User talk:Born2cycle: Difference between revisions

Coherent reply policy If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

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 [1]. 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¢ 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¢ 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¢ 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)

(edit conflict) 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. B2C spends >95% of his time arguing about move requests rather than actually improving the encyclopedia, so I'd even argue with the claim that he's "here" - but let's see. 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¢ 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)