User talk:Vandalbot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can we stop this petty revert war on User:Wik? I agree with 172. There is no absolutely reason to change another user's talk page (save cases of copyright, etc). I was going to revert teresa's edit myself, but it looks like a real discussion has to happen on this issue. Can we agree here that Wik's page should be left as he wanted it, and that anyone looking for iinformation on Vandalism in progress would go here anyway? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:50, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

The thing is -I think quite a few people would go to Wik's user page to look for info on the vandalbot. Jimbo forwarded an email which appeared to come from Wik to the mailing list. All the discussion has been about "Wik's vandalbot" so there is every reason for someone trying to find out info on the bot would try starting at Wik's user page. theresa knott 13:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

True enough, but if they didn't see anything there, they would come here. At the very most, I would maybe suggest a note on his talk page. I think that it is extremely rude to modify anyone's talk page against their will, and the fact that Wik can't revert it himself is no excuse to make an exception in his case. Wik deserves the same courtesy as any member of the Wikipedia, and his user page should be left alone. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:00, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

But no one is making an exception for Wik. There is plenty of precident for posting notes on user pages see Michael's user page or 24's user page. Now I know these are permenantly banned users, is wik banned ? - there has been no formal declaration from the AC, but the AC seems to feel there is no need since he has left as a normal user, and vandals can be blocked by admins without any AC involvement. Anyway my last edit was intended as a compromise between - let's post all relavent vandalbot info here and let's place no info here. I'm not sure what else I can do. theresa knott 15:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still think that the best solution is to leave his page alone. Like I said, if anyone has real questions about the vandalism, they can come to this page anyway. Can we put this to a vote somewhere? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:12, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wik isn't going to stop just because his talk page is restored and not touched. He is at war to get another user banned and exact revenge. - Tεxτurε 21:52, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think DDG was suggesting that leaving Wik's page alone would stop him. I think he was suggesting that it's not right (from a moral POV) to put information there. theresa knott 07:05, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks teresa. All I'm saying is that, in general, editing another user's page is frowned upon. Particularly given Jimbo Wales's personal intervention in this matter, I think that it is only right to give Wik's user page the courtesy it deserves. This is not to "appease" Wik in some way, but rather to maintain a modicum of decency while dealing with this matter. The vandalbot link should be moved to the "Talk" page, if it needs to be there at all. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:06, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

But bear in mind that Jimbo's intervention was before the appearance of the vandalbot, when people were trying to get Wik to leave quietly and with dignity. Wik's conduct since then has been so atrocious - threats bordering on blackmail, plus of course the vandalbot itself - that I for one don't see why Wikipedia owes him anything, including the respect that he has so conspicuously refused to show anyone else. Editors and their sockpuppets shouldn't be allowed to vandalise his user page, of course, but administrative notices in the case of extreme user misconduct (like Michael, for instance) are fair enough. -- ChrisO 18:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the notice to Wik's talk page, which is, in all practicality, where a user would look for a discussion on the possible controversial actions of another user. Again, I think that this is standard practice, and makes the most sense. There's no reason to muck up our structure because of one guy. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:55, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)