Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Born2cycle

Reinstating here what B2C censored overleaf
Thank you: do not remove feedback just because you don't like it—either here or on the main page. This is WP space, not your own personal kingdom. I note also that you've removed my query on your talkpage without responding to it. ---


 * B2C, you say:
 * "my primary interest on WP is article title stabilization – making title decisions more obvious and less contentious." I believe that more than a little of your activity has reduced stabilisation and made decisions more 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 don't see an increase in consistency, but rather glaring inconsistencies. I see a huge increase in ambiguity for readers.
 * "titles don't really matter much" – they matter a lot to readers-in-search, who are significantly disadvantaged by your aggressive pursuit of what can only be regarded as fringe theories.
 * It all seems worryingly familiar to your sanction in 2012. And there was this revealing post by you in relation to another sanction in 2012, from ArbCom: "I have no idea what to do with this (4) but ignore it. You might as well warn Lance Armstrong to learn to ride his bike faster. I've never been anything but highly receptive to compromise; if anything my efforts to find and build compromise is why I post so much, which is a problem. / I've always always been very tolerant of the views of others. There was no evidence in this case to the contrary, and, AFAIK, none exists. / This whole case was riddled with elements that make no sense like this. What a waste of everyone's time. Very disappointing. / When this process started I had nothing but respect for Arbcom. As a result of their shoddy work, all that is lost. What a shame." Then: ""I've ignored ARBCOM in my time at WP, until this case. No more. That cess pool needs to be drained." Tony   (talk)  04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)