Forum:Penalty for user blanking his/her/its own article
Occasionally, a n00bish user will submit an article which he/she/it (herein abbreviated "they") feels is a literary masterpiece worthy of great accolades and such; and learning the awful truth that it isn't (by way of NRV, VFD, etc.) will throw a royal hissyfit and blank their own submission.
I hereby propose that the torching one's own creation under those circumstances should be treated here in Uncyclopedia not just as relatively harmless, or run-of-the-mill vandal-blanking, but as a heinous crime deserving of the most awful punishments imaginable, up to and including infinite bannination. Attempting to short-circuit the peer-review process by playing God is something even an administrator (with their awesome God-like powers) would not do, and should be treated for what it is: extreme disruption.
If the original submitter desires to withdraw their own stuff (which, by obscure legal terms, has since passed into Uncyclopedia property (no matter how bad)), let them vote "delete" if already VFD'd, or, if only NRV'd, VFD it themselves; or at minimum pass a deletion request (with a specific reason why) up to any administrator. --DW III 
04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm striking a bit of that because NRV trumps VFD. –H.04:36 UTC, 10.20.2006
- If you attempt suicide, you get the death penalty sucka! --
05:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- HowTo:Get Banned already makes blanking a bannable offense. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you attempt suicide, you get the death penalty sucka! --
It is so hard to tell when people are joking. Actual practice is that if a user blanks their own NRVed page, either revert or delete the page depending on your judgment. I've never seen a reason to make it more complicated than that. ---
Rev. Isra (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- That seems ok for NRV (per Hinoa). My concern is attempted disruption of the VFD process, which imo is a somewhat worse offense than a single third-party blanking. An alternative would be to temporarily protect the VFD pages only; but that seems like overkill. --DW III
10:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Does this really happen that often? Anyway, it doesn't seem like a big deal. If it is on VFD, they'll be people looking at it regularly, so they can just revert. In the case of noobs, I'd just take the blanking to be the equivalent of a delete vote. Sure, CC-BY-NC-SA says we can keep it, but we've already established that we like to be deferential to authors, and if it is on VFD anyway, how much of a loss is it? Just use your judgment: if it is a noob thing, then just revert; if they are trying to be disruptive, then you can ban them anyway for violating the "don't be a dick" rule. ---
Rev. Isra (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Does this really happen that often? Anyway, it doesn't seem like a big deal. If it is on VFD, they'll be people looking at it regularly, so they can just revert. In the case of noobs, I'd just take the blanking to be the equivalent of a delete vote. Sure, CC-BY-NC-SA says we can keep it, but we've already established that we like to be deferential to authors, and if it is on VFD anyway, how much of a loss is it? Just use your judgment: if it is a noob thing, then just revert; if they are trying to be disruptive, then you can ban them anyway for violating the "don't be a dick" rule. ---
I don't see the value in infini-banning IP addresses outside of open proxies or confirmed static IPs. For the most part, I give 2 weeks for IP addresses. They will have another one inside that time, so any more is fairly pointless. In regards the the blanking, summarizing what has been said and adding my own POV:
- A) All your article belong to us, by virtue of licensing submissions under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0.
- B) If you don't like your article and blank it, you might find other articles you don't like, and blank them as well.
- C) If you aren't interested in reading at least the important rules, I'm not interested in letting you run wild around the site. Just more for me to clean up later.
Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 20/10 15:15
- No, CC-BY-NC-SA does not mean "all your article are belong to us", it is only a non-exclusive permission to use the text for attributed non-commercial use only, copyright still rightfully belongs to the original author. And yes, we are already in clear violation on the non-commercial bit. There was at least one IP banned for starting an article on custard blankets and then making some change to that same article with which an admin disagreed, the question of authors editing their own stuff later goes beyond the simple blanking issue. --66.102.65.189 12:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that the CC-BY-NC-SA liscense is unretractable means that we can do whatever we want to a page once it is submitted, including refuse to delete it, revert it, etc. We are not in violation of the NC part, since we make no money on the site. Yes, Wikia makes money for the service of hosting the site, but they are allowed to do so, just as Kinkos is allowed to make a profit when I print out pages from this site there and UPS can make a profit when I ship that printout it to a friend. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that the CC-BY-NC-SA liscense is unretractable means that we can do whatever we want to a page once it is submitted, including refuse to delete it, revert it, etc. We are not in violation of the NC part, since we make no money on the site. Yes, Wikia makes money for the service of hosting the site, but they are allowed to do so, just as Kinkos is allowed to make a profit when I print out pages from this site there and UPS can make a profit when I ship that printout it to a friend. ---
- No, CC-BY-NC-SA does not mean "all your article are belong to us", it is only a non-exclusive permission to use the text for attributed non-commercial use only, copyright still rightfully belongs to the original author. And yes, we are already in clear violation on the non-commercial bit. There was at least one IP banned for starting an article on custard blankets and then making some change to that same article with which an admin disagreed, the question of authors editing their own stuff later goes beyond the simple blanking issue. --66.102.65.189 12:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Re "I don't see the value in infini-banning IP addresses outside of...(Famine)": To add a bit of clarification: "My concern is attempted disruption of the VFD process" in particular by registered users (i.e., if you can't take the heat, etc.). --DW III 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Look N00bz are N00bz and they don't know any better. How about a warning to their talk page after reverting their blanking of their article (referenced as Article Suicide) of which we tell them is not the policy here to blank an article, to use VFD instead. If they are banned they might never learn the lesson on how Uncyclopedia works. The goal is to make them civilized and functioning Uncyclopedians rather than Anonymous Barbarian Users who do not follow the rules and guidelines here. --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)