User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 12th May 2015

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells"‎

Hi, you have just closed this minutes ago as keep, no concensus. As there were several policies/guidelines quoted for the reason for delete/merge and no reason or cause volunteered for why it should be kept I am surprised at your interpretation of the discussion. Surely the weight of argument was firmly against retention? What should be the next step, do I have to list again for deletion? Feel free to answer here or on my talkpage, as you wish. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Campbell (journalist)

I wondered if you could possibly explain your reasoning behind closing this AfD as Keep (no consensus)? From a layman's perspective, I thought that the reasoning behind the delete arguments was made solidly and reflected community consensus, whereas the 2 weak keeps and the creator's perspectives were far less convincing. I very much appreciate you taking the time to read this. Colonel Tom 22:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

re: deletion/Gummi (software)

Hey.

Regarding your decision to delete Gummi_(software) based on the discussion here, I was wondering:

It seems the reason to delete was based on the (admittedly relevant) argument that proof of notability via 3rd party sources was lacking. However, several other articles on (La)tex editors, for example Kile don't provide 3rd party sources either, and from a quick Google search it seems that Kile and Gummi are at least comparable in their popularity.

It's too bad I missed the chance to participate in the deletion discussion, but it seems to me establishing notability for Gummi shouldn't be too difficult, as long as the same criteria for notability are applied as to the other editors.

What I'm trying to say: doing a search for Kile or Lyx (a very popular editor that I think definitely deserves an article), it is difficult to find non-blog sources to establish notability. But if blogs are included as reason to establish notability, I don't see how Gummi can be considered non-notable.

-- Minvogt (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer on my user page. I'm not exactly an expert editor, but I am more or less familiar with the requirements outlined by Wikipedia:Notability. The argument I wanted to make above was not phrased very clearly, so I'll try to paraphrase: I understand that, in general, blogs are not considered reliable 3rd party sources. However, in the context of software articles, there seems to be a de facto understanding that blogs and other less-than-completely-reliable sources, such as gauging the Internet /can/ indeed be used to establish notability. I proceeded to give an example: one of the most popular (Latex based) document processors for Linux, Lyx. I argue that it is unlikely that anyone would seriously question the notability of Lyx and propose deletion of the article (simply because its influence and spread is so self-evident on the Internet), but trying to find reliable, non-blog sources will be, even in this case, rather difficult. In other words: I can try to establish notabilty for Gummi, but if the 'no blogs' requirement is to be taken strictly, I will fail to do so -- but then a significant number of articles about open-source software would fail that test as well, simply because their notability is mainly manifested on the Internet, and can not really be gauged by looking at more traditional sources. Please note that I am not suggesting to redefine Wikipedia's notability definition, but just trying to put into words what seems to be the de facto notability standard for many (open source) software articles.

-- Minvogt (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure of Runtry

I modified your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runtry like this. If you wish to respond, please do so here. HairyWombat 16:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks very much for doing that. I've done the same thing a couple of other times recently, but have caught them myself. Thanks again for picking it up this time. TigerShark (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD closes

Not sure if you're using a script to close AfD's, but you forgot to remove the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template when you closed a few recent AfD's (1 2), which keeps them in Category:AfD debates inappropriately. —SW— ^confess 04:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I'm not using a script BTW. Thanks again. TigerShark (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard V. Kahn

