Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

WP:COMPETENCE, attempted WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:GAMING of WP:CIVILITY policy to uphold corrosive edits from Ssilvers, also InvadingInvader and Nyxaros, one edit bordering on WP:VANDALISM

On Music (2021 film), Ssilvers is clearly attempting to maintain WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, reverting obviously contributive edits with bogus rationales. I first encountered this problem as early as 2022, when all I did was began merging opinions of critics together so that it did not look like a quote farm. They reverted with the following edit summary: "non-neutral changes. WP:N". Read my edit for yourself. What was "non-neutral" about simply re-writing the section into something besides quotes? What did notability have to do with it? This is a critical reception section of an article about a film whose notability has already been well-established.

They have continued to reinforce their power like this on the article with this, this, this, this, this, this, this and probably others I did not catch when reading the edit history. Like the example I provided, these edits are all reversions to the addition of sourced content, done under disingenuous or unrelated summaries. Sometimes they inform the user to go to the talk page to begin discussion, ignoring the obvious reason the users do not that usually, when a discussion starts on the talk page, nobody joins in and nothing gets done. Believe me, I tried getting something resolved on the cast section of It (2017 film), and I got no responses, meaning the conversation went nowhere. This, plus the existence of WP:BRD and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, puts users in an inescapable position where they cannot do anything about the editor's poorly-justified edits.

Which brings me to why I am starting a section here. This came to a peak when I adjusted the starring field of the infobox to reflect THAT of the poster, which any experienced film article editor on this site knows is a guideline set by Template:Infobox film to follow and thus approve. No experienced editor would seriously suggest it is debatable for consensus from other users to be needed... except Ssilvers and a couple of other editors. Ssilvers, Nyxaros (diff because I am linking user name), and InvadingInvader (diff because I am linking username) all promoted a reversion that border on WP:VANDALISM, under unsubstantiated-with-guidelines "I-personally-think", WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales that no one editing film articles would consider genuinely. Nonetheless, they told me to "constructively discuss if they disagree rather than shut down", as if breaking a set-in-stone, fricking well-established guideline was disagreeable. When I brought the starring field back to how it objectively should be, I put these editors in their place: "Users, there is NOTHING disagreeable about guidelines of Template pages. Template:Infobox film explicitly states to "use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors." Guess what, all of these names are here, and the guideline says NOT to deviate from that billing. I am not wasting any more time on WP:COMPETENCE issues from you people. Ssilvers reverted again with this: "I strongly disagree with this. Use the Talk page if you wish to achieve a consensus to add these supporting players. They do not "star" in the film."

Disagree with policy everyone has to follow? No way would I surrender to these users' ignorance and breaking of policy and legitimize this topic in the way some Holocaust denier would suggest it is debatable that the Holocaust happened. So Ssilvers, who led this effort to keep the starring field unrepresentative and guideline-violating, was provided a warning by me to restore it as it should or I am bringing the issue to admins. They reverted my warning with the following cop-out: "Use the article talk page, not mine."

So guess was, Ssilvers, you are going to the principal's office for your misbehavior. All necessary diffs are linked for the admins to read for themselves, and all users will be notified on the talk pages. I am demanding at least a few-day block for what they are trying to do, and I hope the article is free from tyranny. It is disgusting to see a user with some leverage from writing featured content abuse WP:CIVILITY like this. Thanks. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. There's a lot to unpack here. To start with the easy bit, template documentation is "essay-class", not a guideline. It's advice, sometimes widely-followed, sometimes completely ignored or even contrary to actual usage; and regardless of how widely-followed it is, it can always be overridden by a local consensus. Second, this is more suited for WP:AN/I than AN proper. Beyond that... I haven't looked at the whole history here, but I can tell you that AN(/I) reports that are written like this never go anywhere good for the filer. In frank terms, you've written a much much better argument for why you should be sanctioned than for why anybody else should be. Maybe, in fact, the others have done something wrong, but it's definitely not coming across in what you've written. I'd suggest withdrawing this, taking a day or several to make this conflict feel a bit less raw and emotional, and then, if you still feel there are ownership issues such as to require admin attention, write a concise paragraph or two at AN/I explaining the issue in a calm manner. (Although what I'd really suggest is taking that day or several and then just letting it go—but I appreciate that's hard to agree to in the heat of the moment.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would this be moved to WP:AN/I? I am still suffering brain fog and forgot there was a subpage for Incidents, so that mistake was accidental. To get back to the discussion, With the upmost respect, I feel like I have expressed the evidence and cited appropriate WP pages without any emotions seeping through, so I am not seeing how I am sanctionable here. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how often is the "sometimes completely ignored" scenario? Because it has only happened to films with posters that did not have starring billing in my experience, which are few. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I have played enough of a role to justify sanctions, and I was not notified previously on this matter nor tagged in a reversion. While I understand why @HumanxAnthro could see that I'm "enforcing" a POV, I restored the two names in the cast as a suggested compromise between the people who are in favor of fewer names and the people who prefer a larger chunk of the cast in the infobox. The primary summary of the reversion cited by HumanxAnthro is actually to remove MOS:COMMENT violations, in which invisible comments should not be used to push one version of an article over another.

