http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez
Admin policies
Let me put these right out here:
1. No mercy for vandals. If you vandalize a page, you will probably be warned. If you vandalize again with fluffy stuff, you will be warned again. On the other hand, if you vandalize maliciously, you will be blocked. I will consider a clean slate after a month, removing old warnings from anyone, in case the IP has changed hands. 2. Personally, I think Speedy Delete should be expanded. Too much stuff clogs up AfD. But until this happens, I will remain within the strict lines of Speedy. 3. You can always contest any action with me. Please do. 4. I will not typically protect for vandalism; I figure, if I can do that, I can also block the vandal, which does more good than protection. I will, however, protect, without warning, any high traffic page that has been doubled. Sorry, but if it's so high traffic, it would double the time to fix if I inserted a notice. Please understand. I will as quickly as I can fix the doubling, and unprotect it.
NOTE: If you send me an email about being blocked, please put in all information needed to unblock you like, I dunno, your IP address? because I will likely not respond to your email directly.
I disagree - these appear to be in line with Wikipedia policy.
On 3/10/06, JUDITH HANEY haneyje@alltel.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez
Admin policies
Let me put these right out here:
No mercy for vandals. If you vandalize a page, you will probablybe warned. If you vandalize again with fluffy stuff, you will be warned again. On the other hand, if you vandalize maliciously, you will be blocked. I will consider a clean slate after a month, removing old warnings from anyone, in case the IP has changed hands. 2. Personally, I think Speedy Delete should be expanded. Too much stuff clogs up AfD. But until this happens, I will remain within the strict lines of Speedy. 3. You can always contest any action with me. Please do. 4. I will not typically protect for vandalism; I figure, if I can do that, I can also block the vandal, which does more good than protection. I will, however, protect, without warning, any high traffic page that has been doubled. Sorry, but if it's so high traffic, it would double the time to fix if I inserted a notice. Please understand. I will as quickly as I can fix the doubling, and unprotect it.
NOTE: If you send me an email about being blocked, please put in all information needed to unblock you like, I dunno, your IP address? because I will likely not respond to your email directly.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I also agree:
No mercy for vandals. If you vandalize a page, you will probablybe warned. If you vandalize again with fluffy stuff, you will be warned again. On the other hand, if you vandalize maliciously, you will be blocked. I will consider a clean slate after a month, removing old warnings from anyone, in case the IP has changed hands.
blocking policy, rules of thumb: casual vandals will be warned before being blocked, though warnings are not usually given for deliberate vandalism
Personally, I think Speedy Delete should be expanded. Too muchstuff clogs up AfD. But until this happens, I will remain within the strict lines of Speedy.
Yes, I ***PERSONALLY*** believe CSD should be expanded, but I try (99% of times I achieve ;) to remain within its strict lines
You can always contest any action with me. Please do.
More examples of great common sense. I get many emails about blocks, and review them and if the plea makes sense I will unblock. I've undeleted stuff I've deleted, etc... admins actions aren't set on stone
I will not typically protect for vandalism; I figure, if I can dothat, I can also block the vandal, which does more good than protection. I will, however, protect, without warning, any high traffic page that has been doubled. Sorry, but if it's so high traffic, it would double the time to fix if I inserted a notice. Please understand. I will as quickly as I can fix the doubling, and unprotect it.
Yes I prefer blocking the offending ip than protect the article from all anon ips, what's wrong with that?
NOTE: If you send me an email about being blocked, please put in all information needed to unblock you like, I dunno, your IP address? because I will likely not respond to your email directly.
Plenty of times, I get a message "I've been unblocked, please review!!", but nowhere I'm given an username or ip to review.
So, yes, most of those pass my common-sense test