User talk:Born2cycle

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.

A user has mentioned you in a discussion.

User:Dicklyon has mentioned you in this discussion.

Concerns

Born2Cycle: I felt I should raise here my concerns about what I see as unhelpful and disruptive behavior on your part in recent and ongoing Wikipedia discussions; I refer in particular to your tendency in RMs and RfCs to be lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own. I know such concerns have already been voiced a number of times in recent weeks and months, both by myself and by other involved editors (particularly in the geographic names forum), but I hoped it would be helpful to address it directly here.

In the current placename RfC your repeated and lengthy posts dominated the discussion to the point of filibustering (as several editors noted), with a number of entire lengthy sections opened by you either to verbosely repeat or elaborate your positions or to dissect the positions of other specific editors; the result was a disruption of productive and inclusive debate, which has now seemingly ground to a complete halt. It should also be noted that similar concerns were also raised in the preceding RfC. Your contributions elsewhere (as in the National Pension Scheme RM where you're increasingly focused on debating my support in particular) suggest a continuation of this behavior.

To be clear, you are of course welcome to engage in debate and to voice your views; however, being overly zealous or vocal in questioning the validity of others' positions (particularly in RfCs which are meant to freely solicit others' views) chills debate and can be disruptive – as the geographic names forum in particular amply demonstrates. I don't expect you to agree with other editors in these forums, but I do ask that you respect the existence of reasonable opposing views. Editors contributing in good faith to an RfC or RM shouldn't face being drowned out, nor face having their statements persistently pursued or dismissed, and I'd ask you to please keep this in mind. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of your concerns, again. I note that it's people who are involved in disagreements with me who seem to be most concerned with my commentary. I also note that at the US place RfC, I intentionally started separated sections on specific issues, and even hatting discussions which seemed to have come to an end (that effort was reverted), all to avoid cluttering up the survey area. Also, since I stopped commenting there, all discussion seems to have come to a halt.

I have additional points to make at National Pension Scheme RM. You're free to respond, or not, as always. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

B2c. just so you know: I was on the verge of taking you to ANI, to report an ongoing pattern of tendentious editing in violation of your promises of a year ago, until you heeded advice to "take a breather" from the US place RFC discussion. (As you noted above (apparently without irony), when you stopped participating in that discussion all the "controversy" went away and it became a simple RfC.) I shelved the idea of ANI when you stopped editing at that discussion, but it appears that you have not changed your tactics at other discussions. (I didn't follow you around to see what else you were doing.) I am still open to the possibility of taking your editing behavior to the community for discussion and possible solutions - and if Huw or others think I should proceed, I will consider it. Word to the wise. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle: It's disappointing that you do not appear to acknowledge that your actions are disruptive, and instead insinuate that the concerns that have been raised by various editors relate instead to disagreements with your position. Without a clear recognition that such behavior is inappropriate and a clear commitment to avoid it in the future, I fear the pattern may simply continue to repeat. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Melanie overtly tried to disrupt that RfC at WP:PLACE, and riddled the discussion with arguments for ending the discussion (before it even started), and offered almost nothing substantive about the proposal itself. While Melanie was trying to do that, Huw and a few others, including myself, were engaged in what I thought was mostly relatively thoughtful and productive discussion. How any of that amounted to me being disruptive, I honestly don't know. What, exactly, was disrupted? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You repeated this question at the AN discussion. I will respond here, to avoid cluttering that discussion. My response is: Huw explained above, with admirable clarity and brevity, exactly what is disruptive about your "lengthily argumentative and dismissive" style. The fact that you are still asking "what is the problem?" was the final straw that impelled me to post the AN discussion. As I said below, "your responses here indicate that you have no idea why so many people have a problem with your approach to editing. Since Huw explained the problem so clearly, I'm afraid this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and no amount of private discussion is going to avail." --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What Huw claimed above was that the result of my alleged "filibustering" "was a disruption of productive and inclusive debate, which has now seemingly ground to a complete halt.".