I've worked with Ssilvers before, most prominently in the Infobox debate for the Ziegler sisters' articles. I don't doubt that she contributes in good faith to the encyclopedia, but I also do believe that some behavior can be snappy. I have noticed quite a few MOS:COMMENT violations from her based out of when I have encountered her on Wikipedia. I could see as to how and why she could use her featured articles to leverage and engage in WP:OWN. Does her conduct? need a warning? Probably. I used to be kind of snappy myself, but I personally try to avoid and correct when I or other editors notice. But does Ssilver's conduct warrant sanctions? Frankly, I don't know. I shouldn't be the one who has to decide on whether to sanction Ssilvers. I don't want to either. I think I would be biased in deciding based on my previous infobox debates with her, and that alone would disqualify me because of how intense infobox debates can be, regardless of how much I try to suppress my own bias.

Regardless, I do think that the idea of characterizing my edits as WP:VANDALISM is very inappropriate. I could see how it could be disruptive, but given that I did not have appropriate context of the scenario nor engaged in further related reversions, aside from removing MOS:COMMENT violations, I don't see why I should be sanctioned. A warning or talk page request tagging me should have been made first. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you on the talk page [7] User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That notification was a notification of me being on an administrator's noticeboard. You went straight to the principal's office before attempting to give me a formal warning or anything. Not cool, man. It's not like I'm deleting the main page. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers was the one warned cause they initiated and upheld the article in its current state the most, so I assumed good faith and suggested you were willing to follow Ssilvers vision of the page for their longer and extensive experience and thus believed in them more. The discussion is mainly on Ssilvers, not you and Nyxaros, so I am only hoping action is taken on Ssilvers. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you were not being warned. It is just a requirement to notify when a user is mentioned in a discussion on this page. Also, are you not notified when your user page is linked? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get any notification except for the AN discussion and the relevant talk page notification. I have gotten linked before when I was linked in Edit Summaries. If you really only mean to target Ssilvers, consider editing the original thread to cross me and Nyxaros out as your current phrasing seems to suggest that I and Nyxaros should be blocked. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I was writing the above, Tamzin left her comment, which I am only now seeing. I think that the best recourse of action would be to remove this from AN and refrain from posting it to AN/I. Consider starting a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. That way, you can achieve a much stronger consensus. If you end up losing the debate, it's probably then time to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass before you risk further bludgeoning the process. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"If you end up losing the debate". See, right there is the WP:COMPETENCE issue that led me to create this section. There are aspects about Wikipedia that are not debatable, like the fact that it is an encyclopedia and should be written as such. If I contested that, would you being willing to respectfully disagree and go onto a talk page to have a discourse? Not meeting WP:COMPETENCE has led to blocks of users for a very good reason: it is disruptive to the editing process and the right thing to do is to not respectfully converse with them, even if they are acting in good faith. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I could see your accusations as having merit when it comes to Ssilvers, not me. I think that you should have discussed it with me on my talk page individually first before you went straight to ANI with regard to me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To star in a film means to have a leading role, and for the infobox to say that someone had a leading role, the body of the article should contain a statement at least resembling that. The guideline for infoboxes is MOS:INFOBOX, not the template documentation. "Copy blindly whatever is on the poster" does not make the cut as serious guidance for how to edit an article. (Maybe useful for an infobox-heavy film stub which shouldn't be a thing in the first place.) Those actors which you added in your diff are only mentioned once in the article, as part of a list of names with no further information. Are those key facts, in the words of the guideline? Telling you to discuss it was fine. Even if what you thought was a guideline were an actual guideline you should still generally discuss, and your position being consistent with the guideline just makes it much more likely that your idea is the one that will be implemented, but it is not an absolute guarantee (see WP:GUIDES: Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.). Not wanting to discuss a content dispute that relates to one article on user talk and directing someone to the article talk page is an option. When discussions don't attract much outside participation, and don't go the way you'd prefer, there is waiting and hoping, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFC... But I don't see much in the way of your talk page participation in the first place. About other diffs, Ssilvers reverted the following changes: "lambasted by critics" (is that how you would put it?), "extremely negative" (is that really the best way to put it? go and prove it on the talk page), overlinking, someone adding redundant prose only about the Golden Raspberry Awards (worst film "awards") and not about the Golden Globe awards (when both are already covered), "She also received backlash for how she initially responded to this criticism, particularly tweets extolling her own casting of neuroatypical and trans actors" (...). Your big reception rewrite was reverted; summarizing reviews is great but you also added "Music was despised by professional film critics in general"; is the word "despised" really what we'd go with? I don't know, maybe. Talk? Go incremental? WP:FEET? WP:BRB? Please give yourself some time and rethink everything. —Alalch E. 23:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No... NO! Do not legitimize with Ssilvers is pulling it. That MOS:INFOBOX quote is vague and would not mean what you are trying to make it mean. Do you want me to report you for WP:COMPETENCE and WP:GAME for enabling another user doing the same? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not screwing around here! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't report please, I will remove the quote immediately. Here, done.—Alalch E. 00:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Still skeptical about the comments towards the diffs, though. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 01:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is the policy quote you bullied Alalch E into removing [8] a misrepresentation of policy? How is this:

