Sarah Brown title dispute

[CrowsNest]

What to use as the proper title for the Sarah Jane Brown (T-H-L) biography.....

It's been going in for ten years. It has yet again erupted, with a multiple choice poll of no less than twenty different alternatives. All the Wikipedians seem sure of, by way of general majority agreement, is they hate the current title (it is a Wikipedia derived internal kludge, she doesn't go by this name), and they will not accept her being moved to plain "Sarah Brown (T-H-L)" because she's not the most famous Sarah Brown, which seems obvious.

But where to move it to? The previous formulations, which emphasised what is inarguably the main reason she is known to the wider world - her status as spouse/wife of a Prime Minister - were finally ousted in 2013, as part of a feminist awakening on Wikipedia. Hard to argue with the logic, even less so five years later. It has remained at the new and current kludge of a title ever since, despite multiple attempts to move it to better titles, or return it to wife/spouse.

All the other options on the table are predictably disputed if not outright hated, although there appears a small level of net support for "Sarah Brown (born 1963)", although I would have thought it would be just as offensive to have your age be used as your defining quality, as your status as a wife/spouse.

As an intuitive signpost to readers looking for the right Sarah Brown, her age (once you've done the maths) is seemingly pretty useless, its level of support only really understandable in the context of it being marginally less useless than a middle name she never uses. It is only 12 years away from another Sarah Brown, and not all the Sarah Browns Wikipedia knows of, have actually documented years of birth.

Wikipedia guidance seems to agree it is of limited use, only recommending using the year in scenarios like this.....

* David Baker (poker player, born 1972)
* David Baker (poker player, born 1986).

What seems to be really giving the Wikipedians a hard time, is the lack of a really obvious choice of a term to use to describe what Sarah does, so she can be titled in the more familiar format of "Sarah Brown (activity)". Hence the poll offers this ridiculous smörgåsbord....

* Sarah Brown (advocate)
* Sarah Brown (campaigner)
* Sarah Brown (charity campaigner)
* Sarah Brown (charity director)
* Sarah Brown (education campaigner)
* Sarah Brown (health and education advocate)
* Sarah Brown (health and education campaigner)
* Sarah Brown (businesswoman)
* Sarah Brown (public relations)
* Sarah Brown (activist)

Imagine the horror if she were simply a stay at home mom?

The way forward seems clear. Pick the option which best describes what she does, as reflected in the combination of how she refers to herself, and how reliable sources describe her. This is a perfectly valid approach under Wikipedia's policies surrounding respect for living persons and neutrality. The article introduction as it stands right now - "Sarah Brown, is a British campaigner" - suggests (campaigner) is the right option. The formulation of that wording must have been the product of much dispute, so why isn't it seen as compelling for the purposes of choosing a recognisable title?

The only possible source of confusion through using 'campaigner', is the fact that Sarah Brown (politician) (T-H-L) is also a campaigner. But this Sarah Brown is not, and likely never will be, a politician, so the potential confusion is already only one way. The fact this is only likely to confuse those coming from Google looking for the other campaigner, not those coming from Wikipedia's page listing all the Sarah Browns, seems a small enough price to pay (handled with two-way hatnotes) for letting more people intuitively find the right Sarah Brown, the only one the wider general public probably know as a campaigner, better than either "Sarah Jane Brown" or "Sarah Brown (born 1963)" will ever do.

Alas, as with most things, doing the obvious thing is always a struggle for the Wikipedians. Undoubtedly the vestigial presence of an over-representative number of anti-activists, troglodytes and other less capable thinkers in their editor ranks, is what is holding them back here.

Ominously, the Wikipedians have been thinking "outside the box".....

I think it may be time to think “outside the box”... has anyone thought to contact the subject, explain our dilemma and ask HER opinion? I know we don’t usually give much weight to what the subject wants (or rather we give more weight to other factors)... but in this case, I think it a viable “tie breaker”. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I wrote to Sarah, care of Gordon Brown, in June 2013. I received no response. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice to know I am not the only one to think of this. Might be worth another try ... just saying. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm loving the bit in bold (my emphasis). A very artful troll by one of the trogs, if meant that way. With this lot, you can never be sure.

