly read all that; regardless I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement.
854:
proposes two paths (of adjusting policy wording about natural disambiguation to make the RM result less in conflict with it, or finding some way to make one of the parenthetic DABs palatable enough to pass), while the other single post that was supposedly a smoking gun shows him abandoning his "rules" approach and converting to a community consensus one.
2229:
particular community's title can hardly be considered "never-ending disruption". (Such figures are actually good indicators of the convention's success and stability.) This is particularly true given that the recent nominations, originating as they do from contested technical requests, suggest the noms were simply unfamiliar with our guidelines.
2260:
one and only one "correct" title in every case, we can certainly move towards or away from this ideal, and USPLACE sets a precedent that moves us away from that. It's ironic because USPLACE sets a definitive convention for a subset of our titles, but at the same time opens the floodgates of ambiguity for all other titles. --
1302:
you are committed to disregarding such considerations and so quickly forget them. I don’t mind being pinged with a question, but could you make more effort to ask a reasonable question. Note that in the discussion I had not committed to a position in the proposal. As often, it is a borderline case, not black and white. —
776:, which expressly put the ball into his court. That discussion also suggested imposing some restrictions on his editing if/when he was unblocked, for example limiting his RM participation to a simple support or oppose on individual RMs and no more. But it's not clear if he's still around or monitoring any of this.
286:, and some of them have been pushing this angle for longer than my 12.5-ish years here. If people think B2c sucks up too much of their time, stop arguing with him, other than where you have a !vote to cast. (That's what I did, until one flare up last year that I felt righteous about, and I turned out not to be.)
935:, I believe a 3-month first block is of sufficient duration, and is well beyond the norm for a first block. I would like to avoid further arbitration or litigation of this case, which doesn't strike me as a productive use of time given the nearly three-month absence of this editor. The blocking editor stated, "
1952:. There is no consensus to move back to the longer title Didi Chuxing. Claims that it meets NATURALDIS were offset by claims that this name refers only to the Chinese market, and worldwide the "Didi Chuxing" name is an official name rather than a common name. However, there is a consensus that straight
2285:
As regards RMs in general: encyclopedia-building is a very human endeavor, and differences of opinion and interpretation among the humans who choose to volunteer their time building it are bound to occur frequently. RMs are to some extent a natural reflection of that. I don't see that as a problem.
2134:
Not a very good point, and it’s well and truly exhausted others’ patience. USPLACE has consensus. Except for the trolling or guerrilla disruption skirmishes, we have consensus. Tossing USPLACE would be very disruptive, and for no reader benefit. I was there at yoghurt, and saw how B2C comes to weird
1712:
frustration. His proposal is based on the idea that the current title is wrong because it's in camelcase, and the proposal is to move to another title which is not camelcase. So a move to another title that retains the camelcase seems pointless to them. But if there is no consensus for the proposed
1506:
Policy and guidelines describe best practice. They do not prescribe. You get that wrong often. You frequently overinterpret selective quotations, often the text that you had a history in editing. You black and white views of right and wrong should be ignored or objected to. As I’ve told you before,
1029:
There's no evidence any other editor has been driven away from
Knowledge by B2c. I've had more complaints about B2c over the years that probably even Dicklyon has; one of the two of us surely holds the record for it (and notably Dick's and B2c's own conflict rate has plummeted in recent years, as has
941:
what if I agreed to comment usually only once per RM and in any title-related discussion on policy/guideline/style talk pages, and never more than three times, not including correct edits? "Usually" would mean that more than half of two or more participations in such discussions over any given period
561:
celebrating Born2cycle's continued absence. I've actually been considering bold administrative action on this case for some time now, and probably would have done something sooner if I had more confidence that it could be done "under the radar". I will read your note above now, as I've replied before
323:
reading, the meaning of the entire passage is actually very clear (though I don't buy all of it): 'Having one weird exception isn't a good idea or well justifiable: in part because exceptions to approaches that serve us well weaken their ability to do so; in part because it doesn't generalize even to
265:
Lots more blather. Then SmokeyJoe says something rude, but interesting: "B2C’s dellusions are universally disagreed with". Taken much more literally than SJ intended it, it's probably true that no one agrees with all of B2c's AT/DAB platform where it's gets off-kilter ... yet not all of what he says
144:
He responded very reasonably and suggested I look at the last couple years of his RM record more closely and see if my assessment was the same. So I did. And it wasn't. While B2c is a self-assured and somewhat boisterous debater, I can't fault him for that, since I am one, too. He's advocating some
1788:
I'm failing to get across my point - by you closing it, and it now being open, you're repeating the same mistake of acting as if consensus building has ended and stating "no consensus" - it's one of prejudice/sub judice/predetermination. And no, we don't just pack the namespace with capitals to keep
1322:
refers to the modern-day actress rather than to
Shakespeare's wife. Wouldn't someone searching for her be just as astonished to land on the actresses's page as someone searching for the singer when landing on the footballer's page? I mean, any time there is an ambiguous term if one of the uses is a
1301:
Why are you pinging me? Do you want an answer? Are you trying to make a point? Audiences of two topics having no overlap whatsoever is a big step to deciding there may be an astonishment factor. We have discussed this lengthily before. I am guessing that you are either feigning ignorance, or that
827:
507:
Just to clarify, I pinged you because I'd mentioned your input by name, not to re-spark any debate about that RM. :-) Reopening the SJB squabbling is the last thing on my mind. I'm quite happy about the move moratorium, and I think the years of re-re-re-re-re-re-RM crap about that article is one of
208:
there can be rare exceptions for particular reasons and provide some RM-based examples, put it all in a footnote, and be done with it" approach, which I think is more practical. The cure for rulebook thumping is to burn down the idea that it is a rulebook.) While the SJB article is used an example,
1502:
I speak to principles consistent with policy and practice. Most contentious RM discussions are on the boundaries of what policy says and means. Selective quoting of a choice of conflicting policy and guideline is not helpful to discussion; I am always open to discussing the applicability of policy
1489:
What you or I believe about title purposes is irrelevant. I don't !vote or close based on what I believe, like you do. I !vote and close based on policy and guidelines. That's the difference. When those !votes and closes are contrary to what you believe about the purpose of titles, you consider
1474:
Absolutely. I am well aware that I believe in a purpose of a title that you don’t, and you have noted this too. A big objective difference is that I am not making bold
Supervotes. I believe that closing should be administrative, not opinionated, and I am confident the vast majority of the community
1371:
case was one that would create astonishment. In some places, the local
Michael McCormack is the only one they know, and the Australian politician is of zero significance to them. Putting the politician at the basename could obviously astonish readers interested in Nebraska justices, among several
1359:
in reference to ASTONISH. I find that odd. Anyone who cares about
Shakespeare's wife will have knowledge and awareness of the performing arts, and cannot be reasonably argued to be unaware of the world famous actress, and so I would say there is not cause to argue that any reasonable reader would
798:
I took a one-year wikibreak once, and turned off notifications. I only came back to deal with this or that little matter if someone e-mailed me directly (and I cared). I don't see an "Email this user" link here, so he'll have to come back on his own. That said, it wasn't my intent to start up some
520:
debates and write hatchet-jobs on the project and the community. I just don't like seeing single editors get scapegoated for unwise disputes like he SJB mess. Ironically, B2c is almost certainly correct that if there was an arbitrary parenthetical DAB at that page (birth year or whatever) that the
389:
not getting it" approach), the failure to absorb some policy points after others made them objectively clear, and then the excessive posting at Tony's user talk page, are the only material that actually reminds me at all of the B2c I thought should get indeffed several years ago. People change, but
238:
The thread isn't asking anyone to overturn anything, it's a suggestion to change approach in the future. He says things like "the proper way to build consensus and stable titles is", and "a different approach is required" (why not "an effective way", "a different approach could work better?"). But
191:
But a close examination doesn't actually support this view in my eyes, as much as I kind of expected it to. It looks to me like the sanctions were largely issued on that basis, not on the basis that B2c is misinterpreting a policy point and being reluctant to be disabused of the misinterpretation.
