This of course angers everybody else on Wikipedia, except the tiny minority smart enough to take the time to read what he is saying and agree with because it makes total logical sense. The majority of Wikipedians are self-absorbed retards, who either can't understand his arguments, or can't be bothered to read them. And of course there's all those who are angry because they simply don't agree with him, and want to shut him down using any trick in the book.
All this adds up to a guy whose passion for correct titles on Wikipedia, has been used by his enemies to paint him as a problem editor. He's been put through the ordeal of an Arb case for his sins, and because of that, the Wikipediots are now going for the jugular, pissed as they are at his ability to precisely dissect the utter travesty that was the recent closure of a move request at Sarah Jane Brown.
He will soon be topic banned from title disputes, and the Wikipedians care so little about such an obvious case of a miscarriage of justice, they're happy to see Sandstein call him mental......
Ultimately, shit like this goes down like this because Wikipedians are anti-expert - they hate people who are right in policy and don't care what the ignorant mob thinks, especially if they are verbose and repetitive. The vast majority of Wikipedians would rather have ten editors who are so dumb they'd happily go along with any old shit, even if it's shit being fed to them by a bad actor trying to actually subvert policy, than one editor who isn't afraid to stand up for what is right.Somebody who is apparently here only to quibble (at excruciating length) about article naming really, really needs to find another hobby. Or professional help. I support a topic ban about anything related to article titles. Sandstein 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Editors like this guy expose the sham of their consensus model, revealing for all to see that it is rarely an exercise in getting the right result through policy backed reasoned argument (unless you go at it enough times) and more about simply divining what the ignorant mob wants, and/or the outcome that results in the least drama. Ironically, because this guy is so often right in policy, him getting his way in a move request inevitably puts a long running source of drama to rest. As he has of course explained to his peers, but they just don't want to know.
Ultimately, people like this guy wouldn't have to be so verbose and so tenacious, if the rest of the community, through their own intelligence and dedication to policy based reasoning, just got it right the first time. But it is precisely because Wikipedia doesn't reward people who do things the right way, that they have so few editors like that. And there will be fewer still if they keep expelling them in this fashion.
They're crucifying him for not wanting to be receptive to or compromise with people who are total idiots or worse. They're banning him for not accepting he is wrong, even though no sane person would look at his reasoning and conclude he was wrong.
In terms of how to govern themselves, Wikipedians have it all backwards, and it really does show in the quality of their end product. If you can't even get the title of an article right, why would anyone trust the contents to be accurate, comprehensive or neutral?