GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/July 2015 Administrator Election/Monkeypolice188

Case 1
First of all, I'd ask John123 for photographic/source evidence to the edit he made. I'd also (if had the opportunity), check the game for myself. As for the "STOP UNDOING MY EDIT YOU STUPID PRICK" summary, I would give the user an immediate warning for incivility and rude language to a member of staff (the patroller whom reverted his edit). As for the patroller who reverted his edit with no summary, I'd ask him why he reverted this, and due to me not knowing much about this band, I would ask him for proof, as well.

Case 2
GTAFAN316 was right to request deletion of the article, since the article isn't official content of the wiki, and should therefore be a forum or user-talk question. I would also ask if Newbie200 could improve his formality of typing, and keep a close eye on any future edits which may involve bad grammar. CowboyPatroller was wrong to remove the requested deletion, and therefore I would ask him why he thought it shouldn't be deleted, as well as give my reason for why it should be deleted.

Case 3
I would handle the case the same way the Bcrat did. I would give a detailed, written explanation as for what to do with images in the future, and, if he happens to refuse once again, a warning will be given. I would also explain the Bcrat who warned/blocked him that he should explain to the user why he had blocked him, and how he could further improve how he adds images onto the wiki. Either way, another staff member should have been noted about the incident. if the Bcrat hadn't responded in 3 months.

Case 4
The fact that the 2 Bcrats continuously cannot make their minds up whether to block or unblock the user is completely unprofessional. After the first block, he should have requested proof before unblocking him. Uncivil language and potentially rude language is also completely unprofessional. If they don't get along, further arguments between the 2 bcrats will result in me contacting Wikia staff.

Case 5
Reverting a revert-ment would be unacceptable, especially since I would have probably gained trust since his last wrong-doing was over a year ago. I would give the user another warning, however, considering how many previous warnings he's already had, I would by lead into giving them a block, depending on how serious the previous warnings were. Either way, the block probably wouldn't be permanent. After case 5B, I would provide evidence to my edits (if they are content edits), and would be further tempted to a permanent block.

Case 6
Realistically, the user is entitled to encouraging other users, however, constant encouragement - even when the user who is receiving the encouraging messages refuses - would result, as a last resort, warnings, obvious reverts, and worse-case scenario, a block.