168:
with people who insist COMMONNAME is chief among the CRITERIA, but it is not one at all (just go check; it's the default name to pick to first test against the actual 5 criteria; nothing more.) Unfortunately, too many RM closers are under that delusion themselves, or will not correct/discount it in
2259:
principle) has caused and continues to cause untold damage manifested in the number of RM proposals made every day the outcome of which is often entirely determined by the whims of whoever happens to participate in each discussion. While we could never achieve crystal clear rules that established
2243:
form persists so stably because it best represents common, natural use, is the form favored by sources like the AP, and better serves the interests of our readers. The notion that there'd be no reason to re-append the state once removed seems rooted in the belief that brevity is the only relevant
1767:
applies specifically to article text, not article titles AND, even if it did, we make allowances once we're disambiguating. In this case the subject is well known as "Didi", but "Didi" is ambiguous and "taken" by a more prominent use. However, it's also known as "DiDi", certainly recognizable as
1335:
of that term. So a topic for an ambiguous term that is relatively obscure in general is still the primary topic, if the other uses of that term are all significantly more obscure. In this case the other use is highly unlikely to be sought by anyone using the full name of the person, so it doesn't
1143:
I’ll begin by saying I enjoyed reading your user page and the quotes you compiled. I particularly appreciated the one by Blaise Pascal which I intend to use on my TP. Thank you for sharing. Secondly, I was hoping to engage you a bit further in the no-confidence position and what you thought the
472:
you have pinged me into a matter that had passed me by completely - I thought the SJB issue had died a natural death for the time being, but I didn't notice that it had taken B2C to the grave along with it. That's kind of sad, because for all his passion and bluster he did have a good grasp of the
252:
After lots of typical multi-party WP bickering, he asks something entirely reasonable and that a lot of people would agree is important, but which is rarely articulated: "What is it about our process that allows these disputes to go on and on without resolution, when the stable title, policies and
853:
attacks against him, while he kept returning to posing on-topic questions/issues and presenting and defending possible solutions to them. Not ideal, in that he generally wants to see his ideas implemented and finds flaws in most alternatives, but one post singled out as evidence actually clearly
364:
territory, and his certainty that his policy ideas are The Future is a bit eye-roll-inducing). When being pilloried at AE, his responses were quite reasoned, which is uncommon for someone supposed to be a flaming, loose-cannon disruptor. It's almost like the apparition of his old reputation was
299:
do not constrain the consensus-formation process. Much of what we do on talk pages, for example, is original research in a sense (e.g. deciding whether a source is reliable enough, doing our own frequency analyses of usage to figure out what the common name is, subjectively and unevenly deciding
482:
sorts of reasons, because people shy away from calling her Gordon's wife, and we haven't yet agreed on any other description for her. I was not particularly pleased with the RM outcome, and I think it's an issue that will be revisited again and again, like it or not, until a more stable title is
378:
in the same thread was also raising NATURLADAB repeatedly, and making many of the same pro-parenthetical points as B2c. This basically provided "thread points" that encouraged continued related discussion/argument on the matter by B2c and numerous other parties. It's not like this was just TonyB
2228:
I must agree with SmokeyJoe on this. The USPLACE guideline does quite clearly have consensus, and has had for many years. Given that we have something like 40,000 US place articles, the fact there there are maybe just two or three cases a year where someone suggests removing the state from some
1612:
applies to titles is not as clearcut as you seem to think. So the question of whether that particular title can have CamelCase in it is up to discussion and consensus finding. In the mean time, CAMELCASE certainly has nothing to say about moving to another title which is equivalent in terms of
274:, see below), the whole package won't make any sense. It's a shame because B2c's insights are sometimes spot-on, but it's a bit like getting an iPhone 8, then trying to use it as a kitchen utensil. The frequent return to arguing about how so-and-so name can't really be common is tiresome. But
106:
I've given this some thought (after not noticing the case and the outcome – I was on a long wikibreak during all this), and did a lot of looking, and now a lot of quite detailed analysis of the discussions TonyB provided as evidence (aside from the RM, which someone else astutely summed up as a
1065:. I think almost everyone expected that an editor characterized as "a clear-cut embodiment of the tendentious editing mentality" would not just walk away without responding, though the multiple examples of his reverts of others' edits to this page given at AE perhaps gave a hint. I'm glad that
2272:
To judge from your (quite hyperbolic) comments, the fundamental difference in our views seems to be that you perceive variations in how our title policies are interpreted & applied as somehow corrosive or damaging to
Knowledge, whereas I do not — and nor I suspect do the majority of other
1762:
When consensus cannot be achieved for a proposal, sometimes alternative solutions develop during the discussion that do achieve consensus support. Nothing wrong with that. I know you're really committed to getting rid of the CamelCase, but it's just not in the cards. You keep ignoring that 1)
1641:
That's back to circular logic - you closed the discussion, then keep prematurely repeating there's consensus for camelcase now reopened, then don't discuss the actual issue of camelcase against guideline citing consensus. That's circular, and isn't helpful! The camelcase is not used in 99% of
1164:
Agreed, but even with the rule of law, we're still subjected to being judged. We need a better system of checks and balances on WP in order to prevent the injustices that arise from having a single person acting as judge, jury and executioner. I am also concerned that complacency has become
771:
I would agree with this. I think it's long enough now, and as you say, the punishment has already been harsher than a simple 1st strike arbitration enforcement would have implied. I'm not sure if we should wait for some sort of input from B2C himself though? He has apparently gone completely
294:
problem, but of course it's not, because that policy is about encyclopedia content (including article title content), but does not in any way regulate editor's opinions and socio-politics, or what rationales they can offer in talk. It's an infrequently discussed but clear principle that the
964:
B2C gone - looking (cursorily) at the discussion, I can see why. Sadly, we, on
Knowledge, have this nasty habit of kicking out editors with ideas that, though made in good faith, don't always fit with those of mainstream editors and that's probably not good for the long term health of this
1209:
How is it that these US City move discussions always close as "No consensus", yet the discussion 10 years ago that saddled us with the stupid AP rule managed to get a consensus once, enough to change the previous guideline, but never again? Odd how these things see to happen that way. -
1659:
You're not paying attention. I never said there is consensus for camelcase. I've said (and continue to say) there is no consensus to move the title away from camelcase. It's a significant distinction. What I am also saying is that there is consensus to move the title from the current
1060:
He's been blocked/gone for 88 days – just shy of 3 months. No telling how a long-term editor will react after their first block. Just a few days after B2C's first and only block another long-time editor was first-time blocked for just 48 hours and responded to that by requesting a
261:
ideal. (AT and DAB, like MoS, actually aim in this direction, they're just not all that close to the goalpost.) As someone (not B2c) said in the WT:DAB thread, the main problem may be that COMMONNAME is too stringently worded and no longer codifies actual practice (all the time).
