AN OLD MAN

I have removed you from my honor roll[1]

I liked your old name better.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't --Ωfrogger3140Ω2 omega (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! don't contradict your elders.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I liked it more too, but I have to change it because this one admin blocked me for it, and I don't want to deal with that shit again. I don't really find it inappropriate at all really...

Because of that stupid block, I couldn't edit the request page, and all this stupid crap about trying to come back happened (such as that admin not even responding back after such time) so I didn't try to come back until 3 months later. I was using another account since then. AN OLD MAN (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to Jimbo Wales Draft

Hello Jimbo, in case you're not aware I must inform you that there is a HUGE, EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL crisis going on across all music-related articles on Wikipedia. If you could just take 10-15 minutes of your time to read and thoroughly understand the below and intervene with the subject, many users would very much appreciate it.

Basically, the "Genre" field in all artist/band and album infoboxes is to be removed (songs/singles are kept ATM and are to be discussed shortly, but they might have the same fate), is currently in that process, and isn't displayed anymore regardless of the text being there or not. Now, at first you may think this is a minor, simple change not noteworthy of your attention, but in reality this is one of the biggest and most controversial implementations on Wikipedia for the past two years. I'll try summarize the controversy and limit my point of view as little as possible.

The main reasons for removal and/or supporting arguments:

1. It is by far the most edit warred area of anything music related. Most musical edit warriors and the number of edit wars themselves are based around infobox genres. Even with well-defined consensus', sources inside the infoboxes, simplifications, and other methods (which often work actually), there's many failures.

2. Genres are subjective and require sources + reasonable explanations to support them. Infobox fields are factual, being either correct or incorrect (the band formed at x date at x place and signed to x label, with their current members formerly being in x bands, etc.), whereas the genre field can't truly really be either. Some bands are better defined musically than others, but it's the "others" where many and most problems occur. For example, nobody would argue that Iron Maiden are a heavy metal band or Public Enemy are a hip hop group, in fact it's impossible that both are not of those genres, but groups like Slipknot and Marilyn Manson are heatly debated. Many bands/artists are also "well defined" as one or two main genres but are debated over their less prominent subgenres (the Beatles are a prefect example- they're definitely normal pop and rock as their main genre but all the other styles they use are debated on whether they're significant enough to be included or not).

3. When first officially brought up at WikiProject Music and most subdivisions of it (i.e. specific projects such as project alternative music and project albums), the vast majority of members strongly supported the removal. Across all music projects, including the main Project Music discussion section, around 25 people at max participated over a course of 2-3 weeks before the implementation, with only around 5 disagreeing. Many members have been tired of the massive number of edit wars and warriors for over two years, including ones not participating in the discussion.

The numerous disadvantages and/or opposing arguments:

1. There is and was hardly a consensus at all, or certainly not a valid one. There are three main reasons for this, with each heavily compacting on the other two, making the situation even worse:

a. Though the removal proposal was mentioned on nearly all relevant music projects, it still wasn't even close to being publicized enough. There weren't any large bold caps-esque headings anywhere. Most members participating in the discussion, admittedly the vast majority of opposers, did not hear of such a proposal until the implementation started on October 8th. I only heard of it four days earlier myself, purely by chance by clicking on somebody's contributions.

b. 15-40 members deciding on this issue isn't nearly enough. It is not fair at all how just they have the power to change something that affects hundreds of thousands of people, users or not. There should be literally hundreds of user's opinions, even with just a simple 2-3 sentences of justification.

c. There were only 2-3 weeks of official discussion before the implementation occurred. That is not enough time for anything that affects thousands of people. There should be at least 5-6 weeks, preferably 2-3 months, for such a plan to be decided on. If the decision becomes clear to remove the genre fields, there needs to be a 3 or 7 day notice before the implementation occurs.

2. A formatting/very general thing that appears on many articles being warred over more than other things doesn't mean that it should be removed all together. If article titles were hypothetically the most warred over subjects, would they be removed? Dealing with genre edit wars and warriors may be strenuous even with several methods of preventing/better defining them (such as the ones mentioned in reason #1 for supporting arguments), but none of those methods were ever clearly officially suggested as common practice on any project page or policy. On top of that, we just have to drive our energy onto other issues.

3. Though the removal would lower the number of edit wars and warriors, there will still be many based around genres. Context within the article, despite being less convenient for the average editor, will still be reverted left and right, and categories (which won't be removed no matter what) will just become the new infobox genre battlefield. Remember, you can never make all people happy at all times.

4. Major inconvenience. The infobox is there to summarize all major details about a band/album besides the history. It's unencyclopediatic and annoying to not include something as major and relevant as music genres. Nobody should be forced to read through several paragraphs in order to fish out the specific genres a band/album is described as, considering that most of those articles don't have a "musical style" section.

I please ask of you to go to the main music discussion page in order to tell everybody there to revert the removal implementation immediately (as in they do it immediately, not you, do it when you have time, albeit soon if possible). I'm not so sure about you telling them that genres not being displayed should be reverted (I personally think you should, but to be as side neutral as possible you probably shouldn't suggest this), but the removal of the actual field text definitely needs a mass reversion. Say something along the lines that no implementation should occur until a proper consensus is reached over a course of several weeks, with the opinions of at least 100 users (preferably 200-300, and if possible, 1000 or more), and that it is very well notified in anywhere applicable. It doesn't have to be much, just a simple, clear speech with a request. Now whether you support the removal or not, which is fine if you do I guess, we must realize that regardless of any point of view, the removal implementation is still unreasonable and overly flawed.

