Wikipedia:Editor review/Born2cycle

Born2cycle
As explained at length on my user page and in my FAQ, I'm an unusual editor in that my primary interest on WP is article title stabilization - making title decisions more obvious and less contentious. By increasing consistency and reducing ambiguity in the policy and guidelines that apply to title decisions, and applying them consistently to our titles, I believe we can greatly reduce the amount of time and energy the entire community spends on title decisions and changes, leaving more time to focus on content... improving the encyclopedia. A key tenet of this view is the recognition that titles don't really matter much. That is, in the vast majority of title decision situations, it really doesn't matter with respect to encyclopedia quality or reader experience whether the article is at one or the other of the titles being considered. So, what is of great value is a system that indicates which title we should pick, ideally so that no matter who is making the decision, the same decision is made. Thus, the bulk of my edits are in this area, striving for progress towards this goal, or at least not moving away from it. This approach is often not appreciated by others, particularly by those who seem to favor more "flexibility" in title decisions, which I see as just opening the door to ambiguity, WP:JDLI arguments and decisions which are based more on the whims of those who happen to participate in a given RM discussion, than any kind of solid reasoning upon which the community is likely to consistently and repeatedly support. When recently claimed the following about me: "frequently blurs distinction between his opinion and community consensus and written policy, he actively seeks to modify policy per his opinions, and to assert policy as written to trump ordinary editors opinions", I asked him to support those claims, or retract. Instead, he suggested I come here, and concurred. So here I am, seeking insight and advice. Thanks! -- B2C 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * As noted above, my primary contributions to Wikipedia are in the area of increasing title stabilization, like strengthening WP:AT and defending WP:CRITERIA from being weakened by those who seek to make the title decision process more flexible. I don't agree with those who believe more flexibility in title decisions can improve Wikipedia, and I see how it can hurt. Making more and more titles subject not only to change or challenge once, but repeated change and challenge, creates more and more ongoing disputes that last for years.  I work for increasing stability mostly by presenting arguments on WP talk pages in discussions about titles, and by participating in RM discussions. Examples of my work are essays like Status quo stonewalling, You can't change the guideline first, User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle and a recent update to WP:UNDAB.  Examples of titles which were controversial and are now stable, which I helped move, include Chicago (from Chicago, Illinois), Hollywood (from Hollywood, California), Sega Genesis (was Sega Genesis and Mega Drive) and Yogurt (was Yoghurt). Yogurt was particularly challenging because a number of people ardently defended the status quo for 7 years, preventing a local consensus from ever forming to support the move. I believe my essay describing the history of that title helped finally achieve the local consensus required to move it.  See Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory.  As I had predicted, once that article was finally moved, it became totally stable, by which I mean not only no more moving, but no more serious challenges to the title.  I continue to believe the controversy could have been settled many years sooner, had closers chosen to weigh the arguments based on how well they meet policy, rather than by counting !votes.  That is the point of User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. I do have article content contributions, particularly in the area of bicycling, but I'm not seeking review of those contributions at this time.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * The objections to my opinions and approach are surprising and often nonsensical to me. It seems some people just think it's really important whether the title is Yoghurt and Yogurt (or whatever).  I just care that the titles are consistent with policy, so that they are not challenged in the future.  A title that is frequently challenged usually indicates a problem: an inconsistency with policy, or an ambiguity in applicable policy.  So that's what I seek to improve in those cases, not to make the title "better".  So I often find myself in disputes with those who believe some title is "better", or those who want to retain or increase ambiguity in title policy and guidelines.  I try my best to focus on arguments and stay away from personal comments, much less personal attacks, as I have pledged to do.  I usually, but not always, succeed on that.
 * 1) What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
 * I seek a review of my editing in the area of WP talk discussions regarding titles, and RM discussions, and related edits on title policy, guidelines and essays. I also feel like those who disagree with me often work against my efforts, like here where many seek to remove a redirect from WP to an essay in user space, which is common and accepted practice. What can I do about that? What I don't seek is advice from those who regularly engage in disputes with me.  I have no interest in adminship at this time.

