Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Wikipedia

User:Dicklyon has been using semi-automated editing to correct capitalization issues for many years, but has run into trouble with it many times as well. I recently saw some of his edits on my watchlist, but as they contained a lot of errors, I reverted them and posted to his talk page[1]. Rather unsatisfactory responses, and 3 days later a new batch of changes lit up my watchlist, all of them containing errors[2]. Issues include turning bluelinks into redlinks, changes inside refs (e.g. de-capitalizing titles), changing official names of organisations to decapitalized versions, ... Again Dicklyon gave some feebleassurances of slowing down, taking better care, but the error rate wasn't high, and so on. User:Pelmeen10[3] and User:Butlerblog[4] agreed with my criticism and requests to slow down, check things much better, ... From their responses, it became apparent that Dicklyon still didn't recognize the extent of the issues or the high error rate of his edits, so I checked the first edit of a new batch of "fixes" he did, and reported the rather terrible results[5], which continued all the previous issues and then some (lowercasing personal names, or the first word of a section heading). The full discussion can be seen at User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Can something please be done to make Dicklyon stop (topic ban, block, obligation to run a bot which first gets scrutiny and approval, or whatever solution is deemed best)? Fram (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Remove from AWB checkpage - Dicklyon needs to have WP:JWB access removed by being removed from the AWB checkpage.

This is just the latest repeat of something that he has been warned about multiple times in the past (causing a high number of errors using a semi-automated editing tool), both on his talk page: [6] [7] and at AN/I: [8].

He's using the semi-automated edit tool JWB and the issue is he simply goes too fast - editing at bot-like speeds and is not carefully looking at his edits, which results in broken/red links, and other such problems, all of which have been specifically pointed out to him in previous discussions. At those speeds, WP:MEATBOT applies. In that previous ANI discussion, it was pointed out that he was editing at 30+ edits per minute. In this most recent issue that Fram pointed out above, I noted to Dicklyon that his editing rate reached speeds of 40+ edits per minute [9]. Instead of slowing down, he increased to speeds of 67+ edits per minute [10]. While I did not see errors in that last run, apparently Fram did.

He really seems to be more concerned with speed rather than accuracy. The speed vs accuracy problem has been pointed out many times, he has acknowledged it, and yet time and again he simply does not slow down. Instead, he speeds up. Per WP:AWB, AWB & JWB users are responsible for every edit made. His high error rates and unwillingness to slow down show that we cannot allow him to continue to use the tool. It's an easy solution, and if not taken, this will continue to happen in the future.

ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, as this has all been pointed out to AND acknowledged by Dicklyon on multiple occasions, at this point the focus should be on whether the disruptive editing warrants removal of JWB access (either permanently or for a defined period, or any other sanction) as opposed to the "I promise to be more careful" response that we've already gotten in the past. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have removed Dicklyon's AWB access, if nothing else as a stopgap while this discussion proceeds to prevent further disruption. I will not necessarily be following this discussion, but if there ends up being a consensus to restore access I will not be objecting (though by all means ping me if my opinion on something is needed). Primefac (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dicklyon response: On 28 August (over a week ago), Fram reverted 11 of my semi-automated edits, for a combination of errors, which I've discussed, learned from, corrected, and mostly not repeated (see User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes"); mostly, it was for not realizing that "IPC Alpine Skiing" is the name of an organization. I was editing too fast, not looking closely enough at the diffs, in a run about 1000 edits around that time, and made a few other errors, too, and I've been much more careful since. I asked him if he noticed or could find any more such problems, and he did not point out any more. Yesterday, he found some errors in an article that I had edited mostly by hand, while developing some regex patterns, over a period of many minutes. He pointed those out, and I've made another pass over that and a couple of subsequent edits. I don't see how this is a disruptive situation that requires intervention. I've done about 2000 JWB edits over the last week, and judging by what I can find and what's been reported, I think the error rate is probably around 1% (and even in those with errors, such as a case change in a reference title, there's usually a net improvement in the article). Most of these edits just clean up obvious over-capitalization (there's been no suggestion that anything I've done is controversial, just a few mistakes). As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• To judge the accuracy of this reply, let's just look at the final sentence: "As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out." My very first, short enough post in the section on your talk page made the explicit claim of turnuin bluelinks into redlinks in this edit, where you changed [[Super Giant Slalom skiing|super-G]] into [[Super Giant slalom skiing|super-G]] (lower case "slalom" in the piped link). So what do you 6 minutes after you have replied to my post about this? You create Super Giant slalom skiing. Yet now you claim not to know if you created any redlinks, and claim none have been pointed out? Too long ago perhaps? In my post yesterday evening in the same section, I even put in bold, turning bluelinks into redlinks, with a clear indication where you could find it. You changed [[2014 European Women's Artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] into [[2014 European Women's artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] (downcasing "artistic" inside the piped link, the same also in the Men competition link), which turned two bluelinks into two redlinks. If you can't even see (or admit) this after it has been pointed out to you, and even explicitly claim the opposite, then your being "very careful" is of little value. Fram (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Sure enough, looks like I fixed those few and forgot. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Oh, I see now, that's going back to the one redlink found and fixed on August 25. And then on Sept. 4 I made two more in one huge article that I editted slowly. Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• As for your claims of making inbetween a few thousand edits with a very low error rate, I notice that you switched to a much simpler change (downcasing "Association Football"), but that a) most of your edits are of the type discouraged by AWB and the like (purely cosmetic changes of piped links, e.g. [11][12][13][14][15]), and b) inbetween you make halfbaked changes, turning the visible text "Association Football" into "Association football" in the middle of a sentence, which is not an improvement[16], or changing the piped link but not the actual, visible text[17]. Fram (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Note that fixing a piping through a miscapitalized redirect is not purely cosmetic. It not only avoids the redirect, by piping instead through the actual title, or by skipping the redirect, but it is also part of the maintenance process of trying to get things out of WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I'm not claiming that you should care about these small benefits, but the latter is part of an overeall work pattern to improve the encyclopedia, not done for cosmetic reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Fram They seem to somehow still be doing semi-automated edits despite having had AWB rights revoked? I highly doubt this edit [18] (which I just reverted for a multitude of reasons) was done manually. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay, enough is enough I guess. So while this discussion is ongoing, and after their AWB access was removed, they make "case fixes" inside urls. I guess we can throw all assurances of being very careful and having a very low error rate and so on into the bin. Is there anything short of a block that will drive home the message? It took indef blocks to solve some their earlier editing issues. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I started by copying the text from an open JWB editor, and hadn't gotten around to finishing correcting it before it got reverted. It's fixed now. You can add 1 to my count of error files. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dicklyon you really shouldn't be doing any sort of automated or semi-automated editing while this discussion is on-going, especially as the permissions to use JWB directly in the article space were revoked several hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't automated or semi-automated when I did it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You said in the comment I replied to that you had "started by copying the text from an open JWB editor". That is semi-automated editing, as you are using the output of a JWB run as the basis to start your edit.

You really should not be publishing edits that you know in advance are broken in some way. There's a reason why we have a preview button, so that you can see the results of any edit you're about to make and give you the time to fix it before you publish. As with all of the previous times your conduct has come up in relation to this type of issue, you need to slow down a lot. Focus on quality over quantity, and verify your edits are correct before pushing the publish button. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I did look carefully at the preview (see this version), and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. Does anyone? Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. That is a really shockingly bad approach to take towards editing articles. While edits don't need to be perfect, and some mistakes will happen as we're (mostly) all human, no-one should be publishing something that they believe to be broken from the outset. That is another sign that you need to slow down. Again, quality over quantity is what is important.

