User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

On the indef, what led up to it, and hopefully undoing it without the albatross being made of lead

I've given this some thought (after not noticing the case and the outcome – I was on a long wikibreak during all this), and did a lot of looking, and now a lot of quite detailed analysis of the discussions TonyB provided as evidence (aside from the RM, which someone else astutely summed up as a "shitshow"). I'm inclined to support an unblock (with looser conditions (e.g., a less extensive topic ban, with a fixed time limit that's reasonable) [The supposed conditions to return are procedurally invalid] without any restrictive conditions. Not an admin, I feel I have a weak form of "ex officio standing" to suggest this because of my lengthy but for a long time unhappy history with this editor. I'm not leaping to the defense of my wiki-BFF, by any means.

I can see why TonyBallioni concluded what he did, and why ArbCom went along with it. But I don't think the current situation is the right outcome. In my tenure here, I've had way more than my share of RM/AT/DAB disputes with Born2cycle, including getting 2 of his more "remake WP title policy in my own image" essays MfDed several years go. Not all that long before this Sarah Jane Brown-related dispute broke out, I made a testy response to him in an ANI (a case mostly about someone else - not the one about B2c that TonyB cited at AE). My STFU feeling was predicated on assumptions that he was "up to his old tricks" (which is what it looked like to me), i.e. still pursuing exactly the same agendas as in the old essays, and I ended up suggesting a topic ban similar to the one now in effect.

He responded very reasonably and suggested I look at the last couple years of his RM record more closely and see if my assessment was the same. So I did. And it wasn't. While B2c is a self-assured and somewhat boisterous debater, I can't fault him for that, since I am one, too. He's advocating some shifts in policy, and some particular policy interpretations – but they're much more reasonable ones today than 5 or so years ago. Don't we all do that? Consensus can change. WP policy is created and molded by us, not by an external authority (WP:OFFICE-created policies excepted). The real fault is in not getting it that WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURALDAB, etc., aren't inflexible rules. That can't be sustained indefinitely. But even if it were, he'd hardly be alone in having a wacky policy idea, or (importantly) that one in particular. RM is totally overrun with people who insist COMMONNAME is chief among the CRITERIA, but it is not one at all (just go check; it's the default name to pick to first test against the actual 5 criteria; nothing more.) Unfortunately, too many RM closers are under that delusion themselves, or will not correct/discount it in others (which has the same effect on their close). I think most of the regular admin closers are not in that camp, but we have lots of WP:RMNAC going on, and some of it's ass-backwards. (Maybe I should do WP:MR more often; I usually just wait and RM months later, and have about a 90% success rate.)

Anyway, TonyB's not nuts to perceive something like a tendentious forum-shopping pattern to relitigate the latest RM (and – yes! – the last one for a good long while, due to the moratorium) at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown; that might even be a natural initial conclusion to come to, given B2c's rather high-profile participation in the RM and the dispute he raised about it at User talk:TonyBallioni. If the content's not examined closely, it can look like "Didn't get my way there, so try here; nope, okay try there; damnit, let's try over here then."

But a close examination doesn't actually support this view in my eyes, as much as I kind of expected it to. It looks to me like the sanctions were largely issued on that basis, not on the basis that B2c is misinterpreting a policy point and being reluctant to be disabused of the misinterpretation. So, it's worth looking into whether that basis is solid.

WT:DAB thread

If you read Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 47#Criteria for determining whether someone is "commonly called X" for WP:NATURALDIS, it does appear to be exactly what he said it was: an interpretation and do-we-need-to-clarify question posed for open discussion, at the forum probably most relevant for asking it, and with a lot of quality commentary all around. I was prepared to vehemently disagree with what he said there, and ended up agreeing with a lot of it, at least in theory/principle, if not at the pragmatics level (in an earlier 2017 discussion at WT:DAB, I proposed a "just declare by community fiat there can be rare exceptions for particular reasons and provide some RM-based examples, put it all in a footnote, and be done with it" approach, which I think is more practical. The cure for rulebook thumping is to burn down the idea that it is a rulebook.) While the SJB article is used an example, and B2C doesn't hide anything about it being the inspiration for the question, and he and others do discuss and even argue about it a little, it's not a relitigation of the outcome at all, and it didn't derail the discussion (even if policy didn't change as a result of it, either – but when does that ever happen, on the first try, right after a controversy?). B2c makes various valid, perhaps even important, points in that thread, that we don't talk and think enough about, much less do anything to resolve, like how much WP may be skewing names in the real world. (Also raised in the big WT:RM thread below, which was actually earlier; he brought it up in a very valid counter to something someone said there about the alleged sourceability of an uncommon but real name.)

The sprawling WT:RM thread

This'll necessarily be lengthy, even if I skip over large swathes of that material.

At Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 30#Closers: Determining CONSENSUS rather than "consensus", I see what is basically a WP:ESSAY. That is, B2c could put the bulk of that initial post an in an essay page and copyedit a bit, then if someone took it to MfD it would be kept (I would know; I've tried to MfD a number of essays, and it's remarkably difficult to get a result more stringent than a userspacing, even for pages that do nothing but attack WP itself and its editorial pool). Some bits of it are critical of the judgement/priorities of the close (and thus of the closers), but it's really mild compared to a lot of people's outright rants about "badmins" and so on. It quickly gets back to a reasoned and reasonable point: '[I]n practice, I think closers are far too reluctant to override consensus of the participants by consensus of the community "as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions", whenever there is a conflict.' This is actually a quite common view (not just about RM closers, admin or otherwise, but also about RfC closures (admin or NAC), and about various admin decision-making actions). More to the point, the reasoning in it is entirely policy-correct; it's the very reason we have WP:CONLEVEL. The big post is, of course, also laced with his view that the SJB close was against policy, and I'm skeptical there's much support for that conclusion (not from me anyway; I agree with the close in most respects, even if it picked my 3rd-place option [now 4th, because we have a WP:ABOUTSELF source of Brown identifying in "First (Maiden) Marriedname" form, so we could and arguably should use it]. It's not a wiki-crime to talk about a decision you disagree with.

