User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 13

Iznik pottery
An editor has objected to your closure of this move discussion at User talk:EdJohnston. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please check the latest comments at User talk:EdJohnston. I consider this to be your closure not mine, so if you want to undo your close and relist, you can do so. If not then don't, but there is a chance somebody may take it to WP:MRV. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please revert your closure as offered. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi - EdJohnston has misread Born2cycle's words. Born2cycle made no such offer. He only offered to revert the closure if a non-involved editor (or EdJohnston himself) thought the closure was an inappropriate closure. You are an involved editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re WP:MRV. Looking at its archives, successful WP:MPV overturns seem all based on either WP:COMMONNAME arguments, or if the subject was controversial, or if the discussion had too short a time period. None of that is applicable here. This article is not on a controversial subject, the discussion had run its course, being already relisted; there was a majority for the rename; the majority cited policy to support their position; the objectors were unable to cite either sources or policy to support the old title; and the new title correctly follows the primary policy for article titles, WP:COMMONNAME. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please revert your close and relist. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not against the use of diacritics nor do I consider the close controversial just because those who were opposed are complaining. My offer stands. If an uninvolved editor think it was a BADNAC, I'll reopen.  Needless to say, you are involved. --В²C ☎ 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a WP:BADNAC. Omnedon (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have an opinion on the substance of this one and am uninvolved. I do agree that it looks like a close call between support and oppose, and probably not appropriate for a non-admin closure.  I also strongly disagree with B2C that "COMMONNAME" is itself a policy reason.  The close is therefore flawed and should be reverted; relist. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone who actually thinks WP:COMMONNAME is not a policy should not be editing Wikipedia. WP:COMMONNAME is the primary policy on Wikipedia for deciding issues on article titles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That statement seems needlessly inflammatory. Omnedon (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You think what you have accused Born2cycle of is not? You need to present evidence to back up an accusation of BADNAC. If you think "evidence" is Dicklyon claiming WP:COMMONNAME is not the primary policy on Wikipedia for deciding issues on article titles, then you are very mistaken! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Stating that an editor made an inappropriate close is one thing. Stating that an editor should not be editing is quite another. Let's keep things calm. Omnedon (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon claimed WP:COMMONNAME is not a policy reason, despite its link leading to a page stating "This page is about the policy for article titles"! All editors need to follow Wikipedia policies. While anyone can (and almost everyone has) at some time, out of ignorance of them or out of misunderstanding, involuntarily break them, but no editor should be consciously ignoring them. Editing here caries with it a requirement to edit according to Wikipedia's policies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The history of how B2C has tried to push COMMONNAME to be the primary naming convention, and to demote the other WP:CRITERIA to be irrelevant, is collected at my page User:Dicklyon/Whither Recognizability? and subsequent sections. I think I understand pretty well what COMMONNAME is, but there's no policy that a title needs to be styled per a vote of sources.  When B2C does a close based on his interpretation, which he has pushed (against great resistance) for nearly a decade, on an RM discussion that's clearly not achieved consensus, I feel that he is too close to a supervote.  Anyway, we'll see if he follows through on his offer to revert it.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "History" is the correct word. You are citing there edits made in 2009! This is 2017. If a policy that was formulated in 2009 is still the policy today, this is a strong sign it had been proven to be the correct policy and any issues regarding it are long settled. You need to cite something far more recent than 2009 to indicate there is still a credible ongoing issue that would exclude Born2cycle as being too close to that issue. Where is this "great resistance"? I've gone back as far as archive 50 - that's almost three years - and have seen nothing.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it was borderline a BADNAC. I think the discussion was more incomplete than "no consensus". I am a little bothered by the article İznik titled so, and would be interested in seeing consistency between İznik-related/derivative articles discussed. I think it more productive for everyone unhappy to wait a few months and if still unhappy to open a new RM with a more comprehensive nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, badnac; B2C has a conflict of interest in pushing COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion, a battle he has waged ferociously for many years, and the discussion was clearly borderline, not consensus, so this was a supervote, essentially. