User talk:Bearcat/Archive 54

Admin action
Bearcat, why did you enact full protection on a BLP you created and have been actively editing, rather than asking an uninvolved admin to do it? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

As you are an involved editor, who was reverting other editors to your preferred version before you protected the page to prevent them from editing, I strongly suggest you undo the protection. If you still feel there is a need for a degree of page protection, you can go to WP:RPP and request that an uninvolved admin evaluate the situation. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm going to note the fact that I had to peruse your edit history to figure out what article you were talking about, since you didn't see fit to tell me.
 * That said, unsourced or improperly sourced BLP violations are not a simple content dispute — they unequivocally fall under straight vandalism, and thus are not subject to the same page protection rules as simple content disputes. An administrator is not barred from dropping the hammer on a vandalism incident regardless of whether they were involved in reverting the vandalism or not, and does not have to solicit another admin to come in to stop straight vandalism. This has nothing to do with "my preferred version" — I have exactly no idea what is or isn't the truth about Gwen Benaway's indigenous status, and no dog in the fight except Wikipedia's hard and inviolable rule around properly sourcing contentious or disputed content. I don't know her personally, and I don't have any vested interest in how she is or isn't presented on here — but making improperly sourced claims that an article subject is misrepresenting her identity is not a simple content dispute, it's straight, unequivocal vandalism, and even if an administrator has been directly involved in reverting vandalism, they do not lose the right to subsequently lock down the same page if the same vandalism continues to recur.
 * For a similar example, imagine that the editors in question had decided to address the exact same issue by replacing the entire article with the text "Gwen Benaway is a lying liar who lies about who she is". So I revert, it comes back, I revert again, it comes back again. That's straight vandalism, not a legitimate content dispute — so I do not have to approach a third party to come shut down the vandalism on my behalf just because I was one of the reverters of it, but am allowed to just directly shut it down myself, because the rule around unequivocal vandalism is different from the rule around content disputes. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, I know this issue happened a month ago, but I am also going to request you lift protection from the article, for a couple reasons. First, indef fully protecting an article is ridiculous, and I feel like I shouldn't have to explain why that's ridiculous, but...for crying out loud, were the encyclopedia anyone can edit! Secondly, the edits you were reverting were not vandalism. Vandalism is when a user adds "poop", "your mom", or something like that into an article. The editors you reverted were not vandals, they were acting in good faith and one of them is even a fellow admin. They were removing unsupported claims of nationality; there isn't evidence she is indeed an enrolled member of those particular nations. In my view, this DOES make you involved, since you created the page and were reverting edits that were made in good faith/are far too complex to be classified as "vandalism". So could you please unprotect, or if you don't object, I can lift the protection for you. It's already been fully protected for a month, I like to think that's a month's worth of potentially constructive contributors that have been shut down (OK, it's probably not that dramatic, but you get my point). The page can always be protected again if disruption or legit BLP issues arise, but please, unless it's something really egregious, request another admin protect or bring up the article to a noticeboard's attention rather than just protecting it yourself. Sro23 (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first thing I want to stress is that you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the edits in question. The statement that she had a First Nations background was not "unsupported", but was supported by a source from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation — the claim that she was misrepresenting her identity, and wasn't First Nations, is what was unsupported by any acceptable reliable sources, and made doubly problematic by the patently false non-starter of a claim that the CBC is somehow not a reliable source. The only acceptable way to dispute a properly sourced biographical claim about a person is not to simply remove it from the article without showing any sources to support the change, or to falsely label a gold standard source like the CBC as "unreliable" — it is to show reliable sources which support the assertion that the prior source was wrong. Without proper sources to support that claim, it is a clear BLP violation to make unsourced claims that a person has misrepresented her identity — and per our BLP policy, specifically the WP:BLPADMINS section, "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved." — so labelling me as "involved" is not a valid counterargument to a BLP issue, because BLP literally doesn't care whether I was "involved" or not.
 * And the other administrator was not part of the original edit war, either: they stepped in after the page protection to try to calm things down by balancing the unsourced claims with the properly sourced ones into a compromise position, and had no involvement in the disputed edits prior to the page protection.
 * Furthermore, the concept of "tribal enrollment" has absolutely nothing to do with whether a Canadian person is indigenous or not. Canada does not have "tribally" controlled authorities that determine indigenous status through "registration" with them — the question of whether somebody is a "status Indian" or not is controlled by the federal government, not by the individual First Nations. And just to make it even more complex, there is no publicly consultable database that can be spelunked into to investigate whether a third party is "status Indian" or not, independently of breaking into their house to riffle through their private files to see whether they have a status card or not. And just to make it even more complicated, even if you could somehow prove that a person wasn't a "status Indian", you still haven't actually proven that they're not indigenous, because there is also the concept of the "non-status Indian", meaning a person who is indigenous but has lost status rights for bureaucratic reasons. And until very recently, one of the most common ways that a person who is indigenous could lose status was to be an indigenous woman who married a non-indigenous man — meaning that anybody whose indigenous heritage is maternal, but not paternal, is a "non-status Indian" even though they are still indigenous. So it is literally impossible to prove whether a Canadian is First Nations or not through the "appeal to authority" method that's talked about so much in the United States, because we don't have any "Dawes rolls" that can be independently consulted to prove or disprove anybody's indigenous heritage independently of actual published investigative journalism by real media.
 * Which means that once reliable sources like the CBC have published a statement that a person is indigenous, literally the only way to dispute, challenge or remove the statement from a Wikipedia article is to show a reliable source which explicitly proves that the earlier sources were wrong — simply trying to redefine the CBC as an "unreliable" source, without showing any sources to prove that the CBC was wrong, is never, ever the way to get a CBC-sourced statement removed from a Wikipedia article.
 * That said, I have dropped the page to pending changes now. But I'm not doing that without correcting the record about my original actions: the statement that was being disputed was supported by a reliable source and the claim that the original source was wrong was not supported by any reliable sources, so the edits did rise to the level of being a straight BLP violation in the absence of reliable sourcing to support them. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the unprotection. If CBC is "a gold standard source", then I don't agree with CorbieVreccan's removal of it. Shouldn't it be allowed to stay if it's a reliable reference? Sro23 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, the article being referred to is Gwen Benaway. Sro23 (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unprotection discussion at RFPP
I think you were pinged, but just in case you didn't see it: Requests for page protection. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Strange Time
Hello dear Bearcat. Can you help pls to patrol the page Strange Time. I’ve added a number of sources, including the authoritative source of the art critic Natalia Matsenko, filled it in the literature section. Best wishes --Art of Odessa (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Toronto International Film Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lulu Wang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Joy Bridenbaker
Hi Bearcat, this is an urgent some new user goes by the name User:Manhattan, NYC. has made a messy article titled Joy Bridenbaker. I just know that she is a non-notable actress and and it needs a speedy deletion or the articles for deletion. Could you review the review on how messy the article looks like for Joy Bridenbaker. If this article is still messy it's either a speedy deletion or an "Articles for deletion" to be deleted. I am 100% positive that she is a non-notable actress. So could you talk to User:Manhattan, NYC. because the user is a newcomer never create the article that is very messy. I hope you will reply as soon as you can. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:F549:C521:80C2:7662 (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Malaysian television news shows