289:
When we finally get to the last subsection of that mega-thread, there's an interesting-all-around discussion. Even the minor bits of incivility on both sides are gone. We can detect another flaw in B2c's argument: He's sure that objecting to "(wife of ...)" on sexism grounds is a
351:
In short, this is not the same Born2cycle I used to love to ... well, at least gnash my teeth about very frequently. Sure, he'll argue until blue in the face, and some of his policy interpretations are way off in left field, but that verges on a norm around here, especially
1490:
me to be "wrong", based on your own personal standard. But the only standard that should matter when determining if a title is "right" or "wrong" is... policy and guidelines. The dearth of reliance on policy and guidelines in your !votes in RM discussions is telling. --
844:
applies to editors' talk-page reasoning), both the WT:DAB and WT:RM threads actually demonstrate quite clearly a "better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors", especially given the frequency with which certain editors used
382:. Same editor also made what looks like a completely a valid point about WP:NCDAB misinterpretation, though a moot one, since it wouldn't have led to a different overall outcome at the RM. I get a sense of B2c being scapegoated a bit for TonyB's talkpage blowing up.
1034:
claim that is unquestionably out of scope, and then as long as another admin also thinks the accused is annoying, the person can be blocked in a DS action when no DS apply, just by pretending it's not a DS action. It's essentially the same as being pulled over for
1010:
Right. And some of us (or one of us anyway!) feel that
Knowledge will be the poorer by their absence. Even, like I say above, while understanding why B2C was kicked out. Inconsistent, I know, but then, as the quote goes, foolish consistency yada, yada, yada.
477:
for example. I think the reason that SJB rankled with B2C so much is that it is (in my view anyway) a fairly clear yogurt case in its own right. The name "Sarah Jane Brown" just doesn't fit with any other naming scheme used on
Knowledge, and exists only for
1806:
The proposal has been open for almost three weeks (since Aug 26!), in the backlog for almost two weeks. It has not been premature to see and say there is no consensus since before I closed it. You're a tenacious chap, but what ain't there just ain't there.
1776:. And yes, iPhone is more commonly used in sources than DiDi is, but, again, we make allowances when required to disambiguate, which is the case here. In other words, it's not definitely wrong per policy/guidelines to retain the camelcase, in this case. --
1317:
If I refer to someone's statement, I normally tag them like that, so they are notified and have the opportunity to respond, if they wish. ASTONISH is a style consideration for article content. It is referenced at PT, but ironically in a reference to how
239:
this is just an attempt at persuasive writing, of putting forth a strong proposition for others to try to refute; people do that on WP day in and day out. Then he provides a bunch of examples (i.e. evidence, though it can be interpreted multiple ways, as
1642:
sources, a local consensus or bad closure just reflects on those participants - which is why I bring it up here. If you want to ignore 99% of sources then that's your choice, but resting on circular logic and essentially supervoting is highly unhelpful.
492:
But anyway, reading your essay here, I think SMcCandlish you talk a lot of sense. I hope that if B2C ever requests an unblock, then an approach of this nature can be taken on board, and that we can see more of the "new" B2C and less of the "old". Thanks
232:. The big post is, of course, also laced with his view that the SJB close was against policy, and I'm skeptical there's much support for that conclusion (not from me anyway; I agree with the close in most respects, even if it picked my 3rd-place option
2244:
titling consideration that applies... and while you're certainly free to hold that view, I see little evidence that it's a view widely shared by the community. If reducing disruption is truly the goal, then recognizing this would be a positive step.
2059:, upholding the consensus for following the AP Stylebook convention, you advocate for guerrilla disruption on the talk pages of bordercases. The AP Stylebook convention serves well, is stable, and destabilizing it does nothing good for the project. --
1331:). But primary topics are not limited to such widely known topics at all. Topics are primary for a given term not if they are particularly notable in general (to the public at large), but if they are particularly likely to be sought with that term
1039:" by off-duty cops who aren't even in their own jurisdiction, searched by one for contraband, then when none is actually found, being shot in the face by the other cop for "failure to comply with officer instructions, ha ha". Well, fuck that noise.
270:(like others on other days) pegs why B2c's overall framework for this stuff is sideways: 'Title characteristics (e.g. "naturalness") should be seen as goals, not as rules. Stop insisting that they be seen as rules.' Until that happens (and maybe it
401:'s "You guys have done an exemplary job" high-fiving in the block notice thread rather difficult to distinguish from "grave-dancing". I'm suspecting it may have referred to the RM close rather than the AE; a belated clarification might be in order.
1151:
I'll take a look but my perspective comes from being a huge believer in the rule of law over the rule of man, on WP as well as in real life. And I'm about equally frustrated in both realms with the lack of appreciation for the distinction by many.
374:. Bludgeoning the RM and then not wanting to take no for an answer on a closer's talk page isn't constructive. The DR procedure for such stuff is to request that the closer reconsider, not to savage their ankles all day. (In B2c potential defense,
1447:
I really think the project would be better off if you were banned from RM discussions, and most definitely from closing discussions and editing policy pages. You are not always wrong, but are unreliable. You seem to be oblivious of your own bias.
865:
145:
shifts in policy, and some particular policy interpretations – but they're much more reasonable ones today than 5 or so years ago. Don't we all do that? Consensus can change. WP policy is created and molded by us, not by an external authority (
97:
249:, and that it illustrates the principle his post is about. Whether B2c's own list of past alleged success do is a different question. This idea was dismissed unnecessarily rudely, so I'd forgive him the snipe back at SmokeyJoe; it takes two.
884:
rationale and impose sanctions even though AE's potential jurisdiction ended the moment they realized that the scope of the RFARB case under which this was brought does not actually encompass the discussions/pages reported as the evidence.
1375:"But primary topics are not limited to such widely known topics at all" is a defensible statement, but it is easy to make a PT argument for a topic widely known across the English speaking world, and it requires more care for otherwise.
324:
similar cases. One approach to resolution would be to change the natural disambiguation policy wording. Another would be to pick a parenthetic disambiguation, but it's unclear how to make one appealing enough to gain consensus.' It's
1741:(if one percent of sources used that). It's just Intel. It's just Didi. The problem with the no consensus (during discussion) is there's no consensus for the high bar of justification needed to break proper noun convention (title)
2286:
If the existence of RMs is a cost, then it's a necessary one, and small in comparison to the costs we'd likely incur if we moved toward the more mechanical, automatic, and rules-centric alternative that you envision as "ideal".
