UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Petition to Unban JR streets

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:Lolsuburbnames.JPG

What Happened?

On the 16th March 2008 user JR streets appeared and edited the TemplateMap page, his effect was to replace the names of suburbs on the suburb map with made-up and often humourous names.

We, the people protest against the evil and humorless permabanning of one JR Streets and want him immediately reinstated as a wiki user, perhaps with a promotion straight to Sysop for making me smile.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:JR_street

Petition

Please add your signiture and timestamp to the list.

By signing this petiton, I hereby announce that I would like to see JR streets reinstated as a member of this wiki, perhaps as Sysop..for making me smile.

For

1. made my day--Thekooks 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
2. fuck yeah! - he should be made a sysop, that was my idea! ;P But, all seriousness aside... he needs a ban... he can't get off scott-free... but as far as i am concerned he made that edit in good faith ... or, if in bad faith, it was impish, friendly, fun bad faith... he should be given a ban, certainly, but not a permaban. --WanYao 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   or a warning... just not a perma. --WanYao 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Meh, with a warning. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
4. this isn't how the system should work, but whathaheck... remove the perma, issue a warning or two to the guy. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
5. I just got done looking at what he did and I thought it was funny and it shouldn't be punished with a perma ban. I say just give him a warning and let him stay.--Major Striker 21:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Warn - A warning seems more appropriate. - Headshot Hal ^Talk 23:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
   • As an add-on to my vote, I propose a second petition to permanently change the name of Dentonside to Ninja-ville. - Headshot Hal ^Talk 12:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
     • I second that--Studoku 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Warn him. He probably tried to make a parody page and didn't know how to do it properly. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 03:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
8. lawl --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Warn, maybe temp ban --He doesn't deserve a perma for this.--Studoku 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
   • As a possible precedant for this, I got warned, not banned, for humourously vandalising the Pker template.--Studoku 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
     • Yes but this user had only 3 edits all devoted to vandalising that page. This qualified him for permabanning as such: The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki. As a result, that give you instant permaban. -- Cheese 17:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
     • Hum... a confessed vandal... now where did i left the perma-banhammer ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
       • I didn't realise he had only made vandal edits. I still don't think he deserves a permaban but I agree that what happened to me shouldn't be used as a precedant.--Studoku 19:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
10. As Above - Doesn't deserve El Perma, maybe a warn, and as Sonny, he was probably trying to make a harmless parody page.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
11. It's a strange world... that I should agree with some of the above users. Un-ban him already, for God's sake! -- TerminalFailure 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
12. WTF - this was a single edit with 2 corrections. More importantly it is almost certainly a long time user (probably a well known one) having a bit of a joke. banning a throw away account is pointless while banning a new user for this is waaay over the top. Drop it to a warning already and if the sysop team are so annoyed that they feel a perma is justified I would like to ask if they have tried tracing the IP address thingie? --Honestmistake 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Permaban might be a tad much! Id suggest a warning, also I agree with Honestmistakes suggestions. --Asdfgjkl 01:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Literally, for great justice. Jordan Salafack 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    Now why would you vote to unban yourself? We all should know this user is your alt by now... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

15. somebody set us up the bomb! The man 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Obama! Clinton sucks. --Karloth Vois ^RR 01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
17. I put on my robe and wizard hat -Dawgas 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Against

1. He spelled Los Angeles wrong. What a crime...(Although...I am easily bribed....) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
2. For reasons of precedent. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
3. this is not an excuse to make vandalism --~~~~ [talk] 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
4. The person vandalized the wiki. And, to be honest, I didn't find it funny, so that logic goes out. Luckily, we don't let petitions decide the fate of people.--ShadowScope 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   Because you didn't find it funny everyone who did gets ignored? Think that one through for a second. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

