Board Thread:Reporting station/@comment-24817377-20151019003241/@comment-3474455-20151019014122

DatDramaPlant wrote: Insert Your Name Here wrote:

DatDramaPlant wrote:

PuffyMuffins wrote: DatDramaPlant wrote: PuffyMuffins wrote: DatDramaPlant wrote: Also, I read the rules.

The Plants vs. Zombies Wiki Rules states that:

The first time you are caught bullying someone, you will receive a warning. After that, if you continue, a one-week block, then two-weeks, a month, a year, and finally a permanent ban from the wiki. That's 5. So? That's for Bullying which is one thing Carp has done. If you want to be so sure hop on chat and ask the users why don't cha'? Chat's not my base.

You realize this could be used about months ago when he was STILL at large? Why now? Because, he's a problem NOW

Why do you have to argue with me? I'm starting to notice that you support various vandals. If he's a problem now, then I'll stop.

I could have used this info quite a while ago. Plus, I don't think it's me. I think it's you guys that never forgive. I have a growth mindset, for better or worse. That sort of mindset lead you to support unbanning maxstories before, and it did not end too well. There's a reason some deserved a perma ban: they refused to change their actions toward the wiki and are considered irredeemable. You mean for him. It would have happened anyway, but I still wanted to show support.

Your statement here is quite true. There is one keyword that cannot prove that this always works: "considered". Considerations are not always right. My point still stands. We could have made a mistake. Sometimes we must admit it. We should not rid the wiki of users, we need to pressure the bad to turn over a new leaf. Good editors are a good thing. Also, vandals can be a crisis. The word "crisis" if broken up into chinese words and then understood (危机), you will know that it is time to recruit more people. A crisis is an opportunity. Use it well, for if you don't there will be dangerous consequences. You need to remember that such accusations are made by active users of the wiki through democratic voting. If such decision was baseless, the community would have been able to veto it - and surely repeated violation of the wiki rules is concrete proof to base the decision on.