User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 15

Benedictines RM close
Your closing statement at Talk:Benedictines alluding to my objecting is wrong. My objection, preferring Benedictine Order over Benedictines, does not relate at all to the official name, the previous title. Your intorduction of such stupid statements of your own opinion into a close is a big reason why you should not be closing consensus-finding discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I removed the error. My apologies. Thanks for pointing it out. --В²C ☎ 23:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, your argument that the proposed title was "too informal" is what influenced me to cite OFFICIAL. That was the error, as OFFICIAL is not explicitly about formality of names, and you did not favor the official name (though nobody else did either) anyway. --В²C ☎ 23:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I actually was on my way back there to clarify that I didn't actually oppose the proposal so much as has a preference for something slightly different.  I had already stated that the proposal was an improvement on the status quo OFFICIAL name ("either option is better than the current").  It was a very pleasant conversation with User:Madrenergic, I like very much for there to be an implicit extra weight for the local subject-interested editors.  I understood "Benedictines" to be a subtopic of the "Benedictine Order", as treated at Britannica, but that it may be better considered vice versa.   I am thinking this is a reflection of a change in thinking on these organisations, from the top down hierarchical view evident in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)]   to the modern style of bottom up consideration of actual people.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I actually was on my way back there to clarify that I didn't actually oppose the proposal so much as has a preference for something slightly different.  I had already stated that the proposal was an improvement on the status quo OFFICIAL name ("either option is better than the current").  It was a very pleasant conversation with User:Madrenergic, I like very much for there to be an implicit extra weight for the local subject-interested editors.  I understood "Benedictines" to be a subtopic of the "Benedictine Order", as treated at Britannica, but that it may be better considered vice versa.   I am thinking this is a reflection of a change in thinking on these organisations, from the top down hierarchical view evident in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)]   to the modern style of bottom up consideration of actual people.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

early 20C cyclists
Hi, a random and optional query from a fellow here. Is there a way of categorising and linking early cyclists or cycling, "bicyclists" as it's given in late nineteenth and early twentieth century texts? Thas been noted in a couple of sources of articles I cobbled together (once in a wanted poster), but I was unable to satisfactorily place or link those facts. Most cycling topics seem to be sport related, unsurprisingly I suppose, and remembered your interest in this area when the name popped up somewhere. — cygnis insignis 19:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Schoharie limousine crash
RE your close Talk:Schoharie_limousine_crash. Note the immediately preceding page moves by User:Usernamekiran. That was not a “Not move”. Why do we have differenet page mover and discussion closer seemingly unaware of the other? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure. My impression was that there was some moving during the RM and updating of the proposal during the RM. Very confusing and unusual but the netresult seemed consistent with consensus so no harm no foul? --В²C ☎ 21:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the ping. Just for the record, I was aware of the close by B2C. I also agree with 's comment below my relisting comment. Although I dont have any problem with B2C's close, I feel he should have used different description. — usernamekiran (talk)  22:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * oh, we are talking about that. Yes, it was sort of confusing. But as it is a recent event, being covered in media; it is sort of expected too. There was a similar incident not too long ago, where it turned out the driver was "hearing voices". Sometimes, there needs to be swift moves to avoid confusion, or misinformation. Like in this case, it wasnt any kind of attack, neither a terrorist attack. So yup, whoever got the first news confirming it wasnt an attack, would have moved the page. But then, in this particular RM, there were many moves even after that. Why so, confuses me. — usernamekiran (talk)  22:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please ensure the closing statement is accurate. What was the consensus? Who made the move, match it to the move log. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a note to the closing statement that should take care of it. --В²C ☎ 22:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The closing statement should say "Moved to Scjochasie limousine crash" shouldn't it? Given that it moved to that title today. "No consensus" is not an accurate reading of the discussion. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe. It's confusing. By the time of the close the article was already at Schoharie_limousine_crash, so there was no move there as a result of the close. --В²C ☎ 22:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I see what happened. At about the same time decided to move it mid-RM and relist while I decided to close the discussion. By the time I got there it has already moved and I didn't realize it had just been moved.  Anyway, I fixed the comment again.  Thanks everyone! --В²C ☎ 22:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Corrected this comment. --В²C ☎ 22:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * that closing statement looks good to me.
 * The article has been through some redlinks, can you please tell me the locations to which the page has been moved? — usernamekiran (talk)  23:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has been through some redlinks, can you please tell me the locations to which the page has been moved? — usernamekiran (talk)  23:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia limousine crash
I've been looking this over for the past day or two, while contemplating whether or what to say about it. I'm familiar with the area as that's the part of the world where I was born and grew up. I've recently corrected some errors in the article.

