User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive September 2017

Re: Is this a joke? (on RfA)

Responding here because the RfA has been closed and don't want to edit it. But no: it's not a joke. That's actually my sincerely held belief re: admins on enwiki these days. :) FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 04:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yo TC, it all goes back to this and this. — fortunavelut luna 10:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@😂: Sorry if I offended you by mistaking your opinion for a joke. I personally disagree but you still have a valid opinion. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No offense taken. Variety (of opinions) is the spice of life. Have a great weekend :) FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@😂: you too:) Tornado chaser (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mistake re: Frazier Glenn Miller

Your understanding of the edit that you removed is factually incorrect.

Labeling this person as a domestic terrorist is in line with the FBI definition of terrorist ("These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.)" Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. committed acts of mass violence against Jewish community members solely based on religion, which is itself a form of civilian population coercion. The definition is clear and the change is based on defined specificities of terrorists. I am happy to share this conversation with the wider community and let them decide as well. In fact, Wikipedia itself lists his associated organizations on the US Domestic Terrorism list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States, and his specific attack on the list of domestic terrorists attacks.

My response to that edit was likely incorrect, it is more of a WP:OR issue that a WP:NPOV issue, however, you still can't say someone was a terrorist without citing a reliable source that calls them a terrorist. Deciding for yourself that an action was terrorism is [[[WP:OR]], you have a strong argument in favor of calling him a terrorist, but you still must have a source to call them a terrorist in an article. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

If this was in a list of terrorist attacks there should be a source calling it terrorism, feel free to put back the part about terrorism with a source. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I reference the Wikipedia page in which Wikipedia itself calls his act an act of terrorism as my source? Also, what does the Southern Poverty Law Center meet source requirements?

No, wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself, if it is listed as a terrorist attack elsewhere on wikipedia there should be a source cited there, which you could use. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

As for the SPLC I am not sure, I think in might but this is not an area in which I am particularly knowledgeable, see WP:RS for the official sourcing policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated with source used for Wikipedia domestic terrorism incidents page, which site the event as Domestic Terrorism.

Good edit! Tornado chaser (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It's time to call a spade a spade, right?

Wtmitchell has removed it again, as it doesn't appear "constructive" whatever that means. Is not calling someone who committed an act of terrorism, a domestic terrorist "constructive?" I see that many of the American mass murderers of color are listed as such. His act of violence was documented as domestic terrorism.

I reverted him, maybe he thought that since you put it back after i removed it that it was vandalism? I am really not sure.Tornado chaser (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I am clearly new to this.

"constructive" means an edit that is beneficial to the encyclopedia i.e not vandalism, tests, incompetence ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Come on dude

Dude aleks sucks just let me vandalize it also is a rip off so stop deleting my stuff and how did you know about the edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friesmaniac99 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Friesmaniac99: No, I will remove vandalism whenever I see it, please stop vandalizing wikipedia, this will get you blocked from editing if you continue. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

New section

Why are you accusing me of vandalising a page? The horse is standing at tallyho stud how is that vandalising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.139.61 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I clicked on the wrong warning, I meant to say stop adding unsourced info, you need to cite a reliable source for any info you add, ask me if you don't know how to do this. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

New section 2

You keep removing my edits to the Necrophagist page for not sourcing. Saying they use classical influenced compositions is the same as saying they have technical compositions. They're albums feature phrases from Paganini and Beethoven it says it on the Album cover. So it is a matter of fact and shouldn't need sourced. Plus in the article it already says the guitar player idolized Yngwie Malmsteen, a classical influenced Guitar player. I think you are getting just a little high and mighty. The information is not false and is incredibly hard to source as no body really writes about technical death metal from 20 years ago. Please calm down and allow the information to be accurate and more abundant. preceding unsigned comment by 107.77.169.8.

per WP:V everything in wikipedia must be sourced, maybe you could add "used classical influenced compositions" without the "known for", until someone finds a source. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

phone call from cbc reporter

I got a call thismorning from a CBC reporter named (Redacted). Now as an investigator i expect to get calls from the media, that's fair. However, as soon as she mentioned Wikipedia and Tara McDonald, that's why I'm worrying that SummerPHDV2.0 may be her. What is your suggestion in making sure that this does not happen again? and don't go starting an/is about me TC, I'm sorry for being worried about my own privicy. I got a call from (Redacted) from CBC, and I'm freaking out because I don't know how she found out that I made those wikipedia edits. Sorry, but I'm scared as hell right now! thanks.

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I started an ANI thread to adress the issues involved here, also, you sing your posts with your real name and mention the name of your (I presume) spouse and that you are an investigator, If you talk about you real life like this people will find out who you are. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This is my first time mentioning my position.

Also there is a CBC reporter with th ename Andrew Nichols just like mine. Not to mention there are likely othe people in Canada and Scotland with that name.

I didn't mention until I had to get into discutions, but I mostly sign "andrew nichols' or "andrew' or "andy".

the grave accent key on my keyboard is stuck, and Hekla is th eone who brought this up. I never gave her last name, I never gave our phone number out even in my years as an investigator.

Litterally today is the first time I mentioned i am an investigator, and it was while hekla was on the phone with (Redacted).