If there is anyone out there who reads this forum looking for ideas as to how they can make a difference, this poll represents one of the very very few times you can do that. Go to the poll, vote for "Sarah Brown (campaigner)" on grounds it is the most intuitive title that doesn't shackle her to her husband, and register an oppose for all other options - the other occupation ones on grounds campaigner is the best fit, as a survey of sources would likely prove and the article introduction already suggests, and the other options for suitably tailored reasons, as given above. Don't be dumb and just vote without explaining your reasoning, since by policy you can and quite rightly should be ignored.

Yes, Wikipedians, this is canvassing. I don't care. Someone's got to be your brains and social conscience. And don't you dare bother this woman with your stupid shit again!

[Johnny Au]

See here: Ron Wilson (T-H-L)

There's two hockey players and three footballers with the name.

Ronald Wilson (T-H-L) though links to the Australian lawyer.

[Zoloft]

This is a blog post, basically. Just sayin'

[Kingsindian]

I prefer Sarah Brown (Macaulay) or Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay) myself. The reasoning is explained here. Her LinkedIn profile uses "Sarah (Macaulay) Brown".

[CrowsNest]

I prefer Sarah Brown (Macaulay) or Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay) myself. The reasoning is explained here. Her LinkedIn profile uses "Sarah (Macaulay) Brown".

Your reasoning is flawed. Not only is this not one of the standard ways Wikipedia uses to clear up confusion between biographies of the same name, virtually nobody will know her by her maiden name, making it by definition, a bad title. Your BBC source is more compelling under Wikipedia guidance as an argument for "Sarah Brown (public relations)", but the fact it was published in 2001, and only in the context of her stepping down from the firm, rather undermines that argument.

Her use of "Sarah (Macaulay) Brown" on LinkedIn is similarly flawed as a justification. It seems obvious that choice as a differentiator would have been influenced by what LinkedIn is for - she is quite likely still remembered within business circles, and thus by extension in the executive levels of the non-profit sector, for her PR career. But there's really no doubt that, with this much water under the bridge, during which time she doesn't appear to have prominently used her maiden name, this awareness doesn't exist in the minds of the general public, who would readily identify her as Sarah Brown (campaigner), if they know anything about her at all.

Certainly those who can remember her maiden name, either from her PR career or from her exposure in sources as Sarah Macaulay, girlfriend of Gordon Brown, will also know she is now more known as being a campaigner. This would certainly be clear from any contemporary source still mentioning her maiden name, presumably in a biographical context.

The only theoretical readers this name would benefit that (campaigner) doesn't, are readers who are only looking at sources from before the time she became a campaigner, which is at least 15 years ago now, if not longer. It seems unwise to use that as a reason for how titles are chosen.

[No Ledge]

• British campaigner for global health and education
• founder and president of Theirworld, a children's charity
• the Executive Chair of the Global Business Coalition for Education
• co-founder of A World at School

I can't determine that any one of these is her primary endeavor. Campaigner is a pretty generic term. My mind first associates it with political campaigns, not charity campaigns. Are all four of her endeavors "campaigns"? Only the first of the four bullets for her activities uses the term. The other three frame her in a founding or executive role.

Sarah J. Brown (T-H-L)would be better disambiguation for someone whose middle name was not well known, but that too is ambiguous.

My Ohio-based Google search says Sarah Joy Brown (T-H-L) is the primary topic.

Google has settled on Sarah Brown (British executive) (T-H-L). An executive who leads various "campaigns" for children, health and education. That seems to do the best job of covering all the bases.

[Renée Bagslint]

This is a question of the very highest importance and it is essential that as many people as possible participate, and as many points of view and alternative suggestions are put forward in ths discussion. I hope that many of the participants will turn out to be accounts that have only been registered in the past few days, have made very few edits, but display a surprising familiarity with Wikipedia jargon and practices.

[CrowsNest]

• British campaigner for global health and education
• founder and president of Theirworld, a children's charity
• the Executive Chair of the Global Business Coalition for Education
• co-founder of A World at School

I can't determine that any one of these is her primary endeavor. Campaigner is a pretty generic term. My mind first associates it with political campaigns, not charity campaigns. Are all four of her endeavors "campaigns"? Only the first of the four bullets for her activities uses the term. The other three frame her in a founding or executive role.

Sarah J. Brown (T-H-L)would be better disambiguation for someone whose middle name was not well known, but that too is ambiguous.

My Ohio-based Google search says Sarah Joy Brown (T-H-L) is the primary topic.