Hi, I read through the recent discussion about the reasons to delete this page but I wanted to point out reasons that Dr. Kahn does satisfy the requirements for being an important academic, which goes beyond editing Green Theory & Praxis. 1) He is the primary author (co-listed with Douglas Kellner) of a 2004 essay that is the most cited article in the world on how developments in New Media (including Wikipedia) potentially represent a democratic awakening and oppositional potential that will lead to the rise of social movements and political revolution. 2) He founded an important field within education called Ecopedagogy and is listed alongside notable personages such as bell hooks in the definitive reader for the field of Critical Pedagogy of education. To this end, he is considered a global leader and is regularly invited to speak and lecture internationally as the founder of this field. 3) He is a founder of the field of Critical Animal Studies and a founder of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, which is a burgeoning global field of studies and of high reputation. It also has a wikipedia page. 4) He is also cited within Wikipedia in the David Icke page as a leading scholar of Icke's highly popular conspiracy philosophy. 5) His previous blog, Vegan Blog: The (Eco)Logical Weblog is listed by CSPAN has one of their Top 100 blogs of note on their website. My understanding is that he would satisfy the requirements of an academic for being listed in Wikipedia for point 1 alone. Considering his unique achievements and widely regarded publications in numerous areas, it seems to me that the recent discussion by editors to delete his page did not fairly understand or consider these points. I would ask that the deletion be reconsidered for these reasons. Thanks. (Sorry for any etiquette errors here; I'm not a power user.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.153.45.187 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 31 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. If you feel strongly that the subject of the article can meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (see Wikipedia:Notability) then I would be happy to userfy the page for you, so that you can work on it (see Wikipedia:Userfication), before re-submitting it. Let me know if that is something that you'd like to do. Alternatively, you could consider raising the issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Soar into the Sun

HERE BY --Sunuraju (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear TigerShark,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and

Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's

Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we

teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community,

and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what

you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community

[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_82#Learn_to_be_a_Wikipedia_Administrator_-

_New_class_at_MSU|HERE]], where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my

students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training,

motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one

of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of

communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will

never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an

interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics

review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have

been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak

with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I

will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your

name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be

more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing TigerShark a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A few more small van Persie edits

Hey mate. First off thank you for editing the van Persie page. Its great to see that Arsenal name off, I could not handle that anymore. Anyway I just have a few requests (if you dont mind, sorry). At the bottom there is a sporting positions table for Arsenal captain. It still says van Persie 2011–present when really it should be 2011–2012. And on the right box it should say that he was succeeded by Thomas Vermaelen. That is all. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Atlantis of the Sands

I appreciate your input on this article. I have amended it by adding a reference but if you have any further concerns, I would be happy to discuss them with you, thanks. Shaibalahmar (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch, and I had a look at the source you provided. I think that the "punishment by god" statement in the article could be interpreted as suggesting one of two things:

1. That the city might actually have been destroyed by god, or
2. That religious texts say that it was destroyed by god and/or that some current day believers believe that

At the moment, I think it reads as the first interpretation, and I think it should probably be written to suggest the second interpretation instead. I think that the article Iram of the Pillars covers the latter interpretation quite well, and perhaps we need something like that in the article.

In other words, I don't think that the article should actually suggest that it was destroyed by god (and I think that we would struggle to find a reliable source to back that up), but that it should instead make it clear that religious texts and, perhaps, current believers, suggest that it was destroyed by god.

It would be good to hear your thoughts on the above. TigerShark (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive comments. I did consider point 1 but felt that the word "legendary" dealt with it. I guess "legendary" could be moved into the first sentence, e.g. "legendary lost city". The challenge with an article like this is to tread a fine line between theories, legends, beliefs and the actual search for Ubar. Similar articles have quickly descended into whackiness. As this is the introductory paragraph, I don't think there's any need to expand on the religious aspect here, but I'll have another look at the body of the article. Shaibalahmar (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peterborough ditch murders

The article Peterborough ditch murders has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Peterborough ditch murders for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peterborough ditch murders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peterborough ditch murders until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William 16:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

?

Hello, I reported Official.theboldandthebeautiful and you deny the reportation. Therefore, I would like a more profound/depth explanation on why this user is not blocked.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You reported the account at WP:AIV which is only for obvious incidents of vandalism or spamming. The edits from the account do not seem to fall into those categories. I believe that you have also requested a block on the basis of username. You may also want to consider whether the account's actions may be against the Wikipedia:Edit warring restrictions. TigerShark (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Facts.people / Official.theboldandthebeautiful

Thank you for your help with this user and their sockpuppets. However, shouldn't we also block the first account, given that it's likely they're going to return and just continue their edits once more? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@TigerShark: Okay. Thank you! I just know that they will not stop until their point is across. It's disappointing, especially given their warnings and their clean inability to stop with the potential of vandalism and fancruft action. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have just blocked Runcs under bus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week. This account is a sock of the Runtshit vandal, and as such should be indefinitely blocked. Could you do this, so that the vandal cannot return to this account next week. RolandR (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. TigerShark (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. RolandR (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