The thread isn't asking anyone to overturn anything, it's a [pointed] suggestion to change approach in the future. He says things like "the proper way to build consensus and stable titles is", and "a different approach is required" (why not "an effective way", "a different approach could work better?"). But this is just an attempt at persuasive writing, of putting forth a strong proposition for others to try to refute; people do that on WP day in and day out. Then he provides a bunch of examples (i.e. evidence, though it can be interpreted multiple ways, as SmokeyJoe pointed out) of where his approach has allegedly worked well [I lean toward the critical side, which is why there's a been a lot of bad blood between me and B2c]. He praises the HRC closure (which is very, very different from the SJB one despite the same triumvirate format). While I have no serious criticism of the SJB one, he's correct, in my view, that the HRC one was exemplary [though it doesn't match Clinton's current preferences and thus may need to be revisited in 2018 – ABOUTSELF is again relevant], and that it illustrates the principle his post is about. Whether B2c's own list of past alleged success do is a different question. This idea was dismissed unnecessarily rudely, so I'd forgive him the snipe back at SmokeyJoe; it takes two.

After lots of typical multi-party WP bickering, he asks something entirely reasonable and that a lot of people would agree is important, but which is rarely articulated: "What is it about our process that allows these disputes to go on and on without resolution, when the stable title, policies and corresponding arguments were available to us from the beginning?" His answer: "I think it's because participants all too often ignore NPOV and offer JDLI or WIKILAWYERed rationalizations ... and closers pay too much attention to consensus of participants and not enough to CONSENSUS of community ..." (redundant detailia elided). A shipload of RM regulars would agree with this completely. I might even bet money that a majority of them would. This central issue might just come down to: if B2c makes this point in a dozen venues per day, then we have a problem. But he didn't do anything like that. JzG (Guy) makes a solid point that B2c's "win" with Big Ben may have been a bad result. Lots of random discussion elided. B2c makes another reasonable if wishful point: "The idea is that [we] don't anticipate every possible scenario, but instead distill general principles of [naming] that can be applied effectively in any scenario, including scenarios not yet anticipated." While that's not a practical call to action, it makes sense as a WP:NOTPERFECT ideal. (AT and DAB, like MoS, actually aim in this direction, they're just not all that close to the goalpost.) As someone (not B2c) said in the WT:DAB thread, the main problem may be that COMMONNAME is too stringently worded and no longer codifies actual practice (all the time).

Lots more blather. Then SmokeyJoe says something rude, but interesting: "B2C’s dellusions are universally disagreed with". Taken much more literally than SJ intended it, it's probably true that no one agrees with all of B2c's AT/DAB platform where it's gets off-kilter ... yet not all of what he says is delusional, and plenty of editors may agree with parts of the well-reasoned, non-activistic stuff, and some of them aren't trivial. wbm1058 (like others on other days) pegs why B2c's overall framework for this stuff is sideways: 'Title characteristics (e.g. "naturalness") should be seen as goals, not as rules. Stop insisting that they be seen as rules.' Until that happens (and maybe it already did, see below), the whole package won't make any sense. It's a shame because B2c's insights are sometimes spot-on, but it's a bit like getting an iPhone 8, then trying to use it as a kitchen utensil. The frequent return to arguing about how so-and-so name can't really be common is tiresome. But every single day I'm on-site, I have to deal with WP:IDHT that exceeds it, from multiple parties. There are many, many people on WP who are convinced that some particular line item, or even entire page, of a policy or guideline is WRONG, and some of them have been pushing this angle for longer than my 12.5-ish years here. If people think B2c sucks up too much of their time, stop arguing with him, other than where you have a !vote to cast. (That's what I did, until one flare up last year that I felt righteous about, and I turned out not to be.)

When we finally get to the last subsection of that mega-thread, there's an interesting-all-around discussion. Even the minor bits of incivility on both sides are gone. We can detect another flaw in B2c's argument: He's sure that objecting to "(wife of ...)" on sexism grounds is a WP:NPOV problem, but of course it's not, because that policy is about encyclopedia content (including article title content), but does not in any way regulate editor's opinions and socio-politics, or what rationales they can offer in talk. It's an infrequently discussed but clear principle that the core content policies do not constrain the consensus-formation process. Much of what we do on talk pages, for example, is original research in a sense (e.g. deciding whether a source is reliable enough, doing our own frequency analyses of usage to figure out what the common name is, subjectively and unevenly deciding whether something's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and so on). While it's a major flaw in B2c's reasoning, it's basically inescapable, so I would expect him to absorb this if he hasn't already.

The 2 March WT:RM post

Permalink. It think that "We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one" is being sorely mis- and over-interpreted, though it was not a good word choice. In a WP:AGF reading, the meaning of the entire passage is actually very clear (though I don't buy all of it): 'Having one weird exception isn't a good idea or well justifiable: in part because exceptions to approaches that serve us well weaken their ability to do so; in part because it doesn't generalize even to similar cases. [I.e., it's a recipe for more and more odd exceptions.] One approach to resolution would be to change the natural disambiguation policy wording. Another would be to pick a parenthetic disambiguation, but it's unclear how to make one appealing enough to gain consensus.' It's not reasonable to spin what he wrote in the worst possible way, especially when a less "conspiracy theory" reading makes much more sense. Cf. Ockham's razor.

