Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments by BOZ
I have to agree that an admin needs to come to WP:AN or WP:AN/I for help from other admins rather than using admin tools in WP:INVOLVED situations. I don't know if that is what has happened here, but I notice that this latest tussle has been with User:Niemti, whom as I have observed is an experienced edit-warrior himself. He has been blocked three times, once for abusing multiple accounts and unblocked three days later, once (by Beeblebrox) for edit warring, and once for personal attacks or harassment. I recall that there was a fair amount of edit warring on his part at Psylocke for example, and note quite a bit of undos there earlier this year, including edit-warring over an image while a discussion was taking place, and edit-warring over categories , and another edit war with User:Lucia Black and TriiipleThreat over images several weeks ago. I'm not excusing anything on Nightscream's part, but if he had to deal with anything like this again from Niemti anywhere else, I can fully understand his frustration. BOZ (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Sjones23
I was unaware of the case until I saw it on my watch list, but I remain uninvolved in this matter and have had no direct confrontation with Nightscream. Nightscream helped edited on Veronica Taylor article by removing unsourced material per WP:BLP/WP:V and protected it for BLP violations. Though the recent edit war on the Jessica Nigri article led to being blocked for his actions, my only concern here is that the user has a history of ignoring long-term WP:INVOLVED for five years per Beeblebrox's comments and I think he is being disruptive by abusing administrative tools to further his viewpoint in a content dispute. Abusing administrative tools as an involved administrator can lead to their desysopping for good reason; for example was desysopped for abusing his tools back in 2007 per this case. Nightscream, unfortunately, has refused to acknowledge his errors when he makes them. That's what concerns me the most.

So in the end, I think that Nightscream does not have the competence to be an administrator, and I think his attitude is far from being the cool-headed/objective stance that administrators should have when they are in situations of conflict. I urge the committee to ensure that Nightscream does not become a liability to the community. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I've already struck out Nightscream's refusal to acknowledge his errors, as I felt that it was a mischaracterization on my part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by PinkAmpersand
I'm totally uninvolved here, but I seem to recall his Bradship saying in the past that it's unnecessary to put that in your section header. A clerk can change that, of course, if I'm incorrect.

Nightscream should be desysopped. On the Jessica Nigri page alone, he's violated WP:INVOLVED in two major ways: First in this edit summary, uttering words in his final sentence that should only be used against a common vandal, and later in his edit through protection. While the latter edit is somewhat mitigated by Salvidrim!'s revert, which really wasn't a very good idea per The Wrong Version, if Nightscream had a problem with it, he should have raised it to Sal, or to another administrator. Once you've been involved in an edit war on a page, you are, for all functional purposes, not an administrator when it comes to things on that page. If you have a complaint, you have to try your luck before another admin, just like the rest of us. That Nightscream cannot see that is in itself worthy of desysop, in my humble opinion. If the Commitee feels Salvidrim!'s behavior crossed a line, they can send a reminder his way, though I'd say his self-trouting should suffice.

 — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  23:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)



Comment by Someone not using his real name
I think Beeblebrox makes a compelling case that there indeed may be a pattern of behavior by an admin that needs examination as to whether it is compatible with the policies regarding administrators, specifically WP:INVOLVED. Contra to what Sjones23 writes above however, this seems to be a case of someone being well aware of their past transgression of policies, but perhaps not being able to translate that knowledge into corrective action in subsequent events of a similar nature. I'm also inclined to agree with BOZ that some of the other editors involved in the latest incident don't have good wiki-reputation. The options here seem to be "trouts all-around", "sanctions all-around" or "interaction ban"—the last one assuming you buy that it's just a case of some editors bringing the worst out in each other... Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Fluffernutter
Responding to Salvidrim's ping to say that I don't really have a lot of insight to add about INVOLVED issues; my concern when I declined Nightscream's unblock request was that it showed no apparent understanding of the fact that being right (or righteous) isn't an exemption from our edit warring policy. That fact is something I would expect anyone wielding admin bits, especially someone who'd had them for a long time, to know backwards, forwards, and upside-down. He also seemed to have an idiosyncratic understanding of administrative response to edit warring as a whole, believing that "You can't lock down a page or prevent reverts unless the matter is being discussed". My sense, and the reason I declined the unblock request, was that Nightscream seemed to be substantially misunderstanding both policy and his obligations as an editor of a disputed page; if what he said was his current understanding of how things worked, it indicated to me that the disruption would continue if his block was lifted (this was later mitigated by his promise to not continue reverting on the page in question, which led to Salvidrim unblocking him). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes
At the first glance, this is a clear case of (mis)using administrative tools in several cases when obviously involved (agree with Beeblebrox). Perhaps, a brief statement by Nightscream where they would acknowledge understanding of the problem, explained how they are going to improve (asking an advice from uninvolved admins on appropriate noticeboards, rather than acting himself), and promised not repeat this again would be sufficient? However, this response by Nightscream is not really encouraging: instead of addressing strictly their own problem, he/she blames everyone else. For example, with editing Jessica Nigri, the real issue was not behavior by other users, but editing an already protected article to restore a version previously preferred by Nightscream. Perhaps it was done to enforce WP:BLP policy? I do not see a convincing justification of serious BLP violation in the statement by Nightscream, such as placing poorly sourced defamatory materials about a person; this looks like a simple content dispute. However, even if it was a BLP violation, the appropriate course of action would be to make a post on WP:BLP noticeboard, rather than reverting himself, especially for an administrator. BTW, no one mentioned BLP violations at this article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To put it simple and speaking only about one incident, these are five reverts by an administrator during 24 hours, and the last revert was made in protected article. Actually, first removal/revert by Nightscream was legitimate, and the first revert to the older version by his "opponent" was also legitimate per WP:BRD cycle. But the rest was not. Of course everyone makes mistakes, however not realizing his mistakes now is indeed troubling.My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.