Google has settled on Sarah Brown (British executive) (T-H-L). An executive who leads various "campaigns" for children, health and education. That seems to do the best job of covering all the bases.

On what basis do you believe people who found charities are seen as executives, rather than campaigners? Arguably, given the focus on children, health and education, this is political campaigning (social policy) as as much as it is about basic do-gooding. It's not philanthropy. It's not activism. It is campaigning, in the broadest sense (organised efforts toward a defined goal). What Wikipedia articles on actual politicians, political candidates or campaign managers etc, are titled "campaigner"? None that I'm aware of. Nonstandard methods of picking a title here, will not be sustainable.

If you're arguing for anything here, it's probably "Sarah Brown (charity campaigner)". If that has merits, why not first achieve a move to campaigner, and then seek a refinement? Otherwise, you'll just split the vote, and see a far worse outcome. It's worth noting that not all of these things she has founded or chaired are charities per se, but they are all focused on campaigning. This would seem to be reflected in the fact "charity" only appears six times in the article, while "campaign" is mentioned eleven. If there was a magic bullet term to perfectly describe what she does with zero ambiguity, there'd be no dispute at all. So complaining that an option that gets us nearly there, and better than initials or years or wife of, isn't perfect, misses the point completely.

[CrowsNest]

Unsurprisingly, people are opposing (charity director) because it doesn't fit her precise executive role. (charity executive) just sounds weird, very unnatural language, but it would at least be more accurate on this strand of reasoning.

All this will do though, is split the vote, and so by default she will likely forever be known by Wikipedia as Sarah Jane Brown, which is just dumb. It is so dumb, Wikipedia's rules aren't just silent in how dumb a title it is, it actively speaks against it. It isn't surprising that when the move to this name occurred, it is the only move that ever triggered a move review, the rationale giving no less than four separate well argued reasons for its innate dumbness, three derived from the actual Article Titles policy, one from the Naming Conventions (people) guideline......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Jane_Brown

1. FAILS WP:CRITERIA: this title fails Recognizability, Naturalness, and Precision (since there is an artist with the same name who dominates google search results for Sarah Jane Brown)

2. FAILS WP:AT, which also states "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." We have not found ANY sources which refer to the subject using this title.

3. FAILS WP:COMMONNAME, which says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Sarah Jane Brown is never used in English-language reliable sources to refer to this person

4. FAILS Wikipedia:MIDDLES#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names, "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised", again, per above.

You can tell it's just dumb, by the fact the only reasons those few people who support it seem to have, either directly contradict policy, or are pathetically diving into the IAR bucket. As is being made clear, the ability to invoke IAR is there as an option to actually improve Wikipedia. It is not provided to act as a shield people can use so they can say dumb shit without explaining why it is well argued reasoning. Ensuring this title is argued about for another ten years, because it is dumb, is not an improvement. It is the status quo.

[CrowsNest]

Any administrator out there going to warn Guy Chapman (and redact his post) for this blatant bit of WP:CANVASSING on Jimbo's talk page....?

Oh no, not this shit again
The moratorium on move discussions for Sarah Jane Brown (T-H-L) has expired. To absolutely nobody's surprise whatsoever, the parenthesis-obsessives have once again proposed moving the article, and all the many-times-rejected proposed titles are being trotted out again. Yes, they genuinely are proposing Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) again. I have not the words. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, he thinks "Sarah Brown" would be "acceptable", but keeping it at "Sarah Jane Brown" is the "least bad option" because.....

Literally the ''only'' problem with this, as far as has been identified to date, is that it doesn't have parentheses in it. Fuck it, make it Sarah (Jane) Brown if you absolutely must.

Forget warning for CANVASSING, how about a block for blatant and obvious violations of WP:CIVIL (not just for "fuck it" but ignoring others) and general disruptive editing (don't comment in discussions as if you're blind, policy/guidelines aren't a thing, and/or your fellow editors don't exist)?

Unsurprisingly, his comments are quickly shown to be disingenuous misrepresentations.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =825795616

Guy is a perfect example of the sort of editor who should be thought of when asking then question, why did Wikipedia fail? The sort of editor Wikipedia needs to participate, simply wouldn't put up with this shit, as if somehow it was meant to represent good faith collaboration, or even a sensible and informed discussion. Administrators are meant to stop it, they have all the policies to do so, but sadly he is one, so not a great look to present to potential editors.