The most puzzling thing to me is why, a 10-year editor with over 77,000 edits, would have started the article at 16:53, 7 October 2018 with the title 2018 New York City attack by copy-pasting the hatnote, infobox and first paragraph from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing article, and then only changing some of the infobox parameters before saving it. Then one minute later replaced the article body copied from the 1993 article with the single sentence On 7 October, 2018 a driver in a limousine ran down 20 people at a wedding. – with no citation to a reference. Then, two minutes later Lihaas moved page 2018 New York City attack to 2018 New York attack. I realize that a lot of people living on other continents don't realize there is another half of New York called Upstate, but really I expect better from such an experienced editor. Four minutes later Lihaas changed the location from NYC to Schoharie County. The article was still using Infobox civilian attack with. OK, maybe some witnesses at the scene heard a sound that seemed like an explosion. They probably heard the crash before they saw the wreckage. But, really. Still no citations. WP:Not news. Finally, at 17:07 we see the first citation. "A Facebook page called Schoharie County Fire Wire and News said it took down its initial post concerning the crash because of the false information that was being placed in the comment string." At 17:09, the first editor of the page who is not Lihaas removed the categories Category:Attacks in the United States in 2018, Category:2018 murders in the United States, Category:2018 in New York City, Category:Presidency of Donald Trump, Category:History of the United States (1991–present), Category:Murder in New York (state), Category:Terrorist incidents in 2018, Category:Terrorist incidents in New York City and Category:Car and truck bombings in the United States. Frankly, I would have been putting more effort into accurately citing reliable sources than over-categorization. Lihaas was asked about this behavior, but didn't respond. Noting Lihaas' recent contributions have been to articles where they are putting a Connected contributor (paid) on the talk pages, I hope that these edits aren't in response to an offer placed on Freelancer by some Russians.

The article should have been speedily deleted at this point, and a new article started from scratch at an appropriate title, but alas that didn't happen. Others started "fixing" it by adding "witnesses claimed" statements. At 17:27, the date of the incident was corrected from Oct. 7 to Oct. 6. At 17:32, Infobox civilian attack was removed. At 18:17, an editor proposes that this article about a limousine crash in Schoharie County killed over 20 people be deleted as not notable. I guess since it's no longer about a terrorist attack. At 18:28, nine minutes after the first post to the talk page that wasn't a project tag like WikiProject Death or WikiProject New York City suggested that the "highly problematic" article title should be changed, a requested move was started. I would have just boldly moved it without discussion. Indeed, moved 2018 New York attack to 2018 Schoharie New York traffic accident at 18:33, just five minutes after the RM was opened. At 19:02, 7 October 2018 changed visibility of 15 revisions on 2018 Schoharie New York traffic accident: content hidden (RD5: Other valid deletion under deletion policy: Possible BLP issues, best just to hide for the time being). At 20:10, 8 October 2018 moved 2018 Schoharie New York traffic accident to 2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash (More specific name, b/c ppl are going to search using these exact terms). At 18:13, 25 October 2018 moved page 2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash to Draft:Move/Schoharie limousine crash without leaving a redirect (Round-robin history swap step 1 using pageswap). Uggh, just what we need to further muddle the history, a page-mover swap. So, the 18:13, 25 October 2018 pager-mover swap landed the article at Schoharie limousine crash: Page mover comment: I have temporarily moved the article boldly to Schoharie limousine crash, given the fact currently consensus is to keep that title. But instead of closing the discussion, I have relisted it, as it is still a current event. The "common name" might change in upcoming few days. After only a single comment by after that "temporary move/relist", the discussion was formally closed by B2C at 18:23, 25 October 2018... ten minutes after the move, and five minutes after the relisting. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC) ---
 * yeah. Thats pretty much what happened. I was asking for more details for updating the closing rationale, well adding in a new subsection like this actually. And unfortunately, I was a passanger in that limousine. Fortunately though, I wasnt in it for most of the time. I didnt see or heard about that limousine until 10 minutes prior to getting into it. — usernamekiran (talk)   15:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I saw that message early on Friday morning - I meant to reply but then I forgot about it, sorry about that. And when you say you were a passenger in the limo, you mean you actually rode in it on the actual day in question? That sounds scary if so...  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * oh no no. I mean the one mentioned above in the hatnote. — usernamekiran (talk)  16:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oooh ah... I see now. A metaphorical limousine. You had me worried for a minute! Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I first saw the request in the backlog so I went to close it. While reading the discussion, unbeknownst to me it was moved and relisted. Very unusual and confusing situation. By the time I closed it, it was already renamed.  I didn’t realize that had just happened. I presumed it had been moved days ago. I did not review the history of the article like you did. Anyway I think the current situation including [revised) closing statement reflects consensus about the title. Do you not agree? —В²C ☎ 14:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you closed it ten minutes after the move, and five minutes after the relisting, and my bot only runs once every fifteen minutes. Perfectly understandable. It's highly unusual to "relist" a page that's already been moved. Of all the passengers in my metaphorical limousine, you perhaps were the "least negligent". My biggest criticism is for the limousine driver, discussed in my first paragraph above. And I'm taking advantage of your talk page to put it "on the record", while at the same time keeping it as discreet and "private" as possible on a publicly readable website. Sorry about that, but I hope you can appreciate my reasoning.
