Seeing that I'm a new administrator, I suppose I should lay my cards out on the table so people will understand my actions. Please note that this is not by any means meant to be a full rubric or critera.
I will give out variable length blocks for variable situations.
What I will NOT block for
[edit]- General incivility. That is what Wikipedia:Requests for comment is for.
- If I don't "like" you. Really, that's just abuse of powers, and I would like people to trust me. I try to get along with everyone, even those that may think that I do not like. Just because we share opposing viewpoints doesn't mean that that gives me the right to block you. Therefore, please feel free to talk openly to me and don't be afraid of hurting my feelings or saying something that you may feel I won't like. I won't bite ;-)
- Anonymous vandal
- Has no other record of Wikipedia activity
- Vandalisms are of a "stupid" nature (i.e. childish, such as writing "YOUR MOM" on an article)
- Has been warned at least twice on talk page
- Anonymous vandal
- Has slight record of Wikipedia activity ("activity" meaning history of previous vandalisms)
- Vandalisms are of a slightly higher degree that require some thought and planning (i.e. "cute", such as redirecting George W. Bush to Mental retardation)
- Has been warned at least twice on talk page.
- Anonymous vandal
- Has longer-than-normal record of Wikipedia activity (see above)
- Vandalisms are of a considerably higher degree that are clearly intended to be taken as truth (such as adding "facts" that are in fact false), or are clearly intended to be hidden and deceptive to readers, editors, administrators, and RC patrol volunteers (such as making a "genuine" edit, but slip in a wikilink that is obvious vandalism
- Anonymous vandal
- Has an alarmingly long history of Wikipedia activity
- Vandalisms are persistant, hateful, and show obvious lack of purpose besides being a vandal
- Has been either warned at least five times on talk page or blocked at least twice
- Userpage vandalism, especially when the userpage in question belongs to a party that's connected to an edit war, etc. I have also discovered that when you give fair warning on a vandal's talk page, they seem to think that vandalising your user page will somehow improve their chances of not being blocked for 48 hours. Oh, ye of little brain.
More shall be written once I've got the time.
I am considering deploying a "point system", based loosely on the system of demerits. Basically, this means certain violations get a certain amount of demerit points. Here are some examples (note: this is all based upon a 100-point base)
- Simple vandalism -- 20 points
- Racist -- Add 15 points
- Directed towards another user -- Add 15 points
- Directed towards or attacking homosexuals -- Add 15 points
- Vandalism of a user page -- 60 points
- Vandalism of a user page of an incident-related party -- Add 75 points
- Covert vandalism -- 35 points
- Changing dates -- Add 15 points
- Changing facts -- Add 30 points
- Death threats -- 100 points
- Two or more death threats -- Referral to Administrator's Noticeboard/ArbCom (add infinite points)
- Uploading of copyright-protected files (chiefly images) with the intent of using Wikipedia as a file server -- 15 points
- Continuation of such after adequate warning -- add 50 points
More to come.
User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/MARMOT