The 6 March WT:DAB post

Permalink. I don't see anything untoward here. While there is another of the hyperbolic "it's indisputable" comments, grandiosity isn't against policy. Nor is calling out rationalization (a criticism of an argument, not a person), though it may not be a correct criticism. The message is actually noteworthy, because B2c finally changes gears, and stops talking about "rules" and instead (twice) couches it in terms of "our conventions" (i.e. our weighty record of consensus decisions), and "our policies". This is actually a major step forward compared his rhetoric in the huge-ass debate.

Conclusion

In short, this is not the same Born2cycle I used to love to ... well, at least gnash my teeth about very frequently. Sure, he'll argue until blue in the face, and some of his policy interpretations are way off in left field, but that verges on a norm around here, especially over AT/RM/MOS trivia the rest of the would couldn't give a damn about. His temperament in it all has vastly improved (even if he can sometimes wander into WP:BLUDGEON territory, and his certainty that his policy ideas are The Future is a bit eye-roll-inducing). When being pilloried at AE, his responses were quite reasoned, which is uncommon for someone supposed to be a flaming, loose-cannon disruptor. It's almost like the apparition of his old reputation was what got indeffed and TBANned, like a wicker effigy. When I think back on someone who had to be TBANned from MoS, the disruption level of that party was an order of magnitude greater, with very frequent actual policy violations, not just a general vague sense of being garrulous, and not just tedious and irritating like this same over-literal AT interpretation is.

All that said, I think a more limited and not-forever TBAN would be reasonable [not without a community or ArbCom decision, since DS don't apply]. Bludgeoning the RM and then not wanting to take no for an answer on a closer's talk page isn't constructive. The DR procedure for such stuff is to request that the closer reconsider, not to savage their ankles all day. (In B2c potential defense, Amakuru in the same thread was also raising NATURLADAB repeatedly, and making many of the same pro-parenthetical points as B2c. This basically provided "thread points" that encouraged continued related discussion/argument on the matter by B2c and numerous other parties. It's not like this was just TonyB having a nice day then B2c showing up to, by himself, hammer-post at Tony 50 times. And the final commenter in that thread was way more hostile [I won't ping him, because we don't get along much, and I don't need new drama with him]. Same editor also made what looks like a completely a valid point about WP:NCDAB misinterpretation, though a moot one, since it wouldn't have led to a different overall outcome at the RM. I get a sense of B2c being scapegoated a bit for TonyB's talkpage blowing up.

Of all that I've looked at in this case, the RM over-commenting (and "but I'm right and you're not getting it" approach), the failure to absorb some policy points after others made them objectively clear, and then the excessive posting at Tony's user talk page, are the only material that actually reminds me at all of the B2c I thought should get indeffed several years ago. People change, but they don't utterly transform in every way. Still, it's all way milder than he was back then, and he did have some good input, into discussions that were not actually useless at all, and were in proper venues for them.

PS: I find wbm1058's "You guys have done an exemplary job" high-fiving in the block notice thread rather difficult to distinguish from "grave-dancing". I'm suspecting it may have referred to the RM close rather than the AE; a belated clarification might be in order.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: The block, and the imposed restrictions as a condition to return, appear to be completely invalid, because of the February 2017 narrowing of WP:ARBATC scope to WP:AT, WP:MOS and their own talk pages. More on this below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Followup comments

• @SMcCandlish: you have pinged me into a matter that had passed me by completely - I thought the SJB issue had died a natural death for the time being, but I didn't notice that it had taken B2C to the grave along with it. That's kind of sad, because for all his passion and bluster he did have a good grasp of the spirit of our naming conventions, and at times an ability to achieve results through persistence that would otherwise have never been resolved. Like the infamous yogurt debate for example. I think the reason that SJB rankled with B2C so much is that it is (in my view anyway) a fairly clear yogurt case in its own right. The name "Sarah Jane Brown" just doesn't fit with any other naming scheme used on Wikipedia, and exists only for WP:IAR sorts of reasons, because people shy away from calling her Gordon's wife, and we haven't yet agreed on any other description for her. I was not particularly pleased with the RM outcome, and I think it's an issue that will be revisited again and again, like it or not, until a more stable title is found. But in my case I dropped the stick and moved on, with a vague intention of coming back in a year or two to try again. B2C evidently took the wrong approach and continued flogging when emotions were still raw, and paid the price.