 * Yes, your closing statement "Consensus to move to Schoharie limousine crash from the original title..." is fine. At the end of the day, after all the drama caused by the driver, this really wasn't a controversial move so no further explanation of your closing rationale is necessary. wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All the early edits in the article's history are inaccessible to non-admins, so I can't review what happened. Was any of the attack stuff cited to any sources? I can believe fake news being out there in the first few hours. --В²C ☎ 20:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as I said, there was never any source cited for "attack" or "New York City". Maybe this was fake news that the author read somewhere, but whether they saw fake news or just made it up themselves, I have no way to know that. I don't see any "BLP issues" in the redacted edits – the limo driver died in the crash. I think the only harm in keeping them publicly visible is to the author's and Wikipedia's reputation. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Agreed. Still, I'm surprised there is nothing about this odd behavior on their talk page... They were tagged by you here, and crickets... --В²C ☎ 22:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually they were called out on their talk, but as they, like you ;) have an aggressive archiving configuration, it's already IN THEIR ARCHIVES. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Jaggi Vasudev. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 05:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I closed the RM discussion and found consensus in favor of the move, and moved it accordingly. —В²C ☎ 06:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Er. You closed an ongoing RM discussion where there was no consensus in favour of the move. This was both highly unusual and uninformed. The first evidence supporting the assertion that "Sadhguru" was the common name was provided at 21:51 IST. This was countered by another editor who also voted "oppose". The ensuing discussion lasted till 22:48. You closed the discussion three hours later at 02:15. This is besides the fact that one of the supporters of the move removed a vote that was clearly "oppose" and another of the supporters appears to be a promotion-only account and possibly a sock of a banned user who removed potentially controversial content about Jaggi Vasudev. This is also besides the fact that there was no consensus to move. There were 4 votes to support, 3 to oppose and 1 oppose which was deleted by a supporter when you closed the discussion. I couldn't modify the closed discussion and so I had to re-create it if the discussion was to continue, which it does. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The close appears highly unsatisfactory, by which I mean I disagree with the move. Is there any chance that you would consider undoing and letting an admin close? I am considering that a move review may be an option but my not pursue that path. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The close looks fine to me. The main opposition argument was that the title was an honorific, which was fully countered with numerous demonstrations in reliable sources that even if the term does originate in an honorific, the subject is primarily and commonly known as that title, and that he is also the primary topic for this variant of it. I think closed as moved looks like the correct decision based on the discussion, and the reopening above was clearly out of process . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So we're suddenly basing COMMONNAME on "numerous demonstrations"? And numerous has suddenly become 3–4 links? And it doesn't matter that each of those demonstrations was "fully countered" with opposing demonstrations. Nothing about this non-admin closure of an ongoing discussion before it could be completed? Nothing about the lack of consensus for an RM on a page that has been known by Jaggi Vasudev since its creation?—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * B2C while I agreed with your another move closure (from same day) nominated by me. This closure is something I don't agree with. I did vote oppose there. And the primary reason I am posting here is because it is wrongly been claimed that Sadhguru is his most COMMONLY used name. This is not true. The subject is still commonly known as Jaggi Vasudev in the reliable mainstream media. BBC     called Jaggi Vasudev, Express UK called "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev". I would suggest you to revert your close and allow the discussion some more time to reach a more stronger consensus. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @Cpt.a.haddock: Ample evidence was provided for COMMONNAME including links and comparison of numbers in search and news results. The opposition arguments did not provide evidence with numbers to refute the claim that he is more commonly known as this, but relied mainly on a few links here and there that didn't mention the name, and on MOS:HONORIFIC, which does not make any claim to override COMMONNAME. I accept that you don't agree with this, and you're welcome to take it to MRV, but I doubt it will be overturned because the close looks like a sound reading of the discussion and the evidence presented therein. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And how is someone supposed to refute numbers if they are not give time to do so? As noted above, the numbers were provided at 10 PM and the RM was closed at 2 AM. To give you an idea of how farcical these numbers are, note that "Sadhguru" also returns results for "Sadguru", "Surguru", and "Satguru". As I've demonstrated in the RM, there are plenty of people referred to by these honorifics and there are plenty of institutions and establishments based on them. These include "Hotel Surguru" in Pondicherry, "Hotel Sadguru" in Chembur, the "Sadhguru Super Speciality Homoeo Clinic" in Vizag, "Sri Sadguru Chikitsalaya" in Shimoga etc. BTW, almost all of these false positives have nothing to do with the Jaggi Vasudev Sadguru. Jaggi Vasudev's title is also spelt "Sadguru" by numerous people including reliable newspapers. Lastly, Google classifies (1, 2) news related to Jaggi Vasudev under the topic "Jaggi Vasudev" rather than "Sadhguru" or even "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev". Also pay importance to the point of "Sadhguru", when used, customarily being collocated before "Jaggi Vasudev" indicating its honorific nature.