 Reviews 


 * Sorry, B2C, but I'm with SmokeyJoe on this one. Your goals are laudable, but your methods cringeworthy. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not helpful. What specific methods, and how exactly are they "cringeworthy"?  And why?  --B2C 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BHG sums it up better than I would. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, I have disagreed with you on several occasions, but it would be a long stretch to describe those encounters of several years as "regular". I respect the fact that you hold a particular theory about how article titles should be constructed, and that you believe it to be in accordance with long-established policies. But that is where my respect ends.
 * For all the sincerity of your views, you show no respect for the fact that a substantial body of editors sincerely hold a different view about how to interpret and apply those policies, nor that they do so for good reasons such as consistency (similar articles being named in a similar way). My complaint is not that you disagree with those reasons, which you are fully entitled to do, but that you treat them as obstacles to overcome rather than as contributions to consensus-forming.
 * In this review you write that opposing views appear to you to be "surprising and often nonsensical". That's the core of the problem: you don't seem to be able to accept that there can be more than one form of truth, or more than one reasoned solution.  Even when you are repeatedly in a minority, you don't seem to consider the possibility that those disagreeing with you are sane and rational people who just assess the situation differently.
 * This leads you adopt an approach which amounts to campaigning for a goal, by a strategy of attrition. That involves endlessly rehashing the same proposals, both on the naming of individual pages and on policies.  You post to these discussions with extraordinary frequency and with extraordinary verbosity, drowning out other voices in a wall of text.  There are times when WP:THETRUTH appears to have been written about B2C.
 * This nearly led to sanctions on you at an ANI discussion, which were narrowly avoided by your pledge to reform. That has led to a welcome improvement, but you are still the most prolific and verbose poster at many title-related discussions -- just not by such a huge margin.
 * However, the underlying issue persists. By seeing other editors reasons for taking a different view as "surprising and often nonsensical", you find it hard to assume that they are acting in good faith. This was visible for example at the RFD on redirects to your essay, where you repeatedly queried the good faith of those who opposed you. You could just link directly to your essay when you want to cite it, but instead you prefer to assume a vendetta.
 * This isn't a matter of a few specific steps. It is a matter of how you approach discussions, and how you view those who disagree with you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate that very much.  But again, I'm mystified.  How can you possibly know how I or anyone else views others?  It's not that I don't accept or don't respect that others have different views... I do!  I just believe that we should be able to share and compare the reasons we hold the views that we hold, so that we can decide how much weight to assign to them, and the only way to do that is through discussion.  My record is totally consistent with that.  For example, I often suggest contributions to discussions amount to variations on JDLI.   My point is that merely expressing an opinion is not helpful.  We don't make decisions on WP by polling everyone's opinion and going with the majority.  We solicit reasons, and arguments.  We evaluate.  You can't evaluate opinions.  You can only evaluate reasons and arguments.  And any argument is not necessarily just as good as any other argument.  Often one argument is better than another, for good reasons.  Anyway, that's where my focus is usually. On the arguments, and evaluating them.   --B2C 05:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, all I know is what you write, and you chose to describe the views of those who disagree with you as "surprising and often nonsensical".