But anyway, reading your essay here, I think SMcCandlish you talk a lot of sense. I hope that if B2C ever requests an unblock, then an approach of this nature can be taken on board, and that we can see more of the "new" B2C and less of the "old". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I pinged you because I'd mentioned your input by name, not to re-spark any debate about that RM. :-) Reopening the SJB squabbling is the last thing on my mind. I'm quite happy about the move moratorium, and I think the years of re-re-re-re-re-re-RM crap about that article is one of the WP:LAMEst things I've ever seen in my wiki-life. Something like that can turn editors into "anti-style" people who rant against our naming, disambiguation, and style P&G (and frequently verbally attack AT/MoS editors. Readers who run into such threads can be turned off from becoming editors, and even occasionally press people can take notice of such argumentum ad nauseam debates and write hatchet-jobs on the project and the community. I just don't like seeing single editors get scapegoated for unwise disputes like he SJB mess. Ironically, B2c is almost certainly correct that if there was an arbitrary parenthetical DAB at that page (birth year or whatever) that the title disputes would have stopped (whether or not anyone agree with his "rules"-based arguments to going parenthetic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: "edit conflict"; when you pinged me with that, I was in the middle of writing THIS. Which kind of relates to this. I don't understand the accusations of "gravedancing". Maybe I misunderstand what that term means. I am distinctly uncomfortable with how this case has played out, and am definitely not celebrating Born2cycle's continued absence. I've actually been considering bold administrative action on this case for some time now, and probably would have done something sooner if I had more confidence that it could be done "under the radar". I will read your note above now, as I've replied before fully reading it. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  An albatross is a cute-looking bird that only flies over the ocean (but not the North Atlantic)... which explains why I've never seen one. That's the primary topic, but in my mind the metaphor is primary. If you asked me yesterday what an albatross is, I probably would have responded that it's a burden, not a bird. So, if B2C was a bird who was following the RM, as one of the captains of that ship, yes, I've been feeling a bit of guilt for having "shot" that bird... wbm1058 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  Given past disputes with ornithology people, I probably should have linked Albatross (metaphor) in the heading! Heh. I have now done so for clarity, joking aside.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  Right, regarding THIS, saying "You guys have done an exemplary job", in hindsight, is something I shouldn't have said and would like to retract. I don't recall exactly what I was thinking at the time, though I recall feeling pretty exhausted by the process at that point. I don't recall whether I even thoroughly read all that; regardless I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement. wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  I wasn't sure it wasn't just about the RM close, which is why I asked (and said "is rather difficult to distinguish from" not just "is").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  The AE request was for enforcement of the March 2012 warning 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 and Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means. I'm not sure how much of his behavior is enforceable under AE, but nonetheless Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. B2C has already been blocked for well over a month. The actual block wasn't based on AE though – the rationale was a violation of WP:DE. Under WP:DE § Dealing with disruptive editors:

  • Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours.
  • Accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely.

  I don't think anyone believes B2C intends to be primarily disruptive, and this block has long since gone beyond 24 hours. I think it's time to unblock, and I don't see where WP:DE has provisions for requiring the editor to agree to terms for an unblock. WP:Blocking policy says blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. It just goes against the WP:DE guideline for warnings and then escalating blocks that the first block in his log was indefinite. I don't believe this block needs to remain in place to prevent disruption. I'm hoping that B2C will choose to quietly return within a few weeks or months. wbm1058 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  I would agree with this. I think it's long enough now, and as you say, the punishment has already been harsher than a simple 1st strike arbitration enforcement would have implied. I'm not sure if we should wait for some sort of input from B2C himself though? He has apparently gone completely radio-silent since his blocking, and did not respond at all to this conversation, which expressly put the ball into his court. That discussion also suggested imposing some restrictions on his editing if/when he was unblocked, for example limiting his RM participation to a simple support or oppose on individual RMs and no more. But it's not clear if he's still around or monitoring any of this. @Born2cycle: talk to us!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  I took a one-year wikibreak once, and turned off notifications. I only came back to deal with this or that little matter if someone e-mailed me directly (and I cared). I don't see an "Email this user" link here, so he'll have to come back on his own. That said, it wasn't my intent to start up some "Let's hear B2c re-plead his case again" thing. Rather, it's meta-analysis of the evidence and disciplinary consequences, and a suggestion that it went too far, as might have the pile of "you can only come back if" restrictions proposed. The restrictions themselves might even be sensible, but only if limited to 6 months or something. Or maybe a much narrower set of restrictions that's indefinite. Heavy restrictions that are indefinite is unjust overkill.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The block and "return sanctions" are actually invalid on their face

I didn't get into the "litigation" of the AE, but on review now, I do have serious problems with it:

1. While B2c has exhibited difficulty accepting that (overall) the community and WP policy itself don't agree with him on two points (that the AT/DAB line-items are hard-and-fast rules and that WP:NPOV applies to editors' talk-page reasoning), both the WT:DAB and WT:RM threads actually demonstrate quite clearly a "better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors", especially given the frequency with which certain editors used ad hominem attacks against him, while he kept returning to posing on-topic questions/issues and presenting and defending possible solutions to them. Not ideal, in that he generally wants to see his ideas implemented and finds flaws in most alternatives, but one post singled out as evidence actually clearly proposes two paths (of adjusting policy wording about natural disambiguation to make the RM result less in conflict with it, or finding some way to make one of the parenthetic DABs palatable enough to pass), while the other single post that was supposedly a smoking gun shows him abandoning his "rules" approach and converting to a community consensus one.
2. More importantly, ArbCom itself explicitly limited WP:ARBATC's discretionary sanctions scope to AT and MoS and their talk pages. I had urged for some time that if we're going to keep ARBATC DS [which we shouldn't], they should apply to RM, which is where 95% of the "style warrior" disruption is, and someone else made it an official ARCA request. It was rejected and the original ARBATC scope was instead sharply narrowed. This means that the RM itself, the user talk thread, and the WT:RM and WT:DAB threads are not subject to ARBATC DS. It's not even a question of whether they might be; it's unmistakably clear that they are not.

In short, I think B2c got railroaded, because he's irritated a bunch of people (I would know, since he used to piss me off on a weekly basis) who wanted to muzzle him. They didn't have a procedural basis to do so, so they just made one up, directly against the Feb. 2017 narrowing of ARBATC DS scope. It was a bait-and-switch or shell-game approach: Everyone gets riled up at AE; AE's DS hammer doesn't actually apply; so just use a vague DE handwave rationale and impose sanctions even though AE's potential jurisdiction ended the moment they realized that the scope of the RFARB case under which this was brought does not actually encompass the discussions/pages reported as the evidence.

