SmashWiki talk:Vandal Harshness

strong support per proposal MarioIsTheBest (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2015 (EST)

We're not MarioWiki. You're not required to manually support your own proposals.

But anyway, you appear to be taking too much of a black-and-white view on things. Several times we have had users who have come back from a block and gone on to become constructive editors. We're not as big as MarioWiki; we don't need to take a hard-line stance like they might. Toomai Glittershine The Orchestral 19:32, 28 February 2015 (EST)

but have any of the users who have came back from a block and went on to be constructive users afterwards been blocked originally for vandalism. Most of the time if I recall correctly when that happens happened to be if the user was originally blocked for smaller things like Excessive userspace editing (something that Smashwiki punishes with probation), edit warring, inserting false information, or other more minor things like that. Not when they replace entire pages or large portions of one with an inappropriate messages or just completely blanking them. Do you have any examples of people who have done big things like those I described in the previous sentence, get temp-banned for it, and then came back and became constructive users? MarioIsTheBest (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2015 (EST)

When I first clicked on this, I thought it would have something to do with blocking vandals for more time based on what they've done. That being said, I think there are multiple cases where that could apply.

On the actual topic of the proposal, however, I'd actually have to side with Toomai on this one. While there are some cases where vandals have come back (and I've seen this on the admin noticeboard), most of the time, vandals leave after they get blocked. Aidan the Aura Master 15:10, 3 March 2015 (EST)

Generally this isn't necessary. Repeat vandals are blocked for greatly increasing quantities of time. Also, we want to use blocking of vandals as a means of encouraging positive contributions. It's kind of like a longer-term application of SW:AGF: assume it was a poorly thought out joke and that the block encourages them to try again, hopefully more constructively. If that assumption is proved false, then we deal with the issue accordingly. Miles (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2015 (EST)

Neutral leaning towards oppose Permanent blocking could be used on the serious offenders, but other times, it may just discourage those that could be able to make constructive edits in the future. Also, as Aidanza has stated above, sometimes they are never heard from again after their temporary block runs out. Berrenta (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

Unless a revival attempt is started on this policy, there isn't a need for comments or thoughts on a policy that died out a while ago. 108.194.146.62 19:10, 24 March 2015 (EDT)