About: Memory Alpha talk:Bans and blocks

Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Memory Alpha talk:Bans and blocks Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

There's this sort of vandal who isn't really here to make trouble, but simply to spam: remove content, insert list of URLs, repeat. In the past I often warned these users on their talk pages, but I now believe that this doesn't make any sense - simply because this type won't read it anyway. It might even be a bot in most cases. I suggest to change this policy to allow an immediate 24h-block without any need for warnings, if the vandalism consists of URL-spam only. Any comments/objections? -- Cid Highwind 21:50, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Memory Alpha talk:Bans and blocks
rdfs:comment	There's this sort of vandal who isn't really here to make trouble, but simply to spam: remove content, insert list of URLs, repeat. In the past I often warned these users on their talk pages, but I now believe that this doesn't make any sense - simply because this type won't read it anyway. It might even be a bot in most cases. I suggest to change this policy to allow an immediate 24h-block without any need for warnings, if the vandalism consists of URL-spam only. Any comments/objections? -- Cid Highwind 21:50, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
dbkwik:memory-alph...iPageUsesTemplate	dbkwik:resource/g6pDuWJeSFES15Zr7rH-KA==
abstract	There's this sort of vandal who isn't really here to make trouble, but simply to spam: remove content, insert list of URLs, repeat. In the past I often warned these users on their talk pages, but I now believe that this doesn't make any sense - simply because this type won't read it anyway. It might even be a bot in most cases. I suggest to change this policy to allow an immediate 24h-block without any need for warnings, if the vandalism consists of URL-spam only. Any comments/objections? -- Cid Highwind 21:50, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I'm for it. Does/can this include abusive language and porn insertions that are not URL links? --Alan del Beccio 21:56, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I think that should be discussed seperately, although I'm not opposed as far as the inserted content is without a doubt disruptive. That type of vandal should get immediate 24h-block plus warning, I guess. See section below. * I support this proposal. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:47, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I support it too. I think there should be a zero-tolerance policy for any kind of vandalism except for accidental deletion by a registered member.--Scimitar 01:20, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software