[CrowsNest]

It's not my speciality, but there certainly seems to be enough coverage out there to start a page for Sarah Jane Brown the landscape artist from Pembrokeshire. Then the Wikipedians would have to explain why she doesn't deserve to be the primary topic for "Sarah Jane Brown".

[Kingsindian]

I generally think that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Requested Moves (this is the 14th Requested Move in the past 10 years). But the discussion provides ample for watchers. In particular, one of the arguments on the page is that the disambiguator "(wife of)" is sexist because it implies that wives are the property of their husbands. Others say that this argument is PC run amok.

Oppose — fails WP:NATURALDIS as well as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MIDDLENAME, and will not be recognised. The poor lady should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
She should instead be sacrificed on the altar of patriarchy? Not quite seeing your point there. She doesn't seem to find it offensive on official records, and Sarah Brown is taken. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, editor Shakehandsman (T-C-L) also dropped by in the discussion. Just search for their name on WO.

All in all, another normal day on Wikipedia.

[CrowsNest]

Guy Chapman is proving what you have to do on Wikipedia to win - if the only way you can win is to lie and smear, then you have to lie bigly, smear your opponents bigly, and do both repeatedly. Being utterly odious also helps. He has no policy/guideline based argument, at least none which recognises why the debate is even happening (she isn't primarily known for anything), which is a remarkable example of an Administrator failing in the community's basic expectations of conduct in that high office. Will this be recognised in the outcome, and thus discounted? Will it fuck.

[Ming]

Guy Chapman is proving what you have to do on Wikipedia to win - if the only way you can win is to lie and smear, then you have to lie bigly, smear your opponents bigly, and do both repeatedly. Being utterly odious also helps. He has no policy/guideline based argument, at least none which recognises why the debate is even happening (she isn't primarily known for anything), which is a remarkable example of an Administrator failing in the community's basic expectations of conduct in that high office. Will this be recognised in the outcome, and thus discounted? Will it fuck.

Ming would tend to characterize Guy's remarks on Jimbo's page more as venting, but then, there's a certain irony in how Ming, in the persona of a supervillain, appears to be the one least likely to interpret every word spoken on WP as manifesting a malign double-purpose. Not that Ming is going to commend anyone in an article naming fight. WP:COMMON has turned out to be an extraordinarily stupid policy in the long run: it was put out to stop such pedantic nonsense as insisting that the proper name of the article should be "Domestic And Foreign Missionary Society of The Protestant Episcopal Church In The USA" (which is, or at least was not that long ago, the true corporation name of what they now want us to call The Episcopal Church), but in the end all it generates is pettifogging arguments when (a) one cannot measure what is more common, and (b) consistency is really more important.

But never mind that: Ming has run the search in the diff to which Crowsnest links, and yes, you have to tune it to get the results Iffy (T-C-L) finds, but not much. The heart of the problem is first of all in this result: "Sarah Jane Brown" is an exceptionally common name. The second issue is that two of them (not just one) are contemporary artists, and as such they have a lot of promotional links (for exposure, you know) and Google search promotes those. (For the record, Ming, archtrad as Ming is, admires the Turneresque landscapes and does not care for the found object sculptures.) Whatever Guy thinks, as soon as either of those artists gains enough prominence to get an article, the fight will begin again anyway.

The truth is that, however offensive it is, her common image is "Sarah Brown, the prime minster's wife." Fortunately for WP, the only American first lady to have a common enough name to require disambiguation is Margaret Taylor (T-H-L). Therefore every time they open the gates on Sarah Jane (neeMacaulay) Brown, there's going to be a fight.

[Poetlister]

I generally think that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Requested Moves (this is the 14th Requested Move in the past 10 years). But the discussion provides ample for watchers. In particular, one of the arguments on the page is that the disambiguator "(wife of)" is sexist because it implies that wives are the property of their husbands. Others say that this argument is PC run amok.

Oppose — fails WP:NATURALDIS as well as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MIDDLENAME, and will not be recognised. The poor lady should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
She should instead be sacrificed on the altar of patriarchy? Not quite seeing your point there. She doesn't seem to find it offensive on official records, and Sarah Brown is taken. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, editor Shakehandsman (T-C-L) also dropped by in the discussion. Just search for their name on WO.

All in all, another normal day on Wikipedia.

