I promise to change in the following ways: 1) Comment less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved (I presume the number of RM discussions in which I'm involved is not the problem), especially when engaged in a dispute. 2) I will be more agreeable and less disagreeable. 3) If I must disagree, I'll try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing. 4) I'll be more careful how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted, which I know occurs often. For example, when I refer to policy I'll be more careful about presenting it in a way that is conveyed as being positive and productive rather than combative. 5) I'll look for signs from others, especially those who have taken the time to commented here, to let me know how I'm doing. 6) I will continue to welcome, and will encourage even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. 7) I will not think, believe, convey or say that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline does not mean there is no problem to address. Thank you.
Feb 2013 AN result
editWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive245#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_Born2cycle
I'm going to preface this close with this: As I say with all of my admin actions, this being no exception, I am agreeable to being reverted by an uninvolved admin if my reading is egregiously wrong or inappropriate. I don't pretend to be the perfect closer with the perfect outcome. What I do do is try to summarize the discussion as neutrally as I can but naturally my own opinions will get mixed in at some level no matter what I do to mitigate that. This topic is obviously contentious and excellent points have been made by both sides by folks who like and dislike B2C.
First, some humor. I noted North8000 said "We have national holidays for people who refused to give up on something when they were initially outnumbered" and it was later quoted by HiLo48 saying "North has made the wisest comment in this thread so far." I just want to point out that others have faced house arrest or worse for the same.
This discussion has centered on two main ideas:
1. Born2Cycle is one of Wikipedia's experts on article titles and is incredibly precise and well verse in Wikipedia policy on the matter. I found very little discussion about him being wrong and even those supportive of the topic ban have mentioned how well he knows his stuff. Several have said that he is usually right.
2. However, even Born2Cycle has said that being right does not excuse being disruptive. WP:TLDR and WP:IDHT behaviors during a discussion and hounding the opposition is not helpful. It discourages uninvolved editors to participate, it raises tensions, and it puts folks in a more defensive mode than collaborative.
I find that there is strong consensus for some kind of sanction. By strong, I mean overwhelming to the opposes. Are many of these folks involved with B2C and unbiased? Perhaps, but since when has that devalued their opinion? Unfortunately, getting B2C to see the light has not solved this problem in the long term. On the other hand, topic banning this user from move discussions and article titles is going to deprive Wikipedia of expertise.
So I'm going to take a little bit of discretion, I apologize, and close with a mix of Option A, Option B, and Option D: Born2Cycle is under a limited discussion ban at the discretion of an uninvolved admin when his behavior becomes counter productive to the discussion. Meaning: An uninvolved admin may ban him from a particular discussion he is involved in on a case by case basis after a warning that can be enforced with a block between 24 hours and the duration of the discussion he is disruptive in. This includes discussions about the close of a move or article titles discussion anywhere on Wikipedia.
I know I took some artistic prerogative in developing the sanction, so if my talk page blows up with opposition then I'll revisit and revert myself. I also realize that I am putting a huge burden on my fellow admins by forcing them to consider each discussion on it's own merits, but there is significant rationale in the below discussion not to ban him from the entire topic or to limit him to a single post. But I think this is a fair compromise that addresses everyone's concerns.--v/r - TP 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Amendment: I was asked to set a time period for this sanction and it was informally and briefly discussed on my talk page. This sanction will automatically expire after 1 year but Born2Cycle can request it be lifted earlier at the community's discretion.--v/r - TP 20:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)