To answer your question, yes I always check what I'm publishing before I publish it. At minimum I check for spelling, punctuation, Engvar issues, date formatting issues, source reliability, factual accuracy, copyvios, and close paraphrasing. Those are all things you should be keeping an eye out for before you hit the publish button, as it saves others a lot of work by catching and cleaning up after you when you do make mistakes. Depending on the page and topic, as I edit a lot of contentious topic areas, I also check to make sure I'm not introducing/re-introducing text for which there is a consensus to exclude, as well as any text for which there is a consensus for a specific version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Going back a few days, the latest article edit I could find by you that's not a revert or undo, I see you did this edit, leaving quite a few capitalization and punctuation errors and inconsistencies in the section you edited. Maybe some of us are just more aware that we're not fixing everything at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Given how the rest of this discussion is going, I would suggest that you strike and rephrase this, along with the final sentence in your reply, as casting aspersions about my editing and speculating over my own experience levels and state of mind will not be helping your situation.

However, if you check my first edit in that sequence, you'll see that I was dealing with an NPOV concern on a dual CTOP article (BLP and GENSEX). My second edit, the one that you linked to, was adjusting the text that was present prior to the NPOV issue being introduced to bring it in line with standard terminology on this topic. Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors (for the point on Davies' BBC Question Time), the title of one publisher and one book (for the point on the Dorling Kindersley book), and a possible en/em dash issue. It would also be a better investment of my editorial time to convert that list into prose, per the maintenance tag which has been on that section for a little over a year. But we're not here to discuss my edits, we're here to discuss your edits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I absolutely agree that "Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors...", and I don't mean to be criticizing you, just poking fun at your statement that I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find – nobody does that, not even you. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find That's not what I said. I said that an editor should always check what content they're changing before they publish it. As in, if you edit a sentence, or paragraph, or citation, you verify that the edit you're about to make isn't going to introduce any new errors. That applies whether you're fixing or rewriting existing content, or adding wholly new content.

You don't need to fix everyone else's errors in a single edit, or fix an entire section when you're fixing a single sentence, paragraph, or reference, but you do have a responsibility to make sure that your edits are as error free as humanly possible. And that is I'm afraid, based on this discussion and the previous discussions, something that you seem to struggle with, particularly with regards to automated and semi-automated mass changes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to gauge whether the changes are a net improvement because messing up even a single internal link or a reference url, or a title of a work, which can be a bit of a sneaky error, that future editors might fail to notice, is hard to appraise against having some obviously incorrectly capitalized words sorted out, which is a nice thing to do, but it's also kind of trivial, and such things do get fixed along the way as any article reaches a certain state of maturity. These fixes should follow along the trajectory of the article getting actually better while not introducing any errors that will be difficult to notice even much further down the line. —Alalch E. 23:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• At some point sanctions beyond a prohibition on automated editing are probably necessary, including a topic ban from MOS edits entirely or a block beyond that. Error rate aside, I don't think the changes Dicklyon are making are important enough they need to be automated. This is grammar pedantry of the highest order, and the only thing worse than pedantry for the sake of it is pedantry that's incorrect. Error rates of even "just" 1% when making thousands of edits is still more mistakes than is likely uninvolved editors are going to be able to spot, track, and fix. It's inherently disruptive, has no real benefit for the project, and we've been down this road before with the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  That's a purely anti-MOS stance, hardly related to the fact that I made a few errors. The fixes I'm making are not controversial, just moving toward better alignment with our consensus style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  No, it's based on your refusal to see what you're doing is an issue. This thread is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goldmine of quotes and actions from you. No, other editors don't regularly push knowingly broken edits, especially breaking stuff over capitalization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I do understand that editing too fast such that I make mistakes is an issue, and I did a bit of that a week ago, as I've admitted repeatedly and have done my best to fix. But Fram is now saying that since I made mistakes in another article while editing slowly and carefully I need some kind of intervention, and you're saying that what I'm doing isn't even in the good of the project (you call it "grammar pedantry of the highest order", which I find offensive, though I do practice a bit of pedantry when I think it will help). I don't understand how you think that way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I won't comment on the specifics of this case, but I'm familiar with this editor. Previous ANI's on this editor have had long drawn out wall of text comments that ultimately discouraged participation. Dicklyon has had an opportunity to address the issues brought up here and now let others contribute. Thanks Nemov (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  If you refer to past interactions, an archive link is a good idea. Of course you're a bit familiar, as you are the one who initiated the last complaint at ANI, which was pretty much baseless, and on a mild dispute that you weren't really even part of. I still think too much discussion is not an infraction. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Please read this entire discussion: User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Fram is making overblown claims of a Dicklyon error rate, and Dicklyon is bending over backward to satisfy Fram, who appears now to have arrived at an expectation of absolute perfection on first attempt, and to have no patience for Dicklyon correcting his own few inevitable mistakes. I'm not buying it. I've been watching this dicussion unfold post-by-post since Aug. 25 (without getting involved), and at every turn Dicklyon has been entirely open to criticism and to adjusting his JWB editing to be more precise and, basically trying to make Fram (and Pelmeen10 and ButlerBlog) happy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks, S. Your "Read" is a little ambiguous; did you mean it as an imperative, or as a past tense? Either way, good. But I don't agree that the mistakes Fram complained about were inevitable, nor trivial. He had a couple of valid complaints and gave me useful feedback that helped a lot. Why he decided to file an ANI complaint after that is the mystery. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I meant it as a suggestion/request; have clarified the wording. As for "inevitable", I mean that everyone makes mistakes, and a large cleanup job cannot reasonably be expected to have a 0.000% error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  If this were the only time this has happened, the penitent response would be adequate. But this is a pattern that continues to be repeated. The first rule at WP:AWBRULES is: You are expected to review every edit, just as if you were making an edit using Wikipedia's edit form when editing by hand. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving. Can you review the edit you're making when doing 30, 40, and 60 edits per minute? The rules are clear: Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled. Personally, I think that alone is adequate. Honestly, per WP:MEATBOT, he could/should be treated as a bot, and thus per WP:BOTBLOCK, operating as an unapproved bot could result in a soft-block. I haven't asked for that, and I don't know if I would support that as necessary. But operating JWB and AWB comes with more responsibility than manual editing. If it's being abused, the only reasonable response is to remove him from the checkpage. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• At what point do we finally state that enough is enough? What matters is both the error rate and the number of errors, which combined with repeatedly IDHT and failures to improve standards while making bot-like edits is something that resulted in blocks and complete automation bans for Batacommand and Rich Farmbrough at least. I'm also utterly unsurprised at SMcCandlish bending over backwards to avoid seeing any problems with Dicklyon's edits, because it happens every time Dick gets brought to ANI. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The fact that my mind remains unchanged isn't somehow a failing on my part. Dicklyon gets brought to ANI with weaksauce evidence, a badgering personal-beef vibe to the accusations, and ignoring of any attempts to Dicklyon to address the concerns. I don't find this nonsense persuasive, and trying to turn this discussion to be about me isn't going to do it either. It's ad hominem hand-waving.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

This editor's lack of attention to detail is frustrating. I refer you to this discussion and the one below it from October 2022, in which the editor seemed to think that it was acceptable to ask other people to check their edits when it was pointed out that the editor had made hundreds of bad edits. As a hard-core gnome and someone who has made tens of thousands of minor syntax fixes that sometimes annoy other editors by filling their watchlists, I am sympathetic to Dicklyon's desire to fix minor errors. But when you are making thousands of minor edits that may already be annoying to people, it is extra important to avoid making errors along the way, and to respond fully and rapidly when a helpful editor takes the time to notify you of your errors. Dicklyon does not have a pattern of responding well when errors are pointed out, and the editor does not have a pattern of carefully checking the output of their edits. Some kind of restriction appears to be overdue, unfortunately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reading through the threads you linked to, suggest that this may well be a speed issue, and apparently, the editor not handling the increased speeds very well. - jc37 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have so stipulated several times. It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast. I'm guilty of that. But the last of that was over a week before Fram's complaint here, so it's not clear why he brought this complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dicklyon - Based upon your sentence: "It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast." lead me to want to ask something. This is not me asking the community to chime in on some sort of sanction, I'm just asking you, based upon your own discernment, and self-awareness.