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion. The policy page is unambiguously clear on it: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above". If you want that policy changed, do it directly by initiating a discussion to get it changed. Until it is changed, you should be abiding by that policy and accept article title changes made based on the policy. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not clarifying this earlier... Uninvolved editor also precludes anyone with a long history of disagreeing with me. Anyway, there is nothing precluding anyone from starting a more comprehensive RM as SmokeyJoe suggests, or to go to WP:MR. By the way, common name was in place long before I started contributing to WP: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". --В²C ☎ 19:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm involved in that sense. And so are you. Dicklyon (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe either one of us can make objective RM decisions. My point, however, is that it is probably challenging for either one of us to be objective about the other, so we should refrain from making such judgements.  Somebody objective, relative to ourselves, should decide whether one of us is being objective in a given RM decision, not us.  That said, regarding something you said above, it's WP:DIACRITICS, not you or me, that provides guidance on diacritic use in titles: follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)., and I've made zero edits to that page.  --В²C ☎ 21:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be disregarding a comment made at User_talk:EdJohnston by User:Laurdecl, immediately following your offer to revert. Please do revert. Omnedon (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Laurdecl was involved in the RM discussion I closed (thus obviously not an uninvolved editor), and I addressed that particular comment here: "I'm not against the use of diacritics nor do I consider the close controversial just because those who were opposed are complaining".  --В²C ☎ 21:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see how you can claim request to revert doesn't follow your own stated willingness, to revert, cf.   In ictu oculi (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, "Uninvolved editor also precludes anyone with a long history of disagreeing with me.". --В²C ☎ 20:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no history with this subject. I am uninvolved. My view is that the close was inappropriate, and you need to revert it as you offered. You made no such qualification at the time. Omnedon (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This thread has become unseemly. Take it to WP:MR.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * no, sorry Born2cycle just needs encouragement to honor his word as he gave it to EdJohnston. Omnedon was not involved in the discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the first issue is the close, the second is the best title, the person comes third. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Post-hoc observations
Addressing this to everyone I noticed involved, because the misapprehension at issue is not uncommon, and I don't keep track of who's laboring under it at any given time: "COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion" is a completely false statement, and one of the most strife-generating WP title policy interpretation errors (probably second only to the fallacy that COMMONNAME is a policy). WP:COMMONNAME is. Just go look. COMMONNAME is the default suggestion for the most likely way to arrive at a title that will best fit the actual criteria (and it is, 90+% of the time). If a careful analysis of the COMMONNAME (the most common name in reliable, independent sources) shows that it fails, on balance, to meet the criteria, and another name meets them (or more of them) better despite being less frequent, then the real criteria absolutely, positively trump COMMONNAME, which is nothing but a probabilistic (and dispensable) shortcut to picking for the actual CRITERIA analysis. The analysis still has to happen, and that analysis – not "commonness" magically and by itself – is what AT policy says determines our article title. The most common name is highly likely to be the most natural, recognizable, precise, concise, and (at least in the everyday usage if not WP usage sense) consistent, or it probably wouldn't be the most common. Consequently this works in reverse order too; if you do no COMMONNAME analysis and just follow the criteria, odds are that what emerges as the selected title from that process with coincide with the most common names in sources. When it doesn't, it's usually because of a WP:PRECISE or WP:CONSISTENT concern (which are fairly WP-specific). Being among the real criteria, those concerns cannot be ignored to force usage of the COMMONNAME, or crappy things happen.

Learn this, feel it, absorb it, it. You'll avoid a great deal of pointless RM drama, for many editors not just you.

The most common CRITERIA failure of COMMONNAMEs is PRECISE. This has long been known and understood, and it's why WP:NATURAL is a criterion in its own right ( of PRECISE), and why WP:AT front-loads the disambiguation section with WP:NATURALDIS: It is preferable to find a different, natural, somewhat less common name (if available), or if that fails, to use a more precise, naturally disambiguated version of the COMMONNAME (if available), in that order, than to resort to WP:PARENDIS, WP:COMMADIS, or WP:DESCRIPTDIS, which are all more awkward constructions. Failure to absorb, and the resultant over-insistence on parenthetic disambiguation of the COMMONAME, all other possibilities be damned, seems to be the main thing that's gotten IIO into so much hot water lately. I'm still poring over the ANI thread, but the bulk of the complaints (about IIO rather than B2C) seem to be about ill-considered moves to such PARENDIS names (the rest seem mostly to be about forgotten cleanup steps).