Could we perhaps set up a huge wikipoll? Just like how nominating/voting for admins appears at the top of Wikipedia pages when that occurs, is it possible to format a poll and headline it across the entire site (or if that's too much, then all music-related articles, and if that can't work, as many of them as possible)? It would basically ask something like "It is widely proposed that the genre field of all music infoboxes are to be removed. What's your opinion? Please see here [some kind of main proposal page/section in the discussion] for more details. If you want to discuss this, go to Wikiproject music", probably in a yes/no format. What would actually be stated and the conditions for what would determine the outcome could be discussed later (such as which side has more support or removal only occurs if 2/3 support it).

I am sorry if I, an ordinary non-barnstar user who's been through many genre wars myself, am interrupting your busy schedule, but an issue this big and controversial, especially one moreso than pretty much anything on Wikipedia ATM, could use the intervention of its leader. I'm very passionate about music information on a website that contains everything of all genres, and I'm probably the only user to have the idea of contacting you for help. Many, many, many thanks! AN OLD MAN (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: It took me three hours to type up and revise this message.

A few points:

1) Jimbo won't have the time to read and act upon this message.

3 hours of typing up =/= 3 hours of reading. He only needs 5-10 minutes to read and 5 minutes to reread confusing-at-first points (common, he's an adult who founded this site, so he's probably a very good reader, on top of my essay being kick-ass and quite clear anyway). He could also reread for 5-10 more minutes on another day rather than that same day. And the speach he types up to intervene should take 15 minutes at max to think up and revise, which again he doesn't have to do on the same day he reads the message. This is all easy to do when you get home from work or during some free time. Also note, in case you were confused, the wikipoll issue is just asking a yes/no question about whether formating it is possible or not, not an in-depth explanation or dicussion.

2) He generally leaves discussions to the community to sort out; he has far more important things to be doing. He can't always jump in to "save" things, otherwise he'd have absolutely no life outside of Wikipedia.

Obviously, which is why I constantly said "if possible" or "preferably". however, please realise that this matter is probably more controversial and affecting than anything else on Wikipedia ATM, probably for the past year and most likely not for at least another year. Name some things that argue that. Many other issues that could be "saved" are lower priority or don't truly need "saving". This situation is beyond that, and because it is heatly debated, has time for intervention. Keywords you used: "generally", "can't always"

3) You've made subjective points backed up without evidence. Even if you could provide evidence, no doubt the perspective of the user would have to make an interpretation of it, thus, leading to even more subjectivity.

It's called "summarizing", and I refered to the main discussion page for more info (which Jimbo doesn't have time to even glance over the entire thing). Evidence? What more could I need? The only thing I typed up that needs direct "evidence" is how well certain methods of lowering genre wars worked, and because I mentioned the fact that they "failed many times", there's no need for back up. I'm not going to dig up for 20 different examples either; the five I provided are iconic enough to prove the point. As for subjectiveness, it's impossible to not be subjective here, in addition to points that I could have taken out, such as saying "which have often worked quite well" when refering to genre-war suppresing methods, would probably make the entire message less clear. But most importantly of all, this situation isn't something that's "equal sided" or where "both sides have equally valid points". The correctfullness is leaning on the opposing side and many of the supporters' arguments are either ignorant of several of the opposing points, are just plain incorrect, or are simply repeating one of the three "main arguments for deletion", which have been mostly countered by the opposing side despite being valid [that sentence is not a point of view statment regardless of viewer opinion]. Orane and Wesley Dodds are da bom

4) Are you going to mention that you tried to subvert the discussion by using a sock puppet account, which you were eventually blocked for? Because if you don't, I will. Utan Vax (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Different points were made, and one only spoke once (out of a total of 5 times). They weren't even close, despite stating something to do with siding with opposers and such. In addition, I don't need to turn a warning message into a debating battlefield, so I would prefer that nobody else would go with me or only just a few people on my side, who probably can't really help as my message is pretty much a FAQ on its own. BTW, Check your email NAO. Thanks! AN OLD MAN (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reponse

Yes, I got you email, but besides the checkuser evidence, edits like [2] (where you were logged in as the wrong identity) are irrefutable behavioral evidence. Also, identical edits like [3], [4] combine with technical evidence to show that you are abusing multiple accounts. Feel free to use the {{unblock}} template though to get a second opinion. MBisanz ^talk 08:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but that's not what I asked for. Please check your email again. AN OLD MAN (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You can leave any notes on this page with an {{unblock}} req and an admin will move it, you can email any of the users you need to contact as well. I will not unblock you or your alternate accounts to permit messages or discussion edits at other pages. MBisanz ^talk 11:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your help, but many issues that I told you about are still unexplained and unanswered. Check your email again. AN OLD MAN (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your email question:

1. . It isn't my problem if a user does not have email enabled, Jimbo does, the unblock mailing list does, and Arbcom does, and those are the only people you need to email to appeal a block.
2. . You used multiple accounts deceptively, I will not unblock you for a limited period of time to let you edit as that defeats the purpose of the block.
3. . Checkuser confirmed the link, feel free to mention that in your unblock request.
4. . I have re-read the emails and remain firm.
5. . I do not think it fair to temporarily unblock you, however other administrators may feel differently. Feel free to user {{unblock}}, email the unblock list, arbcom, or use the unblock IRC channel. MBisanz ^talk 06:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Just two more things... AN OLD MAN (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of the email stuff, I've explained everything and you can seek appeal of the block, but I will not be unblocking. MBisanz ^talk 07:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Realise that I'm tired of this whole thing too. If you explained everything, I wouldn't have those two concerns. All I ask of you is to thorougly read and answer those two points reasonably and with validity. If you don't want to now, do it tomorrow. Thank you. AN OLD MAN (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)