What do you think about taking a break from AWB for a few months, to give you more of an opportunity to get a handle on your editing practices? - jc37 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let me explain my editing practices, which I have a fair handle on already. For 15 years or so, I averaged about 30 edits per day. Since getting onto JWB, more like 500 per day. My error rate per article, and rate of ANI complaints, per article edit, is down by way more than an order of magnitude, because with JWB I have to be way more careful; I do less that's controversial, and more simple grunt work. And when I make a mistake, JWB helps me find and correct similar mistakes across multiple articles quickly. I've made huge progress on over-capitaliztion, most recently in sports, such as fixing things like "Men's Singles", "Assistant Coach", and "Giant Slalom" in tens of thousands of articles. In late August I had a couple of bad days, and made mistakes that I didn't quickly notice and fix in about 15 articles, possibly more, out of a thousand or so article edits with many case fixes in each. I'm not arguing that that's OK, just that it's not cause for an ANI discussion or admin intervention. Stepping away from JWB would not address the issue, which is that I did get sloppy for a bit and rushed things with barely a glance. I'll be more careful, and give everything a better look in the future, which will take a lot more of my time, but will avoid these embarrassing situations where I have occasionally made enough mistakes for an editor to get annoyed at me instead of just saying what he noticed. And coming to ANI is always a pain, as it's watched by vultures who are always willing to attack me based on memories of long-ago slights. This is not a sensible venue to discuss these issues. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. I had considered asking you the question on your talk page. But I thought that that could just merely split the discussion.

I thought that perhaps if you took a break from AWB for now, that might resolve any short-term concerns. But I can see how that could also be problematic for you in the future. Hence my asking what you thought.

Thank you again for your assessment. - jc37 04:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Re-read that again after (re-)reading WP:AWB. And Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use Rule #1 comes to mind. Asking others to essentially WP:SOFIXIT (Wikipedia:Someone else fix it), when it's a mistake that you made through lack of diligence with semi-automated tools, isn't the best look. The second part of WP:BOLD is "but not WP:RECKLESS". AWB is unambiguously clear that you are responsible for your edits. And that includes cleaning up your mistakes. Others can of course help if they are willing, but there should not be a presumption that others are your clean-up crew. This dances a bit too close to WP:FAIT as well. I really want to AGF here, but the more I look, the more concerns I start to see.

Let's keep this as simple and straight-forward as possible: Dicklyon - Do you agree that, per policy and guidelines, you are responsible for all the edits on your account, regardless of whether they are done with tools or not? And do you agree that if edits that are unambiguously errors are discovered, that you are responsible for correcting them in a timely manner? - jc37 18:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have always taken responsibility for my mistakes, and have not asked others to fix them. The discussion Jonesey95 linked shows me fixing the categories (asking for speedy moves of cats is a part of the normal process of getting category names to match article names, and I fixed to categories in the articles already so that they wouldn't be red while waiting for those speedy moves). I did ask for more detail on what someone noticed, which helps me be sure I fixed everything. When I asked Fram for more detail on his Aug. 25 complaints, after I fixed what I could find and he said I didn't, he gave me nothing more until I made more mistakes later, and then I fixed all those. In most cases, I would have found and fixed them myself within a day without his help, nevertheless I did appreciate hearing what he noticed and that helped me find more thorough fixes, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. - jc37 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

?????? Please read the discussion I linked above. This editor repeatedly wrote some variant of "Please do let me know (or just revert) if you see any other errors or non-useful edits that I've made. I fixed a bunch of stuff with a few redirects, but I'm sure more will turn up." This is NOT the same as inspecting every edit carefully to look for errors and then fixing them. The behavior continued over a period of more than a month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I just want to surface this comment from upthread, with caveated commentary. First, I've made a lot of trivial gnoming edits in my own contributions (like ensuring bylines and publication dates are present in obituary notices for some reason), sometimes accompanied by an edit summary along the lines of "why am i fixing this?". Second, I have been too busy to do anything useful here for about two weeks now, as my contribution history should show. Third, I often knowingly introduce errors which I fix in the subsequent edit, usually a no-target error from citing a source I haven't added yet, although I also sometimes inadvertently duplicate |date= parameters because I miss their presence when fixing up all the parameters some referencing script missed or got wrong.Having said that, the aforementioned comment: I did look carefully at the preview ... and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way....Turning a single bluelink red, or messing up a single reference url, are not really that big of a deal. But it's my position that one of those errors is more worse than maybe 150 MOSed recapitalisations – or 25 completed obituary citations – is better. The work being done here is, in the broad view, extremely trivial, so the accompanying error rate should be extremely low. This exact kind of error is why WP:CONTEXTBOT.If a "careful look" at the preview is still resulting in multiple errors; if errors are suspected "whether or not" semi-automated tools are used, it seems to me that rate limiting is the solution here. I don't think there's any technical way to cap a human user at, say, six edits a minute, but keeping the JWB permissions revoked seems like a positive step. Folly Mox (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I agree with Thryduulf and David Fuchs. At what point do we run out of patience? If it was down to me alone, I would have run out a long time ago. Enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  If that's a reference to David Fuchs' comment on a "topic ban from MOS edits", I certainly agree with that. I've never understood why the community tolerates the level of collateral disruption caused by their marginal/trivial but voluminous MOS-type "corrections". DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I agree with a topic ban like that, but it would need tighter wording. For example would it (and should it) include requested moves related to capitalisation (the issue at hand last time I commented on an issue involving Dicklyon at ANI)? What about MOS-related discussions in Wikipedia space? Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Why on earth would someone be topic-banned from an entire swath of guidelines and processes just because (should consensus come to such an assement) some of their bot-like edits of a particular kind of had too high an error rate? That's now how we do things. You have a long history of criticism against various MoS regulars, agitation against MoS being applicable to topics you care about, and vociferous disagreement with various things that MoS says (without gaining a consensus to change them), so this appears to be a personal "help me get rid of an enemy" witch-hunt.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  ... and you have a demonstrated history of defending the same, along with vociferous agreement with the stances. Should we therefore similarly accuse you of knee-jerk reactions in defense of a faction? Ravenswing 23:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @SMcCandlish it's true you have repeatedly accused me of that, but the accusations are a mix of partially true, misleading and false. I have long been critical of the behaviour of you and Dicklyon (both MOS regulars with a very long history of vociferously disagreeing with opinions that differ from your own) but only because of your behaviour. I have never agitated against MoS being applicable either to topics I care about or otherwise, what I have done is disagreed with your interpretation of some MoS guidelines and disagreed with your interpretation of/characterisation of evidence in some specific cases. Finally I don't regard Dicklyon (or you) as enemies.