68.97.40.112

I noticed you blocked 68.97.40.112 (talk) indefinitely. Since it's an IP, can you reduce it to 1 year, in case it's assigned to someone else at a later time? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinese POV-pushing on List of tallest buildings in the world

Hello. I noticed that you PC-protected the article, and so did the POV-pusher from Nanjing, China, since he tried to remove the protection template (diff). FYI the Nanjing IP is not a new good faith editor but an editor with a long history of Mainland Chinese POV-pushing on multiple articles, which is why I reverted him on List of tallest buildings in the world, just like I reverted him on Republic of China Armed Forces just minutes earlier. A POV-pusher who never engages in discussions or consensus building but is only interested in getting his preferred version of things into whatever article he is currently attacking. Which is why semi-protection would be a better choice than pending changes. And there's a precedent for semi-protection on an article he attacked in May of this year, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, where semi-protecting the article for a month made him leave it alone.

And there's no doubt whatsoever about the editor on that article in May being the same editor as on List of tallest buildings in the world. He has used four different IPs (117.90.158.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 121.232.240.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.118.123.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 117.90.240.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) while editing "List of tallest buildings...", while the IP used in May on AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-Kuo was (117.90.241.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Which fits right in with two of the IPs he has used now, and the quacking is made even louder if you compare this edit made by one of the current IPs only minutes before attacking the current article, and this edit, an edit that was repeatedly made by the IP in May, with both IPs among other things systematically changing every mention of "Republic of China" in the article to "Republic of China (Taiwan)", the term used in Mainland China. So I suggest that you change the protection from PC for a month to semi for a month, and revert his latest systematic changes of "Hong Kong" to "China", and equally systematic change of the flag of Hong Kong to the flag of PRC, on "List of tallest buildings...", because those edits are against the standard used on hundreds of articles here on en-WP. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• TigerShark, I think you accidentally hit "indefinite" on this one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Joefromrandb's block

So I'm not sure this block is deserved. Hear me out a sec. I genuinely hate the guy, I think he's a dick of the highest order and he knows that's how I feel. That said, I think the editors at WP:BLPN and the editor reverting him mistakenly believes his comments about inhuman and disgusting are about the subject's transgender status while Joefromrandb is actually reflecting on the subject's charges for child porn. He says he can't outright say such because the charges were dropped because of a mistake on the prosecutor's part that resulted in the subject not being convicted. So it's be a BLP violation to say "subject is a pedophile" because there was no conviction. That has nothing to do with the subject's status as a trans and so the revert of Joe's edit citing BLP is actually compliant with BLP. Joe pretty much confirms my assumptions in this edit where he calls the subject a predator. The editor reverting him is failing to AGF and mistakenly citing the BLP exemption to 3RR. You blocked the wrong guy.--v/r - TP 01:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief comment might be helpful. The penultimate sentence of the Wikipedia BLP is this: "Fox News reported that according to Sax, Reich's 30 followers were also acting as recruiters for this cult and that Speigel 'said she was certain that he [Karr/Reich] was living as a woman in order to get close to little girls'" (emphasis added).