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is how you were going to "refute" then the closure was done at the right time, otherwise it would become more contentious. "Sadhguru" few times more WP:COMMONNAME in terms of results in reliable sources. We can better say that majority of results for "Jaggi Vasudev" are just mirroring Wikipedia or using the name as secondary name to "Sadhguru". We are talking about "Sadhguru". We are not talking about "Hotel Sadguru", "Surguru", "Satguru" or any other irrelevant names that are not even comparable or relevant or interchangeable. Don't falsify search results. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a good close. The article has been at Jaggi Vasudev for two years, was unilaterally moved to Sadhguru and then moved back again. That itself should give us a clue that the title is contentious and needs discussion. That discussion was clearly ongoing and we needed to see more evidence for what the common name of the article is and whether or not WP:HONORIFIC applies here. That is not going to happen if the discussion is closed abruptly. It's up to b2c as to whether to reopen it or not but, all that said, Capt.a.haddock, your initial post on this page leaves a lot to be desired (hearts and minds, people!).--regentspark (comment) 14:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Page moves should not be closed before 7 days requirement, but after that they can be closed anytime. Any further discussion could not really change the fact that "Sadhguru" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can be closed anytime. But, if the discussion is ongoing, they can (and should) be relisted for further input. Also, the purpose of a move discussion is not to change facts but rather to make sure that the evidence for the fact is properly presented to an uninvolved editor. In this case, there wasn't enough time for that (in my opinion). --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Clusterfudge aside (special thanks to for cleaning it up), I've decided to revert my close. Please see my comment at the RM discussion, which I also relisted. --В²C ☎ 18:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that B2c has reverted their closure, which is good: but can we all (and especially) dial it back a bit here? The worst thing that can be said about this closure was that it was a bit hasty, and that consensus was not strong. It was not out of process, and it did not warrant a templated warning. Religious topics in South Asia tend to be contentious, and allowing an ongoing discussion to come to a conclusion would be a good idea. B2c, thank you for handling this fallout gracefully. Vanamonde (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks b2c. And well said Vanamonde. Article naming, and you can trust me on this because I used to be a busybody closer and the amount of grief I got was "yuge", is one of the more contentious issues on Wikipedia and dumping on uninvolved closers (like b2c clearly was) is not warranted. --regentspark (comment) 23:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Message received. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If you only saw all the words I typed and then thankfully erased before hitting "Publish". LOL. In the mean time it's open and relisted and ... crickets. --В²C ☎ 23:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the relist, B2C. Your relist was done at ~midnight, IST which probably explains the crickets.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Nanjing Massacre
An editor has asked for a Move review of Nanjing Massacre. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. STSC (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Question
Given your past history and strong opinions with regard to the nature of article titles, do you really think you should be closing RM discussions, even controversial ones? I'm specifically thinking of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Can you really be seen as impartial, given things like User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle? RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I can and stand by my record which has no more issues than any other typical RM closer. Titles are my interest area and that’s both where I’m most knowledgeable and helpful and also the area where I’m most active and have a few conflicts, naturally. That doesn’t mean I can’t be as objective as anyone else in RM closures. Thank you for your concern. If you’re aware of any actual issues with my decisions, please let me know, as I presume you would with any other closer. —В²C ☎ 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not that I don't trust your judgement, it's simply that I am concerned that such history could be used to contest closings of various discussions, leading to a bureaucratic nightmare...in other words, perhaps it would be wise to keep away from clearly controversial RMs. Just food for thought. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I keep that in mind and avoid certain closes accordingly. Again, thank you for your concern and support. —В²C ☎ 16:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Your inability to see a bad closing statement after multiple others have stated it was a bad closing statement speaks directly to your difficulty in distinguishing fact from opinion from bias. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether that was a bad closing statement or not IS opinion. That you think it's a matter of fact says more about your inability to distinguish opinion from fact than anything else. --В²C ☎ 21:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've expanded on my statement. What am I not seeing? --В²C ☎ 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have great difficulty in seeing your own bias, but you are admirably open to trying. Ok. I wish others would contribute here, lest you think it is just me, but here are some things: “obvious”?  Not at all, presumably this is one side’s view that Timor Leste is not English and half the participants are obviously not bothered by that, presumably because the definition of what is English is so fuzzy. It broadly reads as the closers opinion, note the “I”s.  It does not speak directly to summarising the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement in question is: Obviously the country should have its article at the English name, but there is no current consensus here as to which name is the common name in English.
