:::Quoting B2C: . Uh-huh. And that view pretty much proves that GTBacchus, when he wrote …, *might* have put his finger on the pulse of what makes B2C tick.But I can’t afford to devote so much time to do what I think is right. For me, this wasn’t about *getting* B2C. I have an expression I use in real life: “He (or she or it or that) is a bug splat on my windshield of life. Press the pedal to the metal and move on.” Instead, after I noticed Dicklyon embroiled in an MfD and then discovered that he had driven GTBacchus bat-shit crazy with frustration over his inability (and he’s an admin by the way) to deal with B2C’s tendentiousness (what B2C describes as ). I was motivated to take this one because I had noticed that Wikipedia did not have an effective way to deal with chronically tendentious editors; there are policies against it, and an essay does a pretty darn good job of defining it, but the community seems to be galactically incompetent at dealing with it.So I thought “I’ll roll up my sleeves, see if I can serve up a paradigm process for doing so, ignore B2C’s wikilawyering and arguing his petty issues until the heat death of the universe, and shepherd an RFC/U on B2C.But as I mentioned, this is too time consuming. And I hate waking up early and finding B2C on my mind. So I’ve decided to not pursue the RFC/U. It’s my version of what GTBacchus did: get away from B2C to be happier (only GTBacchus pondered his bellybutton and B2C and decided his best recourse was to get off Wikipedia entirely). I’ll blank my sandbox and I’ll give B2C all let the community enjoy him some more.