But – and this is perhaps the key point – it isn't worth fighting about forever and making enemies over. It's a stress factory. Absent outright stupidity, the titles we're going to come up with are likely to be good enough, especially with redirects (readers do not really care). It's worth considering how much time youse all devote to winning particular article title fights and whether this is a good use of that finite resource. Especially stop obsessing over the COMMONNAME. Follow the criteria and, only when this fails, the disambiguation steps, as written. At this stage of the project's development, any one of the five real criteria (even CONSISTENCY, especially in categories with a boatload of similar articles and a lot of "robotic" maintenance to do) can be more important than using the marginally most common name when there are several common ones to choose from. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, S, for reminding people that "COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion" is nonsense. I completely agree that this notion causes way too much trouble, and I don't know how it ever got started.  COMMONNAME is a strategy for recognizability, one of 5 co-equal naming criteria.  That's all. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More to the point, it's not one of the 5 at all. It's the default "first try" for finding a name statistically most likely to fit the 5 criteria (recognizable, natural, precise, concise, consistent). The entire "COMMONNAME is one of the CRITERIA" meme is poison. The confusion probably stems from the fact that RECOGNIZABLE translates logically to "use common name people are likely to be familiar with" (as an actual requirement), while COMMONNAME is "first try  common name in RS" (as the first possibility to test against all 5 criteria), and various editors confuse these concepts.  The COMMONNAME will always pass RECOGNIZABLE, by definition, but many recognizable names that also fit the other criteria will not be the most COMMONNAME in RS yet are sometimes actually more recognizable and may better fit some other criteria, especially PRECISE and CONSISTENT, though sometimes others (e.g. being more CONCISE or NATURAL in some cases). A good example is probably Heart attack. In actually reliable sources that focus on and provide detailed information about (don't just mention in passing) myocardial infarctions, that medical term is by far the most common name, since most of these are medical sources. But "heart attack" is more concise (in at least three senses, and equally concise in one sense), more natural, more recognizable to more people, and equally precise for encyclopedic purposes.  What a lot of editors don't realize, or forget, is that COMMONNAME is tied directly and specifically to independent sources reliable for the topic in question, while the criteria are not, and speak directly to reader expectations (though both PRECISE and CONSISTENT also speak to editorial maintenance as well as reader navigation). COMMONNAME does not mean "the most common name, period, including in self-published blogs, in slang, in office memos, etc." Thus there are many cases where the most common name in the applicable RS is only one of multiple recognizable ones, and is not the most recognizable to the bulk of our readers, nor the best with regard to the other criteria.  Failure to understand this causes a great deal of pointless RM disputation, and a lot of poorly named articles.
