The bulk update request #5201 is pending approval.

create implication henry_townshend_(silent_hill) (4) -> silent_hill (580)
mass update selendis -> selendis_(lummh)

Reason: A few years ago a user was banned for "removing valid tags, and nuking whole tags to replace them with unneeded suffixes", but not all of the tags were reverted. Selendis is ostensibly owned by fan fiction writer Lummh.

Another user banned for tagging abuse who might be worth looking into as well

arkham_horror said:

mass update selendis -> selendis_(mlp)
mass update selendis_(starcraft) -> selendis

I don't think you can do that, even with BURs. Safer to split this into two requests. Remember, order of execution in a BUR is not guaranteed.

arkham_horror said:
One of these, Selendis, was ostensibly changed to favor their OC.

I can't find any evidence of this. The only changes the banned user made were mass-updating every selendis post to selendis_(starcraft), consistent with many other unnecessary changes they made at the same time. The first use of selendis to refer to a pony OC was made by a different user one year after the offender was banned.

Also, if this new Selendis is not an official MLP character, you should not suffix it with *_(mlp) - that suffix is reserved for official characters. You should instead find the owner of the character and suffix it with their name. (Yes, I know there are a lot of MLP OCs with *_(mlp) suffixed tags. This is because the pony fandom is particularly bad at respecting e621's conventions.)

wat8548 said:
I don't think you can do that, even with BURs. Safer to split this into two requests. Remember, order of execution in a BUR is not guaranteed.

Good to know. I was not aware of that.

I can't find any evidence of this. The only changes the banned user made were mass-updating every selendis post to selendis_(starcraft), consistent with many other unnecessary changes they made at the same time. The first use of selendis to refer to a pony OC was made by a different user one year after the offender was banned.

Once I stepped down the rabbit hole of their edits I may have made a few assumptions.

The bulk update request #5202 has been rejected.

mass update selendis_(starcraft) -> selendis
create implication selendis (16) -> starcraft (668)

Reason: Unnecessary disambiguation and franchise implication.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5202 (forum #370455) has been rejected by @Arkham_Horror.

No, you shouldn't use the *_(oc) suffix either. Yes, I know there are tags like that. They're all invalid and will eventually get updated/aliased. "OC" does nothing to distinguish a character from any other OCs who might go by the same name.

After skim reading the comic and a some other (painfully mistagged) DA uploads I've updated it to reflect who I think the character owner is.

Wait I'm confused. Are original characters not meant to be suffixed with their owners? Because a fair bit of the tags you're suggesting to alias out are.

arkham_horror said:
mass update selendis -> selendis_(lummh)
...
mass update selendis_(starcraft) -> selendis
create implication selendis (14) -> starcraft (585)

The fact that there's multiple "selendis" tags needing a suffix, means a suffix is appropriate and shouldn't be removed.

smbsml said:
Wait I'm confused. Are original characters not meant to be suffixed with their owners? Because a fair bit of the tags you're suggesting to alias out are.

generally if a character has first and last name disambiguation is considered unnecessary in most cases.

smbsml said:
Wait I'm confused. Are original characters not meant to be suffixed with their owners? Because a fair bit of the tags you're suggesting to alias out are.

If the name is potentially ambiguous (i.e. multiple things sharing the same or confusingly similar names), they should be suffixed with the owner or where they're from. If the name is unlikely to clash or be confused for different things, it shouldn't have a suffix since it's unique enough without it and a suffix needlessly lengthens the tag name (making it harder to type out, and make the tag list messier with extra line breaks).

arkham_horror said:

Reason: A few years ago a user was banned for "removing valid tags, and nuking whole tags to replace them with unneeded suffixes"

If you want a fuller picture...

Alt 1 user #987551
Alt 2 user #1383946

That I know about. I had spotted and reported Alt 1. They were extremely obvious. Seems Alt 2 tripped the same landmine that I found for Alt 1, but I didn't catch Alt 2.

Hmm, can't view the sources in Milcore's reports. I assume this is intentional, haha.
24013 tags... geez, that's a lot to go through. XD

abadbird said:
If you want a fuller picture...

Alt 1 user #987551
Alt 2 user #1383946

That I know about. I had spotted and reported Alt 1. They were extremely obvious. Seems Alt 2 tripped the same landmine that I found for Alt 1, but I didn't catch Alt 2.

Hmm, so came back to do it some more and still kept doing it?

watsit said:
If the name is potentially ambiguous (i.e. multiple things sharing the same or confusingly similar names), they should be suffixed with the owner or where they're from. If the name is unlikely to clash or be confused for different things, it shouldn't have a suffix since it's unique enough without it and a suffix needlessly lengthens the tag name (making it harder to type out, and make the tag list messier with extra line breaks).

An example: https://e621.net/forum_topics/19333 https://e621.net/forum_topics/39083 There are a ton of 'Max' names.

arkham_horror said:
mass update furzone_(artist) -> furzone
mass update pewt_(synpentane) -> pewt
mass update paharita_(deep_space_fuckboi) -> paharita
mass update nakil_(nakil) -> nakil

These should keep the suffix, IMO. Pewt, Paharita, and Nakil are single-word and don't feel terribly unique. Furzone is actually the name of a brand of pet grooming supplies, which while unlikely, isn't out of the question to be depicted in art here (and it sounds like some kind of convention or group name, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it pop up somewhere else), so leaving the _(artist) suffix may not be a bad idea.

arkham_horror said:
A few years ago a user was banned for "removing valid tags, and nuking whole tags to replace them with unneeded suffixes", but not all of the tags were reverted.

Oh yeah, ArtistClone.
He kept trying to evade the ban too.
https://e621.net/users/1383946
https://e621.net/users/987551
There may be more cases of redundant suffixes under those accounts.

The bulk update request #5202 (forum #370455) has been rejected by @Arkham_Horror.

I have modified the BUR based on the feedback provided. Clearly I've come to some severely incorrect conclusions.