2191:
Agreed in principle. But let’s put things in perspective. Moving pages unilaterally contrary to guidelines is refusing to work with consensus, disruptive, and behavior worthy of blocking. Participating in RM discussions is not.
1171:
Okay, agreed. I didn't mean to sound like I've given up hope. There's plenty of room for real improvement. But in my experience the main problem I see is the use of "consensus" as an excuse to practice tyranny by the majority.
2254:
But by noting just the few US city cases per year, you're only counting direct casualties, and like Trump in Puerto Rico, ignoring all the collateral damage from the USPLACE hurricane. USPLACE's blurring of the rules (away from
875:
In short, I think B2c got railroaded, because he's irritated a bunch of people (I would know, since he used to piss me off on a weekly basis) who wanted to muzzle him. They didn't have a procedural basis to do so, so they just
2056:
1546:, with circular logic that a consensus proves it's OK. It's not OK, by MOS it's clearcut, by discussion I'm guessing it was no consensus. To return after being reopened and justify a premature close doesn't add light. Here
201:
246:. He praises the HRC closure (which is very, very different from the SJB one despite the same triumvirate format). While I have no serious criticism of the SJB one, he's correct, in my view, that the HRC one was exemplary
2281:
of strict conciseness, I understand how you'd see it as a dangerous precedent because it's at odds with your own preferred interpretation, but I see no evidence that it's in any way deleterious to the project. Quite the
1789:
it dense, that's preposterous. Exceptions need justification. Bad moves get undone, bad closes get undone. This thread is about an allegation of a bias to short titles, which does fit. Can't you stop despite feedback?
1360:
be astonished. I do not consider the wife to have long term significance approaching that of the actress, "old" is not synonymous with significance, little about the wife has had any effect on the course of history.
557:. Which kind of relates to this. I don't understand the accusations of "gravedancing". Maybe I misunderstand what that term means. I am distinctly uncomfortable with how this case has played out, and am definitely
1348:
Well, OK. I don't think you made you made meaningful comment to my tentative comment. There is some possibility of astonishment, and a dab page wont hurt. Not sure if you implied that there should not be a dab
871:. This means that the RM itself, the user talk thread, and the WT:RM and WT:DAB threads are not subject to ARBATC DS. It's not even a question of whether they might be; it's unmistakably clear that they are not.
673:
1092:
areas, then that's great. But we can't have stuff like the Sarah Brown thing again, where he actually claimed that her name - as printed in official government documents - wasn't her actual name at all...
708:
Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
880:, directly against the Feb. 2017 narrowing of ARBATC DS scope. It was a bait-and-switch or shell-game approach: Everyone gets riled up at AE; AE's DS hammer doesn't actually apply; so just use a vague DE
1083:
To be honest though, if B2C had been topic-banned from move discussions (which would have been the obvious outcome of the AE), that's effectively a block anyway, because he does practically nothing else
137:
concluded what he did, and why ArbCom went along with it. But I don't think the current situation is the right outcome. In my tenure here, I've had way more than my share of RM/AT/DAB disputes with
221:
737:
disruptive, and this block has long since gone beyond 24 hours. I think it's time to unblock, and I don't see where WP:DE has provisions for requiring the editor to agree to terms for an unblock.
180:
Anyway, TonyB's not nuts to perceive something like a tendentious forum-shopping pattern to relitigate the latest RM (and – yes! – the last one for a good long while, due to the moratorium) at
164:, etc., aren't inflexible rules. That can't be sustained indefinitely. But even if it were, he'd hardly be alone in having a wacky policy idea, or (importantly) that one in particular. RM is
917:
2135:
conclusions due to selective blindness to opinions he doesn’t value. If you can’t win at the centralised discussion, so you conduct guerrilla disruption? That’s the road to a ban. —
2177:
I would say that if you refuse to compromise, you refuse to work with consensus, and that if you agitate to disrupt you are being disruptive, and the remedy for that is blocking. --
2074:
Thank you for your input. I disagree that it's disruptive to point out the ongoing never-ending disruption caused by AP Stylebook convention, and explain how and why it does that. --
516:(and frequently verbally attack AT/MoS editors. Readers who run into such threads can be turned off from becoming editors, and even occasionally press people can take notice of such
864:, they should apply to RM, which is where 95% of the "style warrior" disruption is, and someone else made it an official ARCA request. It was rejected and the original ARBATC scope
459:
483:
found. But in my case I dropped the stick and moved on, with a vague intention of coming back in a year or two to try again. B2C evidently took the wrong approach and continued
836:
While B2c has exhibited difficulty accepting that (overall) the community and WP policy itself don't agree with him on two points (that the AT/DAB line-items are hard-and-fast
282:
that exceeds it, from multiple parties. There are many, many people on WP who are convinced that some particular line item, or even entire page, of a policy or guideline is
212:
1431:; we don't count !votes. We weigh arguments based on how well they are grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions. At least that's what closers are supposed to do per
757:
was indefinite. I don't believe this block needs to remain in place to prevent disruption. I'm hoping that B2C will choose to quietly return within a few weeks or months.
580:
is a cute-looking bird that only flies over the ocean (but not the North
Atlantic)... which explains why I've never seen one. That's the primary topic, but in my mind the
584:
is primary. If you asked me yesterday what an albatross is, I probably would have responded that it's a burden, not a bird. So, if B2C was a bird who was following the
335:
346:
2018:. Good close, except closer opinion such as "I, for one, would prefer to see better evidence of what the ..." are bad form, are straying into WP:Supervote space. --
996:
OK, but John, most of know that terms like "corrosive" and "relentless" and "wall after wall of repetitive text" are what B2C was known for. We can miss him anyway.
307:
1432:
703:, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
473:
spirit of our naming conventions, and at times an ability to achieve results through persistence that would otherwise have never been resolved. Like the infamous
1352:
Astonishment is definitely a consideration, and in some RMs has carried the day. I'm not sure if you are attempting to argue that it should never be considered?
678:
Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors
2157:. I do agree that its problematic to attempt to move 1 article away from the convention but as noted that appears to often be the way guidelines get changed.
1435:; so that's what I do. You can't give much weight to arguments based on what each editor believes policy is or should be, rather than what it actually is. --
1688:(unless a guideline specifies otherwise, which is dubious anyway) redirect to "X(Y)" just as "X" should not redirect to "X, Y" unless its part of the name.
512:
things I've ever seen in my wiki-life. Something like that can turn editors into "anti-style" people who rant against our naming, disambiguation, and style
184:; that might even be a natural initial conclusion to come to, given B2c's rather high-profile participation in the RM and the dispute he raised about it at
1568:
Wow, what a stupid mistake I made in that refactoring stuff. My apologies!!! As to the CamelCase issue, it's not even relevant to the question of moving
982:
That does not account for the corrosive effect of those who campaign relentlessly and who drive away good editors with wall after wall of repetitive text.
773:
188:. If the content's not examined closely, it can look like "Didn't get my way there, so try here; nope, okay try there; damnit, let's try over here then."