While the blocker in this case, Dennis Brown, disclaimed it being an AE or DS block, he uses the AE request as the sole basis for it, so that's basically meaningless semantic game-playing. None of the admins suggesting this version or that version of sanctions to impose as a condition for B2c return have any actual basis on which to impose them, because they have no DS to wield here, and the community did not impose such sanctions, nor a block. There is nothing else they can be other than invalid discretionary sanctions, being applied where DS are not authorized, and being mislabeled something other than DS. I'm of half a mind to open yet another WP:ARCA request about ARBATC just to overturn this nonsense, despite the fact that B2c is one of the editors I have gotten along with the worst for a decade. It really is that much an of unbecoming fiasco.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that the basis for the block was tendentious editing, a specific form of disruptive editing, and that the DE guideline suggests escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours, I believe a 3-month first block is of sufficient duration, and is well beyond the norm for a first block. I would like to avoid further arbitration or litigation of this case, which doesn't strike me as a productive use of time given the nearly three-month absence of this editor. The blocking editor stated, "any admin may unblock them with any condition". Therefore, I have unblocked Born2cycle. I am not setting any specific conditions, but only suggest that B2C follow his own PROPOSAL: 'what if I agreed to comment usually only once per RM and in any title-related discussion on policy/guideline/style talk pages, and never more than three times, not including correct edits? "Usually" would mean that more than half of two or more participations in such discussions over any given period of time. For example, if I commented more than once in 5 out of the last 8 such discussions, I would be in violation.' Please exercise some restraint when you choose to return, or, as you should by now be aware, another block or sanctions are likely. wbm1058 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Gone?

B2C gone - looking (cursorily) at the discussion, I can see why. Sadly, we, on Wikipedia, have this nasty habit of kicking out editors with ideas that, though made in good faith, don't always fit with those of mainstream editors and that's probably not good for the long term health of this encyclopedia. B2C, I hope you can make your way back. --regentspark (comment) 14:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That does not account for the corrosive effect of those who campaign relentlessly and who drive away good editors with wall after wall of repetitive text. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, but John, most of know that terms like "corrosive" and "relentless" and "wall after wall of repetitive text" are what B2C was known for. We can miss him anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. And some of us (or one of us anyway!) feel that Wikipedia will be the poorer by their absence. Even, like I say above, while understanding why B2C was kicked out. Inconsistent, I know, but then, as the quote goes, foolish consistency yada, yada, yada. --regentspark (comment) 00:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no evidence any other editor has been driven away from Wikipedia by B2c. I've had more complaints about B2c over the years that probably even Dicklyon has; one of the two of us surely holds the record for it (and notably Dick's and B2c's own conflict rate has plummeted in recent years, as has that between B2c; he really has been changing). The issue here is (as I detailed above) the block and sanctions aren't actually procedurally valid, and the evidence presented doesn't support most of the actual claims that were made at all. B2c can be a thorn in the side, and a bit of a broken record, but that's not grounds for what was done to him, which has pretty grave implications. If it's not corrected, it'll be a strong signal that anyone can take someone to AE with insufficient evidence, made a WP:AC/DS claim that is unquestionably out of scope, and then as long as another admin also thinks the accused is annoying, the person can be blocked in a DS action when no DS apply, just by pretending it's not a DS action. It's essentially the same as being pulled over for "driving while black" by off-duty cops who aren't even in their own jurisdiction, searched by one for contraband, then when none is actually found, being shot in the face by the other cop for "failure to comply with officer instructions, ha ha". Well, fuck that noise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

He's been blocked/gone for 88 days – just shy of 3 months. No telling how a long-term editor will react after their first block. Just a few days after B2C's first and only block another long-time editor was first-time blocked for just 48 hours and responded to that by requesting a courtesy vanishing. I think almost everyone expected that an editor characterized as "a clear-cut embodiment of the tendentious editing mentality" would not just walk away without responding, though the multiple examples of his reverts of others' edits to this page given at AE perhaps gave a hint. I'm glad that Dicklyon eventually chose to return after an even longer absence. wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

To be honest though, if B2C had been topic-banned from move discussions (which would have been the obvious outcome of the AE), that's effectively a block anyway, because he does practically nothing else apart from argue about article naming. If B2C comes back, accepts the topic ban and starts being productive in other areas, then that's great. But we can't have stuff like the Sarah Brown thing again, where he actually claimed that her name - as printed in official government documents - wasn't her actual name at all... Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You must've worked up a thirst. Welcome back. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No confidence

I’ll begin by saying I enjoyed reading your user page and the quotes you compiled. I particularly appreciated the one by Blaise Pascal which I intend to use on my TP. Thank you for sharing. Secondly, I was hoping to engage you a bit further in the no-confidence position and what you thought the community could do to effect real change? I began a discussion at Jimbo’s page and the input is pretty much what I expected. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look but my perspective comes from being a huge believer in the rule of law over the rule of man, on WP as well as in real life. And I'm about equally frustrated in both realms with the lack of appreciation for the distinction by many. --В²C ☎ 16:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but even with the rule of law, we're still subjected to being judged. We need a better system of checks and balances on WP in order to prevent the injustices that arise from having a single person acting as judge, jury and executioner. I am also concerned that complacency has become somewhat of an issue among the higher ranks. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. I didn't mean to sound like I've given up hope. There's plenty of room for real improvement. But in my experience the main problem I see is the use of "consensus" as an excuse to practice tyranny by the majority. --В²C ☎ 16:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

SEE ALSO: [1] --В²C ☎ 16:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Colorado Springs

How is it that these US City move discussions always close as "No consensus", yet the discussion 10 years ago that saddled us with the stupid AP rule managed to get a consensus once, enough to change the previous guideline, but never again? Odd how these things see to happen that way. - BilCat (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Names

