GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Jan 2014 Administrator Election/Tony 1998

Case #1
Q: A new user, John123 has made somewhere between 20-30 edits. They have all been minor edits but good - correcting spelling and grammar in articles and occasionally fixing the format of something. In the article Love Fist, he changes which instruments the band members play without leaving an edit summary. John123 is reverted by a patroller named CowboyPatroller, who uses rollback to undo the edit. John123 makes the same edit again, leaving the edit summary "maybe you should play the game, if you did you'd know I'm right". CowboyPatroller reverts him with rollback again. John123 makes the same edit for a third time, this time with the edit summary "STOP UNDOING MY EDIT YOU STUPID PRICK". CowboyPatroller rollbacks his edit again, and then tells you. For the sake of this question, you don't know which members of Love Fist play what instrument. What would you do?
 * A: Well, since in GTA: Vice City, it is never mentioned what instruments the band members play, both of the edit warmongers are invalid and I can both state to them that "it was never mentioned in the game which instruments each of the band members play." If they persist to argue at each other or I, I'll just tell them "play the game again". They'll be warned, but not warned to an extent in which they will face blocks, unless the situation gets out of control.

Case #2
A brand new editor, Newbie200, makes an article called When Do i Get Trevor? The 'article' is a question about how long he has to play GTAV before Trevor becomes playable. Newbie200's written English is so bad that it's almost incomprehensible - he uses capital letters and punctuation almost at random and he frequently uses netspeak ('u' instead of 'you', '&' instead of 'and'). A regular user with no special rights and no prior history of bad behavior, GTAFAN316, nominates the article for deletion with the comment "lrn2wiki". CowboyPatroller reverts GTAFAN316 with the edit summary "Don't be mean dude" but doesn't otherwise talk to Newbie200 or GTAFAN316. Who do you think was out of line? As an administrator, what do you say and to whom?


 * ''A: Originally, I thought that "Newbie200" was out of line, but seeing that the generic user puts "lrn2wiki" on the comment, I ruled out that it was a personal attack; I find edits like these as an "annoyance" to users. I've seen this before; insults to an user because he has grammar errors. Like you and Tom once told me and the other patrollers: Just set the page up for deletion and be on your way. Or was it something like "Back away from the horse carcass..." or something?

Case #3
An editor has been uploading images and refusing to follow the image policy. He has been warned by a bureaucrat and blocked for refusing to follow the rules three months ago. He has continued to upload images - he now names them correctly but he doesn't bother with a license. When confronted on that he says "I don't bother with that only women care about such things". The bureaucrat who warned and blocked the user 3 months ago has said nothing about this. What do you do about this?


 * ''A: My Response: Since the user is being arrogant about this, I would warn him about talking in an abusive manner. He got blocked three months ago because of the image policy violation, yes I know, but since he has named them correctly, but missing the license part. I would tell him "It is important to license the images if you had copied them from their original site, since it won't bring copyright violations to our wiki." If the user persists to be arrogant, I would levy a minimal block until states on his talk page that he will now license them.

Case #4
A user named TheWikiKid says on his userpage that he is 10 years old. Bureaucrat01 blocks TheWikiKid for being underage and in violation of the Wikia-wide rule that says you must be 13 to edit. TheWikiKid posts on Bureaucrat02's Community Central talk page that he was only joking and that he's really 16, and so Bureaucrat02 unblocks him. Bureaucrat01 immediately reblocks him with the comment "he might be lying and he was causing trouble anyway". Bureaucrat02 re-unblocks with the comment "no he wasn't". The two bureaucrats start wheel-warring (undoing each other's admin actions) and swearing at each other on their talk pages about the incident.

"Stay out of it" is an acceptable answer but it is not the only acceptable answer.


 * ''A: My Response: I strongly dislike lying. Even if he said he was joking that he is actually 16, we have no actual proof that he could be of this age. What most b'crats would do is check their edits; how well they edit and their usage of grammar. I may lay him off because of this, but I'm a bit peeved over this.

Case #5a
GTA92 is a long term editor. His contributions are sometimes good, but he has a history of being argumentative - especially with staff. He's been blocked twice, once for a day once for a week, but both blocks are over a year old. He adds some The Sky Is Blue type trivia to an article, which you revert with rollback. He reverts you with the edit summary "You can't delete it just because you don't like it, 'sysop.'"

Case#5b
In addition to what was described in Case 5, GTA92 then follows you to two other articles and reverts your edits with the edit summary "wrong" for both of them. How do you handle this?


 * ''A: Hmph, reminds me of Joshualeverburg1. Anyway, I would explain to his talk page that I reverted his edits for a reason. I don't go around reverting edits because "I don't like them", I revert them because they are unnecessary (even with my current Patroller status, I don't do this). The part when he follows me and reverts the two articles: I would warn him, explaining that his actions are an act of revenge. If he persists to revert my edits, then I would levy a three-day block. I will unblock him if he states on his talk page that he understands about why pointless edits are reverted and apologizes on his "act of revenge".

Case #6
A long term user on GTA Wiki named GTAmaniac decides to switch his affiliation to Grand Theft Wiki. He does this by announcing this on his user page. He also begins sending messages to other active users on GTA Wiki encouraging them to join him in switching affiliation to the other wiki. CowboyPatroller starts reverting the messages encouraging others to switch wikis. In response, users from the other wiki come over to this one and vandalize CowboyPatroller's user page and talk page. Grand Theft Wiki's owner Gboyers says that although he doesn't personally approve of his users vandalizing this wiki, it's outside his jurisdiction and so he won't even tell them to stop.


 * ''A: While I can't find a suitable answer to this as an admin, I do, however, cannot understand why Gerard would let his trusted editors do this. I know it was before the Oasis skin change back in October 2010, long before I joined, and they've longed hated this decision because of the staff rebelling and all getting blocked, again, I still can't fathom that Boyers would not do anything and let them go on.

My Self Admin Responsibility and Goal
I'm a type of person that believes in second chances; giving users to redeem themselves, judging on their edit quality and statuses with other staff members. I have zero tolerance for vandalism-only users. With my grant of administrator rights, I will do my best to protect the wiki from vandals, help out any users, and keep the wiki as a safe haven for all GTA readers, fans, and players alike.