 * How is it not obvious that "the country should have its article at the English name"? Now, if you want to nitpick and argue that only "East Timor" is an "English name", while "Timor Leste" is not, fine, but that would be misinterpreting 's clear intended meaning of "English name".  That is, he is rather obviously saying everyone is in favor of using the name which is most commonly used in English; he is not distinguishing between East Timur and Timor Leste. Yes, one side doesn't see Timor Leste as an English name, while the other does. But his point is that folks on both sides are in favor using the name most commonly used in English (from their respective perspectives).  Is that really not obvious to you?  What else did you misread in deciding the closing "reads like a SUPERVOTE"?  Well, you objected to too many "I"s.  There were two:
 * I do not think that we have any reason to bar this request in the future... what's wrong with that? It's certainly not indicative of a bias on the proposal. So what?
 * since ... I have no idea whether or not Timor-Leste will surge in usage over the next year or so... also seems objective to me, no?
 * It might not be ideal (and what is?), but you certainly have not identified anything that is bad about the closing statement, as you claimed there was. --В²C ☎ 22:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked “exactly”, and I think that is an important clue. Not ideal is a reasonable euphemism showing maybe you are not completely blind, but you are a worry. Neither yours, nor RedSlash’s closes, are to be trusted without careful checking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's good that we'll be carefully checked. I, for one, welcome that! --В²C ☎ 22:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I support the concern of RGloucester and SmokeyJoe. You have a set of strongly-held interpretations of title policy and style guidelines that are very frequently out of step with the majority of Wikipedians, and that color your judgement of what arguments are "policy based". You should not be closing any RM discussions in which there is controversy around such interpretations, or around almost anything related to titles, especially given your past admonishments. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it's no surprise that people who also have strong opinions about titles and have a history of often disagreeing with me have their "concerns". Anyway, again, I've been closing RMs for years and always welcome scrutiny of all my decisions. though I do expect to be held to the same standards as any other closer, and not to some standard that nobody can reasonably meet. I do my best; I'm not perfect. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is that I don't close controversial RM discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your choice, of course. FWIW, your help would be appreciated, especially on controversial ones. Check out Talk:History_of_Swaziland, for example. --В²C ☎ 00:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is, you're doing more harm than good when you close these discussions, regardless of your intention. Look at your talk page and the move reviews currently opened as a result of your closures. Otherwise routine matters have now become messes, with the results in question...perhaps you need to step back. WP:RMNAC is quite clear about how one should conduct oneself in this regard. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone is being treated unfairly, how about addressing those who are addressing him unfairly, instead of blaming the victim? Thanks. A couple of weeks ago one of my closes was reverted, with much outrage, then an admin came in and closed with the same outcome and even almost identical language. But I'm to blame? Do you also tell attractive women that they're to blame when they're attacked? Oh, unless you can point to anything specific that I'm doing wrong. Because you haven't done that. NACs of closely contested RMs have been the norm for years; I didn't start that. It's partly why the nac tag was added. There's nothing inherently wrong with that either. I only close where "the consensus or lack thereof is clear"; and that's all that's "normally required". The backlog has been rather large lately. I'm just trying to help out, and I've been closing RMs for years, and my experience with titles and the relevant policies, guidelines and conventions is extensive. I'm doing a good job, please stop giving me grief when I'm doing nothing wrong.  --В²C ☎ 05:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the section above this one. The participants were unanimous in how that should go, it had been relisted and in the backlog a second time, and I closed it accordingly. But IIO still complains. That's not my fault.  Anyone, anyone, would have closed it exactly the same - It was the only reasonable choice  - and I guarantee you IIO would not have complained. That's their problem, not mine. But I'm taken to task for it, and I'm the one "doing more harm than good"?  As to the one close of mine that's in MR (the first and only if I'm not mistaken), the complainant didn't even ask me to revert (which I would have) before going to MR, which is really bizarre. In fact, I'm generally open to reverting my closes (the one discussed in the section above was an exception because of the reasons explained there), and that's what's supposed to happen when there is reasonable question about any non-admin close. Once again I'm asked to abide by some imaginary rules that no one else is expected to follow. No. I'm done with that. Now, I have work to do, if you don't mind. --В²C ☎ 05:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the section above this one. The participants were unanimous in how that should go, it had been relisted and in the backlog a second time, and I closed it accordingly. But IIO still complains. That's not my fault.  Anyone, anyone, would have closed it exactly the same - It was the only reasonable choice  - and I guarantee you IIO would not have complained. That's their problem, not mine. But I'm taken to task for it, and I'm the one "doing more harm than good"?  As to the one close of mine that's in MR (the first and only if I'm not mistaken), the complainant didn't even ask me to revert (which I would have) before going to MR, which is really bizarre. In fact, I'm generally open to reverting my closes (the one discussed in the section above was an exception because of the reasons explained there), and that's what's supposed to happen when there is reasonable question about any non-admin close. Once again I'm asked to abide by some imaginary rules that no one else is expected to follow. No. I'm done with that. Now, I have work to do, if you don't mind. --В²C ☎ 05:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Talk:Eswatini looks to be a good close of a clear discussion, an appropriate RM for an NAC. It cleared up the mess of the preceding Talk:Eswatini, for which User:Red_Slash was unqualified to close, his call of consensus proven incorrect. NAC closes of contentious contested discussions should be avoided.