If they object to the idea that wives are the property of their husbands, they should use her maiden name, or would thst make her the property of her father? And is saying someone is the owner of something implying that the something owns the someone? That's barking mad.

[LynnWysong]

Guy Chapman is proving what you have to do on Wikipedia to win - if the only way you can win is to lie and smear, then you have to lie bigly, smear your opponents bigly, and do both repeatedly. Being utterly odious also helps. He has no policy/guideline based argument, at least none which recognises why the debate is even happening (she isn't primarily known for anything), which is a remarkable example of an Administrator failing in the community's basic expectations of conduct in that high office. Will this be recognised in the outcome, and thus discounted? Will it fuck.

He has now upped the ante by taking it to ANI

[No Ledge]

I'm surprised to find that (campaigner) is not a really uncommon parenthetical disambiguator. Seems much more commonly used in the UK and Ireland. I'd still find it odd to label any first lady, even at the state governor level, a "campaigner". Most first ladies have causes that they like to campaign for... from Lady Bird Johnson... Keep America Beautiful to Michelle Obama... gardening and healthy eating. But they're still firstly first ladies.

Not to be confused with Sandra Brown (campaigner) (T-H-L).

It would be too easy if she had a title like so many other Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, like Countess, or Duchess, or Viscountess, or Marchioness, or Baroness, or...

[CrowsNest]

First Lady isn't a thing in Britain. It's not been common for the 'role' to be seen as obligating the 'holder' to do anything, least of all choose some good causes to champion. Indeed, Cherie Blair just carried on being a barrister and a working mother, which doesn't leave much time for ribbon cutting, let alone charity directorships.

[CrowsNest]

Guy Chapman is proving what you have to do on Wikipedia to win - if the only way you can win is to lie and smear, then you have to lie bigly, smear your opponents bigly, and do both repeatedly. Being utterly odious also helps. He has no policy/guideline based argument, at least none which recognises why the debate is even happening (she isn't primarily known for anything), which is a remarkable example of an Administrator failing in the community's basic expectations of conduct in that high office. Will this be recognised in the outcome, and thus discounted? Will it fuck.

He has now upped the ante by taking it to ANI

Amazing, isn't it. The only incompetent in that report, is the guy arguing that "Sarah Jane Brown is her actual name" has any relevance to the debate. Repeating your own view ad nauseum, without listening to anyone else or reading much less citing a single policy or guideline, is of course blockable as disruption. Will Guy get blocked for it? Of course not. That's not how Wikipedia works. Bullying and bullshit is how you win. The cowardly admins of Wikipedia constantly roll over in the face of actual disruption like this, when being done by a powerful editor.

[Zoloft]

First Lady isn't a thing in Britain. It's not been common for the 'role' to be seen as obligating the 'holder' to do anything, least of all choose some good causes to champion. Indeed, Cherie Blair just carried on being a barrister and a working mother, which doesn't leave much time for ribbon cutting, let alone charity directorships.

[CrowsNest]

I'm pretty sure there's a more obvious explanation for her being there than it being part of her notional duties in the entirely non-existent role of First Lady. These days they're celebrities, sure, but they can pick and choose how they use that, as she presumably did here. It's not remotely the same as the warped unwitting prisoner status that the US position seems to carry.

[No Ledge]

No, US first ladies aren't obligated to do anything. Their role is purely ceremonial. Some are more visible than others, and generally the role has become much more visible since Eleanor Roosevelt (T-H-L) became an American politician, diplomat and activist. I think she was the first to take on such a role; remember she was in the role not so many years after women gained the right to vote. Hillary Clinton further advanced the role by taking an active policy role, most notably her failed health care reform initiative.

Campaigns to keep litter off the highways or ensure children eat healthy lunches are more like first lady "hobbies".

Mike Pence's wife has laid pretty low; I know nothing about her. Jill Biden was much more visible.

The question is, would Sarah Brown, as Sandra Brown, be notably known as a "campaigner" even if she had not been a prime minister's wife? Are all these causes just "hobbies"? The fact she has so many of them leads to the question of how much time she has to put into any of them. Is she really a campaigner, or just a figurehead at the top of the campaigns, in that role because people know her as the prime minister's wife?

Sarah Brown is pretty much unknown in the United States.

[Poetlister]

The US First Lady is wife of the Head of State. Thus the equivalent here would be the Duke of Edinburgh who, until old age forced his retirement, did an immense amount of ribbon-cutting and charitable work.