A tag has been placed on Category:Malaysian television news shows requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Isabelle Nélisse
I have no idea why this is is on my watchlist but I'm always interested when I see a new page creation pop up there. I'm puzzled: why did you delete a redirect, without going to RfD about it, and then create an article? Why not just overwrite the redirect by expanding it to an article, leaving intact its edit history? Someone created that redirect, and someone else reviewed it, but that's all now hidden while you appear to have created a brand new article. Pam D  05:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Jean jacket
 * added a link pointing to Couture
 * Michener Award
 * added a link pointing to Cornwall Island

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Spouse of the Prime Minister of Canada"
Hi Bearcat. Regarding this edit summary – please note that "Template:Infobox prime ministerial spouse" is simply a recent redirect to Template:Infobox officeholder. So the same awkward parameters show up – "assumed office", "preceded by", "succeeded by", and so on. Is "Spouse of the Prime Minister of Canada" a genuine office/title? This is what Wikipedia seems to be implying. If it is not, then Template:Infobox person has a "spouse" parameter and I would suggest that be used for spouses of prime ministers. Regards, Ben MacLeod (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My point is – is this a title? Do they hold a formalised position? Or are they just people who happen to happen to be married to a prime minister? Ben MacLeod (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Isaacwshearer
On August 13 you blocked User:Isaacwshearer from changing certain pages, but he needs to be blocked from all pages. He is creating amusement-park related pages that are poorly written, full of errors, and lack citations. He continues to ignore advice and comments. He removes notices without correcting the problem. He is lifting photos from Flickr and other sources without making sure they are in the public domain. He is treating Wikipedia as a blog. Please help.— JlACEer ( talk ) 14:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Urgent [NSFW]: Edit summary vandalism by
Hi there, can you look into ? It looks like the user has set their Twinkle preferences so that every time the user reverts an edit, the summary includes extremely NSFW wording with a link to an image that is also extremely NSFW. Examples here: and. TribunalMan (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nitro (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Gleaner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Film at AfD
Hi Bearcat. Hope you're well. You might be interested in this AfD. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kuwaiti short films


A tag has been placed on Category:Kuwaiti short films requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)