You might want to note Potterton what has several people with the last name yet no one has created a DAB or even a hatnote. As I pointed out the same can apply to places such as Hallingbury and Glemham. See the views for Langstone [[2]] which also Michelle had no hatnote as well as Cranham. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:AE

The following discussion has been started about your editing; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Born2cycle Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinged

You pinged me from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Morrissey_(footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=859259485

Why are you pinging me? Do you want an answer? Are you trying to make a point? Audiences of two topics having no overlap whatsoever is a big step to deciding there may be an astonishment factor. We have discussed this lengthily before. I am guessing that you are either feigning ignorance, or that you are committed to disregarding such considerations and so quickly forget them. I don’t mind being pinged with a question, but could you make more effort to ask a reasonable question. Note that in the discussion I had not committed to a position in the proposal. As often, it is a borderline case, not black and white. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If I refer to someone's statement, I normally tag them like that, so they are notified and have the opportunity to respond, if they wish. ASTONISH is a style consideration for article content. It is referenced at PT, but ironically in a reference to how Anne Hathaway refers to the modern-day actress rather than to Shakespeare's wife. Wouldn't someone searching for her be just as astonished to land on the actresses's page as someone searching for the singer when landing on the footballer's page? I mean, any time there is an ambiguous term if one of the uses is a primary topic you're almost certain to astonish anyone searching for any of the non-primary uses, unless the primary topic is widely notable (like Paris, or John Wayne). But primary topics are not limited to such widely known topics at all. Topics are primary for a given term not if they are particularly notable in general (to the public at large), but if they are particularly likely to be sought with that term relative to the other uses of that term. So a topic for an ambiguous term that is relatively obscure in general is still the primary topic, if the other uses of that term are all significantly more obscure. In this case the other use is highly unlikely to be sought by anyone using the full name of the person, so it doesn't seem gray at all to me. --В²C ☎ 23:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, OK. I don't think you made you made meaningful comment to my tentative comment. There is some possibility of astonishment, and a dab page wont hurt. Not sure if you implied that there should not be a dab page?

Astonishment is definitely a consideration, and in some RMs has carried the day. I'm not sure if you are attempting to argue that it should never be considered?

You have a number of times raised Anne Hathaway in reference to ASTONISH. I find that odd. Anyone who cares about Shakespeare's wife will have knowledge and awareness of the performing arts, and cannot be reasonably argued to be unaware of the world famous actress, and so I would say there is not cause to argue that any reasonable reader would be astonished. I do not consider the wife to have long term significance approaching that of the actress, "old" is not synonymous with significance, little about the wife has had any effect on the course of history.

In contrast, the Michael McCormack (Australian politician) → Michael McCormack case was one that would create astonishment. In some places, the local Michael McCormack is the only one they know, and the Australian politician is of zero significance to them. Putting the politician at the basename could obviously astonish readers interested in Nebraska justices, among several examples of groups of astonishable readers, and I am astonished that you do not agree to that.

"But primary topics are not limited to such widely known topics at all" is a defensible statement, but it is easy to make a PT argument for a topic widely known across the English speaking world, and it requires more care for otherwise.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

RM Supervotes

You appear to have made a spree of RM WP:Supervotes, all in line with your blinkered opinion that shorter is better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Finding community WP:CONSENSUS to be contrary to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, if that's what you're talking about, is not a supervote. WP is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY; we don't count !votes. We weigh arguments based on how well they are grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions. At least that's what closers are supposed to do per WP:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus; so that's what I do. You can't give much weight to arguments based on what each editor believes policy is or should be, rather than what it actually is. --В²C ☎ 22:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I really think the project would be better off if you were banned from RM discussions, and most definitely from closing discussions and editing policy pages. You are not always wrong, but are unreliable. You seem to be oblivious of your own bias. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Look in the mirror much? --В²C ☎ 22:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am well aware that I believe in a purpose of a title that you don’t, and you have noted this too. A big objective difference is that I am not making bold Supervotes. I believe that closing should be administrative, not opinionated, and I am confident the vast majority of the community agrees. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

What you or I believe about title purposes is irrelevant. I don't !vote or close based on what I believe, like you do. I !vote and close based on policy and guidelines. That's the difference. When those !votes and closes are contrary to what you believe about the purpose of titles, you consider me to be "wrong", based on your own personal standard. But the only standard that should matter when determining if a title is "right" or "wrong" is... policy and guidelines. The dearth of reliance on policy and guidelines in your !votes in RM discussions is telling. --В²C ☎ 22:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I speak to principles consistent with policy and practice. Most contentious RM discussions are on the boundaries of what policy says and means. Selective quoting of a choice of conflicting policy and guideline is not helpful to discussion; I am always open to discussing the applicability of policy as the discussion progresses. My opening statements are often tentative.

