User talk:Butlerblog/Archives/2024/February

An FYI

Thought you might be interested in this [1] because I know you've questioned the editor's intentions previously. Am pinging Doug Weller as well. I don't want to start trouble, but the behavior is starting to get old, the intentions seem not honorable or in the interest of keeping the peace and doing the right thing. Thank you, A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2: I have suspected the possibility of block evasion by an indeffed user, but I never thought the evidence was solid enough to warrant a WP:SPI, which is why I never opened one. (My thoughts were that he's in some way related to either Gwapong Chikoy or Mr. Pekka Stranker or both. Pekka created at least one other account: Stony Bowler).

Radiant Fellow edits in a similar fashion, pushes the same "fanboy" agenda, and focuses on similar articles (The Chosen and Superbook). The other accounts were from the Philippines, and I believe Radiant Fellow is as well, based on his edits to GomBurZa (film). But... all that is very circumstantial, especially since Radiant Fellow wasn't registered until a year after Pekka was blocked. Usually, socks come around sooner than that. I don't like suggesting sock puppetry or block evasion without solid evidence to support it. @Doug Weller is a checkuser and could look at it, but he'd need to believe the reasons are sound, and that there's ample evidence to suggest block evasion. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hadn't considered block evasion, just the insistent pushing of information into articles through slow edit warring. It's not only annoying, it's somewhat disruptive from my perspective. Have wondered if a real warning from someone with the power to block eventually would make a difference and get them to actually discuss rather than doing things as they have been. They don't seem to care their editing is not friendly or even helpful to the overall picture. They have an agenda, that's pretty clear, but the residual effect is annoyance and causing editors such as myself to take the pages they are "contributing to" off my watchlist. And I really don't want to do that because The Chosen IS something I care about editing and adding to as the series progresses. These repeated reverts and agenda pushing additions take away from the pleasure and creates a contest-like atmosphere. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding his "agenda", I think he thinks he's improving the article and protecting its integrity - same as you. That doesn't mean I agree that he's actually improving it, but he hasn't shown anything that would indicate he's trying to "harm" the article. Is that annoying? Most definitely. But it's primarily a content dispute, which is different from a behavioral issue. Certainly, it could cross the line to a behavior problem, but until it does, you have to treat it as a content dispute. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of seeing me with an "agenda" lens. Or characterizing me as a "fan" or someone who "thinks" they are improving articles. I'm not writing or editing and improving articles based on being a fan.As well, I know I improve articles, just as you know you do. You and I and our purpose here are no different, really. I'm very different from the other individual I brought my concerns here about. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You've misconstrued everything I said. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Can't agree with that assessment only because I read and re-read the words you wrote before responding, they were clear to me, and I'm not one to suffer from reading comprehension difficulties. Now, if you need to clarify because you think there's been a misunderstanding or you feel you could have provided better context, don't hesitate to do that. I'd love to see what you truly meant and read it all in a more positive light. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The response wasn't about you. The only mention of you was in "he thinks he's improving the article and protecting its integrity - same as you". Don't read into it anything more than what it says. I didn't use scare quotes around "think" and didn't imply anything other than what it says at face value: I think I improve articles, you think you improve articles, and the editing history of Radiant Fellow indicates that he thinks he improves articles. That's it - nothing more.

I should not have to restate that for you to read it in a more positive light. If you understood what we mean here by WP:AGF, you would be doing that from the first read. But, even if not, if you thought maybe I was suggesting that I think neither you nor Radiant Fellow are actually improving the article and thought it was intended as a slight against you, you should have just asked for that clarification. That is what AGF means - it means if you read it as a negative, then ask for clarification, "It sounds like you're saying (something here)... is that what you mean by that," instead of just assuming your negative read was the intended meaning.

This isn't the first time you've misconstrued what I or other editors have said. Your discussion history shows a general tendency to misread a lot of things, mostly in terms of what things mean within the Wikipedia cultural context (and not only misread, but also misuse those terms as well).

