User:Darthgriz98/Wiki philosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
|
My administrator policies and Wiki philosophies
[edit] What I have learned from Wikipedia
- Be not above or below others here, be an equal.
- Wikipedia has helped improve my grammar, spelling, and mechanics.
- Wikipedia has bettered my patience.
- Wikipedia has taught me copyright better than any government class.
- Every day here I learn something new and interesting from an article.
- Two words: conflict and compromise.
- Writing can be fun.
- It's better to work together, collaborate.
- You can't win everything.
- Real life doesn't have a revert button, but thank God someplace does.
- Not everybody is going to like you, and some have interesting ways of showing it (IE: Vandals).
[edit] Policy on vandals and blocking
When it comes to blocking a user, any administrator should evaluate the situation carefully before administrating the block. A stern warning, such as uw-vandalism3 template (please stop message) and in a few cases an only warning, should be given to the perpetrator before a block. As a reformed vandal and now administrator, I stopped after one warning, realizing that if I was blocked indefinitely I could never edit again. Some vandals may take two warnings to realize that they will be blocked. Constant warnings again and again should not be necessary as in those cases the user is most likely an idiot vandalizing for fun or for whatever reason they vandalize. I am less likely to block an IP that has just come off a block and is vandalizing again without at least one warning to them, since it could be a different person then the one that was vandalizing before, this can be a uw-vandalism4im template (last warning) since the IP has been warned before. Vandals should not be given so much leeway that they need 4 or 5 warnings before a block, whether soft or indefinite, is issued. Warnings should be kept civil, yet stern in nature and the vandal should never be attacked. Personal attacks against users deserve one warning, then action should be taken to stop the disruption. Rarely should a vandal be blocked without warning, but there are a few cases, such as confirmed sockpuppets or accounts only being used for personal attacks against users, that warrant this kind of action.
[edit] My view on spoiler warnings
The section entitled plot should be more than enough to say "hey, if you haven't seen this film, played this game, or read this book, go no further because this is a comprehensive summary of the plot." I feel that if a reader wants a review of the game, movie, or book or is looking for background, they should not be looking on an encyclopedia for those answers, this is what review sites are for. Furthermore, plot sections should be a quick synopsis rather than game guide or step by step description. This is not Wikipedia's consensus view on spoiler warnings and should not be treated as such, I will follow any project's wishes regarding spoiler warnings, as that is consensus. I feel that it is up to the main editors of the article or the Wikiproject that is the primary editor to decide whether or not to use spoiler warnings.
