Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PigeonIP/RMs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Somewhat borderline as one delete is marked as "weak", but the rest has fairly convincing, guideline/policy based rationales Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:PigeonIP/RMs[edit]

This page serves no encyclopedia-building function (rather the opposite), and its presence as a "hit-list" of WP:RMs to attempt, against already long-established consensus (see list of precedent RMs at WP:BREEDDAB) is a recipe for significant disruption if this editor becomes active again (dormant since mid-2017, aside from brief reappearances in 2018). The editor was very active in 2014 in tendentiously pursuing the renames on this hit-list (mostly by resisting WP:CONSISTENCY RMs to what are their current names), with what appears to be a 100% failure rate. The titling patterns for breed-related articles were also tightened in the interim by the WP:BREEDCAPSRFC at Village Pump.

The editor who created the page is a questionably competent user of English and likely should not have anything to do with RM or other MoS/AT/DAB-related matters. A concern was raised on the user's talk page about this WP:CIR issue, but they firmly declared an intent to keep "correcting" English Wikipedia.

If you go over the list I'm MfD'ing, you'll see that it's all:

A loathing for natural disambiguation and an explicit intent to move all natural-DAB animal breed names to parenthetic – despite years of overwhelming and consistent consensus against that idea (going back much further than 2014, when I started keeping track).
A confused view that if breeders call something a "Pekin" when talking to other chicken breeders, that "Pekin chicken" is wrong – a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:AT#DISAMBIGUATION, and of English usage patterns (two cat people say "Burmese", in context, but will say "Burmese cat" to a dog person – natural disambiguation isn't something WP invented, but an everyday feature of the language).
A confused view that if something has two conflicting names in English, we should instead switch to German or whatever – against WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:USEENGLISH.

PS: The amount of time spent decorating this page with meticulous, pointless icons is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOT#WEBHOST issue, as well. It's not productive for any editor to spend time festooning a gallery of their anti-consensus lobbying activities.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's nothing wrong with using the userspace as a tracking feature (I had five sandboxes with PetScan dumps in them at one point). However, it's a bit stupid to

a) Publicly host your evil plan to undermine consensus on Wikipedia page-naming policies

b) Have such a plan in the first place

It'd be a bit like having User:Example/List of articles which need more negative coverage. It's just counterproductive. SITH (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right; it's not it about it being a tracking page. The BREEDAB thing I linked to is itself one. Rather, I'm MfDing this because it's a BATTLEGROUND-against-a-consensus-I-don't-like hitlist. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that I had difficulty in discussing breeds of ducks at the dispute resolution noticeboard with this editor because of their difficulty with English. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for now, unless this editor provides a better response than has been my experience. This is a Weak Delete because I don't see that much disruption in what is only a misguided plan in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.