The "productive and inclusive debate" to which he refers is the discussion that you tried repeatedly to squelch, starting before I even participated.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

So, according to you, what I supposedly "disrupted" was the productive discussion you unquestionably tried repeatedly to end. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The debate was not very productive, largely because at every turn we were faced with demands to refute your detailed arguments point-by-point, and with your tendency to be dismissive and borderline insulting. As far as Melanie is concerned, she simply pointed out to the proposer that a similar RfC had just been closed, and specifically asked if the request could be rephrased. That's not squelching debate. But the proposer did not respond. Omnedon (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that the discussion there was productive. Unfortunately it was not, but I tried my very best to make it productive; if I failed, it was not intentional. If you want to blame me, fine, but I'll just add that lack of productivity is not an uncommon characteristic for WP discussions, or for discussions among any group of humans trying to find consensus in a sea of disparate opinions. Go no further than looking at the politics of any democratically elected government for ample examples, from a home owner's association, to a city council, the state capital, and of course the federal government of any nation. Thank you for recognizing that I did not cross the line of being insulting, as often occurs in such discussions, much less that I violated any WP policies or guidelines, like WP:NPA.

I don't want to talk about other users here, except I'll say she went much further than simply pointing out to the proposer that a similar RfC had just been closed. See User talk:MelanieN#Disruptive editing at WT:PLACE RfC proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't recognize what you claim. In fact, this is yet another case of others' words being twisted to your own purpose. I feel you were insulting, though not blatantly; and as for violating policies, for one example, I do feel you failed to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Please do not attribute statements to me that I did not make. As for Melanie, I was referring to the statement that she made after the RfC was posted, but before the first "support" vote (yours). Posting everything she said in that discussion to her own talk page was, in my opinion, questionable. Omnedon (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We can go back and forth about whether a given comment is insulting or not. All I can say is I never said anything to anyone in that discussion that was intentionally insulting; if it came off that way it was entirely unintentional, and I apologize if you or anyone else was insulted by anything I said. Without knowing what specific statements you're talking about, I really can't explain any more.

I also categorically deny failing to assume good faith about anyone there. I have no reason to believe that anyone there was not acting in good faith, and nothing I said should have indicated otherwise, unless it was misunderstood. Again, if it was misunderstood, I apologize, and, due to lack of specificity, I can't explain further at this time. If you want to give me a specific example, I'd be happy to explain further.

As to posting Melanie's comment to her talk page, the facts are the facts. It was a way I could substantiate my point: how low the ratio of substance to quantity was in her contributions to that discussion. When I accuse others of engaging in problematic behavior, I like to be clear about what exactly I'm talking about. Is that a problem? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In this specific case -- yes, in my opinion, it is a problem. An RfC on this had just concluded after an extremely lengthy discussion. She and others (including me) attempted to point this out, rather than go through the whole thing again. That is not "problematic behavior". Omnedon (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there no limit to how many times it can be pointed out, along with repeatedly commenting about editors rather than the substance of the RfC, before it becomes "problematic behavior"? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It was pointed out by multiple editors, not just Melanie, and it was repeatedly dismissed or ignored. As for commenting on editors, you have a tendency to do that -- such as talking about how editors will realize how silly their positions are, or referring to small-mindedness, to name but two examples. Honestly, I do believe you have good intentions and wish to improve the encyclopedia, as most of us do. But in the face of the current AN discussion, I am not sure how this thread is helping. If anything it is emphasizing the fact that you either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, the problem. It's not a new one -- witness last year's AN discussion in which you said, "You've gotten my attention" and listed seven ways you would change. Omnedon (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And I did as I promised. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm not denying that there is a problem. I'm denying that I have engaged in behavior that violates any written policy or guideline. That's why, at the ANI discussion, I have proposed updating the relevant policy (presumably WP:DE) to improve/clarify it in this area, and have stated that I would abide by that, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You've gotten my attention. 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.