5. It was a really funny attempt at vandalism and gave me a fair bit of a chuckle but unfortunately this would set a really bad precedent and possibly the attempted return of other users whose vandalism was deemed funny. Imagine letting 3pwv come back because some of his stuff is actually really funny. This could open the floodgates to cases such as that. -- Cheese 07:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
6. If a proper member of the community did this i would say let 'em off, but it was a throw away account. This person expected banning, so let 'em have it i say.--xoxo 12:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
7. It was funny, but see Krazy monkey's and J3D;s posts.--MikhailA 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
8. three contributions, all vandalism. despite it being somewhat funny its no reason to allow someone to blatantly break the rules. --Bullgod 21:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Sophomoric prankster or dangerously incompetent, either way, the rules mandate banning. I don't what useful stuff like that getting fucked with whenever some noob decides it would be funny. Unban would just be asking for more dram, more edit wars, more work for sysops. Good ridence.  Swiers 21:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
10. I was just dropping by to check my messages and i saw this on the front page. Dont have much time before i have to go out, but here is my take on the case, after examining it fully without reading the commentary of other users on the matter.
    First edit is clearly vandalism. No one can dispute that. The fact that it is funny does not in any way lessen the fact that its vandalism.
    The second edit is not contributive. It is additional mess added to a template that doesnt need it. While it is not vandalism, it still doesnt qualify as a contribution to this wiki. Contributions are things like helping out with articles, creating new useful pages, or updating existing articles with new information. Many people satisfy this requirement with useful comments in the individual suburb pages.
    The third edit is basically the same as the second edit.
    The requirement for a permaban states that a user must have at least three edits, at least one of the edits must be vandalism, and none of the edits must be contributive. This case meets all three criteria. The fact that he was amusing does not in any way change any of these facts. To remove a rightful ban on a user just because he or she may have been amusing, sort of, undermines the whole system and gives a loophole for anyone else who wishes to commit such acts. Furthermore, this policy proposal itself would set a very dangerous precedent anyway, allowing rightfully banned, yet greatly popular users, or those from a very large population (Such as PoE, SA, or other such online communities) who may or may not be interested in the game at the time to legally circumvent bans, and come back repeatedly after much disruption. I see no reason why this user should be unbanned, and move strongly that such policy proposals be prohibited in future. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    You could look at it that way, but think about it. How often do things like this happen? Most vandals are stupid pricks. The fact that this one was at least witty and didn't vandalize tons of pages with stupid shit just shows what kind of person he is. No doubt he's seen this page, and since he obviously doesn't have the usual vandal psyche, I doubt he'd screw up a chance like this. And even if he did, it's not all that much of a fucking hassle to ban him again, all you'd have to do is press a button and settle the matter once and for all. You people make it sound like he's going to destroy the wiki or something. Jordan Salafack 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    You haven't yet come to realise that vandals such as this are very common. Many of them make amusing edits. The fact that he deliberately vandalised the most linked to page on the wiki shows that he knows exactly what he was doing. This isn't just some newbie error of blanking a page by accident. This is vandalism. If we unban him just because he made a funny edit or two then we'll have to unban all the other vandals who made amusing vandal edits as well. Imagine Amazing or 3pwv back on the wiki. They could wreck havoc but we as sysops won't be able to ban them because funny edits would be "allowed" because of the incredibly dangerous precedent that this would set. -- Cheese 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

11. Who the hell put this in Policy Discussion? This has no place here keep your petitions on user subpages or some junk. And read the talk page, the user vandalized the single most accessed, linked, and viewed page on the wiki. He did so in a way that shows he has knowledge of the content, he made a throw away account to do it, and he did it knowing he would get punished. This wasn't some mistake on his part it was blatant vandalism done with intent to screw up the most visible part of the wiki. Any user who did the same deserves a ban, he met the requirements for a permanent one and got what he deserved.--Karek^maps?! 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
12. As all above. This doesn't belong in policy discussion, so really this vote is meaningless. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
13. so i guess that the moral of this story is that if you vandalize anything on the wiki, make it humorous and for some reason the rules do not apply to you --Scotw 17:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Well, if he had simply added that as a picture he drew up, linked to it, and advertised it a bit without affecting the original page, that would have been just fine. However, since he modified the map itself, even as humerous as the update is, it's easily vandalism, and I'm sure he knew that. The picture is a bit funny. Replacing the actual map, a resource people are ecounting on, with that, is not.--Kolechovski 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Think of the Children! - It sets an absolutely horrible precedent. --User:Axe27/Sig 21:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Okay, look at it this way. According to their contributions that person has only ever made 3 edits, they can change a few words yes, but it leads me to believe this is the work of a troll (which some of you may have thought of already). All be it a high profile piece of vandalism, it is still vandalism, and that stands. I don't mean to be a 'kill-joy', but seriously, all of you 'yes' voters should realise that at the end of the day a vandal that had only ever made vandalism contributions is not a suitable candidate to be allowed back in. If anyone is thinking this is a troll then I'd suggest you cross reference the IP to see if it's the same for any others. Other than that if this passes then I could make a troll account and systematically change everyone's signature on whatever pages I could find to something hilarious (See if you can guess who they're modelled on: The Grinch, Cunt Solo, Cybersex, Hagtwat, TheCooks, J20, Hax27, Porndoghero. You get the idea, and no offence to those names who I used as examples, I am strictly making a point) I could do about 12-15 or so before I got banned (if I did them all at the same time), but hey. Because they are hilarious, it would be my last act to have my very own petition. All of those signatures are seen a lot, collectively not as much as the dangermap template, but a lot nevertheless, especially if I were to change it on Talk:Suggestions for example. So in conclusion to this, Vandalism is Vandalsim, and no good can come from letting this troll/throw away account back. Even if it has been unjust to the extent that people believe a perma ban is unfair the person has already has never made any useful contributions, hence (also given their wiki ability) they obviously knew the consequences. I advise you 'yes' voters t just take a look, a serious look at your vote, then see if you really think it is a good idea to go forward with it. Acoustic Pie 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Sorry, but it is vandalism. Anyway, I doubt that (s)he expects to be unbanned. Looks like a one-time account used soley for an admittedly funny pisstake. Maybe if they got into contact, begging to be let back on the wiki I could at least see the point in this petition, but as it is, the only person who doesn't seem to care overly about this banning is the vandal.--Seventythree^Talk 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
18. He had it coming. --ZsL 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
19. vandals suck--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 04:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Permabanned vandals should never get a second chance. -- BKM 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)