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I disagree with your opinion of and his work.  He has a lot of title and RM closing experience and does an excellent job. It's a thankless job, believe me.  --В²C ☎ 05:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you and Red Slash share a weakness, in failing to separate your own opinions from an objective and thorough reading of the discussion. I think that reflects in closing statements that read as the closer's opinion. I note a lack of attributing persuasive arguments to particular discussion participants, which is something very good closers do when calling a rough consensus from a difficult discussion.  I think this is an even handed statement of my observation, for while I routinely disagree with your opinions (eg where to place one's "bottom line"), I think I have often agreed with Red Slash's stated contentious opinions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that's your impression, but your apparent inability to provide any specific examples of what you're talking about is telling. In any specific RM of mine or his please identify what specific opinion of the closer you believe exists and impacted the decision, and explain how you think it did that. Otherwise, please stop slinging these baseless accusations. I too have seen closers sometimes attribute persuasive arguments to particular participants, and I've done that myself, but overall it's pretty rare. But I'd be happy to do it more. Good tip. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 05:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the Puma RM discussion. Ugh. Anyway, I also thought about this a bit more and realized one reason I probably don't specify particular usernames very often in my closing statement is that I generally pay attention to WHAT is being argued, not WHO is arguing it, because I want to minimize if not eliminate being swayed by the WHO, which really shouldn't matter. What matters are the arguments and how well grounded they are in policy, guidelines and conventions.  Over at the Puma discussion I just looked at there is one that just says Support and a sig, with no supporting statement whatsoever. I don't know what to do with that other than give it very little weight. I guess it's seconding the nom (an implied "per nom"?), but I don't even know that for sure.  I'm going back to Puma right now. If I can't find a clear consensus or lack thereof, I guess I'll weigh in and hopefully make the job easier for the next closer who looks at it. --В²C ☎ 06:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Specific-enough an example is Talk:East_Timor, and Talk:Eswatini. These are not your closes, but you are hell-bent on proving yourself a closer it seems, and I am challenging you because you defended a particularly poor closing statement.  NB. There is no formal complaint here, this is a user_talk conversation.  Maybe you can be a closer. I was impressed by your revert of a challenged close (Jaggi_Vasudev), despite it being a defensible close; reverting your own close is always the easiest and most respectable way out for a challenged NAC. Puma?  Talk:Puma? I recommend that you don't close that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC) A "support" with just a sig?  That is a serious topic of discussion from years ago at RfA.  Should it be discounted?  No.  It means the !voter expresses general support with the nom and other supporters, but doesn't feel the need to add extra weight.  It should be considered a placeholder, perhaps made for watchlist purposes.  Its weight is not zero, but not high.  It is most appropriate for a SNOW discussion where there is nothing more to say.  It should not be discounted any more that someone who repeats an earlier stated argument.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I decided to file my reasoning for closing Puma as no consensus to move as a comment, instead of actually closing, and then pile on with my own Oppose since I wasn't closing. I misused the term "discount". What I meant was exactly what you said: "Its weight is not zero, but not high". I thought discount meant that (after all a discounted price is not zero!), but apparently it means "regard as unworthy of consideration"; that's not what I meant. I need a word that means "give little weight". --В²C ☎ 06:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hah. English is a dog of a language.  Discount can mean to completely ignore, to remove from the count.  It can also mean to reduce the value.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Close of Talk:Mohammed Nayeemuddin RM
Nayeem is just a short form of Nayeemuddin, As you can see this newly created stub on the Naxalite has no more views than the India soccer team coach Nayeem or the Bangladeshi actor Nayeem: |Nayeem_(actor)|Mohammed_Nayeemuddin page views. Suggest that you undo this close please. Further Nayeem (name) is just a variant spelling of Naim. There's no way that this criminal should have been moved to Nayeem when Nayeem actor has more page views. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Granted there were only two participants, but they were unanimously in support of the move, so I don't think I made an error as a closer. I would have to totally SUPERVOTE to close "No move". That said, where's the harm? There are only two uses of Nayeem, and each article (now) hatnote-links to the other, so practically it's arguably better than a dab page. At least those searching for the criminal get to their sought article immediately, and those searching for the actor are only one click away, just as they would be had they landed on a dab page. Is it better to reverse the situation? Maybe. Hard to tell from the page view counts, especially since the criminal is such a new article.  Perhaps revisit in 6 months? --В²C ☎ 17:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You did see the 50+ message debate on the subject where a pagemover almost lost their bit directly above and on the AfD right? &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. I looked only at the RM discussion. --В²C ☎ 17:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please undo this close and relist. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was all set do so but on the preview of the undo I noticed it had already been relisted on 17 October. Second relistings are discouraged. This has been open since October 10th. That, and given all the renaming that would have to be undone, a new RM might be the best route at this point. You're also free to use MR of course, though I don't see on what grounds you could contest my close of a unanimous local consensus. --В²C ☎ 20:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you object to a new RM with page views for all 3 Nayeems being made available? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection. Sounds like a good idea. Sharing a perspective significant to the title decision that was not considered in the previous RM justifies new RM, even this soon. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 12:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the closure by B2C and want to point that B2C has clearly explained his closure and I don't really see any justifiable reason why he must undo his closure. If folks are unhappy with his move then a RM review. IIO has not provided any justification for his claim that Nayeem is the common name of the coach. From whatever I have seen he is know by his full name, where the coaches article currently exist. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Acer inc.