.. the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. ... wherever possible... exclude any unnecessary content

A substantial misrepresentation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function.

Why on earth are you making ridiculous and completley baseless threats to get Alalch blocked for that quote? How does their comment illustrate any kind of WP:CIR or WP:GAMING behaviour? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just warned her to not enable the disruptive behavior Ssilvers got a section for. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She tried to some of the actors as "not key facts" for only being mentioned in prose one, which is disingenuous as that is not what the Infobox doc says. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: Now I'm going to be a bit more direct. Your above comments are harassment of an editor who is giving a good-faith opinion on a dispute you are party to. This is disruptive editing and generally an unpleasant thing for volunteer editors to have to deal with. If you make another comment like these, I am going to block you. If you can't see which parts of the comments are problematic, that is in itself a good sign you should step away. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:COMPETENCE violations" has to be about the funniest thing for which anyone was ever reported to WP:AN. Here is what User:HumanxAnthro posted on my Talk page earlier, which does not reflect reality and does not seem to be very nice. As to the actual dispute, this film has 3 stars: Hudson, Odom and Ziegler. All the publicity was solely about them. Both the plot summary and the list of musical numbers make it clear that these are the only stars of the film. I agree with those above who noted that there is no actual guideline that says that we must dump every name mentioned on a film poster into the "Starring" section of the infobox. A review of the edits to Music (2021 film) since 3 September will show that if anyone has been edit warring concerning this issue, or leaving uncivil edit summaries it is the OP. Plus, asking someone to discuss something on the Talk page is not "ownership" or "gaming". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect @Ssilvers, I do think that a user attacking me with "the Gish gallop of all Gish gallops" may take the cake for the funniest ANI complaint, and sadly against me. While we may not agree on everything, I do think that this, just like the Gish gallops, calls for some serious trouting. Welcome to the club lol InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What uncivil edit summaries? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So would you laugh if I removed the names of the cinematographers, editors, composers and production companies if I did not care about those details? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I just gave them a warning to not enable or legitimize another user's bad behavior. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you read WP:Boomerang as you seem to be heading in that direction. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking this was one of the typical cases where an editor was complaining about what is basically a content dispute, but hadn't touched Talk:Music (2021 film). I was surprised but not in a good way. HumanxAnthro did post to the talk page a single time about a day before coming here [9] which is still way too fast, but I guess better than most cases of these we get. But what's not good is their sole comment [10] includes these gems "Jesus Christ, the lack of WP:COMPETENCE and understanding of attribution and weight of the users who edit this page!" and "It is so obvious to even a 60 IQ individual the comment is relevant." The last one in particular is at a minimum WP:uncivil but frankly IMO crosses the WP:NPA line. @HumanxAnthro: you've already been warned above about how you approached comments here, but this is an even further example that you need to drastically change the way you handle disputes if you want to continue to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro, you mentioned your attempts at using the talk page at Talk:It (2017 film)/Archive 1#Cast section discussion. Your comments there seem much more reasonable although maybe are a bit too much general criticism without specifically articulating exactly you plan to change.