  Now I've dealt with the entirely uncalled-for ad homimens... when someone has an error rate and volume as high as Dicklyon's, for as long as Dicklyon's, without evidence of understanding why editors are upset about those errors or demonstrating an ability to edit without making so many errors, taking steps to protect the encyclopaedia is what we do things.

  If you'd actually read what I wrote, rather than assuming I was trying to pursue a "witch hunt" you seem to think is the only reason I might have a different opinion, you would see that I was asking questions about what the scope should be rather than arguing that he should be topic banned from "an entire swath of guidelines and processes". Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general, something even ArbCom did not try to do with WP:ARBATC, the discretionary sanctions (now CTOP) applied to WP:AT and WP:MOS (and have refused to do when asked to do it later at ARCA). "Uncalled for"? You started this by going after me by name with insinuations that sound like some kind of conspiracy theory. Your trying to play victim here after picking a fight pointedly, for no apparent reason, is pretty silly. Back to the matter at actual hand, it's clear from Dicklyon's talk page discussion that he's making efforts to slow his roll and produce fewer errors, and has been entirely open to cricism about his errors and suggestions about what he can do to reduce them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general Nope. Try reading what I have actually written rather than what you think someone with the motivation you ascribe to me would write. Please stop attempting to paint my disagreements as some sort of witch hunt, conspiracy theory, and/or fight-picking and accept that I might actually be here in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Alright, I'll take this to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Comment I would tend to agree with the assessment by SMcCandlish. Per WP:AWBRULES, DL does accept responsibility for their edits. They do remedy any error they have made when these are pointed out and they have acknowledged that they were proceeding too fast (initially) in this case. WP is a collaborative project based on a principle of continuous improvement. Collaborative improvement occurs through positive feedback. Even preceded by please, undo all your "slalom" related "case fixes" ...by creating a mixed case nightmare... is a demand, it does not move things forward, and it is negative feedback. There is an underlying battle ground tone. The argument is that DL's edits have a high error rate. What is too high? Arguably, he would claim to be running at about 1%. Is this too high? I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Sounds a bit WP:POTish to me. There is an assertion that AWB type edits should be more accurate (have less errors) than edits made manually. It is a fallacious assertion that the oversight provided to an AWB edit can be more accurate than that applied to a manual edit. When one editor may not see a particular tree for the woods, another will see it as if it stood alone in a field. This occurs regardless of whether we are talking about manual or semiautomated edits. It has been my observation over time that DL uses feedback to not only correct an error in a particular article but to learn from this, correct any mis-identification of a pattern, ultimately correct similar errors that may have occurred in other article and prevent the same error occurring in further like edits. This is collaborative editing. It is certainly not leaving a mess for others to fix. It is a process of continuous improvement through successive iterations. If they were leaving a mess for others to clean up, then there would be good reason for complaint but this is not the case. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Not all errors are equally problematic. Typos in wikipedia and user talk space are basically a non-issue except in very rare cases where that contributes to genuine misunderstanding; broken links in mainspace actually negatively impact on our readers. Suggesting that people shouldn't object to introducing errors in article space if they make typos in wikipedia space is absurd. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I would add that an acceptable error rate also depends on the type of error and situation involved. 1% might be fine for someone making "generic" edits (for lack of a better term). But as mentioned by Folly Mox, it might not be acceptable when you're making a large number of semi-automated edits. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  This comes back to the absolute number of errors being at least, if not more, important than the rate of errors. It takes basically the same amount of editor time and effort to fix 50 errors introduced over 100 edits as it does to fix 50 errors made over 1000 edits (actually slightly less time in the former case if you count time spent checking for errors). Failure to grasp this was a key issue with either Rich Farmbrough or Betacommand (possibly both). Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, errors in main-space are more consequential than errors on TPs. However, my point is that every body makes errors and my question was what is too high. Yes, breaking links or corrupting a reference is significant but a spelling error can also be significant if it is a miss-matched word that creates a totally different meaning. DL has acknowledges the significance of the errors. But has everyone here never made a similar mistake? Has everyone here never had a bad-hair wiki day? What quantum of errors are we actually talking about? Yes, leaving 50 errors for others to clean up would be cause for complaint but has DL done this? However, this is not the case. If someone points out one error in one article that he did not recognise, DL looks for and fixes similar errors he may have created. This is being responsible for the edits he creates. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I would support a community activity ban on Dicklyon from using JWB/AWB and any other mass-text-editing-engine for 6 months. Lourdes 11:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• I agree with Lourdes and would support banning Dicklyon from mass-editing for six months. As others have noted, this isn't the first time the community has expressed concerns about the error rate with Dicklyon's mass edits, and it wasn't that long ago. To address the question of what the "expected" error rate is with AWB/JWB, I would say that it ought to be zero. Yes, mistakes will happen, but they should be few and far between. You should be reviewing every edit for sanity, both via diff and preview. If Dicklyon isn't doing that, that's a problem. If he is doing that and not catching the errors that he's introducing, that's also a problem. The nature of the changes is beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Proposal : Site ban

