| abstract
| - Should we redeem vandals if they ask for forgiveness from us and promise to be good. How about if they do apologise, get them to do several tasks as part of the redeeming process. Recently, Kowakian1 - a sockpuppet of the infamous Crumb - knocked on several talk pages inlcuding mine and asked for forgiveness. What do you think? MyNz 4:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
* There's no point, IMHO. They've contributed nothing in the past, and if we forgive everyone we'll just have to keep fixing their vandalism when they inevitably start doing it again. Plus, let's be honest, most/all of these vandals would contribute nothing of value anyways, even if they did reform. Kuralyov 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
* I think it we should take it on a case by case basis. Kowakian1 seems legitimately repentant, but others should be tried situationally. And for all we know, he's still planning to unleash a new wave of vandalism on the site, just quietly building up our trust. But in this case, I think he is legit. -- SFH 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
* I think that would depend on the seriousness of their vandalism; if they delete an entire page or do something really bad, they can't be redeemed, but if they just did something small there should be some kind of way ... maybe.
* I say if they find out how to use IRC, and be very polite, I may forgive them. - Sikon [Talk] 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
* Considering that he was being doggedly abusive no more than fourteen minutes before his apology, I'd say you guys are being far more trusting than I would be. I'm surprised you haven't already blacklisted his IP. If it turns out he's honestly reformed, great... but I don't buy it for one second. -- SM-716 ...talk? 20:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
* Are all these recent "Crumb" vandal attacks evidence that this guy hasn't reformed, and has gone back to vandalism?
* Doubtful. More likely, it was somebody who read this or saw the prior Crumb vandalism elsewhere. RMF 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
* We could ask a Wikia employee to confirmm but really doesn't seem to be Kowakian 1's style. Besides, if they were the same person, the block would've taken out his current IP address, but I just saw Kowakian 1 post on Talk:Tash Arranda. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
* I tell you, we need to make it so that neither anons nor recent users can edit. It's increasingly obvious that that's the only way to end this vandalism plague. Kuralyov 00:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
* I say give em hell! -- Riffsyphon1024 00:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
* But as long as we share a user database with the rest of Wikia, I'm not sure how blocking recent users would help. Couldn't someone create a user on wikia, wait the required 2-4 days or whatever it is, and then start writing nonsense about gay robots on wheels or whatever? —Silly Dan (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
* Yes, but if they had to wait 2-4 days to post, it'd make it easier for us to notice that a bunch of people called "Kowakian 1111" signed up, and they could be blocked before doing anything. That or they might lose interest while waiting. Kuralyov 00:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
* It makes you wonder what these people are thinking and what they're doing with their lives. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
* No, blocking all anons is bad idea. I talked with the Wikia staff, who did a CheckUser for us—with those IPs, we put down a range block that should stop pelican vandalism for now. RMF 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
* Also got rid of the "Gay robot" and "Chuck Norris" vandal IPs from this weekend. Thanks! —Silly Dan (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
* I also oppose a general blocking of anons. I spent some two years on Wikipedia without a username, and some of my best work back on Wikipedia was as an anon. Forcing people to sign up to create new pages on Wikipedia has failed quite miserably in my opinion, and forcing people to sign up to edit here would fail just as miserably. -- SFH 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
* It annoys me how people are once again trying to circumvent a community decision. On the consensus track, people almost unanimously voted against mandatory registration. - Sikon [Talk] 05:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)