1713:
move, and there is for this "pointless" move (it's really not pointless, the point is just not to get rid of the camelcase), what are you going to do? --
2323:. The discussion has fairly low participation and no new comments for a while now. It would be great if you could take a look and give your opinion. —
2320:
2129:
1720:
1703:
2186:
2172:
2144:
2290:
2267:
1097:
195:
2248:
1993:
1875:
For the record, my close that was reverted for allegedly being a "supervote" has now been re-closed with virtually identical result and reasoning.
1323:
primary topic you're almost certain to astonish anyone searching for any of the non-primary uses, unless the primary topic is widely notable (like
312:
2217:
2199:
2081:
2039:
1516:
1497:
1484:
1469:
1457:
1442:
1387:
1343:
1278:
1055:
1022:
991:
304:, and so on). While it's a major flaw in B2c's reasoning, it's basically inescapable, so I would expect him to absorb this if he hasn't already.
1532:
I continue to believe my finding of consensus is sound: "There is no perfect answer here, but my reading is consensus prefers the short stylized
1233:
what has several people with the last name yet no one has created a DAB or even a hatnote. As I pointed out the same can apply to places such as
1078:
953:
815:
665:
623:
537:
2154:
2087:
1831:
1814:
1801:
1783:
1757:
1679:
1654:
1636:
1620:
1603:
1583:
379:
having a nice day then B2c showing up to, by himself, hammer-post at Tony 50 times. And the final commenter in that thread was way more hostile
1561:
1005:
1194:
1179:
1166:
1159:
2027:
2010:
1987:
793:
766:
644:
597:
649:
I wasn't sure it wasn't just about the RM close, which is why I asked (and said "is rather difficult to distinguish from" not just "is").
939:". Therefore, I have unblocked Born2cycle. I am not setting any specific conditions, but only suggest that B2C follow his own PROPOSAL: '
1130:
900:
the fact that B2c is one of the editors I have gotten along with the worst for a decade. It really is that much an of unbecoming fiasco.
169:
others (which has the same effect on their close). I think most of the regular admin closers are not in that camp, but we have lots of
266:
is delusional, and plenty of editors may agree with parts of the well-reasoned, non-activistic stuff, and some of them aren't trivial.
2239:) will somehow become less likely to change, I see no evidence for that — but do see considerable reason to believe the contrary. The
1772:
an acceptable title for this topic quite in line with policy and guidelines. It's true we generally don't use stylistic titles... but
944:' Please exercise some restraint when you choose to return, or, as you should by now be aware, another block or sanctions are likely.
2032:
Thanks. I've seen closes like this go without any explanation whatsoever. I responded to a consensus question regarding Sullivan. --
1364:
861:'s discretionary sanctions scope to AT and MoS and their talk pages. I had urged for some time that if we're going to keep ARBATC DS
2068:
632:
710:
B2C has already been blocked for well over a month. The actual block wasn't based on AE though – the rationale was a violation of
1738:
2336:
1144:
community could do to effect real change? I began a discussion at Jimbo’s page and the input is pretty much what I expected.
328:
to spin what he wrote in the worst possible way, especially when a less "conspiracy theory" reading makes much more sense. Cf.
1942:
1930:
1885:
1296:
695:
The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual
571:
502:
1982:
1413:
1219:
2057:
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Proposal_to_eliminate_comma-state_from_unambiguous_U.S._state_capitals
454:
418:
202:
Knowledge talk:Disambiguation/Archive 47#Criteria for determining whether someone is "commonly called X" for WP:NATURALDIS
340:
1265:
1145:
1937:
1925:
1880:
521:
title disputes would have stopped (whether or not anyone agree with his "rules"-based arguments to going parenthetic).
2149:
I would not say USPLACE has consensus, there are a number of users who oppose to its use (citing policy), for example
976:
1311:
1285:
1050:
942:
of time. For example, if I commented more than once in 5 out of the last 8 such discussions, I would be in violation.
912:
810:
660:
618:
532:
449:
413:
2015:
1589:
1547:
1540:
1538:
1529:
1522:
2091:
474:
2052:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
390:
they don't utterly transform in every way. Still, it's all way milder than he was back then, and he did have
1576:
as it's CamelCase either way. I did not and still see no consensus to move to the other longer title. --
1507:
you do not understand concensus. Your frequent assertion of not understanding your opposition is telling. —
588:, as one of the captains of that ship, yes, I've been feeling a bit of guilt for having "shot" that bird...
2047:
1729:
there's no consensus to just revert the bad camelcase. Right now, it's prejudice, which is the point. It's
1297:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Steven_Morrissey_(footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=859259485
1185:
1062:
715:
1088:
from argue about article naming. If B2C comes back, accepts the topic ban and starts being productive in
2306:
1907:
1524:
is controversial as it uses camelcase which is 99% not used in RS. The continued justification for it at
394:
good input, into discussions that were not actually useless at all, and were in proper venues for them.
2111:
725:
721:
Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours.
38:
2094:, I don't think so and it appears that the other WPs don't use disambiguation unless needed, compare
1549:
you refactored my nom summary into the discussion - please ask before refactoring my comments again.
832:
I didn't get into the "litigation" of the AE, but on review now, I do have serious problems with it:
738:
109:(with looser conditions (e.g., a less extensive topic ban, with a fixed time limit that's reasonable)
1424:
1204:
1123:
1900:
over the (unnecessarily) disambiguated current title. I don't see consensus to move to the longer
435:
2332:
2166:
2123:
1697:
1428:
1259:
1107:
2319:. As you are interested in this area of policy you may also be interested in the ongoing RfC at
222:
Knowledge talk:Requested moves/Archive 30#Closers: Determining CONSENSUS rather than "consensus"
2316:
2312:
2264:
2205:
2196:
2078:
2036:
1979:
1915:
1811:
1780:
1717:
1676:
1633:
1617:
1580:
1494:
1466:
1439:
1340:
1191:
1176:
1156:
754:
554:
301:
185:
1372:
examples of groups of astonishable readers, and I am astonished that you do not agree to that.
1668:
form, a move independently proposed by several participants and opposed by none, because the
1395:
1138:
1047:
1017:
971:
909:
807:
657:
615:
529:
446:
410:
315:. It think that "We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one" is being
283:
181:
1768:
that, very precise (no other topic is known as "DiDi"), certainly concise, and is therefore
1282:
1094:
604:
581:
258:
161:
157:
99:
47:
17:
1896:. There is no perfect answer here, but my reading is consensus prefers the short stylized
8:
2213:
2182:
2140:
2064:
2023:
2006:
1543:
1525:
1512:
1480:
1453:
1420:
1409:
1401:
1383:
1307:
1036:
484:
177:
more often; I usually just wait and RM months later, and have about a 90% success rate.)
385:
Of all that I've looked at in this case, the RM over-commenting (and "but I'm right and
2159:
2116:
2090:
before, once the article are moved, do you think that people would be able to get them
1690:
1252:
1001:
987:
361:
229:
153:
1965:
1827:
1797:
1753:
1650:
1599:
1557:
1368:
1074:
949:
889:
789:
762:
640:
593:
567:
498:
134:
2204:
Agreed back. Sneaky unilateral page moves is much worse. Did you look at the IP at
217:
This'll necessarily be lengthy, even if I skip over large swathes of that material.