Policy and guidelines describe best practice. They do not prescribe. You get that wrong often. You frequently overinterpret selective quotations, often the text that you had a history in editing. You black and white views of right and wrong should be ignored or objected to. As I’ve told you before, you do not understand concensus. Your frequent assertion of not understanding your opposition is telling. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This close [3] is controversial as it uses camelcase which is 99% not used in RS. The continued justification for it at Talk:DiDi (company) isn't helpful [4] I continue to believe my finding of consensus is sound: "There is no perfect answer here, but my reading is consensus prefers the short stylized DiDi over the (unnecessarily) disambiguated current title. [5] [6] in the face of 99% non usage of the camelcase, against WP:CAMELCASE, with circular logic that a consensus proves it's OK. It's not OK, by MOS it's clearcut, by discussion I'm guessing it was no consensus. To return after being reopened and justify a premature close doesn't add light. Here [7] you refactored my nom summary into the discussion - please ask before refactoring my comments again. Widefox; talk 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a stupid mistake I made in that refactoring stuff. My apologies!!! As to the CamelCase issue, it's not even relevant to the question of moving DiDi (company) to plain DiDi as it's CamelCase either way. I did not and still see no consensus to move to the other longer title. --В²C ☎ 16:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That's OK, these things happen. Comments like [8] are just bizarre. You need to know that. Widefox; talk 22:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is it bizarre? Whether MOS:CAMELCASE applies to titles is not as clearcut as you seem to think. So the question of whether that particular title can have CamelCase in it is up to discussion and consensus finding. In the mean time, CAMELCASE certainly has nothing to say about moving to another title which is equivalent in terms of CamelCase. --В²C ☎ 23:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait! Did you mean the missing not? LOL. I fixed that. --В²C ☎ 23:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That's back to circular logic - you closed the discussion, then keep prematurely repeating there's consensus for camelcase now reopened, then don't discuss the actual issue of camelcase against guideline citing consensus. That's circular, and isn't helpful! The camelcase is not used in 99% of sources, a local consensus or bad closure just reflects on those participants - which is why I bring it up here. If you want to ignore 99% of sources then that's your choice, but resting on circular logic and essentially supervoting is highly unhelpful. Widefox; talk 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. I never said there is consensus for camelcase. I've said (and continue to say) there is no consensus to move the title away from camelcase. It's a significant distinction. What I am also saying is that there is consensus to move the title from the current X (Y) form to the simpler X form, a move independently proposed by several participants and opposed by none, because the (Y) is unnecessary; that has nothing to do with the camelcase issue. --В²C ☎ 16:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

B2C is correct, "X" should never (unless a guideline specifies otherwise, which is dubious anyway) redirect to "X(Y)" just as "X" should not redirect to "X, Y" unless its part of the name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand Widefoxes frustration. His proposal is based on the idea that the current title is wrong because it's in camelcase, and the proposal is to move to another title which is not camelcase. So a move to another title that retains the camelcase seems pointless to them. But if there is no consensus for the proposed move, and there is for this "pointless" move (it's really not pointless, the point is just not to get rid of the camelcase), what are you going to do? --В²C ☎ 22:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, it is of secondary concern, and undisputed. The point being, it's iff there's no consensus to just revert the bad camelcase. Right now, it's prejudice, which is the point. It's Intel, not intel (despite them styling it so) or InTel (if one percent of sources used that). It's just Intel. It's just Didi. The problem with the no consensus (during discussion) is there's no consensus for the high bar of justification needed to break proper noun convention (title) and 99% of sources! Despite local consensus at a talk, we have guidelines. Widefox; talk 23:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

When consensus cannot be achieved for a proposal, sometimes alternative solutions develop during the discussion that do achieve consensus support. Nothing wrong with that. I know you're really committed to getting rid of the CamelCase, but it's just not in the cards. You keep ignoring that 1) MOS:CAMELCASE applies specifically to article text, not article titles AND, even if it did, we make allowances once we're disambiguating. In this case the subject is well known as "Didi", but "Didi" is ambiguous and "taken" by a more prominent use. However, it's also known as "DiDi", certainly recognizable as that, very precise (no other topic is known as "DiDi"), certainly concise, and is therefore arguably an acceptable title for this topic quite in line with policy and guidelines. It's true we generally don't use stylistic titles... but iPhone. And yes, iPhone is more commonly used in sources than DiDi is, but, again, we make allowances when required to disambiguate, which is the case here. In other words, it's not definitely wrong per policy/guidelines to retain the camelcase, in this case. --В²C ☎ 23:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm failing to get across my point - by you closing it, and it now being open, you're repeating the same mistake of acting as if consensus building has ended and stating "no consensus" - it's one of prejudice/sub judice/predetermination. And no, we don't just pack the namespace with capitals to keep it dense, that's preposterous. Exceptions need justification. Bad moves get undone, bad closes get undone. This thread is about an allegation of a bias to short titles, which does fit. Can't you stop despite feedback? Widefox; talk 23:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The proposal has been open for almost three weeks (since Aug 26!), in the backlog for almost two weeks. It has not been premature to see and say there is no consensus since before I closed it. You're a tenacious chap, but what ain't there just ain't there. --В²C ☎ 00:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm at least glad I can agree with you on that. :) Regards Widefox; talk 10:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, my close that was reverted for allegedly being a "supervote" has now been re-closed with virtually identical result and reasoning.

• Original move after close: [9]
  • Original reasoning: [10] The result of the move request was: Moved to DiDi. There is no perfect answer here, but my reading is consensus prefers the short stylized DiDi over the (unnecessarily) disambiguated current title. I don't see consensus to move to the longer Didi Chuxing which does appear to refer to only the part of the business in China. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 01:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Revert: [11]
  • Revert reasoning: [12]
• Move after re-close: [13]
  • Re-close reasoning: [14] The result of the move request was: Moved to DiDi. There is no consensus to move back to the longer title Didi Chuxing. Claims that it meets NATURALDIS were offset by claims that this name refers only to the Chinese market, and worldwide the "Didi Chuxing" name is an official name rather than a common name. However, there is a consensus that straight DiDi is better than the current title, as it differs from other Didi entries in capitalisation, and also satisfies NATURALDIS.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2018

--В²C ☎ 20:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Your new closes, September 17.