 * You miss the fact that arguments related to article titles often derive from pov warring by a particular editor or set of editors; and those editors have, in many cases, a much wider agenda that may little to do with the specific article in question. In almost all occasions, the choice of article title will be obvious. In the above case, every naming criteria, commonname or otherwise, supported the argument for the title change. The above case was nothing more than a disruptive waste of time by some editors who, because of their wider pov, simply refused to recognize the usage in ALL the sources that were being used to produce the article's content. Pointedly, they could not cite even a single usage example to support their own position - that is not a "despite being less frequent" title, SMcCandlish, it is a ZERO EXAMPLES OF USAGE title! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm hardly unaware of that effect (see Talk:Twente goose). Some people will even defy the sources right in front of their eyes if they're not getting the result they want.  What I'm speaking to here is what the policy says and how to interpret it sanely, and as a general principle. I'm not trying to account for irrational human tantrums, or sneaky attempts at system-gaming, nor opposing a sensible outcome in this particular case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's all true - but we are here under the aftermath of a specific move, and the fact of us just continuing to discuss things in general has now resulted in a request to reverse the move (or at least reopen the discussion). A reversal if successful would result in an article having a title for which no examples of usage in reliable sources has been found. While I think the close decision was procedurally correct, I'm a bit dismayed that B2C's decision to be involved in that way (closing, rather than just expressing an opinion on the title) has brought with it this amount of historical baggage. All five naming criteria support the "Iznik pottery" title, so this COMMONNAME dissecting has no actual impact on the correctness of that specific title move. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * you say: "COMMONNAME is the default suggestion for the most likely way to arrive at a title that will best fit the actual criteria (and it is, 90+% of the time)" and yet you say, "'"COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion" is a completely false statement". They mean the same thing. They probably should not have used "criterion" as it could be miscontrued as a reference to WP:CRITERIA, but what I understood by "COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion" is exactly what you wrote: "COMMONNAME is the default suggestion for the most likely way to arrive at a title that will best fit the actual criteria (and it is, 90+% of the time)" --В²C ☎ 22:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully; they do not and cannot possibly mean the same thing at all. The criteria are five specific, enumerated things in a section called WP:CRITERIA.  WP:COMMONNAME is  among among them. It is, rather, a separate section of advice below the criteria, saying which potential title to first test against those actual criteria.  In various cases the most common name does not pass one or more of these criteria and we use another, somewhat less common name.  This is a fact.  I can't really think of any clearer way to get this across, and cannot really understand how anyone else doesn't already understand it. Just read the policy.  Maybe a direct analogy will help. I decide that the criteria for a great girlfriend are: 1) good and quirky sense of humor versus being dour and moody; 2) attractive (by my standards); 3) well-educated and open-minded; 4) skilled, gainfully employed, and easily re-employable; and 5) shares many of my interests. [Those are, in fact, my actual criteria.]  My sister advises, "The number-one way to find someone like that is to ask your entire circle of friends 'Who is the the most awesome single woman you know?', then see whether the woman most frequently named by them really fits your criteria."  That advice from my sister is  one of my criteria, much less the "primary criterion". It's something completely different, a suggestion for how to most probably and most expediently find a criterial match.  If this is  unclear, well, I give up. It really just boggles my mind that anyone is so confused by our title policy, yet this confusion is fairly common.  I think it results from the emphatic tone that COMMONNAME has taken (like if my sister said "The  way ..." rather than "The number-one way ..."); people mistake it for a rule when it is advice about (or, if you prefer, a procedure for) most likely and most easily finding a title that fits the actual rules, in the section above it.  But still, even a few moments' thought demonstrates that COMMONNAME is not and logically cannot be among the criteria at all, since you can just go look at the criteria section and see that it isn't in there. Your eyes are not lying to you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Since people are still arguing over this, 3 months later, I have listed it at Move review. Laurdecl talk 08:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Trolling and stalking
Buovo d'Antona (Traetta) Why are you still trolling and stalking my edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you knew anything about the subjects you stalk me to you'd not make crass edits like destroying that redirect and pointing the base title to an opera based on the folk tale. Since when do you know anything about Italian renaissance literature or opera? That was stalking, trolling and harassment, pure and simple. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dude, you created a disambiguated redirect, Buovo d'Antona (Traetta) to List of operas by Traetta, which is fine, but you created nothing at the undisambiguated title, Buovo d'Antona, and you categorized that disambiguated redirect, which is unusual at best. So I undid that categorization after I created an undisambiguated redirect, Buovo d'Antona, to the same article, and categorized that in the same categories . The condition I left it in was better than what you had. Since then you've apparently improved it even more.  Thank you. It's called collaboration. Get used to it.  --В²C ☎ 16:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, a brief investigation with Google suggests that the opera is clearly the primary topic for Buovo d'Antona. --В²C ☎ 21:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is confirmation that know nothing about Italian renaissance literature or opera. But that isn't the issue. You barely contribute to article space. So it is not coincidence that you were following me. That's the main thing. That is stalking not "collaboration". What were you doing following me? What prevents you making your own contributions to article space? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Years ago I answered this question on my user page and associated FAQ. I'm not going to copy and paste it here. --В²C ☎ 20:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion
Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

your essay
Hi recently I started doing housekeeping of essays. I ran across PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC and it looks like that's an abandoned stub. If so please consider listing at MFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's neither abandoned nor a stub.  It's a simple concept that doesn't need further explanation. --В²C ☎ 19:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed about unnecessary disambiguation
Hi, I am not very involved in disambiguation so I just wanted to get something checked out with you. This page move has just been carried out, leaving a base name redirected to a disambiguated topic. The mover's rationale—that the page covers only the UK rating and not others around the world—is legitimate but I have always operated on the udnerstanding we only disambiguate pages that currently exist on Wikipedia, not topics that could potentially exist. My impulse was to revert the move but I don't want to do so under a misapplication of the rules. In your opinion is this a legitimate move or should the page go back? Betty Logan (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment. Others may disagree with us. In any case, this is clearly a controversial move and reverting is entirely warranted. Merely potentially controversial moves are supposed to go through the WP:RM process. --В²C ☎ 18:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I have reverted the move, but I have started a discussion at Talk:18_certificate because I do think there are precision issues with the current title. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC
Hi. I don't think it is common practice on en.wp to create essays which resemble policy and guideline shortcuts and then cite them in discussion without making clear to other users that they are personal essays. I seem to remember that you did this at least once before and it was MfDed, but I could be wrong. In any case after the way you cited it in two RM discussions am nominating this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved it to User:Born2cycle/PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of California Association of Bicycling Organizations for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article California Association of Bicycling Organizations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/California Association of Bicycling Organizations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Dr Strauss   talk   09:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A personal plea
Have a look at User:Andrewa/A personal plea and apply it to this edit. TIA Andrewa (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Too late.  But thanks. --В²C ☎ 18:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Stalking
old diff. But same problem. You barely edit Wikipedia, but when you do you seem to trawl through my edits to find something to go for. This isn't healthy behaviour. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop making unilateral potentially controversial moves without discussion, and I'll stop calling you on it when you do it. And for the record, I do sometimes look at your history, but I have not done an exhaustive search.  There's no telling how many such moves you've gotten away with without me or anyone else noticing. --В²C ☎ 22:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When someone has an issue with my behavior I appreciate attempts to work it out on our respective user talk pages. Going straight to AN/I is ignored. --В²C ☎ 01:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Snow close
Rather apropos for a Winter Olympics discussion... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. Didn't even think of that. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request
See this thread at AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for an indefinite period of time.
I have blocked you for an indefinite period of time for disruptive editing, per. This is not an Arbitration Enforcement action, but a standard admin action, reviewable by any admin. I would suggest they not unblock you unless you agree to the bolded terms in my statement on that page, but it is up to their discretion, and they do not need my prior approval before taking action. A note afterwards is expected, however. You may seek guidance to appealing your block at WP:GAB. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To any reviewing admin, the sanction I wanted to use but could not was "For an indefinite period of time, you are topic banned from discussing the moving or renaming of any page, while on any page of the English Wikipedia website."  As reviewing admin, you may choose to make this a condition of unblocking and I would support that, however, the choice is yours.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: As per Iridescent's obsservations on my talk page, the tban wording should also include a restriction against actually moving/renaming pages as well, as that was the original intent. Along the lines of "you are topic banned from moving or renaming and from discussing the moving or renaming of any page, on any page of enwp." Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am involved so cannot unblock, but would support unblocking on those conditions, and probably on less severe ones as well. User has a particular interest in article naming, and valuable skills in that area, and is definitely here. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As an administrator who considers himself a moderator at WT:RM, and who operates the bot that supports the WP:RM process, I too consider myself "involved" and support the above-stated terms for unblocking. I don't use my block button very often, nor participate on the "drama boards" much, so I did not see the Arbitration Enforcement discussion until after it had already been closed. You guys have done an exemplary job.


