User talk:Neutral objector

Nation Library danger report

Hello fresh sockpuppet account! Welcome to the UD wiki. Please refrain from engaging in "edit wars" with other users. If you disagree with a user's edit, then please leave a message on the talk page (theirs, or the page that's being edited). Otherwise your contributions may be considered vandalism. :) --Envious (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

To Envious,by your own User page comment, this Envious account is a sock puppet in itself. I see new accounts created all the time, that update pages, and nobody gives them flak. I actually do not have another account as I lost that info years ago, but have been encouraged by the recent events of wiki abuse by certain parties, to take up and help keep the wiki a better place. Please do not comment on my page anymore.

Also, you really need to get over your obsession, and zenophobia, of Jack... The Jack...whatever...whoever...because you're all over the place and it's creepy and kinda dumb.

Goodbye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neutral objector (talk • contribs) 04:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC).

Whatever you say, Jack. Thanks for finding the time to respond to me between running your several dozen zerg alts. The way you type (and type and type and type) is pretty unmistakable, but if you're bored feel free to make believe that everyone can't tell it's you. We'll all pretend, too, since we like to assume good faith here. :)

Also, seeing as this is your public talk page, I will continue to use it for its intended purpose of contacting you whenever I have anything to say to you. It's hardly very neutral to try and strike what other people have to say from the record entirely, don't you agree? --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Jack you know you gotta sign your posts, right? Real easy to do too. Sniper4625 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I just want to pipe in here to tell you what the rule actually are, seeing as Envious, despite trying to sound official, is mostly incorrect. An edit war is not considered vandalism, as long as the contentious edits in question aren't vandalism themselves. If an edit war occurs and escalates, the typical process involves a sysop protecting the page in question, and then the matter is dealt with between the two parties on Arbitration. It very, very rarely is brought to a ruling of vandalism. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi DDR! Thanks for chiming in. Unfortunately you're not considering the extenuating circumstances here. I didn't claim that edit warring was considered vandalism, though it's nice to know that it is not. However, this account was created specifically to target another user's edit, and tampering with pages like that is considered vandalism, and several people have been banned for it on A/VB in the last few weeks. That is why I told our friend here that such contributions may be considered vandalism -- creating new accounts specifically to revert edits you disagree with is, surely, punishable. --Envious (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing you should be warned about however, is, if you're going to change the Danger Report description, please sign the edit appropriately. Otherwise you are changing the wording of someone else's report, and attributing it to them, which is impersonation, and is vandalism. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it would certainly be nice to see all sockpuppet accounts dealt with equally. Sniper4625 (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)