The deleted statement by Joe was this: "While WP:BLP prevents me from spelling it out in detail, suffice it to say that this so-called 'gender change' was done for one of the most disgusting reasons humanly imaginable." Maybe it would have been better if Joe had included the word "allegedly" or something like that, but Wikipedia has to pass some kind of judgment on the credibility of this matter in order to decide what pronouns to use in the article, what title to use on the article, et cetera. So, I'm not sure the word "allegedly" was necessary here. Certainly Joe took great care not to spell out the allegation, and so I hope you'll re-think the block.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Relying on the fact that this was (I have now removed it) in the article is hardly a good argument for it not being a BLP violation, given that the article has been extensively criticised on BLP grounds at the AfD. Risker said it best: "BLP doesn't say we should write articles so full of innuendo that the average reader can only come away with the impression that the article subject is at least on speaking terms with the devil himself. This is a BLP1E that has taken every nasty thing anyone has ever published about the subject and pulled it all together with a pretty little bow."[1] Such innuendos are no more permissible in Wikipedia space - BLP applies everywhere. Neljack (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for not editing my comment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• TParis, I'm not going to overturn this block, but if you wish to bring this up at AN for a review (if TigerShark does not wish to reconsider), you have my support. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll give TigerShark some time, it's only been a few hours, he's probably hit the sack for the night.--v/r - TP 04:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TParis, I did not interpret the comment as referring to the subject being transgender, as is made clear in my post on the BLP noticeboard where I stated that the comment "contained a thinly-veiled implication of extremely grave criminal conduct or purposes."[2] I don't see how the comment could reasonably be interpreted as referring to the subject being trangender - I thought it was pretty obvious that it contained an implication that the gender change was not for the usual reason (being transgender) but for nefarious purposes.

I have to say I'm very concerned about the thread on Joe's talk page. We can't call someone a predator based on speculation. That is an even clearer BLP violation than the original comment, since it is explicit rather than veiled. I also find the suggestion that I am "defend[ing] this filth" (i.e. child predators) to be highly objectionable - I am simply trying to uphold BLP in a case where there is only speculation that this subject is one. However much we might suspect it and however unsympathetic the subject may be, BLP still applies and we cannot call him one based just on speculation. I really don't want to involve myself further in this, but that comment about the subject on his talk page needs to be removed. Neljack (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Classic back-tracking. No, Joe's comment didn't call him a pedophile. Joe's comment was that he personally felt this person was doing something inhuman and disgusting. There is no BLP violation there. If Joe were to outright call the subject a pedo, then that's a BLP violation. You edit warred because you thought Joe meant that transsexuals were disgusting. You failed to assume good faith. You were wrong, you used a 3RR exemption incorrectly. You should be the one blocked for 3RR and for editing another editor's comments. The appropriate course for you right now is to back off the accusations on Joe and let's figure out a way to move forward with more communication and less knee-jerk reactions.--v/r - TP 04:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that I did not interpret the comment as referring to the subject being transgender. Of course he did not explicitly say that the subject was a paedophile, but the implication was clear. The other editors who commented at the BLP noticeboard agreed that this was a BLP violation. Neljack (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@TP, @Drmies Perhaps I am missing something, so you guys might be able to help me understand. Briefly, this is my current take on it. The issue is one of edit warring. Joefromrandb added a comment which he feels he worded in such a way to avoid violating BLP. Neljack felt that the wording actually did violate BLP and redacted it. An edit war then broke out with the comment being re-added and then re-redacted. The only person who was potentially violating BLP was Joefromrandb (but I did not make a judgement on that). Neljack took the issue to the BLP noticeboard and stopped reverting around the time of the report on the 3RR noticeboard. Joefromrandb continued reverting hours later. I took the view that Joefromdandb was clearly edit warring, as there was no justification to keep reverting to his version hours after the 3RR report. Neljack was also edit warring but, in mitigation, he was arguably trying to remove what he (rightly or wrongly) believed was BLP violating content, he opened the BLP noticeboard report to attempt resolution, and he stopped soon after the 3RR report. It seems like a clear case of edit warring to me, but I'd welcome your input (especially if I have made an obvious mistake above). TigerShark (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There has been some further discussion on Joefromrandb's talk page this morning. I have not seen anything so far which convinces me that the block was incorrect. It is my interpretation that Joefromrandb acknowledges that he was edit warring, and believes that it was OK for him to do so (and presumably to do so in future), but simply wants to get Neljack blocked too. Again, I don't believe that Neljack's action were acceptable, but my discussion with Joefromrandb has only served to convince me further that the block was correct. TigerShark (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to go off to bed and don't intend to say anything more, except that I recognise that I could have handled this better and I apologise for that. While I believe that my reverts did not violate policy, since there is a BLP exception to the rules on edit warring and 3RR, I should have taken this to the noticeboard earlier. I will do so if such cases arise in the future. Neljack (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TigerShark - I think that to take action in this case requires you to determine if there was a BLP violation. I disagree that it was a BLP violation. But the determination does two things that drastically changes the outcome here. If it was a BLP violation then 1.a) Joe violated a core policy, and 1.b) Neljack appropriately invoked the BLP clause of WP:3RR. If it was not a BLP violation then 2.a) Neljack violated WP:TPO, and 2.b) Neljeck inappropriately invokved the BLP clause of WP:3RR. In case 1, only Joe would be blocked. In case 2, Nejack would be blocked and it would be within admin discretion whether or not to block Joe. But determining which it is requires you to determine if it was a BLP violation. In the case of WP:TLDR and because I have to go set up the projector system at Church, I'll leave you with this bit. If you agree with my premise then I'll make a further argument about why it wasn't a BLP violation later.--v/r - TP 13:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@TP Thanks for your note. I don't completely agree with your interpretation, but let me clarify my interpretation. If it was definitely BLP, then I think that would provide Neljack with an exemption, but it would not provide Joefromrandb with an exemption. If it wasn't definitely BLP, then neither Neljack or Joefromrandb would have an exemption (because being "right", even in the face of another party violating policy, even WP:TPO, is not an exemption). So, regardless of whether it was BLP, Joefromrandb did not have an exemption for edit warring. Further, I don't think that it was sufficiently definite BLP to provide Neljack with an exemption. So, both users could legitimately be blocked for non-exempted edit warring. However, taking into account the fact that Neljack attempted to open a BLP discussion, and stopped reverting shortly after the 3RR report, and probably had an honest belief that it was BLP, I used my discretion to not issue a block. In comparison, Joefromrandb did continue the edit war (after having had several hours to cool down) and so I decided that a block was appropriate. TigerShark (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In an attempt to distill the above down, I think the key point is that, even if it wasn't BLP and even if Neljack violated WP:TPO, that doesn't give Joefromrandb an edit warring exemption. It also doesn't mean that Neljack should be automatically blocked, or that Joefromrandb can't be blocked unless Neljack is also blocked. If two users are edit warring then (after taking into account other factors), it is OK for an admin to block one and not the other. That is my current take on it. TigerShark (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:WilliamJE You asked a couple of question over on Joefromrandb's talk page, regarding his block for edit warring, which I hope I can answer for you. You asked why Joefromrandb was blocked, but the other user wasn't. I wonder if you could please read the above discussion which covers the reasons that I decided to block Joe, but not Neljack. If that doesn't clarify my reasoning to your satisfaction, they I'm happy to discuss further here. You also asked why I believe that the one month block was preventative, rather than punitive (as defined by the blocking policy). As you'll be aware, blocking policy defines a preventative block as one that aim to:

• prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
• deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior;
• and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

In the case of Joefromrandb, a block that lasted until the AFD closed would arguably have prevented him from further edit warring on that page. However, Joefromrandb has a history of blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing and had only just (3 weeks ago) returned from a one week block for disruptive editing. From taking into account his history and his conduct in the latest edit war, I took the view that a longer block was required to deter further disruptive behaviour (as the week long seemed to have had little impact). My recent chat with him on his talk page only served to further convince me that I had read the situation correctly, and made the right decision. I think is shown most clearly by my question [3] and Joe's answer [4]. If you'd like to discuss any of this further, please let me know. TigerShark (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I go look at what Joe did, I intensely dislike your moving this discussion to your talk page. The only reason I can see for you to do this, is to muzzle Joe from responding. I have never once in over seven years at Wikipedia seen anyone transfer a talk page discussion at Talk page C between A and B and see B move it to his page. This move makes me more likely to question your actions and I can also see TP is questioning them also. I think you should reconsider. This is already looking like something for ANI....William 18:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've gone and read what this brouhaha is about. Bottom line- I agree with what TP said here[5] and here[6]. Joe committed no BLP violation. You've blocked an editor for the wrong reasons and at the same time let another editor off from edit warring. Are you going to reverse these actions or should I take it ANI. May I point out also that Drmies doesn't look favorably[7] on the block either. That makes three of us and to quote TP 'You blocked the wrong guy.'. I suggest you end Joe's block and take proper action against Neljack also....William 20:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:WilliamJE I'd ask that you read through the content above again. At no point did I say that Joe did commit a BLP violation. The block was for edit warring. Neljack was also edit warring, but stopped and started a discussion. Joefromrandb continued the edit warring, and even now claims that he did nothing wrong, and gives the impression that he would do the same again. I have gone into why a lot of details above explaining why I believe Joe was edit warring, why Joe needed to be blocked, why Neljack didn't and why Joe needed a longer block than previously. You seem to suggest that the block was wrong. Do you believe that Joe was not edit warring? If so, why? Do you believe that Joe would not edit war again, and does not needs to be deterred from doing so? If so, why? I'd be happy to discuss further, but as it currently stands I believe the application of the block and its duration were necessary. TigerShark (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As for TParis and Drmies, I can't comment on their current position, but they queried the block, and I spent a fair amount of time providing them with the responses above and explaining my reasoning, and I have not heard further concerns from them. TigerShark (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