 * Just to clarify, I believe that Born2cycle still has the privilege of participation on this page, so the discussion has moved to this venue, where he wanted it to. I certainly don't feel much urgency to remove this block, certainly not before we hear from B2C here. If he wishes to branch out from his comfort zone to work in other more understaffed aspects of project maintenance and administration, I have a mile-long to-do list and can point him to areas where the problems are much more severe than sub-optimal article titles, and more hands are needed to help. wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sort of involved as well (I like b2c) so this is just a comment. As Andrewa says, b2c is definitely "here" so we should be looking for ways to keep them in the fold. Perhaps a "restricted to one comment in a move discussion and zero comments on WT:Move" (somewhat like the eric corbett restriction on rfa) would work? --regentspark (comment) 15:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. One comment stating his position on a requested move, while restricted from responding to others' comments (except indirectly while in the course of making his own position statement) and restricted from the "discussion" section that some RMs have... no participation in threaded discussions. His participation at RM should drop from full- to part-time, and if he wishes to continue "full-time" participation on Wikipedia he should branch out to one or more other maintenance areas. wbm1058 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm involved as well, and I'd be fine with one comment per RM, but I think a total TBAN is needed from discussions about article titles on any page outside of RMs, not just at WT:RM. The issue that led to the filing of the AE report was jumping from a conversation that wasn't really going his way at WT:RM to a new discussion venue to try to achieve the same result. A ban from WT:RM only allows for shifting the conversation to other pages, which we see has been an issue here (it led to the AE filing). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How about "One comment on his position at an article move discussion or at an RM/R, no comments or responses on either article moves or move policies, anywhere else". --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, allowed to post one statement objecting to technical requests at WP:RM/TR. And one statement per discussion at WP:Move review. wbm1058 (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't concur so much with the "forum-shopping" rationale, as there's a legitimate difference between discussing specific moves and page-moving policies and guidelines; the venues for those don't overlap. However, what is consistent between these venues is the tendentious manner in which he participates. For that reason I agree with restricting participation in threaded discussions about page-moving policies and guidelines. Again, in those venues, any time there is an RfC where !votes are submitted, he may be allowed his vote, but no participation in threaded discussions. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say "or article title policies and guidelines" rather than "or move policies" (as I'm not quite sure we have a move policy beyond WP:RMCI as WP:MOVE is just a how-to page). Again, I'm involved as I was the one who filed the AE request, and I don't want to be seen as grave dancing, I just wanted to bring up that point which I noted at the AE and some others noticed as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say the very least is this. One comment on an requested move, end.  No comments anywhere else, especially on any page regarding move policy.  Frankly I suspect that anything less than a complete TB from move-related editing won't work, but I have been known to be wrong. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I won't offer more than I have offered, other than to say I will support whatever the consensus is. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I also consider myself involved from past encounters, so just another comment. I suggested at ANI that a restriction should be crafted around preventing B2C from repeat move nominations: I suggested he should not be permitted to create a new move request on any page where there had been a move request in the past 2 years, though after thinking about it more I think that would be better as an indefinite restriction. It doesn't prevent him from commenting if someone else starts a discussion: if there is really an issue with a title somebody else will eventually want to do something about it, but it prevents situations like Kim Davis and Sarah Jane Brown and so many others where he just keeps repeating the question until getting the answer he wants (see "persistence pays" on his user page). And like the multiple other involved admins commenting here, I agree we should wait for him to comment before doing anything. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also involved. I agree with Dennis that the sanction should be "topic banned from moving or renaming, and from discussing moving or renaming, any page on the English Wikipedia". If any loophole is offered, it will be taken. SarahSV (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots of good points above, and I agree with most (not all) of it. I'd encourage further comments here and I personally thank all those who have taken the trouble. But we all need to take time to consider this, especially of course B2C. No further action is possible until they choose to reply. But I would especially encourage them to take their time before replying here. They have a lot of reading to do, and possibly more to come. I'm also happy to receive emails, whenever they like, which will remain private and without any NPA restrictions. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From User:Born2cycle: "it was difficult to get them to be moved, sometimes taking many years of effort before those who stubbornly objected to these moves finally conceded". What Born2Cycle completely misses is that Wikipedia requires collaboration and balance. Perhaps Sarah Jane Brown will one day be at Sarah Brown (something), and Born2Cycle might regard that as total justification for their battle. Wrong! The alleged benefits of the perfect title are not worth the years of dispute. Any return to editing must accommodate the fact that living with what might be an imperfect title is better for the health of the community than a never-ending war of attrition. Johnuniq (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To disagree with Andrewa, most of the comments here are not helpful. The ball is in Born2cycle's court, and commenting in anticipation of what he might return to propose serves to muddy the waters.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that The ball is in Born2cycle's court.