More importantly, I don't see why you feel your experience there means using the talk page doesn't work. AFAICT, you've only made 5 fairly minor edits to It (2017 film) itself and I don't think anyone reverted your edits. No one seems to have replied to your comments there which might be unfortunate but you can interpret that as as a very weak consensus and proceed to make the changes you feel need to be made.

Note that it's true that just leaving criticism on the talk page will often not lead to any change, but that's the nature of Wikipedia, editor interest and the WP:SOFIXIT culture. While it's not a misuse of talk pages to offer criticism of an article, I've done it quite a few times myself, it's also often not the most useful thing. Making specific proposals for change and asking for feedback is generally more useful and more likely to result in feedback but even then there's no guarantee. (Note though it's often helpful to check previous discussions to see if any of them have addressed your concerns and take them on board before you consider changes, especially if there are hidden comments which will often mean that something has been discussed before.)

If you make proposals for change and still receive no feedback then as I said just proceed to make your changes, maybe with an edit summary that includes something like see talk, indicating you've often further explanation for your edits on the talk page.

If someone reverts you then most of the time they will quickly go to the talk page and respond to you. (In rare cases, this might not be necessary if they can explain in an edit summary why your changes are unwarranted. While communicating with edit summaries is often not ideal, you should generally check out the edit summaries of reversions and see if they are sufficient to have changed your mind or at least raised new things you need to consider.)

If someone has reverted you and you still feel your changes is better and it's been a few days, then it's often helpful to go to their talk page and politely ask them to join the discussion you started and further/ explain the reasons for the reversion. If an editor keeps reverting and refuses to join the talk page discussion on the issue then this is often something which will concern us. But not when you post some highly questionable comments on the talk page (on a different issue AFAICT), leave it a day and then come here.

Don't treat talk pages as an either/or. They're supposed to be part of editing here. You can't just post comments to the talk page and expected someone to make edits for you (I'll ignore cases of protection or CoI for simplicity). But you also can't expect you can always make changes to the article and without the need for discussion, no matter how sure you are that your edits are correct in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Per WP:BRD you don't even always have to post on the talk page first, but once there's been dispute then yes you normally should if you still want to make your changes.

And I'll emphasise again, no matter how sure you are that your changes are right and obvious or whatever, you should do your best to remain WP:CIVIL and especially avoid insulting other editors in any way such as implying they are stupid. Keep discussion focused solely on your changes and why you feel they are justified.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How is my edit on the page related to this vandalism discussion? I did not add or remove anyone's contribution, except for deleting a hidden note that stated "Keep this as ordered and included per official poster, very high res at http://www.impawards.com/2021/music_ver2_xlg.html" to which my reason for deletion was "unnecessary, this poster already shows full billing". How is this vandalism? The user added a random poster link as a hidden note to show that it "has more names in the billing", when it has the exact same billing as the poster on the page right now. My edit clearly does not promote "a reversion that border on WP:VANDALISM, and I do not want to be associated with this discussion or this user. ภץאคгöร 08:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought you were trying to remove the names but got sidetracked by removing the hidden comment, which gave me that impression. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]