Proposal : Banned from all automated or semi-automated editing

Sticking this in here. Its clear what the problem is, from the long history of issues Dicklyon isnt really interested in doing a better job to avoid the errors, so realistically the only option is to forbid them from doing the thing that is causing the problems. For clarity, this would also include the example above where they are copying from an output. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note: These usually have a time frame for appeal. Several above have suggested 6 months. - jc37 12:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support For the record though, I think this will just end up the way all the other banned automated editors went. Constant boundary-testing incurring increasing sanctions that stop them doing what they want to do without oversight, until they reach the point after many long time-wasting discussions where they end up site-banned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You understand everything, Godfather. SN54129 12:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support per my comments above. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support A site ban is too much. Dicklyon has a tendnecy to move too fast which is a problem for automated editing where attention to detail is a higher priority. This doesn't make Dicklyon a bad editor, just an editor not suited for this particularly task. I'm not sure I would be suited for it either. Hopefully, he recognizes his limitations so this doesn't escalate further as pointed out by Only in death. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support. The combination of an automation ban and a separate MOS-related ban (per my comments above) are the best way forward at this time, and hopefully it wont escalate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Strong support per my comments above on the siteban proposal. Minimum timeframe for appeal needs to be a year at minimum, and in addition, I think we need maybe to not be so ordinarily merciful in granting such an appeal when that timeframe does arrive. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support - I truly believe the present issue is due to speed. The types of errors generated are specific evidence that he hasn't been able to write regexes that completely evaluate the potential change, leading to false positives and that edits need to be more carefully reviewed prior to saving. I want to be extremely clear on this point - it's not the regex problem that is the reason for supporting this, nor is it just the number or type of errors alone. It's the fact that knowing that and acknowledging it, those issues continue without a change in approach. Had this been the first time pointing it out, my position would be to simply say, "hey, slow down and make sure to look at what you're doing". But, that is what has already been said more than once. It's not a battleground mentality or personal animus to say that if we don't take the tool away, we'll be having this same conversation time and again. It's simply saying that having been warned about it many times, there has to be a consequence when things have not changed. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support. Seems necessary and is proportionate.—Alalch E. 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support A good resolution and not a severe restriction. Maybe add appealable in a year and autoexpire in 2 years. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose, this escalated quickly from a talk page discussion where the issue seemed to have been handled to an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal which has no set time limit. I'd support maybe a two-week ban from the tools, just to make a point, but removing their use from an editor who has probably made thousands of good tool edits for every handful of incorrect edits (which, when pointed out, he has fixed in good faith and politeness) seems like excess punishment for doing a huge amount of work with some glitches along the way. Tool use is a steep learning curve and Dicklyon has been mastering it and is learning from his mistakes. This ban stops his learning curve before he becomes perfect at the tasks, and would be an overall loss to the project's potential. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  To clarify this: ...an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal - These came essentially at the same time, and should probably be viewed as two alternative possibilities. As you can see, the other had zero support as so was closed already. This alternative probably should not be viewed through the lens of having being proposed since the other failed. It was presented at the same time. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Dicklyon was unblocked in 2015 after socking with a requirement to "avoid large scale, controversial actions". [19]. So hardly a new issue. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support as a minimum (no appeal for 12 months), but with the addition of an MOS edits TBAN per Thryduulf and as Thryduulf's defined it in the above closed siteban thread. The disruption isn't just via automated edits. This is a long-standing issue with multiple previous ANIs. Time to fix it. DeCausa (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support with minimum 6 months before being able to appeal. Dickylon needs a bit more care and attention to their work. They are very receptive to making corrections when they are pointed out, but the pointing out of errors happens to often. It's something that would likely be solved with more preparation and thought before carrying out the automated tasks. A period of manual editting and more careful attention may help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose There are perhaps three premises for this proposal. Because DL makes errors, DL makes too many errors. This is an unreasonable standard. DL makes errors and creates work for others to clean up. If DL creates errors, he creates work for himself to clean up. You are making errors, stop it and revert everything. You are not listening to me! DL takes heed, adjusts, corrects and moves forward. I think that Randy and I are of a similar position. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support (and support the topic-ban proposal below). Related thread from a year and a half ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon_and_pointless_edits_once_again. Some1 (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose My interactions with this user have been positive. I'd need clear evidence that his errors are outweighing the good done by his many thousands of edits. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support enough is enough. This conversation has happened too many times. Removal of all automated privileges seems appropriate. - Skipple ☎ 23:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support Per my comments and questions above, Dicklyon needs to slow down in their editing. A TBAN from using automated and semi-automated editing will resolve this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Strongly oppose—per Randy Kryn above. Let me say that Dicklyon has admirable expertise in language, style, and of course editing. We cannot afford to lose his input. What I see here is that a clique of capitalisation lovers has come out in full to thwart his good work. Tony (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support: Stipulating that (as some of the opposes state) Dicklyon does indeed have "admirable expertise in language," that some editors have had positive interactions with him, and that tools have learning curves, none of that in the least degree addresses the problem that this proposal seeks to mitigate: that Dicklyon is careless with automated tools, does not monitor them properly, has an unacceptably high error rate, and that this isn't the first time this issue has come up. Whether or not he's a hell of a swell fellow is irrelevant. The first time I used AWB I screwed up a number of articles, got a finger waggling for it, promised to do better and not screw up in the future, and did so. Paying attention just isn't that freaking hard, and for those for whom it is, those are people who shouldn't be using automated tools. Ravenswing 02:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support The errors appear to be a consistent problem with this editor. This is far from the first discussion on this topic from them and their responses in the thread above don't give me faith that they will correct anything in their editing activity, particularly since they were still doing the same kinds of edits and errors while this ANI discussion was ongoing. A ban on such semi-automated editing seems like the minimum we can do to prevent this. Silverseren^C 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support. This is not about the merits of capitalisation or other style choices. I don't think most people have strong feelings about that and most who do would abide by whatever consensus emerges. The issue here is that Dicklyon has been making large numbers of edits that introduce problems to articles (like breaking piped links or altering proper nouns). Dicklyon has made it clear that he's not interested in fixing these mistakes and his track record suggests there's little chance of the problems going away. This is what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. We've seen it with Rich Farmbrough, Betacommand, Lugnuts, and others. This will hopefully be the watershed moment that gets Dicklyon to rethink his approach; if not, it's a necessary step on the road to a site ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support many of the errors stem from attempting too much speed and several prior statements that they will slow down have not stopped the problem. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support per my comment in the previous section. I'm not sure, pace the opposers, what capitalization, or positive interactions, have to do with automated editing. There's a long-standing principle that automated edits are held to a high standard. Editors have been sanctioned, or banned, for introducing errors and not being sufficiently mindful about addressing them. This isn't new, and this isn't the first time the issue has been raised with Dicklyon. Go slower. Be more careful. There's no time limit. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support per Nemov. Number 57 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support ~ this isn't a new issue, as is shown above; it has been bubbling under for years and the time to resolve it is now. Per HJ Mitchell. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. Cinderella157 encapsulates this perfectly above. Dicklyon is not infallible, but fixes his own mistakes, and is clearly listening to and adjusting based on criticism of his error rate. At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit, during which DL could re-read the related documentation, policies, etc., and work on better regexes to sharply reduce his error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  re At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit: I think most everyone would agree with you on that. There should be a timeframe for appeal. It looks like a couple have suggested 6 months, and most who included an appeal timeframe in their comments have noted a year. North8000 suggested appealable in 1 year, autoexpire in 2. I would certainly support some level of autoexpire where he could reapply on the AWB request page. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I oppose auto-expiry for the same reason I dislike most time-limted topic bans and similar - it can encourage just waiting it out rather than addressing the issue which doesn't end well for either the project or the editor. However I do support a time after which he can appeal, and will support anything in the 6-12 months time frame. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Good point. I hadn't really considered that. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support Removing semi-automated editing premission will likely reduce Dick's rate of editing and therefore mitigate most of the errors that had been mentioned here. The other solutions proposed here seem overly draconic, and I suspect that they are partially motivated by old grudges. Av = λv (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support per nom. The most sensible approach, is relatively harmless to all parties, which still leaves DL plenty of editing in his chosen area, just without a particular tool to do so. (Per time-limit, I think the default is indefinite with first appeal to the community after six months and biannually thereafter.) SN54129 14:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support. This seems narrowly tailored towards mitigating the disruption and seems preventative in nature. I do hope that slowing down the editing rate will help to ensure that the rate of false positives/breakages created will substantially decreases. Dicklyon has performed tremendously helpful gnomish work on Wikipedia over the years, for which he deserves thanks and gratitude, but I echo HJ Mitchell's concerns about what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support for 2 reasons; A) This isn't the first time Dicklyon has been at ANI over their semi-automated edits and B) The carelessness of their edits is concerning.

As someone who too makes semi-automated edits I'm baffled as to how they can make so many edits and not review any of them ?. Sure we all make mistakes and I have too made mistakes with WP:WPCleaner but I've reviewed and fixed those edits as any normal editor should?. If you can't be bothered to check your edits then shouldn't be using semi-automated tools period. –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support. This has been an ongoing issue for far too long already, and this proposal is the most basic measure to start mitigating it. --Sable232 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support. Given the potential for widespread damage to the wiki, the standard for automated or semi-automated editing ought to be higher than this. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support - This has been going on too long. A prohibition on automated and semi-automated editing will still allow him to contribute to the encyclopedia if he doesn't persist in thinking that he needs to do semi-automated editing. If he persists in automated or semi-automated editing, then he is a net negative, but that is up to Dicklyon. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support, those who can't get their error rate down to an acceptable level sometimes need to be separated from power tools. —Kusma (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support beyond the restriction below, for the same reasoning. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support. This editor has shown a reluctance to accept reponsibility for the results of their semi-automated editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support If the penitence hadn't been summarily discarded a year ago when the eye of ANI was removed, we wouldn't be here. They only have themselves to blame. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support Its not about "error rate". That is meaningless on its own. It's about sheer volume of edits and how that makes for a lot more work for others. A person making 100 edits with an error rate of 2% makes two errors. No big deal. A person making 100,000 edits with the same error rate makes 2,000 errors. That's a lot of work for others to fix. Especially since the rate inherently increases when speed is prized over accuracy. oknazevad (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: Topic ban on drive-by recapitalisation and repiping, details apply

There has been some support for this, but discussion has been fragmented so putting it as a formal proposal. This is basically what I wrote above but a bit tighter.