2328:
2287:
2245:
1215:
1042:
1012:
966:
904:
858:
802:
652:
610:
548:
524:
513:
467:
441:
431:
405:
353:
147:
2261:
2193:
2075:
2033:
1976:
1912:
1808:
1777:
1725:
Crouch, Swale, it is of secondary concern, and undisputed. The point being, it's
1714:
1673:
1630:
1614:
1577:
1491:
1463:
1436:
1337:
1188:
1173:
1153:
1031:
779:
743:
blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Knowledge, not to punish users
690:
682:
329:
296:
225:
170:
138:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2209:
2178:
2136:
2060:
2019:
2002:
1508:
1476:
1449:
1405:
1379:
1303:
1290:
893:
841:
706:
I'm not sure how much of his behavior is enforceable under AE, but nonetheless
509:
426:
The block, and the imposed restrictions as a condition to return, appear to be
291:
279:
240:
553:"edit conflict"; when you pinged me with that, I was in the middle of writing
2103:
1764:
1609:
1356:
1319:
1270:
1224:
1116:
1066:
997:
983:
959:
686:
479:
320:
205:
2095:
2001:, and better to summarize, the contributions referring to "politician". --
1961:
1822:
1792:
1748:
1709:
1645:
1594:
1552:
1271:
1070:
945:
928:
924:
785:
758:
746:
711:
700:
696:
636:
603:
Given past disputes with ornithology people, I probably should have linked
589:
563:
494:
398:
375:
325:
267:
174:
2324:
2107:
1503:
as the discussion progresses. My opening statements are often tentative.
1234:
1211:
2099:
1745:
99% of sources! Despite local consensus at a talk, we have guidelines.
1328:
848:
319:
mis- and over-interpreted, though it was not a good word choice. In a
1904:
which does appear to refer to only the part of the business in China.
354:
over AT/RM/MOS trivia the rest of the would couldn't give a damn about
98:
On the indef, what led up to it, and hopefully undoing it without the
1242:
1230:
607:
in the heading! Heh. I have now done so for clarity, joking aside.
577:
235:. It's not a wiki-crime to talk about a decision you disagree with.
126:
history with this editor. I'm not leaping to the defense of my wiki-
2321:
Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Year range for two consecutive years
1672:
is unnecessary; that has nothing to do with the camelcase issue. --
122:
standing" to suggest this because of my lengthy but for a long time
2150:
1997:"U.S." was a clear result), but it would be a much better close to
1404:, all in line with your blinkered opinion that shorter is better. —
881:
828:
The block and "return sanctions" are actually invalid on their face
254:
1427:, if that's what you're talking about, is not a supervote. WP is
1247:
1238:
1994:
Talk:Dan_Sullivan_(U.S._senator)#Requested_move_8_September_2018
1773:
772:
radio-silent since his blocking, and did not respond at all to
434:
scope to WP:AT, WP:MOS and their own talk pages. More on this
370:
I think a more limited and not-forever TBAN would be reasonable
1277:
The following discussion has been started about your editing;
685:
are authorized for all pages related to the English Knowledge
173:
going on, and some of it's ass-backwards. (Maybe I should do
2231:
As for Crouch, Swale's suggestion that a title moved to just
2055:
is disruption. Seeing repeated central discussions, such as
1960:
entries in capitalisation, and also satisfies NATURALDIS. —
1734:
1730:
1433:
WP:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus
1324:
243:
pointed out) of where his approach has allegedly worked well
1957:
1956:
is better than the current title, as it differs from other
1953:
1948:
1893:
1819:
I'm at least glad I can agree with you on that. :) Regards
749:
guideline for warnings and then escalating blocks that the
1726:
1069:
eventually chose to return after an even longer absence.
192:
So, it's worth looking into whether that basis is solid.
965:
encyclopedia. B2C, I hope you can make your way back. --
2311:
To be precise invoking IAR on the subject of DATERANGE
1542:
in the face of 99% non usage of the camelcase, against
127:
2155:
Talk:Nashville, Tennessee/Archives/2018#Requested move
1536:
over the (unnecessarily) disambiguated current title.
1279:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Born2cycle
896:
request about ARBATC just to overturn this nonsense,
2277:
than just conciseness, or sets other considerations
1996:. Not saying it is a bad close ("American" --: -->
933:
escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours
857:More importantly, ArbCom itself explicitly limited
2016:Talk:Pondicherry#Requested_move_10_September_2018
487:when emotions were still raw, and paid the price.
107:"shitshow"). I'm inclined to support an unblock
1246:] which also Michelle had no hatnote as well as
733:I don't think anyone believes B2C intends to be
360:improved (even if he can sometimes wander into
116:. Not an admin, I feel I have a weak form of "
1588:That's OK, these things happen. Comments like
1165:somewhat of an issue among the higher ranks.
1122:You must've worked up a thirst. Welcome back.
724:Accounts used primarily for disruption may be
2257:disambiguate the plain name only if necessary
937:any admin may unblock them with any condition
152:). The real fault is in not getting it that
430:, because of the February 2017 narrowing of
846:
117:
1591:are just bizarre. You need to know that.
1365:Michael McCormack (Australian politician)
923:Given that the basis for the block was
716:WP:DE § Dealing with disruptive editors
14:
1400:You appear to have made a spree of RM
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
931:, and that the DE guideline suggests
1945:The result of the move request was:
1888:The result of the move request was:
1625:Oh, wait! Did you mean the missing
25:
23:
1355:You have a number of times raised
114:without any restrictive conditions
24:
2347:
278:I'm on-site, I have to deal with
1737:(despite them styling it so) or
1115:
888:While the blocker in this case,
683:Standard discretionary sanctions
356:. His temperament in it all has
29:
2086:В²C does have a good point, as
2337:17:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
2291:19:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
2268:20:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2249:16:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2218:13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2200:12:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2187:12:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2173:11:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2145:11:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2130:10:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2082:16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
2069:04:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
2040:01:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
2028:23:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
2011:23:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
1988:Your new closes, September 17.
1983:20:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
1918:01:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1832:10:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
1815:00:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
1802:23:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1784:23:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1758:23:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1721:22:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1704:20:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1680:16:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1655:12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1637:23:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
1621:23:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
1604:22:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
1584:16:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
1562:10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
1517:23:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1498:22:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1485:22:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1470:22:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1458:22:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1443:22:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1414:20:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1388:01:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
1344:23:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
1312:23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
1286:23:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
13:
1:
1266:08:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
1462:Look in the mirror much? --
224:, I see what is basically a
7:
1879:Original move after close:
1684:B2C is correct, "X" should
1608:Why is it bizarre? Whether
1220:18:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
1195:16:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
1180:16:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
1167:06:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
1160:16:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1146:15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
745:. It just goes against the
10:
2352:
2112:tr:Plymouth, Massachusetts
1968:) 08:26, 16 September 2018
1336:seem gray at all to me. --
1333:relative to the other uses
676:of the March 2012 warning
213:The sprawling WT:RM thread
150:-created policies excepted
1131:14:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
1098:14:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
1079:13:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
1056:01:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
1023:00:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
1006:23:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
992:23:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
977:14:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
954:13:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
918:22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
816:22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
794:18:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
767:17:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
666:22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
645:16:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
624:22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
598:12:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
572:11:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
538:22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
503:11:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
455:22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
419:10:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
1629:? LOL. I fixed that. --
1229:You might want to note
336:The 6 March WT:DAB post
2206:Talk:Anchorage, Alaska
847:
308:The 2 March WT:RM post
300:whether something's a
186:User talk:TonyBallioni
118:
2153:who is an admin, see
1936:Move after re-close:
927:, a specific form of
693:, broadly construed.