 * That's the problem. A debate is an opportunity to engage with the reasoned arguments of those you disagree with.  There are many factors at play in choosing article titles, and others weigh them differently to you.  So long as you persist in regarding opposing views as nonsensical or JDLI, then you will not be participating in a debate; you will simply be trying to declaim WP:THETRUTH. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. In discussions, like this one, I try my best to understand what others are saying.  Otherwise we're just talking past each other.  When I don't understand, or when what others say something that surprises me, or doesn't make sense to me, I say so.  What's wrong with that?  Your criticism of me for doing that, for example, surprises me.  How will they know they're not conveying what they want to say (at least to me), if I don't let them know? And in title discussions, if the comment makes no reference, implied or explicit, to policy, guidelines or conventions, and is just a plain expression of opinion, it's JDLI by definition.  What's wrong with pointing that out?  Maybe I'm wrong, of course.  I might have overlooked something.  But then I can be corrected.  So that's good too.  Again, I don't understand the problem.   --B2C 20:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I may: the problem is that you too often dismiss others' positions as JDLI even when they do reference policy, guidelines, conventions, or other reasonable bases. I and other editors have pointed this out before.  Per BHG's point about "the truth", this gives the impression that you believe that only your own interpretation of these views is valid, which then pushes discussion into unhelpful areas.  Though less frequent, assertions of "status quo stonewalling" even when there are valid objections to a change falls into the same category.  Others may hold valid opposing opinions that differ from yours, resting on a differing interpretation or weighting of policies or guidelines, and it would be better to respect these views as different rather than dismiss them as lesser or baseless.  To be clear, that doesn't mean that there are never baseless arguments (there are), but the point is that an argument is not baseless or mere JDLI simply because it may vary from your own reading and weighting of policy.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be more careful about not labeling positions as JDLI when they are based in policy, guidelines or conventions. Thanks.  --B2C 14:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed this in passing after another case of heavily editing an essay (in this case WP:UNDAB) and again citing it (at Talk:Mosquito County). My main observation would be that you don't actually contribute to articles much, edit count shows Article	3076	14.21% while Talk 35.83% User talk 11.27% Wikipedia 9.29% Wikipedia talk 26.53%. I do not think I have seen any other editor with such a large imbalance between not contributing and spending so much time telling other editors what to do. I would also say that you are out of touch with article creators and article contributors in the area you spend most of your time - article title policy. In sum "leaving more time to focus on content... improving the encyclopedia." would be best done by doing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The current post on Talk:Plymouth, and pipelinking of "Perfect example of applying the yogurt principle" after Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_7 is I'm afraid another example of exactly User:BrownHairedGirl's comment above, but comes several days after BrownHairedGirl made the point? What's the point of an Editor Review? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection, . What words of  mean to you that I should not pipelink to my essay?  --B2C 15:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, how is anything I said at the RM discussion at Talk:Plymouth supposed to be an example of what BHG is talking about (a discussion that she coincidentally closed)? I remain mystified by what she said anyway, as explained above.  She complains about my views of others, which she knows nothing about.   I note that none of my follow-up questions or points were addressed.  --B2C 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I just noted above, you yourself explained that you regard the views of others as "surprising and often nonsensical". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I don't regard the views of others as "surprising and often nonsensical".  It's not a deliberate act on my part, nor did I comment about anyone else's views.   I'm saying the stated objections to my views surprise me and often don't make sense to me.  It's a reference to the content of objections made to my views.  This is an example of that.  I honestly don't see anything that you wrote above that means I should not pipelink to my essay.  Yet   claims that pipelinking is "another example of exactly [your] comment above. "  That objection surprises me, and makes no sense to me.  Does it make sense to you?   Do you believe you wrote anything that means I should not pipelink to my essay?  If so, what are those words, exactly?  --B2C 20:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I really question why you actually this review, given your responses here. Anytime anyone has any input for you, you say you're "mystified", or that you "don't understand the problem", or words to that effect. This is part of the problem: that you refuse to acknowledge its very existence. Yet you say you seek insight and advice. Please accept them when they are offered. Omnedon (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. I came here with the intention of offering constructive criticism, but I'm not going to waste my breath. Deb (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See, I don't understand this either, . When someone says something that I don't understand, I say so, and explain why I don't understand.  