Dicklyon is topic banned from:

• Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that only or primarily change capitalisation.
• Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit.
• Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links, excluding pages in their own user and user talk space.

These restrictions do not apply to content they added since the last other person edited the page.

These restrictions do not apply to the reversion of obvious vandalism.

This restriction is separate from and additional to any ban related to automated editing. It may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after it is enacted. Making an excessive number of requests of other editors to make change that this restriction topic ban prohibits should be seen as gaming the restriction. "Excessive" is not explicitly defined and depends on the judgement of an uninvolved administrator, but frequency of requests, number of total and concurrent requests, accuracy of requests and other factors may all be considered.

Copyedits and suggestions are more than welcome, especially to the first does not apply to line (I've rewritten that about a dozen times and I'm still not happy with it). The intent there is to allow them to make as many changes to piping and capitalisation as they want until someone else edits the page, at which point they no longer can. Given the lack of explicit response to the RM and other discussion comments I made I'm not adding that to the proposal at the current time, but I really would like to see it explicitly addressed (whether that's a "this is a problem", "this is not a problem" or something in between). Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support (as proposer) per my comments in multiple other sections. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, this proposal does better expose your true anti-MOS motivations in attacking me here and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  As I have explained repeatedly and at length my motivations are not "anti-MOS", they are pro applying the MoS with care, common sense, and due regard for behavioural policies. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support. Going to be helpful in tandem with the ban on automated/semi-automated editing, and will functionally form a coherent whole.—Alalch E. 17:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support as I noted in my support for the automated TBAN, this is needed as well as the history of disruption as evidenced by previous ANIs goes beyond automated editing. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose Ridiculous over-reach. At most, Dicklyon should be removed from JWB/AWB permission for a time until those with concerns are satisfied he understands the tool use responsibliities better. The second of the bullet-points above is frankly daft; we have MOS:ARTCON for a reason, and this bullet would force Dicklyon to violate it. I warned above that Thryddulf was seeking an over-broad T-ban to "get rid of an opponent" on MoS applicability (especially in capitalization), that Thryduulf is a long-term, habitual gadfly about; Thryduulf vociferously denied this, yet here we are with a propsal that precisely fits what I predicted, and which has absolutely nothing to do with alleged miuse of JWB semi-automation, which is what this ANI is about. And obviously "this is not a problem" is the answer to Thryduulf's desire to expand this proposal even further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I wonder what is about being focused on the manual of style that makes it correlate with leaving personal attacks against me with such frequency (see also the comments on my talk page)? Needless to say they're just as wrong this time as they were every other time they've been levied. Credit where it is due though, accusing me of forcing someone to violate ARTCON is a new accusation. It doesn't make sense to me - if the article is internally consistent already then Dicklyon will just follow that consistency with any new content they add and nothing will change. If the article is internally inconsistent then it is not possible to violate a consistency that doesn't exist. Changing the article to be consistent is something Dicklyon will just have to ask others to do until such time as he is able to convince the community that he can be trusted to do it responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Being critical of an easily observable behavior pattern is not a "personal attack". And you clearly don't understand ARTCON; it is literally not possible that it means that introduction of a single inconsistency renders the guideline moot, or we could not have that guideline. What it really obviously means (as do all other consistency guidelines and policies on WP, such as WP:CITEVAR, MOS:ERA, WP:CONSISTENT, etc., etc.) is that if the material is mostly consistent toward one direction, inconsistencies that go the other direction should be reversed to conform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  It would appear that you think because this is about the misuse of a semi-automated tool, that the resulting sanction has to be limited to removal of that tool? What part of WP:MEATBOT do you not understand? Bot-like editing can result in being treated as a bot, misuse of which can ultimately result in being indeffed. Thryduulf's proposal is significantly less impactful. You'd be better served to simply stick to addressing the proposal rather than the proposer. I'm still on the fence, but taking both of your statements at face-value, I see a higher level of personal animus in your approach to Thryduulf than they have against you your approach to Thryduulf is the one that comes accross as being loaded with personal animus. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose Dickylon's changes haven't been against MOS, but rather not showing due care when making those MOS compliant changes with AWB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Just to add I don't see anything added after my initial comment as reason to support this tban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose No actual misconduct unrelated to (semi-)automated editing has been presented here. The topic ban on that is sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support per this ANI thread and the previous ones. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User:_Dicklyon,_behavioral_issues_on_the_topic_of_capitalization was just three months ago; several other ones can be found in the ANI archives [20]. According to an editor from a past ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon_and_page_moves, Dicklyon was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. Dicklyon was also previously blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) and his sockpuppets' edits revolved around MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc. Some1 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose, again, too far for the wrong reasons. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose While automated edits were made in the context of the MOS, there was nothing inherently controversial about the nature of these edits that would warrant such action. This seems like an opportunistic gambit to settle old scores. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support per Some1. If this was a one time thing I'd understand, but if the issues are continually happening in one area then it's time for a break in that one area. Nemov (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose - excessively draconian and seems more like WP:POINTY cruel and unusual punishment than a real sanction. The issue is over his automated edits; I don't see why we should bar him wholly from MOS edits when the issue was specifically how the automated edits had an excessively high inaccuracy rate. Butlerblog (talk · contribs) has invoked WP:MEATBOT, but that ignores the issue that the automated process were more inaccurate than they would be under a human editor. Additionally, no Some1 (talk · contribs) - nearly decade-old misconduct from at least 2015 is not a substantive argument to invoke sanctions in 2023. — Knightoftheswords 23:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  This isn't decade-old conduct, it's conduct that has been ongoing for a decade. There have been at least two maybe three ANI threads about Dicklyon and MOS-related conduct in the past ~18 months. All of which identified issues with their editing but failed to reach a consensus that the problems were bad enough or that there was no prospect of improvement going forwards. We've now moved forwards and the promised improvements haven't materialised. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Just to make the non-comprehensive timeline more clear:

  • Dicklyon was given a 6-month ban on page moves [21] after this 2015 ANI thread (capitalization related) in which another editor said Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year and that he has made unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. [22]
  • Dicklyon was blocked for sockpuppetry in May 2015; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive. His socks' edits were MOS related (mainly capitalization).
  • An editor from a previous ANI thread said Dicklyon was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. That was from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon and page moves which, again, is capitalization-related (May 2020).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon was in March 2022 (mass edits related to capitalization).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon and pointless edits once again was in April 2022 (decapitalization edits, semi-automated edits).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization was three months ago in May 2023.