691:article titles policy
518:argumentum ad nauseam
297:core content policies
182:Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
42:of past discussions.
2048:Guerrilla disruption
1941:Re-close reasoning:
1884:Original reasoning:
1664:form to the simpler
1241:. See the views for
866:was instead sharply
726:blocked indefinitely
605:Albatross (metaphor)
562:fully reading it. –
18:User talk:Born2cycle
2307:IAR & DATERANGE
1526:Talk:DiDi (company)
1295:You pinged me from
1037:driving while black
925:tendentious editing
674:was for enforcement
1929:Revert reasoning:
1423:to be contrary to
1419:Finding community
1126:—SerialNumber54129
1063:courtesy vanishing
929:disruptive editing
739:WP:Blocking policy
428:completely invalid
102:being made of lead
1911:
1908:non-admin closure
1425:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
1369:Michael McCormack
1363:In contrast, the
1283:Black Kite (talk)
1136:
1135:
1095:Black Kite (talk)
1021:
975:
863:
774:this conversation
631:Right, regarding
626:
460:Followup comments
381:
373:
248:
245:
234:
151:
112:
95:
94:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2343:
2169:
2162:
2126:
2119:
1905:
1830:
1825:
1800:
1795:
1756:
1751:
1700:
1693:
1653:
1648:
1602:
1597:
1560:
1555:
1429:WP:NOTADEMOCRACY
1262:
1255:
1205:Colorado Springs
1128:
1119:
1112:
1111:
1054:
1015:
969:
916:
862:
852:
814:
783:
664:
622:
602:
552:
536:
471:
453:
417:
380:
372:
276:every single day
247:
244:
233:
146:
130:, by any means.
129:
121:
111:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2351:
2350:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2309:
2167:
2160:
2124:
2117:
2050:
1990:
1821:
1820:
1791:
1790:
1747:
1746:
1698:
1691:
1644:
1643:
1593:
1592:
1551:
1550:
1398:
1293:
1275:
1260:
1253:
1227:
1207:
1141:
1124:
1110:
1108:A beer for you!
1040:
962:
902:
830:
800:
784:talk to us! —
777:
687:Manual of Style
672:The AE request
650:
608:
546:
522:
465:
462:
439:
403:
371:
368:All that said,
349:
338:
310:
302:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
215:
198:
166:totally overrun
115:
110:
104:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2349:
2308:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2283:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2049:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2013:
1989:
1986:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1623:
1570:DiDi (company)
1528:isn't helpful
1504:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1376:
1373:
1361:
1353:
1350:
1292:
1289:
1274:
1269:
1226:
1223:
1206:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1182:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1120:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1081:
1027:
1026:
1025:
961:
958:
957:
956:
901:
899:
879:
873:
872:
869:
855:
839:
829:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
731:
730:
729:
722:
670:
669:
668:
629:
628:
627:
543:
542:
541:
540:
489:
488:
461:
458:
429:
402:
393:
388:
369:
359:
348:
345:
337:
334:
330:Ockham's razor
326:not reasonable
318:
309:
306:
277:
273:
214:
211:
197:
194:
167:
133:I can see why
125:
113:
108:
103:
96:
93:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2348:
2339:
2338:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2292:
2289:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2266:
2263:
2258:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2247:
2242:
2238:
2235:(rather than
2234:
2227:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2198:
2195:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2170:
2164:
2163:
2161:Crouch, Swale
2156:
2152:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2127:
2121:
2120:
2118:Crouch, Swale
2113:
2109:
2105:
2104:tr:Winchester
2101:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2080:
2077:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2041:
2038:
2035:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2014:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1995:
1992:
1991:
1985:
1984:
1981:
1978:
1969:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1950:
1943:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1923:
1919:
1917:
1914:
1909:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1886:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1833:
1829:
1824:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1813:
1810:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1794:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1766:
1765:MOS:CAMELCASE
1761:
1760:
1759:
1755:
1750:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1719:
1716:
1711:
1708:I understand
1707:
1706:
1705:
1701:
1695:
1694:
1692:Crouch, Swale
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1678:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1652:
1647:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1635:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1622:
1619:
1616:
1613:CamelCase. --
1611:
1610:MOS:CAMELCASE
1607:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1596:
1590:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1582:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1554:
1548:
1545:
1541:
1539:
1537:
1535:
1530:
1527:
1523:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:WP:Supervotes
1396:RM Supervotes
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1357:Anne Hathaway
1354:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1321:
1320:Anne Hathaway
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1299:
1298:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1273:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1257:
1256:
1254:Crouch, Swale
1249:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1139:No confidence
1132:
1129:
1127:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1099:
1096:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1038:
1033:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