Hi B2C.

RE: Talk:Acer (company) Would you please relist that discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very light participation does not make a "consensus"
 * You moved the page to something that was not advertised.
 * You move the page away from the COMMONNAME Natural/comma "Acer inc."/"Acer, inc." to a lesser-preferred parenthetical disambiguation, with the nominator and participants giving no attention to source use.  A lesser but still preferable natural disambigation is Acer Group.  These sources are from the top references in the article.
 * The move was a revert from a correct move ten years previously.
 * Are you sure?
 * One person can establish "consensus" on WP, so yeah, that was a consensus.
 * Moving pages to titles not advertised but raised during an RM discussion is not unusual or wrong.
 * I have no opinion about the move itself or which is the COMMONNAME; just following consensus of the discussion I had to read.
 * Consensus can change.
 * Considering the consensus of those participating and that the moves are already done, I suggest a MR if you really think I erred, or a new RM if you think the participants erred. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 23:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe if you missed the RM and there's new evidence you want to bring to the discussion that wasn't mentioned by the present participants before the close, why don't you just ask B2C for a relist and take it from there? IMHO that would seem more productive than quibbling the close of what was at the time a unanimous consensus. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well he did ultimately ask me to relist. Not sure why he didn't present his evidence while the RM was open for a week. I don't mind reopening/relisting if I made a mistake or it's a controversial case where it's likely another closer would close differently, but this is not like that. While the official name is "Acer, Inc." as demonstrated by the sources cited by SmokeyJoe above using the official name, sources like Wired demonstrate the common name is just Acer, so I think he's just giving me a hard time. If someone other than SJ agrees that Acer, Inc, not Acer, is the common name, I'll reopen/relist. --В²C ☎ 23:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes we spot RMs that we missed at the time and have recently closed in a way that doesn't seem right to us. In that circumstance, if I thought I had a new angle to offer the conversation, I would usually put a polite notice on the closer's talk page requesting a relist so I could make my point in the discussion. It seems like SJ thinks there's a NATURALDIS argument or perhaps evidence of some other common name in this case that wasn't made, so that's ripe for the polite relist request. And yes, there was a request to relist but that was seemingly on the basis that your close was allegedly incorrect rather than because there was new evidence to present. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to cooperate with people who are disrespectful to me. I hope that's understandable. --В²C ☎ 23:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That was kind of the point I was making above. Being respectful is more likely to get the outcome you want. It's a pity SJ and yourself don't seem to be getting along because as fellow regulars on the RM circuit I like and respect both of you, even when we don't agree. But anyways, not much I can do about that... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Every time it seems to improve something like this comes up. It's exhausting and frustrating. I remain optimistic. --В²C ☎ 00:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I presented three points and asked for a relist. The three points were important to make because its not that the close was obviously bad.  Yes, I missed engaging on the RM, sorry, other things distract.  "If someone other than SJ ... I'll reopen/relist"?  Is that the considered response?  Or did you mean "if a second person"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)  The 4th point was incidentally interesting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I wrote that I did research your common name claim. Your sources all use official names in financial contexts. I think the Wired source is more typical and more appropriate for common name determination. Otherwise we'd have IBM, Inc. too, etc. So I don't think your argument is likely to be compelling.  The NATURALDIS argument is stronger, however, especially given the Apple Inc. precedent.  So I'll reopen/relist because of that. --В²C ☎ 00:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An interesting example is that Bray, Berkshire is better than Bray on Thames, since it is rarely called "Bray on Thames" in sources and doesn't appear to be its official name either. If the article was titled "Bray on Thames" it would suggest that that's its usual name, while "Bray, Berkshire" makes it clear that its called just "Bray". However We do have Minster-in-Thanet, which does appear to be used frequently (maybe its official name) but "Minster" is used on the OS. The question with Acer, is is "Acer inc" a near equal choice for it, or do we serve readers and editors better by convoying that its called just "Acer".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this comment would be more appropriate at the RM... --В²C ☎ 21:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I have posted my comments about Acer at the talk page, however my comments about the villages were a bit off topic, I was just wandering what you though about them.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No thoughts on villages in particular. In general I do think natural disambiguation should be used only when it’s almost as commonly used as the most common name for the topic. Where exactly that threshold is... I’m not sure. —В²C ☎ 12:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Supervote non-admin close at Talk:Siggiewi_F.C.