— Born2cycle

Given the past two RfCs related to WP:USPLACE, in which you contributed far more than any other editor, and seemed to be rather combative throughout, I have to question whether you have indeed done as you promised. Omnedon (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. We apparently have different interpretations of "combative" which to me implies a tendency to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. I know that it is not the case for me. While I do express disagreement, of course, it's not in order to disagree. Rather, it's more like I'm doing here - I explain my views, and why I hold them. I'm also always very open to learning the views of others, and, in particular, the reasons they hold them. To me that's not combative, and it is, or at least strives to be, productive, whether I'm doing it, or someone else is. Going beyond just telling each other what our positions are, by delving into the reasons that underly them, can sometimes be a path to consensus, perhaps the only path in some cases. I believe all of my comments are consistent with pursuing this approach. If you can find examples to the contrary, I would appreciate it. But please don't bring up the "hobglobins of little minds" remark again; that was intended as a light-hearted joke in response to someone else's clever quip. It went over like a dead balloon, apparently, but that's what it was supposed to be. Anyway, thank you again for sharing your views and explaining them to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask what exactly is being disrupted when one is accused of being disruptive. What exactly is being disrupted by my behavior? I mean, what exactly are people being disrupted from doing by my behavior? In her "answer", Melanie merely referred to Huw's original statement, who claimed "disruption of productive and inclusive debate", suggesting that there would have been "productive and inclusive debate" if not for my involvement. And the evidence for that is what? When I bow out, there is virtually no more discussion? So, then, how was my involvement disruptive? That's not an answer. And the response of "filibustering" by Omnedon is not an answer to this question either - it's simply labeling the behavior that is allegedly disruptive in a derogatory way, without basis; it does not identify what is being disrupted.

When I accuse others of being disruptive, I try to point that out so that question does not even need to be asked. For example, last month I accused MelanieN (talk · contribs) of disruptive editing. I backed up the claim with a copy/paste of all her posts to the discussion in question, and explained the disruption stemmed from "the alarmingly low presence of constructive comments conducive to building the encyclopedia among them", after quoting the definition of disruptive editing at WP:DE that is stated in those terms. To her credit, she stopped making those disruptive comments, though a few weeks later she started an AN about me, which also is arguably disruptive, if indeed the accusation of me engaging in tendentious editing turns out to be baseless.

While not everyone may agree with me about Melanie's behavior being disruptive at WT:PLACE, I don't think anyone can be unclear about why I believed Melanie's behavior to be disruptive. I'm only asking for the same type of explanation from those who accuse me of being disruptive. Is that too much? If, after a week of no substantive answer, is it unreasonable to conclude that the claim of disruption is without basis? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Examples have been pointed out to you again and again, but you refuse to accept them. The "little minds" statement a "joke"? It was in no way phrased with humor. As for the term "filibustering", I actually don't tend to like that term myself, as it has political overtones. Rather, I would describe what I have seen in the last two RfCs at WP:PLACE by saying that you comment and comment and comment in great detail, far more than any other contributor, then demand that your points be refuted in equal detail or else you claim a victory by default. If your behavior was not disruptive, do you think that it would be so stated by so many contributors at the AN discussion? Is every one of them absolutely wrong? Are you, in fact, looking for signs of how you are doing? They are there for you to see throughout the RfCs and the AN discussion. At one time you acknowledged that there is a problem here; you seem now to be denying that. Omnedon (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your complaint about the term "filibustering" is interesting, because when that was introduced into the RfC, you then ended several of your own statements with calls for the other side to stop filibustering. You are also clearly dismissive of other editors, though you claim otherwise. One example of this is your request that the RfC be closed in favor of your side, even in the face of votes that did not favor your side. That's dismissive of those with whom you disagree. Omnedon (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As for a specific answer to the disruptiveness issue, this was clearly stated at the AN. 'He is the very definition of a tendentious editor as described at WP:Consensus#Tendentious editing: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."' I realize you claim that your pursuit is not continuous, but what would you call it, then, when you are the primary contributor to one RfC, and when another one opens a few weeks later, you continue to be the primary contributor? Omnedon (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, again, the "little minds" comment was a joke. No joke is funny if it requires explanation, and this one obviously fell flat, but apparently an explanation is required to show it was a joke (with better adherence to WP:AGF, I suggest I would not have to go to these lengths to defend myself, but this silly quip has been claimed to be problematic one too many times]. For reference, here is the diff. In response to a comment of mine, in which I asked "why people here are so insistent on keeping an exceptional inconsistent convention", Jayron32 wrote: "Did anyone just see a Hobgoblin run through here?". At first I wasn't sure what he meant, so I clicked on the link he had made, to Self-Reliance, where of course I saw and was reminded of the famous quotation, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Clearly the implied reference was to me, or to anyone who advocated consistency here, as having the hobgoblin of foolish consistency in our little minds. It made me chuckle, and I thought I'd respond in kind by applying the same logic in reverse, so I wrote: "Perfect! Indeed, blind conformance with the City, State convention was the hobgloblin of the little minds of those who supported it even for cities like San Francisco and Chicago, and remains for those who continue to support it for cities with unique names". I chuckled at that too, but apparently no one else did. I thought at least Jayron would, to whom it was directed. Anyway, the joke fell flat, but it was a joke none-the-less, and I said nothing about anyone that was not first clearly implied about me and others. I did not have a problem with what Jayron32 said, yet you have a problem with what I said, which is essentially the same thing. Why is that?

