Wikipedia

User:Dicklyon/Recognizability poll

< User:Dicklyon

Evidence presented by Dicklyon edit

Late rebuttal of Born2cycle's late evidence


Born2cycle caused a big problem, but blames others edit

Edit wars on policy pages should never happen, and I am not proud to have been involved in one. But policy should also not be changed in one's favor during an ongoing argument, which is what B2C did here to start the mess -- with a mistaken reference to "original meaning" (see the actual history at User:Dicklyon/Whither Recognizability?).

Normally, if a policy change is objected to, especially under such circumstances, the changer will back off; but B2C refused to do so, and with support from Kotniski (who orignally wrote the phrase in question) and from JCScaliger (sock of Pmanderson who has a long-standing dislike of several of us involved), repeatedly re-changed policy to favor his position several more times that day and later: claiming "no substantive objection" already, Kotniski: "well established and essential", etc.

Those of us opposed to such behavior reverted him an equal number of times, while asking and trying to get a discussion going about it: Tony1, me, Noetica.


Born2cycle compounds problems by being dismissive of the positions of others edit

On that very same first day, B2C started to "hat" or "hide" as "non-substantive" the reasons that Tony and I had given for our objection. And after I complained, he hatted even more. I noted that "it takes balls" to do as he does, but he continued to defend the practice of hiding our comments.

Every attempt at discussion was being thwarted by B2C and JCScaliger (not even allowing tags to point to the attempts at discussion). I opened an RFC, but B2C immediately hijacked it and turned it into a vote on two wordings instead of a discussion, and then stacked it with votes imputed from others (including the signatures of others, as if they had answered the RFC). After reasoning with B2C became clearly impossible, Noetica abandoned the RFC.

B2C's idea that the opinions of others can be simply discounted as "non-substantive" was something I had seen from B2C in my first encounter with him, where he did a non-admin close of a very divided Requested Move involving en-dash and MOS, by simply dismissing the points that he didn't agree with (with closing comments "mostly hokum" and "no reason for Wikipedia to sweat over it" and "no consensus to follow the ndash guidance", which he used to conclude that there was a consensus to move!). I prevailed in my revert there, but he keeps after me and the others involved.

B2C dominated the "discussion", with 56 talk edits in the first two days, more than me, Tony1, and Noetica combined when we were very actively posting. The same over-dominance is found if measured for the month of Dec. or Jan., or the year of 2011.


Born2cycle relies on his claim of consensus when there is none edit

In his evidence, he claims "All editors that made substantive comments favored Kotniski version." That just dismisses all the other expressions there as non-substative. He repeatedly appealed to admins to see his consensus (like in this mega wall-of-text), but none did, since I, Noetica, Tony1, Kwamikagami, Mike Cline, Ohconfucius, DGG, Ohms law, Fuhghettaboutit, Milkunderwood, Blueboard, and others had spoken out against what he was trying to do with precipitously changed and confusing language during a fight.

In the end, B2C rejects the apparent consensus about how the wording he added, supported by others, is to be interpreted. I attempted, via my poll Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability, and via another talk section Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Whither Recognizability?, to find out if anybody at all would support the interpretation that he asserts in his victory speech. Nobody can be found to support him, yet he claims there, with respect to that statement representing his interpretation, that...

...there is no evidence that it was rejected as an interpretation. In fact, since it's consistent with the preferred wording, there is evidence that it's supporting (not as wording for the policy, but as correct interpretation of what happens). Not to mention that the words used by many participating in the discussions since Dec 21, including Greg's poll, indicated preference for the Kotniski wording because of agreement with the interpretation you claim was rejected in your poll.

Recent post-unlock discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Why "to someone familiar with the topic"? shows there is still considerable desire to figure out why (or whether) we want the language that B2C has added. It's not just a few of us.

Born2cycle teamed up with JCScaliger, sock of banned user Pmanderson, to further exacerbate the problem edit

Kotniski had accepted that it was "under discussion", but on Christmas, B2C claimed consensus to put it back, and Noetica took it back out with a sensible edit summary, which Kotniski called "silly" when he put it back again. Noetica restrained himself from further reverting, but added an underdiscussion tag, which sock JCScaliger removed and objected to. B2C also removed discussion tags.

On 30 Dec. Noetica restored the longstanding version, which seemed OK from the discussion to that point. B2C reverted and threatened him; after another cycle of that, uninvolved admin Kwamikagami came in and restored the pre-dispute version, and Kotniski followed by putting in a discussion tag. For 12 days things were stable, but then Kotniski put the change in again. Noetica reverted for obvious reasons. Next it was JCScaliger who put back the change, followed by Noetica, Born2cycle, Noetica, where the page got locked by Kwamikagami. 10 days later, JCScaliger put back "Greg's wording" and more in a new section, followed by Noetica, JCScaliger, Kwamikagami, Greg L reversals, followed by more B2C change reverted by Ohconfucius, followed by more Noetica, JCScaliger, B2C, Noetica, B2C, PBS, Dicklyon reversals and another lock by Kwamikagami, followed by protection being taken over by Elen per B2C's request since Kwami seemed somewhat involved.

Edit counts on Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles during the dispute show that B2C completely dominated the discussion, until Greg L came in to support him. I was his main opponent there, but he prefers to think of me as teamed up with Noetica and Tony1, from when we all encountered each other in the en-dash fiasco, I presume, which is also what got Pmanderson committed to harassing us, even with his sockpuppet JCScaliger.


Born2cycle's pattern of disruption continues edit

See previous AN/I complaints about B2C:


and by B2C, who says: "I favor sanctioning anyone who files a frivolous ANI":

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dicklyon/Recognizability_poll&oldid=477327725"