  This isn't a one time issue that occurred in 2015 and suddenly reoccurred again September 2023. It's a long-term pattern of disruption...with the same user (Dicklyon) over the same capitalization topic area... for almost a decade. I know the proposal title says "MOS edits topic ban" which is a bit misleading and seems wider than it really is, but as the proposal states, it's Making edits ... that only or primarily change capitalisation. Making edits ... that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit. That's not "excessively draconian" at all. Some1 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support I agree with the evidence Some1 has presented, that Dicklyon's accuracy when making MOS:CAPS related edits is a concurrent issue to the issue with automated and semi-automated edits. Both of these need to be addressed. With all due respect to the points that SMcCandlish has made, I don't find this to be over-reaching at all, as there is a demonstrated issue here going back several years. I also think the point that this is an attempt to get rid of an opponent is pure hyperbole. This isn't a CTOPS broadly construed TBAN, where an editor is being topic banned from all aspects relating to a given topic. Nothing here would prevent Dicklyon from contributing to project space MOS discussions on the applicability of the relevant guidelines. There is also a little bit of wiggle room in the proposal as written, to allow for Dicklyon to make a limited number of reasonable requests for corrections on these lines in the talk and draft talk namespaces. All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support per Sideswipe9th and Some1. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Clarification question - does this proposal only apply to MOS policy and guideline pages or to all Wikipedia mainspace pages? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Randy Kryn: In my reading of it, it specifically states main and draft namespaces. However, I believe it was written to provide at least some level of reasonableness. For example, it excludes fixing cases of vandalism. It also means that if he edits content, capitalization can change as a result, in cases where capitalization is not the sole purpose of the edit. Likewise, if it's just a case of changing capitalization, he can point it out to other editors to fix. If someone came in and changed [[Ronald Reagan]] to [[ronald reagan]], I would see correcting that as fixing a case of obvious vandalism. It doesn't appear to be intended to eliminate something obviously reasonable, but does seek to avoid changes that are questionable. I think that if he made the aforementioned change and someone hauled him into ANI to be indeffed on that evidence it would result in a boomerang on the reporting party since any reasonable person can see the error. Also, there's the caveat that allows for asking additional editors to do the edit, provided he's not doing so to game the system, so-to-speak. So... it's a tough sanction, but I don't think it's intended to bar him from reasonable edits (at least that's my take - I could be being to generous on assumptions regarding the proposal; and FWIW, I haven't weighed in on it yet, and haven't determined if I will or not, nor what that position would be). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Butlerblog yes, the intent is to be both firm and reasonable. Firm by preventing them making the types of edits that are the reason they've been brought here and protecting the project from the collateral damage, reasonable by allowing them to still make the types of edits that are not problematic and by making it as clear as possible what the ban covers and what it does not - as I wrote somewhere recently (possibly on my talk page) nobody benefits from topic bans that are vague and woolly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Randy Kryn there are three aspects to this proposed restriction. The first two, regarding capitalisation, explicitly apply only to the article and draft namespaces, there should be no MOS (or any other) policy or guideline pages in those namespaces. The third, related to piping of links, applies everywhere outside their user and user talk space. I can't think of a way that this restriction will impact their participation in project-space discussions of MOS-related policies or guidelines (they are explicitly permitted to add piped links to content they add, which includes replies in talk page discussions). I intentionally titled the section using the broad language used when the topic ban was first suggested, rather than the narrower topic ban actually proposed, but I'm now not convinced that was the right choice as I think some people might be reacting to the title rather than the actual proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for the answers, and it sounds silly to ban Dicklyon from making very simple edits manually. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I think your point is well taken. As an additional note, if you go upthread and read Sideswipe's second paragraph, I think she points out well what the objective is. It's not to be jerkish and put DL in a corner to embarass him (and anyone who supported this that thinks that way should be ashamed of themselves). The purpose is to put up some guardrails, allow him to edit appropriately, and have a path to appealing to lift the TBAN altogether at some point in the future. TBANS are not intended to be forever. Only if the editor does it to themselves is that ever the case. At some point, it should be totally reasonable for him to appeal. If you look at his past incidents, that's exactly what happened with his previous indeff - he was granted a return under the standard offer, and then after a time was able to appeal the entire restriction and be restored to full editing (as well as having been given JWB access). The same can happen with this (should this end up as a TBAN - that obviously has yet to be determined). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose - I think the proposal above addresses most of this. This can always be revisited in the future if it turns out necessary. On Wikipedia, we tend to have our policies and guidelines (and sanctions) reflect a belief in the possibility of redemption. If someone makes a mistake and fixes that mistake, we typically move on unless/until a possible pattern emerges which may need addressing. In this case, th the "pattern" seems more a case of issues with the use of editing tools rather than the MOS in general. It doesn't seem liike they are intentionally violating the MOS, but rather are apparently making mistakes while trying to follow the MOS. - jc37 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose - While I have disagreed with Dickylon in the past on proper capitalization, specifically for MLB related events, I do not believe that they are editing in bad faith as it pertains to the MOS. An outright ban doesn't seem justified. The issue is with the speed and carelessness, not the edits pertaining to the MOS itself. - Skipple ☎ 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support - i could be mistaken, but i don't think anyone it really suggesting Dicklyon is editing in bad faith; the worst that can be said is that he is failing to read the room and pushing through sometimes questionable changes, on occasion by the speed of his editing which creates a fait accompli, on occasion by repetitive arguing or changes. This ban should change that. Though i don't believe the other proposal i support should have a time limit, i am not at all averse to this one being limited to six months or, certainly, being appealable at that time. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Support As Some1 handily collated, this has been a problem for years and years. The automated editing just makes it more problematic, but the behaviors have not substantially improved; anyone who gets blocked for socking over tiny MoS issues clearly has a value system at odds with the project at large. It's better for everyone if they are not involved in what is clearly an area they cannot edit constructively. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• I support in principle but the scope of the restriction leaves something to be desired. There are too many caveats which make it unworkable; an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots debating whether something was a violation and an unscrupulous opponent could drag Dicklyon here for inadvertent technical breaches. Hopefully Dicklyon won't have as many problems with opening an edit window and typing in text as he does with automation. Or, TLDR: see WP:ROPE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I would think that an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots on something clearly technical or ridiculous is going to end up boomeranging themselves. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I would greatly appreciate more detail on your thoughts regarding too many caveats which make it unworkable as I've tried to word the proposal in away to make it as clear as possible which edits count and which don't, disallowing the problematic stuff but allowing the non-problematic. With any restriction of this nature there is always going to be a need for some level of interpretation (other than something totally ridiculous like a ban from changing the capitalisation of any word in any circumstances), and at some point we have to trust that those enforcing a topic ban will be reasonable. As I note the first "this does not apply to" line isn't the greatest phrasing the project has ever seen, but I still can't think of anything better that allows them to change their own work (we do not expect perfection), the limit on that being while they are the most recent person to edit the page is to avoid OWNERSHIP issues or arguments about what is and isn't their own work if someone changes part of it (e.g. paragraph, sentence or word-level). Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Support - After reading and re-reading most of the support and oppose positions, I am supporting for mostly the same reasons as Sideswipe pointed out above: All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose I think this is far too restrictive as proposed. I mean, a blanket ban on this? Just block him at that point, because I am struggling to see how Dicklyon could possibly edit constructively in mainspace while effectively unable to edit wikilinks; you wouldn't get very far trying to improve an article while having to grovel and beg someone to change a wikilink or an evident miscapitalization. Now if this were a ban on mass edits of this kind (if one could even define mass in this context), then that's something I could probably get behind. Curbon7 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I think you're misunderstanding the restriction proposed. The only thing he can't do under this proposal is change the piping of links he hasn't added himself, and to make edits whose primary purpose is changing capitalisation. The vast majority of editors on the project would find almost none, or in many cases literally none, of their edits would be impacted. Looking through your most recent 150 articles space edits, you would be able to have made 149 of them if you were under this restriction, this one being the only exception (and you would be allowed to request others to change it). Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  As has happened in the past, editors coming in late to this have far too much to wade through, give it only a cursory glance, and thus misread what the proposal actually says. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I think I was referring to what you were talking about regarding the changing of the piping of links, as I imagine it would come up frequently if, for example, attempting to improve an article to GA, but if I misunderstood feel free to disregard that portion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Hey mr. deputy dog, wait Just a darn Minute (if passed Dicklyon couldn't fix that sentence). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Correct (unless it was part of a larger content edit involving that sentence or it was that way as the result of obvious vandalism), but he could ask someone else to fix it. However, I don't understand your point? We don't topic propose topic bans for people randomly, and the rationale for proposing this one has been explained at length and is the result of many years worth of disruption. Yes, there will be some things that are incorrect that the person topic banned will not be able to fix, but that's true of every topic ban (e.g. someone topic banned from American politics would be unable to fix the capitalisation of that sentence in a biography of a US politician). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You need to clarify that this is a comment and not a !vote in addition to your opposition already noted above. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, this is an additional comment to point out how if somehow passed (and any closer approving this is or isn't worth their salt in gold) this is pretty much an indef ban and an insult of an editor who has maybe hundreds of thousands of good MOS edits similar to the edits he would be banned from making. Seems an end-around of commonsense (and that's a difficult play, kudos to the wording of this proposal). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Firstly insults to the prospective closer and prejudging the close are both inappropriate, and the rest of the comments don't seem to bear any relation to the proposal or the background to it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Strongly Oppose As I said above, it seems to me, as a non-involved editor, that removing Dick's semi-automated editing permissions will adequately prevent the harmful practices that had lead to these complaints being raised. A MoS topic ban is overly broad, will needlessly cripple his ability to contribute to the site, and open him up to tendentious attacks by editors with an axe to grind. Based on what I read in this discussion, it did seem to me that some of the participants had jumped on just to see an old personal enemy taken down, which I find extremely distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ido66667 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Have you actually read the proposed topic ban or just the title? It is possible to legitimately dispute the necessity of a topic ban, but not really to describe it as "overbroad" and it really would not "cripple his ability to contribute to the site". The rationale for the proposal, as explained in detail multiple times, is nothing at all to do with "enemies" or taking somebody down, but the result of over a decade of disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I think you should probably amend the section header for clarity. Sure, we should expect people to actually read the proposal for the details and not just the header, but a mismatched header doesn't serve the discussion well. As for the actual proposal, I support a restriction. Dick's capitalization bugaboo has become a time sink for other editors. I also agree that it should not auto-expire for the same reason you state in the above section (waiting out instead of actually making behavior improvement), so an appeal should be necessary. Let Dicklyon show he has more to contribute than just being the decapitalization guy. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Oknazevad (or anyone else) please feel free to rename the section to reflect the scope of the proposal (rather than the prior discussion). I can't immediately come up with something that is reasonably concise, doesn't come across as trying to unduly sway the discussion and doesn't have all the same problems of sounding overbroad if you don't read the details (e.g. "topic ban from capitalisation"). Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose Butterfly and wheel at the moment, although without prejudice to this being revised if the above sanction proves not to have worked in, say, six months. SN54129 14:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. There's healthy debate above on whether the error rate tied to semi-automated editing is too high, but I don't think we can say it's too high for manual editing. I would describe very few editors here as "anti-MOS", but there is widespread opposition to decapitalization, even when it's obviously supported by MOS:CAPS. Subject-mater-focused editors frequently see Dicklyon begin work in their topic area and challenge this regular copyediting, and we end up with a long ANI thread. Above, these recent-ish no-consensus threads are cited as evidence in support of the restriction, but I see them as a sign that this is a matter where editors commonly disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose: It sticks in my craw to type this, but. See, we've clashed a number of times. I strongly believe that Dicklyon's anti-capitalization crusade borders on the abusive, that he's way way offbase in his curious belief that MOS overrides how proper usage has been defined for decades by institutions and in the media, and I wonder who the hell decided that MOS:CAPS negated style manuals around the world. But we need more for a TBAN than that, and however much I disagree with his stance, I can't support one without solid evidence that he's trampling policy. Passionately advocating an unpopular stance is not in of itself a policy violation. A ban on him using automated tools in his crusade is valid. This is not. Ravenswing 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. If somebody forgets to capitalize "Smith" in "Adam Smith", it makes no sense to prohibit this user from making that fix. If the issue is largely related to the use of automated/semi-automated editing, and we're imposing a ban on that, then I see no issue with the user making thoughtful decisions as to when to manually make these fixes. We want to encourage the editor to put thought into this sort of stuff rather than just doing it en masse; we should let the sanction be narrowly tailored towards the disruption (i.e. editing en masse without checking for false positives) while leaving him enough room to contribute positively (i.e. fixing individual typos manually after evaluating whether or not it's actually a typo). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose as as far as I can see they're not making edits against MOS.... they're just making careless edits..., My other concern is that if Dicklyon is MOS-topicbanned then they would only move to something else and would find themselves here again. Simple solution = revoke semi-automated permissions and ban them from using any semi automated tool, Banning them from manually fixing articles achieves nothing as like I say they're not going against MOS specifically. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Weak Oppose because I don't entirely understand what this restriction will do, or why it is necessary in addition to a prohibition against semi-automated editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. This user's edits changing capitalisation appear to be in support of policies and guidelines. We get far too many editors who think that "their topic" is so important that the syntactic rules for capitalisation in English should be overridden and Semantic Rules Based on Obvious Importance Should be Used Instead. Dicklyon does very good work in defending us against such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose the discussion above will solve the problem, hopefully. They will surely be able to have a smaller error rate with manual editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose just because that’s an extremely weird thing to topic ban someone from. It’s a lot harder to avoid a specific type of maintenance editing than something like “GENSEX, broadly construed”. Dronebogus (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Case fixes