TParis stated if there was BLP violation, then that other editor violated WP:TPO. And I agree there was BLP violation. You didn't block Neljack from edit warring, only Joe. You didn't post to my questions at Joe's page but here. Then you don't explain yourself why you did that either. I take that as an affirmation you only did it so to Block Joe from directly responding. Your behavior and judgment are very poor to put it mildly. Be prepared for an ANI discussion on what you've done. I'll be starting it either tonight or tomorrow morning my time....William 21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

German ip vandal

Here is another one: 89.204.139.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Mr.choppers Thanks. If you see any other, please list them here. If need be, I will consider a short term range block. TigerShark (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's from this week (apologies if some are already blocked):

• 89.204.135.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.137.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.137.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.137.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.137.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.138.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.138.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.138.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.138.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (only used in .de)
• 89.204.139.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.139.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.153.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.154.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.154.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 89.204.154.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• ‎89.204.155.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.113.98.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.113.98.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.113.99.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.113.106.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.113.121.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.113.121.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 82.113.121.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 141.91.136.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (this 141 range is from his job I think, judging by editing patterns)
• 141.91.136.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 141.91.136.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked already)

• • Here's a brand new one 82.113.121.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just blocked 89.204.128.0/19, 82.113.64.0/18, and 141.91.136.0/24 for one month. Hope that solves our problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

He's pretty persistent (as you see), but hopefully RBI will do the trick. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I feel that Pending Changes is a protection level too low, and protecting them for a week is not long enough either. The Mitsubishi Lancer and Nissan Vanette articles have literally just come off a week semi-protection, and yet this vandal is already going on and doing exactly the same things. At the very least, those need semi-protecting, and for a lot longer than a week. And you missed the Moskvitch 412 article. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies semi-protected Audi A7 for six months, which is a more appropriate level of protection for a situation like this. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• @User:Thomas.W It's a matter of opinion. By semi-protecting the article, we prevent any new users or IPs from editing, which is a poor outcome. The level of protection should be the least restrictive needed to do the job. With Pending Changes, the vandal cannot get their vandalism made public, and may well stop. If not, then the protection can be upped. The goal is not simply to stop the vandal, but to do so with as little impact on other users as possible. TigerShark (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• TigerShark, I respect your position and understand it, but I disagree with it. A week semi-protection on Mitsubishi Lancer and Nissan Vanette hasn't worked. You've actually downgraded the protection on this; and not only that, we've had four attempted edits by the IP on the Nissan Vanette article alone. It's pretty clear that this isn't working, and nor is it going to help; particularly as the vandal is far more interested in getting one over Mr.choppers (and now myself) than anything else. And the fact that the protection is only a week long is the one thing I really do not understand; it's already clear that a week of higher protection wasn't enough to get them to go away. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• You may well be right, although I think it may be a bit more complicated. When an article is semi-protected, the person behind the IP realises that they can't edit it, and probably moves to a different article (meanwhile all other new users are blocked). With PC, the IP potentially keeps trying and (arguably) does little harm. That seems to be what happened in this case and, for example, does it matter that they tried to edit Nissan Vanette four times, when those edits never go public? Admittedly, if the people watching the article keep refusing those edits, then we may be no better off (which is why I suggested to Mr.choppers that he stop rejecting them). When an article has PC enabled, we should probably check it once in a while to see if there are any good changes to allow, not watch it like a hawk for bad changes. Let the vandal think they are causing chaos, while actually just banging their head against the wall. All just my opinion, of course, and probably moot now that the range blocks are in place. TigerShark (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• It has made him change some targets. The two above that I highlighted prove that he will return to the same articles. Hopefully the rangeblocks will work, but given that I've seen the user on three ranges so far, I wouldn't be surprised to find them appear on another range at some point. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• If a constructive IP edits a PC-protected article after, or just before, a vandal edits it, so that there are two or more edits waiting for approval, both/all edits must either be approved or rejected, since we can't reject one and approve one. Meaning that we, if we want the good edit incorporated into the article, have to do that manually after rejecting both/all edits. Which in turn means that whoever reviews the pending edits can't let it wait until after the attack or whatever is over. So IMHO pending changes is a substandard alternative in all situations other than mere edit warring. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinions on how to block these, but I believe that the ones which need protecting are Nissan Vanette, Mitsubishi Delica, and perhaps Toyota Tercel. These are the articles that he has actual disputes with and are the only ones in which he is trying to add his own content (unsourced, confused, and incorrect content). The remainder is just plain vandalism and he doesn't really care which ones he targets. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