 * Agree that not all of the above is helpful... but it seems to be the stuff with which I disagree that I find least helpful, so maybe even that's not completely fair.
 * Disagree that it's poisoning the well (which is where the link muddy the waters leads to of course). That was certainly not my intent, nor is it clear to me that this is the intent of anyone above. I think we are trying to help, and I can't see what damage it is doing. Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is giving B2C feedback on the concerns of others, and an idea of what restrictions might be placed. It is also focusing on getting him BACK to editing, just in different areas where he hasn't had problems, so I fail to see how this feedback is poisoning the well.  He might not LIKE to hear some of this, but it is a positive sign that people are ready to welcome him back with some restrictions that can be reviewed in time.  Not a single person has requested he simply stay blocked.  That is a sign they have some faith, even while saying he needs limits when he comes back.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This proposal (shortly before the block) comes halfway, though I'd definitely need more of a bright line than something like not commenting "more than once in 5 out of the last 8 discussions". ~Awilley (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my suggestion... but it's B2C's call, and again I advise (all to note), not soon. All the best writers are good readers. Andrewa (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Whatever goes on on this page and regardless of the bureaucratese about admin blocks, I would hope that any final conditions -- length of time, specific restrictions and exceptions, expectations, appeals -- would be put up before the community for review before unblocking. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You can always request a review after any admin makes an action, at WP:AN. There is absolutely no requirement in policy to put it up before the community before an admin take action, this is a simple block, no different than the hundreds per day we do. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, though, I would expect that any sanction reflects the discussion at AE, or else we will be back there again which is clearly a waste of everyone's time. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's basically in the hands of the blocking admin... Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. (Blocking policy, and I think it covers all bases.) They're more than capable of dealing with it, and of pinging any of us and/or raising it at AN etc. as appropriate, and we should leave it to them. Andrewa (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There was ample discussion on WP:AE (which the block closed off) and on WP:ANI about Born2Cycle's behavior, so no, it's not a simple unilateral administrator decision. Anyone unblocking WITHOUT discussion FIRST is doing an end-run around the community. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Calton, as the blocking admin, I'm telling you that this is not the case. This was a unilateral action by me and me alone.  Any reviewing admin should and will treat it that way.  I've already made it clear they do not need my permission to act on any unblock request, so I'm relying on the wisdom of the reviewing admin, and that alone.  No community input is required.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you're saying that there WASN'T ample discussion on WP:AE (which the block closed off) and on WP:ANI about Born2Cycle's behavior? Was it about a different editor with exactly the same name?
 * ...unilateral action by me and me alone. No kidding. Did you miss where I said that? Did you miss where that was pretty much my point, that your unilateral action by you and you alone is no way to abort ongoing community discussion, that it's NOT your permission to give? --Calton | Talk 02:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that B2C may feel that we've violated his right to free speech. My response: think of Wikipedia as a pseudo-legislative body that anyone can join, i.e. a direct democracy rather than a representative democracy. Legislative bodies may allow filibusters and Wikipedia has given a long leash to allow extended filibustering about article titles. But at some point cloture may be invoked. Free speech may continue off-site (e.g. personal blogs or Wikipedia criticism sites) or even in your user space, but there are limits to tolerance for filibustering in the galleries where the business of encyclopedia writing is conducted. wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Fellas, at some point this pile-on of comments has become indistinguishable from grave-dancing. Would you all please consider holding off on further commentary until and unless B2C posts an unblock request? 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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)