• Talk:Dan_Sullivan_(U.S._senator)#Requested_move_8_September_2018. Not saying it is a bad close ("American" --> "U.S." was a clear result), but it would be a much better close to mention, and better to summarize, the contributions referring to "politician". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Talk:Pondicherry#Requested_move_10_September_2018. Good close, except closer opinion such as "I, for one, would prefer to see better evidence of what the ..." are bad form, are straying into WP:Supervote space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've seen closes like this go without any explanation whatsoever. I responded to a consensus question regarding Sullivan. --В²C ☎ 01:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Guerrilla disruption

This is disruption. Seeing repeated central discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Proposal_to_eliminate_comma-state_from_unambiguous_U.S._state_capitals, upholding the consensus for following the AP Stylebook convention, you advocate for guerrilla disruption on the talk pages of bordercases. The AP Stylebook convention serves well, is stable, and destabilizing it does nothing good for the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input. I disagree that it's disruptive to point out the ongoing never-ending disruption caused by AP Stylebook convention, and explain how and why it does that. --В²C ☎ 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  В²C does have a good point, as pointed out before, once the article are moved, do you think that people would be able to get them moved back, I don't think so and it appears that the other WPs don't use disambiguation unless needed, compare tr:Nashville to tr:Orlando/tr:Winchester and tr:Plymouth/tr:Plymouth, Massachusetts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not a very good point, and it’s well and truly exhausted others’ patience. USPLACE has consensus. Except for the trolling or guerrilla disruption skirmishes, we have consensus. Tossing USPLACE would be very disruptive, and for no reader benefit. I was there at yoghurt, and saw how B2C comes to weird conclusions due to selective blindness to opinions he doesn’t value. If you can’t win at the centralised discussion, so you conduct guerrilla disruption? That’s the road to a ban. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  I would not say USPLACE has consensus, there are a number of users who oppose to its use (citing policy), for example BDD who is an admin, see Talk:Nashville, Tennessee/Archives/2018#Requested move. I do agree that its problematic to attempt to move 1 article away from the convention but as noted that appears to often be the way guidelines get changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  I would say that if you refuse to compromise, you refuse to work with consensus, and that if you agitate to disrupt you are being disruptive, and the remedy for that is blocking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  Agreed in principle. But let’s put things in perspective. Moving pages unilaterally contrary to guidelines is refusing to work with consensus, disruptive, and behavior worthy of blocking. Participating in RM discussions is not. —-В²C ☎ 12:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  Agreed back. Sneaky unilateral page moves is much worse. Did you look at the IP at Talk:Anchorage, Alaska? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  I must agree with SmokeyJoe on this. The USPLACE guideline does quite clearly have consensus, and has had for many years. Given that we have something like 40,000 US place articles, the fact there there are maybe just two or three cases a year where someone suggests removing the state from some particular community's title can hardly be considered "never-ending disruption". (Such figures are actually good indicators of the convention's success and stability.) This is particularly true given that the recent nominations, originating as they do from contested technical requests, suggest the noms were simply unfamiliar with our guidelines.

  As for Crouch, Swale's suggestion that a title moved to just place (rather than place, state) will somehow become less likely to change, I see no evidence for that — but do see considerable reason to believe the contrary. The place, state form persists so stably because it best represents common, natural use, is the form favored by sources like the AP, and better serves the interests of our readers. The notion that there'd be no reason to re-append the state once removed seems rooted in the belief that brevity is the only relevant titling consideration that applies... and while you're certainly free to hold that view, I see little evidence that it's a view widely shared by the community. If reducing disruption is truly the goal, then recognizing this would be a positive step. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  But by noting just the few US city cases per year, you're only counting direct casualties, and like Trump in Puerto Rico, ignoring all the collateral damage from the USPLACE hurricane. USPLACE's blurring of the rules (away from disambiguate the plain name only if necessary principle) has caused and continues to cause untold damage manifested in the number of RM proposals made every day the outcome of which is often entirely determined by the whims of whoever happens to participate in each discussion. While we could never achieve crystal clear rules that established one and only one "correct" title in every case, we can certainly move towards or away from this ideal, and USPLACE sets a precedent that moves us away from that. It's ironic because USPLACE sets a definitive convention for a subset of our titles, but at the same time opens the floodgates of ambiguity for all other titles. --В²C ☎ 20:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  To judge from your (quite hyperbolic) comments, the fundamental difference in our views seems to be that you perceive variations in how our title policies are interpreted & applied as somehow corrosive or damaging to Wikipedia, whereas I do not — and nor I suspect do the majority of other editors, judging from the outcomes of various past discussions. Our title policy specifically acknowledges that what makes a good title can vary from case to case, and that it's appropriate to weigh some goals more highly than others depending on the circumstances — a process accomplished through discussion and consensus-building. This is how USPLACE and many other longstanding title conventions came to be: not by "whims" or by "blurring" the rules, but by following established processes to reach a consensus-based solution to the unique requirements of certain subjects. Insofar as USPLACE gives weight to considerations other than just conciseness, or sets other considerations ahead of strict conciseness, I understand how you'd see it as a dangerous precedent because it's at odds with your own preferred interpretation, but I see no evidence that it's in any way deleterious to the project. Quite the reverse.

  As regards RMs in general: encyclopedia-building is a very human endeavor, and differences of opinion and interpretation among the humans who choose to volunteer their time building it are bound to occur frequently. RMs are to some extent a natural reflection of that. I don't see that as a problem. If the existence of RMs is a cost, then it's a necessary one, and small in comparison to the costs we'd likely incur if we moved toward the more mechanical, automatic, and rules-centric alternative that you envision as "ideal". ╠╣uw [talk] 19:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

IAR & DATERANGE

To be precise invoking IAR on the subject of DATERANGE here and here. As you are interested in this area of policy you may also be interested in the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Year range for two consecutive years. The discussion has fairly low participation and no new comments for a while now. It would be great if you could take a look and give your opinion. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)