B2C sorry but you have a history against Unicode fonts, otherwise known as "diacritics" to some, and have voted for and argued for removal of non-English diacritics in multiple RMs. There was a clear 3-1 in favour of making this Malta article consistent with all other articles, your close didn't make clear your past RM history, didn't address the fact that this article was the exception for Malta articles. Please undo, relist, and then vote oppose and let a neutral admin close the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment, but sure. ✅. —В²C ☎ 08:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but can I suggest you take a permanent break from non-admin closing RMs. You have far too strong views on titling to be doing this. Why not improve articles instead? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since August 2018, they have only made 16 edits that weren't page move related out of 716. I think B2C generally does good work with our titles, but I would (a bit reluctantly) agree to be more careful with closing RMs.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC) To clarify, I was reluctantly making the recommendation that you should be careful, not necessarily suggesting that you reluctantly agree. I don't have a problem with you're closes, but others do and I don't want to see you getting banned from closing any RM discussions.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  15:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I disagree with your view about my views. When Dicklyon agrees with my assessment on an RM involving diacritics, I think that's a strong indication that I've got it right. Perhaps you're not able to comprehend that I'm able to put my own views aside and evaluate RM discussions objectively, but I believe I'm actually quite good at that, and stand by my imperfect-but-relatively-good record. , thanks, but I choose to direct my limited WP time to the area of titles and lately evaluating RM discussions. That's where my knowledge, expertise and interests lie. --В²C ☎ 23:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a close against a 3-1 majority in line with your own views. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Please stop non-admin closing discussions like this. You might be correct (in this case, I actually think you are), but please leave discussions that are contentious to an admin to close.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI
A comment has been made by User:SmokeyJoe that I have repeated you're arguments.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Move_review/Log/2018_November
B2C, what's with the intensity there? "most blatant one I’ve ever seen" "Frankly, I'm disappointed"? What are you trying to accomplish? Is my presence here offensive to you? I feel like in the past I've been quite civil with you; I don't know what did to you to deserve this. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm prone to hyperbole in internet discussion. Nothing personal; my bad. I'll dial it back. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 22:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * . This is obnoxious. You made your point.  You repeated it, repeatedly, verbosely.  Either you are right or wrong.  If right, you are maliciously rubbing someone’s face in it.  If wrong, you are making a real fool of yourself.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. Thanks for letting me know. --В²C ☎ 23:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Go wind back some of the comments, I suggest. Erik does not deserve this grief. It was a difficult close, and the analysis of it is difficult too.  I might have to wind back some of my comment here too.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And there you go again. I had your back several times; you're just being obnoxious now. "don't you get it?" "Thank you for clarifying again that your close was a consensus-reversal WP:SUPERVOTE" "Capeesh? Sheesh!" – really? Why am I getting this from you? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

A recumbent bike for you!

 * Thanks, but you did all the work. Good job! --В²C ☎ 23:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss at article
If you have an interest in opera and wish to contribute to the Project please discuss on the Talk page of the article concerned. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

DS alerts
Re: this, as you are aware, for ArbCom sanctions to apply individuals must be made aware of them. You have never been made aware of BLP sanctions, so I alerted you to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your lack of civility makes working with you highly unpleasant, unhelpful, and unproductive. .  —В²C ☎ 04:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Born2cycle. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: talk page
I'm not replying at this time because I've already made my point and as you pointed out contributed more than enough. I posted at BLPN to get more voices, and they are looking at it. I will likely look at the discussion again later this weekend after more people have had the chance to comment who are not me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's not urgent. Thanks for letting me know. And I apologize again for the revert of your revert. . --В²C ☎ 23:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)