While I do think you're WP:HERE with regards to its first point, there is more to it than just genuine interest and improvement. We have an established culture here as Wikipedians. All of our jargon, like AGF and WP:PA, has specific, defined meanings within that cultural context. They are not what you define them as yourself, but what the community has specifically defined them as. Ultimately, we expect you to conform to our cultural norms, not the other way around. At some point, the community is going to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and expect you to operate within those norms. From WP:HTBAE (emphasis added): Being "here to build an encyclopedia" is about a user's overall purpose and behavior in editing Wikipedia. In considering whether or not a user is here to build an encyclopedia, the user's overall pattern of editing and contributing behavior, as well as the clarity of past warnings or guidance and their attempts at improvement, should be reviewed as a whole.

If you truly don't understand something I've said and want clarification for the purpose of improvement within the scope of what it means to be HERE, by all means ask. But if you have nothing to say that is productive to that end, I suggest you just let it go. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog yes, I can’t use CU without good evidence. And I really really don’t want to look at the edits involving this article, it’s far out of my wheelhouse. Depending on the issues there’s RSN, NPOVN or ANI. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. Duly noted (and I appreciate you taking the time) ButlerBlog (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Dates

I've tweaked the code after finding inconsistent date template usages. Now any template that isn't {{Start date}} or {{End date}} will place the page in the tracking category. Gonnym (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that ;-) I made an update to my bot to handle {{start and end date}}, {{start date text}}, and some other tweaks. I think most of what has shown up so far is now covered by automation, but I'm still watching it carefully to make sure. Thanks for all you do with the templates and maintenance cats! ButlerBlog (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You too! A question for you. There are around 2.6k pages that use {{Film date}} with the television infoboxes. Some (no idea how many) don't use |tv=yes. Should these be left alone? Converted? I'm not sure if I can only check for the tv=yes usage (as It's film date->start date->infobox deep so I probably have no access to the values entered at this point). Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would lean towards conversion for the sake of consistency, but probably also on the basis of categorization - especially if we can't check for tv=yes. But... and here's a thought, I could check for tv=yes with AWB or as a bot task if I had a list of television infobox articles using {{Film date}}. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: For now, I'm going through the list and making sure instances of {{Film date}} in {{Infobox television}} have user |TV=yes. If it should ultimately be determined that these should use {{Start date}}, then we can update accordingly. But I think in most instances, it should be fine to use film as long as the tv param is set. That's what adds it to a category for the year, right? ButlerBlog (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging

Hi, thanks for all your contributions! Your AWB activities seem to be erronously removing the blp parameter from the banner shell though? e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilbur_McGaugh&diff=prev&oldid=1204735088 which is then in turn flagged at Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I've already fixed a few. Please could you look into this? -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's strange yet understandable. The |blp= only has a "yes" value. AWB with genfixes turned on removes |blp=no because it's not a valid value. I can certainly turn off genfixes for the remainder of my updates, but it's a general ruleset within AWB, so whether that's something that needs to be updated or not may need to be addressed by AWB as a whole. But I'll finish up without genfixes enabled. Thanks for letting me know about it. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham: I have done some digging and I think I have a better understanding of what's going on between AWB and the |blp=no param. It appears to be relative to changes around WP:PIQA and moving things into {{WikiProject banner shell}}. The biography banner has a |living= param. In the banner shell, if |blp= is used, then the |living= in {{WikiProject Biography}} is moved into that. Presumably this is being done as a part of WP:PIQA, when classes are rolled up to the shell, other params such as |listas= are, too (including |blp=)? So I'm wondering if that's something the genfixes in AWB are not updated for? Second part of that question would be whether {{WikiProject banner shell}} (and/or its docs) should be updated to reflect |blp=no as a valid value?

There is an AWB update, so I don't know if that is addressed in the update. However, I cannot presently use that update due to a bug, so I'm rolled back for now. It's possible that's addressed - but it's certainly possible it isn't (and then should be).

