Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Smurrayinchester

Following comments moved from "Oppose" discussion over Massiveego's vote: NSL E (T+C) 10:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

First there is the plural warnings not warning. "If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it. It is often worthwhile to check the page history after reverting to make sure you have removed all the vandalism. Also, check the user contributions of the vandal - you will often find more malicious edits.
 * 1) Oppose Short tempered, no three warning as per wikipedia policy. --Masssiveego 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * When it's a known vandal IP, three warnings aren't needed. There is no such policy either. NSL E (T+C) 09:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, leave warning messages (please note the s on messages) on the vandal's talk pages using the following system. Not leave a message, but leave warning messages. Meaning more then one warning. It's two warnings minimum from users. One final warning from admin, with the word warning somehwere. Then either delete, block, or ban.

I know I read there was supposed to be more then one warning somewhere, but I'm having difficulting figuring out where it was in the official policy or if there was recent revision in the official policy. Or if I misread the policy. I require time to study this to make a better reply. As right now I'm short on time, so I'll have to get back to you on that. However

1st Warnings are the first 4 templates.

I believe this is the 2nd warning.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Then it's the this is the final warning.

"This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

In my opinion a good vandal fighter identifies the vandal problem exactly, by actually typeing where the vandal problem is on the user talk page, teaches and corrects with the 1sts warning, and attempts to convince with the 2nd warning. Then goes for the higher admin. Unless the vandal was particularly obvious or severe, there should be an assumption of "good faith" and/or "mistakes" --Masssiveego 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I sound rude, but may I please see an example of how to be a higher admin, only I can't quite understand what you're saying. (For the record: The vandal was obvious: he made this edit to Rupert Murdoch). smurray  inch   e  ster  ( User ), ( Talk ) 18:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)