[Ming]

No, US first ladies aren't obligated to do anything. Their role is purely ceremonial.

Not entirely. The first lady was always in charge of WH entertaining, to the point where for certain presidents whose wife had died or was not well enough to handle it, some relation (generally a niece or daughter) would step into the role to become de facto first lady.

[CrowsNest]

The difference in obligation is obvious. The current British First Lady is Philip May (T-H-L), and that rather desperate article aside, it's pretty clear he's not interested in any of the sorts of things an American First Lady would be pressured into doing these days.

Sarah Brown doesn't need to be independently notable as a campaigner for people to accept that (campaigner) is the most logical disambiguator for her, given (wife of Gordon Brown) is unacceptable.

[Poetlister]

The current British First Lady is Philip May (T-H-L)

As I explained above, we need to look to the family of the Head of State, not of one of her ministers. Following the retirement of Prince Philip, the role has rather split up. Perhaps the best candidate for the title is the Duchess of Cambridge, although other royals such as Princess Anne do quite a lot.

[No Ledge]

Noting that Philip May's bio was created relatively recently, and his infobox also primarily frames him as the Spouse of the Prime Minister.

The Donald may or may not be pressuring Melania to do things, but clearly she didn't succumb to the pressure to accompany him to Davos, for example. Did the Queen travel to Davos?

So the prime minister's wife is more like Paul Ryan (T-H-L)'s wife. I need to look her up as I'm totally unfamiliar. Hah! There isn't even an article for Janna Little Ryan (T-H-L).

[Bezdomni]

I saw that Guy was vehemently opposed to the page title Sarah Brown née MacCauley. I don't quite get what could possess someone to be vehemently opposed to such a simple solution.

No Ledge: Even before Eleanor, there was Dolley Payne Todd Madison, kicked out of the Community of Quackers for marrying her Episcopalian 2nd husband Jim (and perhaps also for managing Montpelier, his plantation). But Lady Madison held court back when the British were still torching the capitol buildings of their former colonies... on the road to abolition ( § ).

[Poetlister]

Did the Queen travel to Davos?

Certainly not this year. HRH Princess Beatrice went, as did Queen Rania of Jordan. It may be that the Queen has been in previous years.

[Tarc]

I saw that Guy was vehemently opposed to the page title Sarah Brown née MacCauley. I don't quite get what could possess someone to be vehemently opposed to such a simple solution.

Because it is indicative of an archaic fixation on a woman's "maiden name". It's time to move past this sort of Victorian-era anxiety; that is the source of Guy's vehemence, along with a general tiredness of born2cycle's manic obsession with this topic.

Speaking of, he is on the verge of a sanction of some form, from a limit on Move Request messages or filings, all the way up to an indef block. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Born2cycle (T-H-L)

[Bezdomni]

I saw that Guy was vehemently opposed to the page title Sarah Brown née MacCauley. I don't quite get what could possess someone to be vehemently opposed to such a simple solution.

Because it is indicative of an archaic fixation on a woman's "maiden name".

Bah. Women can change their names if they want. Or not. Or they can use both.

In France, men can change their names when they marry (to include both their own "maiden" name and their spouse's "maiden" name). Not sure if that's true in the anglophone world.

[Anroth]

I saw that Guy was vehemently opposed to the page title Sarah Brown née MacCauley. I don't quite get what could possess someone to be vehemently opposed to such a simple solution.

Because it is indicative of an archaic fixation on a woman's "maiden name".

Bah. Women can change their names if they want. Or not. Or they can use both.

In France, men can change their names when they marry (to include both their own "maiden" name and their spouse's "maiden" name). Not sure if that's true in the anglophone world.

In the UK it is entirely possible, and has been done. It is just not very common. The UK's rules on names are quite lax. As long as it is not intended to offend people or to obtain money, anything goes.

I get more annoyed at institutions who ask for your mother's maiden name as some form of security check.

[mynameisnotdave]

I saw that Guy was vehemently opposed to the page title Sarah Brown née MacCauley. I don't quite get what could possess someone to be vehemently opposed to such a simple solution.

Because it is indicative of an archaic fixation on a woman's "maiden name".

In France, men can change their names when they marry (to include both their own "maiden" name and their spouse's "maiden" name). Not sure if that's true in the anglophone world.