Do those questions make sense the way I explained it? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Addendum to the previous notes: I was able to get AWB working (seemed to be a bug in the update that resolved when restarted), but the genfixes still attempt to remove |blp=no, so it appears that either AWB's genfixes need to be updated to reflect that as a valid value or the relationship between {{WikiProject Biography}}'s |living= and {{WikiProject banner shell}}'s |blp= need to be reviewed relative to the maintenance category. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response and clarifications. I'm familar with WP:PIQA and moving the |living= or |blp= parameter into the banner shell is indeed part of that (though seems to be no consensus if it should be |living= or |blp= as one is an alias to the other). If there is a {{WikiProject Biography}} tag, then I believe it's a requirement that there is the parameter with a value, and certainly |blp=no should be a valid choice.

Looking at Template:WikiProject_banner_shell#TemplateData "no" appears to be the default, but I don't know if it actually sets to no if neither the blp or living parameter is present? (I assumed it has to be explicitly set rather than having a default to be honest.)

In any case, if WP:AWB/GF is removing valid banner shell parameters that's a problem. Looking in more detail, Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General_fixes#WikiProjectBannerShell_fixes_(WikiProjectBannerShell) is going to cause some issues. Pinging @MSGJ: for confirmation. I think this is something we need to raise with AWB. Thank you again, and apologises for filling some of your talk page with this! -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this behaviour needs updating. Do you want to raise it with the AWB team, or shall I? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

MSGJ, if you can that would be great, as you can probably explain it better than I can. Thank you! -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. @MSGJ: Can you ping me on the discussion so I can follow it? ButlerBlog (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It's on WT:AWB now if you want to subscribe. Kj cheetham: please comment if there is anything I've forgotten. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Task force

I see you have expertise in creating task forces, like you did last month for Westerns. You could please help in doing the same for regional Indian cinemas? Or while I do, you can help make corrections? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 I wouldn't necessarily count my "experience" as "expertise". But I have done a couple and I will certainly help you if I can. Is the parent WikiProject one that you have the ability to edit? That's the first thing. If it's a protected template you will need to be a template editor. Also, depending on the amount of participation in the parent project, you may need consensus to add a task force. What is the main WikiProject? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

And again

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} He's back at it. Every edit I made within the last 24 hours has been reverted back to his preferred version. Three reverts, none of the edit summaries match what he actually did.[2] All are marked as "minor" edits, as well, which is another dishonest move. It's this kind of thing that ruins Wikipedia for people like me who just want to make a good difference, decent contributions, improve articles. He's here to plant a flag, claim territory, and wear down his "opponents", those who dare to cross over the boundary he's set up. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I reverted his edits and asked that if he has specific reasons for those edits, to discuss it on the article talk page. Or at the very least, to indicate that he is reverting a previous edit and to give a reason for it. I also noted on his talk page about marking such edits as minor, along with the associated guidelines.

Don't presume that he's doing it as a dishonest move, or at least, even if you think it, don't say it that way. It's quite possible that it is intentional, but it's also possible that he simply doesn't know he shouldn't mark them minor. There are ways to convey the same message without assuming bad faith. Even if he is acting in bad faith, it puts you in a bad position to state it that way.

Yes, his constant reversions and WP:OWNership behaviors are WP:DISRUPTIVE. And there is a process to deal with that (see WP:DISPUTE). But you want to put yourself in a position where you don't get WP:BOOMERANGed. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"Boomerang", yes and exactly. I learned that lesson when I commented at the noticeboard you took me to at the end of December. It's not worth it to report other editors there or probably anywhere in Wikipedia. People end up calling you a liar when you are earnest and honest and sincere. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

