Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs) at 14:14, 4 June 2018 (→A beer for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Born2cycle Talk Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Thanks for your contributions...

...to several of the articles under the domain of WikiProject Cycling. Your contributions are much appreciated! And remember, whether we call it a bike lane or a shoulder is much less important than issues like where you position yourself on the road. Enjoy your time off, and be safe out there! Please email me anytime you want to talk bikes! Best, wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Bump. I'm still open for chat. This editor has bicycled in 49 states, and #50 is on my short-term to-do list :o) wbm1058 (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

On the indef, what led up to it, and hopefully undoing it without the albatross being made of lead

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 "shitshow"). I'm inclined to support an unblock (with looser conditions (e.g., a less extensive topic ban, with a fixed time limit that's reasonable) without any restrictive conditions. Not an admin, I feel I have a weak form of "ex officio standing" to suggest this because of my lengthy but for a long time unhappy history with this editor. I'm not leaping to the defense of my wiki-BFF, by any means.

I can see why TonyBallioni 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 Born2cycle, 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.

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 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 (WP:OFFICE-created policies excepted). The real fault is in not getting it that WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURALDAB, 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 totally overrun 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 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 WP:RMNAC going on, and some of it's ass-backwards. (Maybe I should do WP:MR more often; I usually just wait and RM months later, and have about a 90% success rate.)

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 Talk:Sarah Jane Brown; 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 User talk:TonyBallioni. 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."

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. So, it's worth looking into whether that basis is solid.

WT:DAB thread

If you read Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive 47#Criteria for determining whether someone is "commonly called X" for WP:NATURALDIS, 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 fiat 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, 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.)

The sprawling WT:RM thread

This'll necessarily be lengthy, even if I skip over large swathes of that material.

At Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 30#Closers: Determining CONSENSUS rather than "consensus", I see what is basically a WP:ESSAY. 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 WP:CONLEVEL. 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 . It's not a wiki-crime to talk about a decision you disagree with.

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 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 SmokeyJoe pointed out) of where his approach has allegedly worked well . 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 , 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.

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 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. JzG (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 WP:NOTPERFECT 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).

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 is delusional, and plenty of editors may agree with parts of the well-reasoned, non-activistic stuff, and some of them aren't trivial. wbm1058 (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 already did, 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 every single day I'm on-site, I have to deal with WP:IDHT 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 WRONG, 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.)

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 WP:NPOV 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 core content policies 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 whether something's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, 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.

The 2 March WT:RM post

Permalink. It think that "We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one" is being sorely mis- and over-interpreted, though it was not a good word choice. In a WP:AGF 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 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 not reasonable to spin what he wrote in the worst possible way, especially when a less "conspiracy theory" reading makes much more sense. Cf. Ockham's razor.

The 6 March WT:DAB post

Permalink. 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.

Conclusion

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 over AT/RM/MOS trivia the rest of the would couldn't give a damn about. His temperament in it all has vastly improved (even if he can sometimes wander into WP:BLUDGEON 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 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.

All that said, I think a more limited and not-forever TBAN would be reasonable . 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, Amakuru 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 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 . 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.

Of all that I've looked at in this case, the RM over-commenting (and "but I'm right and you're 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 they don't utterly transform in every way. Still, it's all way milder than he was back then, and he did have some good input, into discussions that were not actually useless at all, and were in proper venues for them.

PS: I find wbm1058'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.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: The block, and the imposed restrictions as a condition to return, appear to be completely invalid, because of the February 2017 narrowing of WP:ARBATC scope to WP:AT, WP:MOS and their own talk pages. More on this below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Followup comments

• @SMcCandlish: 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 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 yogurt debate 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 Misplaced Pages, and exists only for WP:IAR 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 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 flogging when emotions were still raw, and paid the price.

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  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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 the WP:LAMEst 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 P&G (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 argumentum ad nauseam 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 title disputes would have stopped (whether or not anyone agree with his "rules"-based arguments to going parenthetic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: "edit conflict"; when you pinged me with that, I was in the middle of writing THIS. 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 not 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 fully reading it. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  An albatross 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 metaphor 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 RM, as one of the captains of that ship, yes, I've been feeling a bit of guilt for having "shot" that bird... wbm1058 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  Given past disputes with ornithology people, I probably should have linked Albatross (metaphor) in the heading! Heh. I have now done so for clarity, joking aside.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  Right, regarding THIS, 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. wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  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").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  The AE request was for enforcement of the March 2012 warning 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 and Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, 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. I'm not sure how much of his behavior is enforceable under AE, but nonetheless 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. 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 WP:DE. Under WP:DE § Dealing with disruptive editors:

  • Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours.
  • Accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely.

  I don't think anyone believes B2C intends to be primarily 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. WP:Blocking policy says blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users. It just goes against the WP:DE guideline for warnings and then escalating blocks that the first block in his log 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. wbm1058 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  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 radio-silent since his blocking, and did not respond at all to this conversation, 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. @Born2cycle: talk to us!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  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 "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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The block and "return sanctions" are actually invalid on their face

I didn't get into the "litigation" of the AE, but on review now, I do have serious problems with it:

1. 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 rules and that WP:NPOV 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 ad hominem 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 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.
2. More importantly, ArbCom itself explicitly limited WP:ARBATC'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 , 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 was instead sharply narrowed. 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.

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 made one up, 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 handwave 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.

While the blocker in this case, Dennis Brown, 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 WP:ARCA request about ARBATC just to overturn this nonsense, despite 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.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that the basis for the block was tendentious editing, a specific form of disruptive editing, and that the DE guideline suggests escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours, 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, "any admin may unblock them with any condition". Therefore, I have unblocked Born2cycle. I am not setting any specific conditions, but only suggest that B2C follow his own PROPOSAL: '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 of time. For example, if I commented more than once in 5 out of the last 8 such discussions, I would be in violation.' Please exercise some restraint when you choose to return, or, as you should by now be aware, another block or sanctions are likely. wbm1058 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Gone?

B2C gone - looking (cursorily) at the discussion, I can see why. Sadly, we, on Misplaced Pages, 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 encyclopedia. B2C, I hope you can make your way back. --regentspark (comment) 14:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. And some of us (or one of us anyway!) feel that Misplaced Pages 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. --regentspark (comment) 00:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no evidence any other editor has been driven away from Misplaced Pages 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 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 WP:AC/DS 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 "driving while black" 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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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 courtesy vanishing. 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 Dicklyon eventually chose to return after an even longer absence. wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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 apart from argue about article naming. If B2C comes back, accepts the topic ban and starts being productive in other 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... Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You must've worked up a thirst. Welcome back. —SerialNumber54129 14:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)