Yes. I know a few people with such 'configuration'.

[Poetlister]

There are women who use their mother's maiden name because their mother is well known. A good example is Hilary Heilbron, daughter of Rose Heilbron (T-H-L).

[AndyTheGrump]

... born2cycle's manic obsession with this topic...

I'm not sure 'manic' is quite the word. More 'batshit crazy' I'd have thought, given this response at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement:

...
I care deeply about what I'm writing about and I put an inordinate amount of my personal time into it; I get that not everyone else appreciates this. So the solution is to muzzle me? What is the matter with you people? Is that how you treat people in the real world? If so, I'm glad I don't know you in real life, but I doubt you do. Thankfully, for the 1st Amendment. If we had freedom of speech equivalent to 1st Amendment rights on WP, there would be nothing to discuss about my "behavior" here, would there? Consider that. It's not like I'm yelling "Fire!" in a theater, am I?
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =829253532

Given an assertion by B2C that he thinks he has some sort of 'right' to go on indefinitely about things he 'cares deeply about', I can't imagine any outcome other than him being told he has no such right, and that he can either shut the **** up, or **** off elsewhere. Though probably in more formal terms....

Edit: B2C has now been given an indefinite block by Dennis Brown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =829332569

[mynameisnotdave]

An indefinite block for B2C something that was truly in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

[Poetlister]

An indefinite block for B2C something that was truly in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

Good old Dennis. Give him a pat on the back next time he shows up here.

[No Ledge]

Well that was certainly an interesting turn of events.

I just ran across Jim E. Mora (T-H-L). Isn't that a classic case of "not COMMONNAME". I mean virtually nobody knows this guy by his middle name or initial. I'd argue that he is much more well known than his son, as he is famous for his long tenure as an NFL head coach who turned two also-ran franchises into perennial contenders yet was never able to win even one single playoff game.

[b]Middle initial[/b]

Is it entirely clear that the most common method of disambiguation between father and son is their initials? Or is this more a matter of wiki naming conventions? When both were active NFL figures, I never heard them disambiguated by their initials, and the usage of "Sr." and "Jr." with them was quite common. I'll try to dig up some sources. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A requested move to Jim Mora (American football, born 1935) (T-H-L) was rejected, even though that's a viable parenthetical as this guy is known for just one thing: being an American football coach. In this case there are no competing notability factors like "spouse" or "executive" or "campaigner". Yet still the consensus was to disambiguate by middle initial.

Oddly it seems that B2C missed that discussion.

I'm kind of missing CrowsNest. Is it possible to welcome him back, but put his posts on moderation (up for approval by a moderator before going live). I realize that could be a burden for the moderator team, but I'd be interested in his take on how this one played out.

[Midsize Jake]

I'm kind of missing CrowsNest. Is it possible to welcome him back, but put his posts on moderation (up for approval by a moderator before going live). I realize that could be a burden for the moderator team, but I'd be interested in his take on how this one played out.

If only we could receive a sign from above that the multiple objections we'd receive for implementing such a plan, no doubt including one from Mr. CrowsNest himself, would be magically swept away in a purifying wash of good feelings and well-meaning collegiality.

(That said, we'll consider it, of course - I still sort-of like him myself, but I'd say it's a bit too soon right now. )

[Zoloft]

I'm kind of missing CrowsNest. Is it possible to welcome him back, but put his posts on moderation (up for approval by a moderator before going live). I realize that could be a burden for the moderator team, but I'd be interested in his take on how this one played out.

If only we could receive a sign from above that the multiple objections we'd receive for implementing such a plan, no doubt including one from Mr. CrowsNest himself, would be magically swept away in a purifying wash of good feelings and well-meaning collegiality.

(That said, we'll consider it, of course - I still sort-of like him myself, but I'd say it's a bit too soon right now. )

Actually developing a throttle for comments in phpBB is possible if somewhat time-consuming. I'm a bit busy right now to do the work. It would involve placing a limit on post length and a time limit between posts, exempting everyone in the Registered Users group, then creating a group for just those throttled (maybe call it Throttled Users) and then, just like Mute, placing those members in that new group, make it the default group for them, and removing them from the Registered Users group. Et voilà!

*mutters* Of course you'd have to exempt all the other special groups and use the test dummy account to test out all this.

If it didn't work you'd have to put it all back.