User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 14

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.

Index