Personal Policies edit
Threats edit
As a CVU member, reviewer, rollbacker, and user of STiki, I occasionally run into threats against others. In accordance with discussion at the teahouse and WP:Emergency and WP:Threats of violence policy, I treat all claims and threats seriously - probably more so than your average editor or even administrator. I always report such offenses to the administrators at WP:ANI as well as the Wikimedia Foundation.
Rights edit
I think that basic user rights (excluding administrator and higher) are protected a bit too rigorously here on Wikipedia, but I fully respect the diligence that many editors, administrators, bureaucrats, and stewards exhibit when screening applicants. My personal opinion is that if a user's edits are in the vast majority positive, the user is autoconfirmed, and they have a solid rationale behind wanting a right, give it to them if they either (a) meet the guidelines set forth in applicable Wikipedia policy, or (b) go through training via adoption or the CVUA. Either way, the user should be watched carefully by the permission granter for the first few days with their new right.
Reviewing edit
When I review, I follow the reviewer rules; I do not take liberties with my user rights nor agree with WP:SNOWBALL. Therefore, I simply make a determination as to whether or not the edit is blatant vandalism or another violation of Wikipedia policy or not. So, even if a change has mediocre grammar and fails to cite a source, if it passes all criterion, I am going to pass the review. I may later revert the edit or replace it with something better; however, odds are high that I will not be bold in these cases, as I oftentimes want to avoid appearing to endorse content that I am unsure of simply to fix a grammatical error, however much I may hate typos. I do, however, go out of my way to reach out to editors. This approach has been backed up by other reviewers/rollbackers in the past.
Spelling and Grammar edit
I hate when editors do not take the time to proofread articles. This, however, unfortunately, is more of a pet peeve than a policy violation. However, I will invoke the Wikipedia Style Manual when:
- An edit is so egregiously misspelled and/or formatted that it is incoherent, or
- An edit is on the borderline of being a violation of another policy and contains substantial grammatical or spelling errors, too.
Spelling and grammatical errors, to me, indicate an unwillingness or inability to take the time to put together a quality edit. I fix where I can, but oftentimes people simply are lazy and refuse to capitalize anything, check any spelling, etc. I go through hundreds of edits per day to revert vandalism, not to make copyedits. Therefore, I kindly request that editors pay due diligence to spelling and grammar when making edits; it saves someone else the trouble of fixing your mediocre work.
Notes edit
My user page template is adopted from that which the WMF staff members use, but it is not intended to trick users into thinking that I am Wikimedia Foundation Staff; I am not. I merely like the professional look of the template (and reserve my talk page and subpages for less-formal content). I have not had any complaints thus far; however, if you find that the template is misleading, please do let me know and I will immediately change the format into something noncontroversial. Thank you to Sage Ross for his unknowing contribution to my user page.
Special Thank You To edit
Go Phightins! for "adopting" me, endorsing me, and teaching me most of what I know about Wikipedia!
Nerdfighter for teaching me in the CVUA and enhancing my knowledge to help Wikipedia!