You write: "you comment and comment and comment in great detail, far more than any other contributor, TRUE, and thank you, then demand that your points be refuted in equal detail or else you claim a victory by default. What? I never demand anything (how could I? based on what?), much less that in particular, nor have I ever claimed "victory" in any ongoing discussion, much less by default. I don't even think in those terms.

If your behavior was not disruptive, do you think that it would be so stated by so many contributors at the AN discussion? I don't know. But I do know that Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and that if I ever accused anyone of being disruptive, and they asked that I identify what exactly was disrupted, I would identify what that was, or retract my accusation, no matter how many others piled on along with me.

Filibustering is using discussion to avoid decision-making. That's exactly what Melanie did, overtly. She commented and commented and commented, not about the proposal, but about how the proposal needs to be closed. That is the epitome of filibustering. And it's disruptive. What exactly is it disrupting? [See, this is how that question is answered.] The ability of others to engage in substantive discussion about that proposal.

When someone suggests that certain arguments be dismissed for lacking substance, that's being dismissive of those arguments, not of those who made those arguments. This is essentially what WP:JDLI states: "Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions." Now, reasonable people can disagree about whether certain arguments are substantive or not, but please do not conflate advocacy for dismissing arguments for lack of substance with dismissing the people who put forward those allegedly vacuous arguments.

Yes, to be continuous, the allegedly problematic behavior would have to continue after the first RfC was closed. But it continued only after someone else, previously uninvolved, started another RfC. So, I still see no answer. Let me put it this way (please fill in the blanks): ______________________________ was disrupted by B2C's behavior. It was disrupted because _____________________