Alls I want to know is that is SummerPHDV2.0 (Redacted)? I dont' care about Summer's real name, just is or is he/she not (Redacted).

thaks.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by the whole thing and recommend discussing this with the admins at ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok just let you know though why I undid your redaction, I don't want Summer's real name, I want to know thuogh that it's not (Redacted) from CBC.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't want to find out who I am, unless I am who you think I am, then you want to plaster it on dozens of pages? Interesting approach. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the first time you mention your name is here, and it differs from your later claims. I'd think if the person from CBC got your name from Wikipedia, they would have started with that name, along with the later addition of your middle name. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am entitled to mess with my fello scotsmen. Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Slow down, it's not a competition

You just rapidly reported 4 users to WP:AIV which either had never been warned, who had not been sufficiently warned, or who had never edited after receiving their warning. Please assure you have both warned the editor in question with a stern enough warning AND the editor has shown that they are not heeding the warning. Blocking is a last resort, not a first response. --Jayron32 02:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron: Thanks for the tip, but would you clarify the criteria for reporting VOAs? (other admins have blocked dozens of accounts I reported with similar editing patterns and warnings) Tornado chaser (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I won't speak to what any other admin does or does not do, except to direct you to Wikipedia policy on the matter: Wikipedia:Vandalism mandates warning users before reporting them to AIV for blocks. I can quote it for you if you can't find the instructions there, but I trust you're intelligent enough to read it. The basic principle is that if you warn a user for vandalism, and they stop there's no need for a block. That's policy. If you feel that another admin has blocked an editor they should NOT have based on policy, take it up with them. Policy is clear, however, that the normal process is to warn first, wait for further problems, and ONLY then do we block. --Jayron32 02:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in here. Yes, some admins block more freely than per policy. It is better to warn throughout the template levels before reporting to AIV, though I admit to a certain laxness on my own part recently. Jayron and I have been around a long time. We tend to be more by the book than some other admins.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim and Jayron32:, it depends on the severity of the vandalism. In some cases it is defnitely appropriate to block immediately and very quickly (Spree; Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material; Serious BLP violations, etc). I don't patrol the AIV page - I catch vandals trough my watch list where there is a block button for each entry and popups show the content of the edits, but that said, I do see plenty of reported incidents at AIV that are not strictly valid. This comes from our open policy of allowing just anyone, even IPs, to patrol, tag, and report, without any experience whatsoever. We have to live with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@72:@Dlohcierekim and Jayron32:I thought WP:VOA said that when someone created an account and immediately starts doing nothing but vandalism they should be reported, I had one admin tell me to report instead of warning if a new account made 2 vandalistic edits and no good ones, I am trying to follow policy and stop vandalism properly, I'm just a little confused by the conflicting instructions. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure exactly why I was pinged here, but I think it might be because I too have "mass reported" to AIV, but I've never encountered any hard feelings against me doing so. I feel I have noticed a certain pattern of behaviour at AIV that is somewhat adopted from other users reporting 'style', in this case the "see also edit filter log". I use the edit filter logs to look for vandalism myself, and when I see an account that has has engaged in vandalism and has a substantial amount of disallowed edits (ones stopped by the edit filters) I report to AIV as a "vandalism-only account". The account is almost always blocked, although sometimes (rarely) my reports are declined with the rationale of the user not having been conventionally warned. Whenever this has happened I reply stating the fact that they have very many vulgar disallowed edits which clearly indicates that it is a VOA. The account has always subsequently been blocked. The reason I explain this is because I have noticed over many months that others report users in the same way referencing the edit filter, but there are only maybe 2 disallowed edits which is definitely just not enough to justify a block. I took a look at the accounts that Tornado chaser reported and it doesn't appear that the accounts he reported fit into that criteria, in fact it appears that Materialscientist blocked them all referencing the edit filter logs. With 1061 AIV reports to my name I can safely say that a great proportion of the users I've reported have not been conventially warned and they have always been blocked. I am therefore unaware of any kind of requirement for users to be warned four times before a block. Furthermore, DatBot reports accounts that trigger the edit filter more than five times in the space of five minutes to /TB2 and some of the accounts listed there are blocked with a red linked talk page (i.e. no warnings at all). I think I've come to realise that it is more at a specific admin's discretion regarding the point to which they are comfortable blocking an account. –72 _(talk) 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@72: I thought you told me to report an account with 3 edits instead of warning them here [1]. I pinged you because I am confused that I have been told different things about how to report vandals from different people, so I pinged them both. I also (falsely) thought you were an admin. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I said no such thing. In the diff you provided I thanked you for warning an account after edits that it had made were reverted by me. Usually it is the person that does the reverts that warns the vandal. I was informing you that they had also been reported to AIV already so there wasn't much need for any more warnings in that specific case (they were part of something of a multiple account attack to the Morpeth School page.) I didn't ever, and wouldn't ever instruct anyone to do anything and that message was only to tell you that I had reported them. I also at no stage tried to claim that I am an admin; I've never said so and my userpage has always only stated the three user rights that my account has. –72 _(talk) 19:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@72: I see I have misinterpreted the above diff, I will be more carful to make sure vandals are properly warned and have edited after being warned before reporting them (except for severe VOAs). P.S. I never accused you of saying or implying that you are an admin, only that I (mistakenly and whiteout evidence) thought you were an admin. Tornado chaser (talk)

Nicolas Alvarez69 (talk · contribs · count)

Hello. I do not see any edits for this user, so I removed your final warning. Generally, I start out with a welcome if a user has not edited.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:Look at the edit filter log, this user is now indeffed for triggering the edit filter. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you maybe criticize the wrong person?

Did you maybe criticize the wrong person?

See above response. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing comments from other editors.

Please don't edit my talk page comments again. If you consider something to be a personal attack, feel free to report me to ANI. Thanks and have a great day. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)