994:
993:
989:
985:
981:
980:
979:
978:
973:
968:
955:
951:
947:
943:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
919:
914:
911:
908:
907:
897:
895:
891:
886:
883:
877:
870:
867:
860:
856:
851:
850:
843:
837:
835:
834:
833:
817:
812:
809:
806:
805:
797:
796:
795:
791:
787:
781:
775:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
727:
723:
720:
719:
717:
713:
709:
705:
704:
702:
698:
697:move requests
692:
688:
684:
679:
675:
671:
667:
662:
659:
656:
655:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
625:
620:
617:
614:
613:
606:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
560:
556:
550:
545:
544:
539:
534:
531:
528:
527:
519:
515:
511:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
491:
490:
486:
481:
476:
475:yogurt debate
469:
464:
463:
457:
456:
451:
448:
445:
444:
437:
433:
427:
425:
421:
420:
415:
412:
409:
408:
400:
395:
391:
386:
383:
377:
366:
363:
357:
355:
344:
342:
333:
331:
327:
322:
316:
314:
305:
303:
298:
293:
287:
285:
281:
275:
271:
269:
263:
260:
259:WP:NOTPERFECT
256:
250:
242:
236:
231:
227:
223:
218:
210:
207:
203:
196:WT:DAB thread
193:
189:
187:
183:
178:
176:
172:
165:
163:
162:WP:NATURALDAB
159:
158:WP:COMMONNAME
155:
149:
142:
140:
136:
131:
123:
120:
101:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2310:
2278:
2274:
2256:
2241:place, state
2240:
2237:place, state
2236:
2232:
2230:
2158:
2115:
2096:tr:Nashville
2051:
1998:
1974:
1946:
1944:
1902:Didi Chuxing
1901:
1897:
1889:
1887:
1874:
1769:
1742:
1689:
1685:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1626:
1573:
1569:
1544:WP:CAMELCASE
1533:
1531:
1421:WP:CONSENSUS
1399:
1332:
1300:
1294:
1276:
1251:
1228:
1208:
1142:
1125:
1089:
1085:
1043:
963:
940:
936:
932:
905:
890:Dennis Brown
887:
874:
831:
803:
750:
742:
734:
707:
701:move reviews
694:
681:
677:
653:
611:
585:
558:
525:
517:
442:
423:
422:
406:
396:
384:
367:
350:
339:
311:
288:
264:
251:
237:
219:
216:
200:If you read
199:
190:
179:
143:
135:TonyBallioni
132:
105:
78:
43:
37:
2108:tr:Plymouth
2088:pointed out
1521:This close
1235:Hallingbury
1044:SMcCandlish
1013:regentspark
967:regentspark
906:SMcCandlish
878:made one up
804:SMcCandlish
654:SMcCandlish
612:SMcCandlish
549:SMcCandlish
526:SMcCandlish
468:SMcCandlish
443:SMcCandlish
407:SMcCandlish
397:PS: I find
362:WP:BLUDGEON
272:already did
230:WP:CONLEVEL
154:WP:CRITERIA
36:This is an
2100:tr:Orlando
2092:moved back
1329:John Wayne
1184:SEE ALSO:
849:ad hominem
780:Born2cycle
347:Conclusion
139:Born2cycle
119:ex officio
90:Archive 16
85:Archive 15
79:Archive 14
73:Archive 13
68:Archive 12
60:Archive 10
2210:SmokeyJoe
2179:SmokeyJoe
2137:SmokeyJoe
2061:SmokeyJoe
2020:SmokeyJoe
2003:SmokeyJoe
1947:Moved to
1710:Widefoxes
1572:to plain
1509:SmokeyJoe
1477:SmokeyJoe
1475:agrees. —
1450:SmokeyJoe
1406:SmokeyJoe
1380:SmokeyJoe
1304:SmokeyJoe
1243:Langstone
1231:Potterton
859:WP:ARBATC
840:and that
753:block in
735:primarily
578:albatross
510:WP:LAMEst
432:WP:ARBATC
341:Permalink
313:Permalink
241:SmokeyJoe
148:WP:OFFICE
100:albatross
2282:reverse.
1924:Revert:
1770:arguably
1281:Thanks,
1067:Dicklyon
1032:WP:AC/DS
998:Dicklyon
984:Johnuniq
882:handwave
868:narrowed
714:. Under
582:metaphor
485:flogging
226:WP:ESSAY
171:WP:RMNAC
1999:mention
1962:Amakuru
1823:Widefox
1793:Widefox
1749:Widefox
1646:Widefox
1595:Widefox
1553:Widefox
1248:Cranham
1239:Glemham
1071:wbm1058
1018:comment
972:comment
946:wbm1058
898:despite
894:WP:ARCA
842:WP:NPOV
786:Amakuru
759:wbm1058
755:his log
637:wbm1058
590:wbm1058
564:wbm1058
514:P&G
495:Amakuru
424:Update:
399:wbm1058
376:Amakuru
292:WP:NPOV
280:WP:IDHT
268:wbm1058
124:unhappy
39:archive
2333:Spjall
1774:iPhone
1733:, not
1291:Pinged
1212:BilCat
480:WP:IAR
387:you're
358:vastly
321:WP:AGF
317:sorely
2325:Frayæ
2279:ahead
2275:other
2233:place
1890:Moved
1739:InTel
1735:intel
1731:Intel
1686:never
1662:X (Y)
1349:page?
1327:, or
1325:Paris
1272:WP:AE
1225:Names
1090:other
1086:apart
960:Gone?
838:rules
751:first
747:WP:DE
741:says
712:WP:DE
436:below
284:WRONG
175:WP:MR
16:<
2329:Talk
2317:here
2315:and
2313:here
2288:╠╣uw
2246:╠╣uw
2214:talk
2208:? —
2183:talk
2168:talk
2141:talk
2125:talk
2106:and
2065:talk
2053:This
2024:talk
2007:talk
1966:talk
1958:Didi
1954:DiDi
1949:DiDi
1898:DiDi
1894:DiDi
1828:talk
1798:talk
1754:talk
1699:talk
1651:talk
1600:talk
1574:DiDi
1558:talk
1534:DiDi
1513:talk
1481:talk
1454:talk
1410:talk
1384:talk
1308:talk
1261:talk
1237:and
1216:talk
1075:talk
1002:talk
988:talk
950:talk
790:talk
763:talk
689:and
680:and
641:talk
633:THIS
594:talk
568:talk
555:THIS
508:the
499:talk
392:some
206:fiat
2262:В²C
2194:В²C
2171:)
2151:BDD
2128:)
2098:to
2076:В²C
2034:В²C
1977:В²C
1913:В²C
1892:to
1809:В²C
1778:В²C
1743:and
1727:iff
1715:В²C
1702:)
1674:В²C
1670:(Y)
1631:В²C
1627:not
1615:В²C
1578:В²C
1492:В²C
1464:В²C
1437:В²C
1338:В²C
1264:)
1189:В²C
1174:В²C
1154:В²C
1053:😼
915:😼
813:😼
663:😼
621:😼
576:An
559:not
535:😼
493:—
452:😼
416:😼
255:JzG
220:At
128:BFF
2335:)
2216:)
2192:—-
2185:)
2143:)
2114:.
2067:)
2026:)
2009:)
1975:--
1826:;
1807:--
1796:;
1752:;
1649:;
1598:;
1556:;
1515:)
1483:)
1456:)
1412:)
1386:)
1378:--
1367:→
1310:)
1250:.
1218:)
1187:--
1172:--
1152:--
1077:)
1041:—
1011:--
1004:)
990:)
952:)
903:—
801:—
792:)
765:)
718::
699:,
651:—
643:)
609:—
596:)
586:RM
570:)
523:—
501:)
440:—
438:.
404:—
332:.
160:,
156:,
64:←
2331:/
2327:(
2265:☎
2212:(
2197:☎
2181:(
2165:(
2139:(
2122:(
2110:/
2102:/
2079:☎
2063:(
2037:☎
2022:(
2005:(
1980:☎
1964:(
1916:☎
1910:)
1906:(
1812:☎
1781:☎
1718:☎
1696:(
1677:☎
1666:X
1634:☎
1618:☎
1581:☎
1511:(
1495:☎
1479:(
1467:☎
1452:(
1448:—
1440:☎
1408:(
1382:(
1341:☎
1306:(
1258:(
1214:(
1192:☎
1177:☎
1157:☎
1073:(
1051:¢
1048:☏
1035:"
1020:)
1016:(
1000:(
986:(
974:)
970:(
948:(
913:¢
910:☏
811:¢
808:☏
788:(
782::
778:@
761:(
728:.
661:¢
658:☏
639:(
619:¢
616:☏
592:(
566:(
551::
547:@
533:¢
530:☏
497:(
470::
466:@
450:¢
447:☏
414:¢
411:☏
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.