Lacking JWB access, I've done only about 1000 case fix edits in the last week. I'd appreciate it if someone would look at a few of my contribs and say if some of those represent the "drive-by recapitalisation and repiping" that T seeks to ban me from. There are certainly some that don't change the displayed article text, but do have a positive effect in removing miscapitalized redirects from the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. The last time we discussed this, there was not a consensus that working on this was a bad idea, though some editors failed to see the value of it. Check the history there, to see that I have fixed the majority of the reported errors (from over 500 linked miscapitalized redirects to only 137). Making further progress will be slower without JWB, but I can live with that, especially if someone with AWB or JWB can help on the "long end", which is where I was working with JWB when I messed up. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good job. Hopefully you can use the tools again. As you know, the benefits of manual casing runs include the increased overview of both the encyclopedia and the subject matters. I case run on many words, sometimes into the thousands of edits, and have absorbed a great deal of information doing that (although I certainly can't say I remember a great percentage of it you get some good bits now and then). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dicklyon, your post only gives me greater concern. Removing things from database reports is not a useful thing to do for its own sake, and doing so while introducing other errors actually has a negative effect. I'm all for stylistic consistency between articles but it's not an emergency that justifies leaving an article in a worse state than you found it in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree. Notice how I said "I messed up". I didn't say I thought that was OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

If that's useful work, then great. But truthfully, your editing history of the last few days could be summarily discarded as you obviously know you're under scrutiny right now. It's more important what you do when no one is paying attention, or when you think no one is paying attention. If the real issue truly was just carelessness and speed with semi-automated editing, then that will become evident over time, not just a couple of days. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I always edit like people are paying attention. Here I'm just pointing out the type of edits that Thryduulf thinks I should be banned from. Or to inquire what he's talking about, if not these kinds of primarily capitalization changes that often affect piping. His ban proposal had little or nothing to do with mistakes and speed. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.