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

-

I will add that I still acknowledge a problem with my behavior. But, like an alcoholic who doesn't beat his wife, children or drive drunk, that doesn't mean I've broken any laws. I post too much. But it's not a sanctionable problem, not something that is prohibited in writing in any policy or guideline. I repeat my offer to collaborate on updating WP:DE to document the specific type of behavior that should be prohibited, presuming we can get consensus on wording it in an objective way that others believe is fair. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) " If, after a week of no substantive answer, is it unreasonable to conclude that the claim of disruption is without basis?" Thank you for this; it's a great example of your approach to debate, which is to reject all responses, and then claim that since no one has responded TO YOUR SATISFACTION, you have carried the day. In fact there have been numerous substantive answers to your question, including Huw's description above of your style as "lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own". At the AN discussion there are also numerous specifics about why your approach is disruptive, for example: "B2C's usual mode is essentially filibustering, and generally acting on the assumption that if his voluminous points are not all refuted to his satisfaction, then he should get his way. The energy he pours into titles and related policy therefore requires a greater effort from others to try to restrain him." (--Dicklyon), " it is very difficult to have productive discussions with B2C, and this is a longstanding problem involving many editors." (--Omnedon), "willing to overwhelm Wikipedia with his feelings on matters of article titles, especially as it relates to U.S. placenames, until through sheer power of will, he can discourage participation from others rather than change consensus." (--Jayron), "B2C getting involved in a topic tends to limit participation by others. Add to that the lengthy discussions and many editors find it impossible follow and comprehend. That can create a case where decisions are made without many really understanding the discussion. Or maybe a better comment is most editors don't have the time to read a novel to make decisions." (--Vegaswikian), etc. Those are all solid, specific illustrations of disruption. In addition Omnedon above cites policy about "the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal"; to claim that your aggressive pursuit of your goals is not "continuous" because you don't start the discussions is disingenous to say the least. So there are a bunch of answers to your question. The fact that you reject them does not mean the question has not been answered. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw this: "I never demand anything". ROFL! How many times in this very discussion, and again at the AN page, have you demanded an answer to your question about exactly - EXACTLY! - what is disruptive about your behavior? --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Melanie, if you think any of those opinions answer my question, I give up. If nobody read and nobody replied to anything and everything I said in either of those RfCs, nothing would have changed. All reading of and responses to my posts and questions are entirely voluntary, by anyone who is interested. I should not blamed for anyone's inability to refrain from reading or responding to my posts.

Are you demanding an answer to your "How many times..." question? I presume not. When I ask questions, they're not demands either. They're never demands. Anyway, the answer to your question is, of course, zero times. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How's this for being demanding and dismissive and assuming bad faith, all at once? There are other examples of your demands, but let's start with this one. Omnedon (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I fail as the most exemplary WP editor of all time, and I'm realizing that some of my comments are taken more seriously than I intend them to be taken. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I still maintain that if one is going to claim that a given proposal will lead to something like confusion and disagreement, that it's not unreasonable for someone else who finds the claim to be dubious, to request (not demand!) that an example be provided to illustrate what is meant by that, and to state that if no such example is provided, that the claim will be difficult to accept, and that continuing to assume good faith will become more difficult. After all, if someone makes such a claim in good faith, shouldn't they be able and willing to easily provide several examples demonstrating what they're talking about, much less just the one being requested?

Why is it so terrible to point this out? How do we develop understanding and consensus if we refuse to satisfy such basic requests about the various claims, upon which our arguments are based, that we all makes in these discussions? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard discussion

Born2cycle, this is to let you know that I have posted a report about you at WP:AN. The link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Continued tendentious editing by Born2cycle. I am sorry to have had to take this step, but your responses here indicate that you have no idea why so many people have a problem with your approach to editing. Since Huw explained the problem so clearly, I'm afraid this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and no amount of private discussion is going to avail. We will have to see what the community says. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling

Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Threat

B2C – I think this is the most instructive thing you said: I don't understand why my words are so commonly misunderstood like this. There is ample evidence of that throughout Wikipedia. As for the words I quoted being a “threat”, think about it. What did you expect to happen when you closed the paragraph with “Don't let that happen here” [or else]? Your track record of berating editors with positions you don’t like is hard to ignore. Whether you are right or wrong in any given discussion, the current blowup isn’t about the substance of your positions, but the manner in which you convey them. Here are two quotes I think you should take to heart.

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.

— Winston Churchill

To learn through listening, practice it naively and actively. Naively means that you listen openly, ready to learn something, as opposed to listening defensively, ready to rebut. Listening actively means you acknowledge what you heard and act accordingly.

— Betsy Sanders, Former Senior Vice President & General Manager Nordstrom

.

We can leave it at that.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Was not the implied [or else] clear? ...or else the the problem will not be resolved and will continue, not or else bad things will happen to you! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please Email Me

B2C, please email me via my Wikipedia email. I have a private message for you. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)