IP blocks of indefinite length

TigerShark, there's at least three IPs you've blocked indefinitely: [8], [9], [10]. Did you mean to do that? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Drmies Hi Drmies. Yes, they were intentional. I guess you've had a look through my block log, so you can see that it is not the block duration that I would normally use, but in those cases I felt that not setting a definite block duration was appropriate. TigerShark (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that what Drmies is trying to tell you, in his usual polite ways, is that IPs are not blocked indefinitely, since ISPs have a habit of changing IP allocations every now and then, but always for a set period of time, usually up to a year for a static IP address, or three years for a static school IP with lots of vandalism. While dynamic IPs are given shorter blocks. And given your relative lack of experience I suggest you take the advice of admins/editors, like Drmies, who are more experienced than you are. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Thomas.W It depends on many factors, and there is nothing to prevent a block without a definite duration, depending upon the situation. Remember that an indefinite block is not the same as a infinite block. I've appreciated your input on protection levels and block lengths, and I hope that I've at least tried to address them. Are you suggesting that I follow your advice and that of Drmies, simply because you are more experienced than me? TigerShark (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm trying to say, being experienced isn't always the same as being right. What I'm suggesting is that you ask the admins who usually staff AIV/ANEW what the usual praxis there is, and why. Which is a good way to avoid both friction and questions. And FYI your replies, and slight changes, are appreciated. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Thomas.W The fact you seem to have missed is that I was an admin before either you or Drmies first edited Wikipedia. You and I may not have crossed paths before (perhaps because the the bulk of your involvement in AIV and edit warring seems to have been since February this year), but I would like to think that almost 8 years of adminship, with much of it spent at AIV and also with significant involvement with edit warring, has given me some insight. In fact, my first involvement with reporting vandalism was here [11], almost 9 years ago, back in the days of Requests for Investigation (before your time).Of course, a dozen experienced admins will have a dozen different ways of doing things, and I'm always open to discussion, but please don't assume that I am acting from a position of inexperience. TigerShark (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to put you down but the block log, which is a good indication of work done in the field of fighting vandalism, shows that you have been active in that field for only the past four days. Previous blocks performed by you were three that were made in November of 2011 and a handful that were made in each of May and February 2010. And after that we have to go back to 2008 and earlier to find anything. Meaning that the bulk of your blocks were made in 2008 or earlier, that is five or more years ago. And I can assure you that Wikipedia today is not the same beast as it was five years ago. As for general experience your edit counter shows that well over 50% of your total contributions to Wikipedia were made between February and July of 2006, that is seven years ago. It also shows that you have hardly done anything here since 2007. So trying to portray yourself as more experienced than for example Drmies is just plain silly. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Thomas.W I think you need to have a look at my logs again. If you look at all of the admin actions I have carried out, you will see that there have been times when I have focused on vandalism and times when I have focused on other areas. You are correct that a larger proportion of my edits are at the start of my time here (although I have still made many thousands over the intervening years, which is not "hardly anything"). As you have very little experience at AIV and no experience of adminship, you will probably not appreciate that part of the reason for that is that many non-admin vandal fighters tend to do very large numbers of reverts and then less once they become admins (as I did in April 2006). The fact is that I've issued well over a thousand blocks, over many years, and been involved with thousands of other blocks, which is plenty of experience to understand the process and refine my own approach. I understand you want to claim that all of that experience over all those years counts for nothing, because my recent activity has been less than in the early days, but it really doesn't wash. Trust me, as somebody who was actually there, blocking vandals has not changed that much in the last 9 years. I think you started off believing that I was an inexperienced admin, and had a go at lecturing me on that basis, so now you are having to try to find a way to convince yourself that you were right. As for your experience [12], it seems that although you have been registered since Dec 2006, you only made a handful of edits a year in the first 5 years, and the vast majority of your edits are in the last 7 months. You say that you can assure me that Wikipedia is a very different beast to what it was in 2008. My question to you is - how would you know? After all, you made a total of 34 edits in 2008, when I made over a thousand (not to mention that your first edit in the project namespace was only last year). TigerShark (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• TigerShark, I saw from your block log that you hadn't been blocking for a while, and I've only been an admin for a few years. But as far as I know, IPs are never blocked indefinitely. Schools and proxies are sometimes blocked for up to a year; "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely", according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and there's more at WP:IPBLENGTH. I don't want to get into some kind of contest with you, but this is just something that I happen to know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• @User:Drmies. Thanks and I do take it onboard. It is not something that I typically do, and I had reasons for using it when I did. Perhaps we can discuss further at some point, although my chat with Thomas has probably used up most of my Wiki time for today. I don't want to above to suggest that I am not happy to discuss these things, I just wanted to point out that any judgements I make come from a reasonable amount of experience. Not that it guarantees they are correct, of course! :) TigerShark (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sure thing. I'm not spending much time on-wiki right now, it's intermittent. If you have reasons, OK--but you could be taken to task for it if others don't see your point of view. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• @User:Drmies That's OK. I'm happy to justify if required. An indef block has its problems, but also has its uses, and the collateral damage is not really as great as it might seem at first glance. TigerShark (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TigerShark. You have new messages at WilliamJE's talk page.
Message added 23:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 23:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