What happened in December was not a boomerang. A boomerang is when the actions of the reporting party are reviewed and found to be problematic, thus resulting in sanctions on the reporter. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You missed my point and the context of my comments above. I know IT wasn't a boomerang, but the entire experience was certainly unpleasant. When is being called a liar when you are not EVER pleasant? When does it want you to go to that place ever AGAIN? I no longer trust noticeboards or administrators because of it. Not even you, to be completely honest. And, because of all that, I fear a manufactured boomerang, gaslighting. Wikipedia is not a nice place and it's not a place to trust that anyone else will see the obvious and support you and your honest efforts when others who have a plethora of edits and/or any form of tribal clout are involved. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If that's truly how you view it, then you're going to have a rough go of it. No one here has more clout that anyone else. That goes for admins, too. They have a very strict code of conduct that they are held to, and they can be sanctioned like any other editor. Every action they do is subject to the same community standards. I have seen admins be hauled into noticeboards over misapplying blocks when they should not have. The problem, from where I sit, is that you appear to struggle with assimilating the culture. Certainly, there are places within Wikipedia where you can edit away unnoticed without having to interact with anyone - and many editors do just that. But when you do interact, there is a cultural norm as well as our community policies and guidelines that are applied. It is necessary for the editor to assimilate to the culture, not the other way around.

You may believe that in the instances I opened an ANI report that you did nothing wrong. That's actually problematic because if that's truly the case, then it proves my point - there is still a giant disconnect between Wikipedia's culture and where you are right now. It truly does not have to be that way. I hope you get it figured out.

If you think that Wikipedia is not a nice place, then why are you here? I would presume it's because you are "here to build an encyclopedia" - see WP:HERE - I mean actually read it. There is more to being here to build an encyclopedia beyond "Genuine interest and improvement". There are several other points. Personally, I do think you are HERE. But I think you're in the WP:NOTHERENORMS (difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms). Read that section - don't just presume you think you know what it means.

I do honestly think you can get there. If I didn't, I wouldn't have wasted any time with any of this. You can continue to think otherwise, but then you're missing the point. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think at this point it's pretty clear he doesn't have the best interest of the article or Wikipedia in mind. "Okay" and "understood and resolved" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant_Fellow&diff=prev&oldid=1210107268 in his edit summaries appears to mean "I see you and raise you with edit warring". [3] [4] [5]

I AM truly curious now why you give him so many chances, for nearly a two years, letting him do as he wishes in the way of edit warring and disruption, with no qualms, but immediately take me to ANI because you thought I said mean things to you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

but immediately take me to ANI because you thought I said mean things to you - this is exactly what I was addressing above. I didn't think you "said mean things to [me]". I opened a report because you made accusations that were unfounded. That's altogether different. Part of the internal culture here is that we have terms that have very specific meanings - meanings that may or may not equate to the same term in general society. For example, "personal attack" has a specific definition. If you simply called me names (or accused me of being "offputting" or "rude"), those are violations of WP:CIVILITY, but I wouldn't have dragged you to ANI for simply that by itself. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry or making unfounded accusations (which is what you did), however, are serious things. If you still don't understand that, then things probably are not going to get better until you figure it out.

As for RF and disruptive editing - there hasn't been much (until now) to actually report. You can't make accusations of misconduct without evidence (see previous paragraph). ButlerBlog (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

He's doing a great impression of an edit warrior and repeatedly so, just as he's repeatedly doing an impression of a disruptive individual with ownership tendencies. THAT is serious. Having things said to you that you personally didn't like, isn't. How he's behaving is as plain on the nose on your face, but for some elusive and mysterious reason, you refuse to acknowledge it and/or do anything meaningful about it. Apart from all that, I doubt things will be difficult for me here. Like I said, lesson learned: No one here is to be trusted and I will continue to call THAT as I see it. It's a place of survival of the fittest for those with tons of edits and/or are well connected. Real world life, meet Wikipedia life and reality. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Then there's nothing more to be said. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Bot edit breaks infobox

Hello! On Angry Birds Mystery Island, your bot broke the infobox by forgetting to close the comment in this edit. I've reverted it for now but just wanted to make you aware of it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 23:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Thanks for catching that and letting me know. That edit was based on a recent update to catch invalid advance dates (which happen fairly frequently), so I see what happened and can fix that. Thanks for letting me know. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course! If the bot were editing more frequently I would've stopped the bot since that's quite an egregious issue, however since it hadn't edited in hours there was no harm being done. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 20:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)