How is that refusing "to acknowledge its very existence"? Saying I don't understand X is acknowledging X, as much as I can.  Here you're criticizing me for doing exactly what I'm doing now, "Anytime anyone has any input for you, you say you're "mystified", or that you "don't understand the problem", or words to that effect.".  Well, I don't understand.  I honestly don't understand why saying I'm mystified or that I don't understand, or words to that effect, is not acknowledging what the other person is saying in general, or how in particular I'm not acknowledging what you're saying here.   I am truly mystified.  Can you acknowledge that?   Can someone else explain?  ? Here's the thing.   Internet communication is wrought with misunderstanding.  I see it time and time again, in email, on forums, on Facebook, and in WP communications.  A says something.  B misunderstands, and off they go on some crazy tangent.  That's what I'm trying to avoid.  That's why I want to be sure I understand what the other is saying without making any possibly wrong assumptions, and, when I don't, I say so.  I do it to aid communication.  I mean, if we're discussing something, I assume you're trying to convey something to me just as I'm trying to convey something to you.  When I get it, I acknowledge.  When I don't get it, I NACK, along with an explanation of what I got out of it, and what I didn't, just as I'm doing here.  I presume (perhaps that's my mistake) that if you really want to convey whatever it is, you will take what I say and figure out why I didn't get it in the first place, and explain it so that I hopefully do get it.  What's wrong with that?   --B2C 14:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been told what the problem is in various way. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. Saying, "I'm mystified" is not an acknowledgement. Let me try to summarize the problems as briefly as possible. You doggedly repeat points over and over again in discussions, bludgeoning people over the head with them. You seem unable to accept that other editors can have reasonable views that disagree with yours. You tend to express that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong -- not just at odds with your opinion, but just plain wrong. In the case of the recent HRC debate, you even accused a panel of three admins of having bias in their decision and essentially being part of the opposition. Basically, when there is disagreement, you make things unpleasant for people. Discussion is vital here, but where you are involved, the discussions tend to go on and on and on, because you can't abide by what you've pledged to do in the past: among other things, to comment more briefly and less often. You've been warned about these things on many occasions. Please heed the warnings. As Omnedon (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have probably agreed with B2c about individual naming issues at least as often as I've disagreed with him, but what has nearly always struck me is the hugely exaggerated, dogged insistence and perseverance he displays in these renaming debates, and his utter inability to gracefully accept outcomes that go against his opinions. Article title questions on Wikipedia, just as style issues, have the unfortunate tendency that they attract passions quite disproportionate to the importance of the issues – the "yoghurt" case is probably among the most absurd among these. For an editor to focus all his energies into exactly these cases, and continuing to argue over some of them to the extent B2c usually does, is unhealthy, and often serves to fan flames and increase the heat quite unnecessarily. I have long thought that even though his opinions and his take on policies are often well worth considering, the overall effect of the sheer volume of his contributions is a net negative. If B2c wishes to avoid the long-term prospect of a topic ban from all move debates (which is something I can clearly see on the horizon), he would do well to impose some reasonable measure of self-discipline: let's say, no more contribution to any one move debate than one single !vote statement, and abstention from all further threaded debate. If his recommendations are as clearly and unambiguously based on policy as he believes they are, such a single statement ought to get his point across just fine and ought to be powerful enough to sway other observer's opinions reliably. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Much appreciated. --B2C 20:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this is an interesting exercise: B2C opens an editor review, "seeking insight and advice" ... and then dismisses virtually every response (even the well meaning and courteous comments from BrownHairedGirl) with argumentation or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In question #2, where you were asked if you had even been in editing disputes, you conveniently forgot to mention that you have been warned by ArbCom, threatened with a topic ban on move discussions at AN, and placed under warning after a second AN discussion. The problems with your editing approach have been explained to you many, many, many times, but you continue to be "surprised and somewhat mystified" why so many people have a problem with your style. I can't say it any better than ArbCom did back in 2012: "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." Omnedon and Future Perfect at Sunrise have given you good advice; please hear it. You do have good points to make and it would be a shame if you exhausted everyone's patience to the point of getting topic banned. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * user:B2C is one of the treasures of Wikipedia, a rare individual  who does not judge a book by its cover. He is not prone to participate in personal  wp:dramah, and concentrates instead on principles. He is just as likely to take the side of clueless individuals, such as myself, as he is to to support people with a ton of credentials. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)