AN notification

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Block of 74.73.143.175". Thank you. --Deor (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey... so im not really sure what im doing here... but im trying to talk about the deletion of the Hymen records page.... why did you delete it? there is no reason for not having a feature on wiki for that record label. It has released multiple physical records and digi releases. On the discussion for why it was some one added that it was a minor label with no repubable artists released on there that have made changes to the music scene in the world. I beg to differ. Xanopticon and Venetian Snare are WORLD touring artists who have released through Hymen. Who have made HUGE headway in the counterculture music scene. i would appreciate you un deleting the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.46.45 (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My block

Hello. I was very offended that you blocked me for editing on Cough Medicine and I almost left wikipedia because of it. I wasn't re-reverting the same material but just making continuous edits. I did not know this counts as an edit war, I did not remove something that was touched in the past weeks. Further, Doc James took my block as an opportunity to get his friends to make a quick 3 person consensus and revert all my work, which was NOT mostly removal but was mostly new material and reorganization. Even further, he did this while circumventing the ongoing RFC that I had already started regarding my changes. The only reason I am telling you is because some users, who don't have as much time or energy as Doc James, agree with me, but no one still seems to be able to make a change. I guess it's the preferential treatment Doc James gets. Well I just wanted to let you know. You can find the RFC on the talk page as well as his quick consensus which I couldn't disagree with as you had blocked me, but not him, so he won the edit war which he started by doing 4 reverts first. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Lower protection for time paradox

You full-protected Time paradox. Given that the vandalism came from IPs and new accounts only, I think that semi should be sufficient. Paradoctor (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Anatoly Moskvin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anatoly Moskvin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatoly Moskvin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)