Forums: Index > Village Dump > Crack Vandal Apologizes, Requests Unblock

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6265 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Well, I think the title says alot, so how about instead of dragging this on forever, I just post the message he gave me first.

From Tompkins' UnMeta Talk Page
Dear Tompkins,
Ever since June 2006, I have been disappointed with myself because of with what I did to Uncyclopedia (and to a lesser extent, UnMeta) since April. Before then, it was never my intention to be an Uncyclopedia vandal. But April and May were some of the so called "dark ages" of my life. I suffered through massive bouts of depression and stress after getting numerous bad grades in high school and I feel that this is what brought on my vandalism to Uncyc.
But just before the school year ended (June 15th or so), I discovered the Uncyclopedia-IRC channel. Seeing as though I was still a vandal then, I thought I would stir up a little trouble on the Uncyclopedia channel. But when I got on the channel, there was this person called "Bradaway" who was mad at me because he got stuck in my rangeblock. He began throwing a bunch of insults at me, and saying that "people like you don't deserve the internet."
I was in shock after seeing this. I thought I was a likeable person because nearly everyone (probably 95% percent) at my school that I know think I am cool, kind, smart, generous, "un-self-centered" etc.. My teachers also think I am one of the best students ever. But when I got the message, I realized that I left a horrible impression on the Uncyclopedia community. Ever since then, I gave up on vandalism and decided that I want to talk to Splaka, but when I did manage to contact him, I didn't have much luck. All he said was "No, you need to stop smoking crack" (which I don't) and kicked me out of the Wikia channel without giving me a chance to actually discuss this matter.
Since I gave up on vandalism, I began coming up with a plan of good things that I would like to do on Uncyclopedia. First, I thought I would get rid of the list of all of the other names that I would use as vandal accounts. Then I began searching Uncyclopedia for things that could use improvement. I decided that I want to create a few new articles, such as ∑, ∆ and ∂ (see this for reasons.) I also want to create a new Uncyc game called Legend which is almost finished with its planning stages.
I also feel bad for Bradaway and other users who are caught in my rangeblock. It's not fair that my actions got them blocked and people in the range 71.235.0.0/16 were blocked even though I never used that range. I also don't know how to change my IP on the computer I use that's in the 71.234.0.0/16 range (I have only had my IP on that computer change once and I have not been able to re-create that situation (and I don't want to bother to do so anyway.)) They don't deserve to be blocked. Because I am blocked, Uncyclopedia may have lost some excellent contributors for a while.
I am completely aware that you probably don't want to unblock me or shorten my block, and I am completely OK with that. I would, however, like to talk things out with a few administrators such as Splaka, Spang, Keitei, MoneySign, Todd Lyons, Rcmurphy, Elvis, Mhaille and whoever else I may have angered during that vandal spree. And again, if they don't want me unblocked, I'll be OK with it. The least that you could do for me is give Bradaway my apologies (to my knowlegdge, he can be found on the Uncyclopedia or UnNews channels), inform Uncyclopedia that I have given up on vandalism for good and will never hear see any more of those "on Crack" accounts, unblock the range 71.235.0.0/16, I never used this range and it doesn't need to be blocked, allow me to at least be accepted on the Uncyclopedia channels (I'll try to take any insults) and tell Splaka that he has my apologies and give him the Extreme DUHligence award for attempting to knock some sense into me during that vandal spree.
Please take what I have said into consideration. I don't want Bradaway and the others to be blocked because of my actions.
I am sorry for the sins I have committed on Uncyclopedia.
Sincerely,
Richard H., the former crack vandal
P.S.: If you want to talk to me, I will hopefully be available on the UnNews channel (Richard53038 is my user name.)

After reading this message, not only do I know Richard (Yes, we're on a first name basis) is sorry, but I feel it's only fair we unblock the ranges he's mentioned. Now, unblocking the range doesn't necessarily mean we must unblock Mr. Crack himself (Although I would prefer it this way) there are plenty of ways to keep him from editing, while allowing others previously caught in the crossfire to do so. Those can be discussed, if necessary, after we make a decision.

Anyway, I think the fact that he has left a message on my talk page, without vandalizing the entire wiki, is proof enough that he is ready to change, and should be allowed to do so witihin the near future. So, my proposition is that we unban all effected ranges, and allow the former vandal to edit the wiki. However, I believe it's necessary that we know the username he plans to use, and we keep a close watch on him. Any actions that may be considered vandalism should get him blocked, and his current range as well.

Now that it's been proposed, I believe a vote is in order. Everyone is welcome to vote, and discuss, but those targetted by the crack vandal, and those directly involved, will have their votes weighed more heavily. I'll tell Richard to stick around for awhile. Remember, i only laid out one option, and there are many others that could be acted upon. If you believe he should be dealt with differently, then go ahead and say something.

Now, Discuss! t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would give the guy another chance. He sounds sincere. Admins could always ban him again easily. Of course, I don't know what he did exactly and I wasn't affected by his actions. BTW, the way he refered to Splaka and Bradley made me laugh.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 01:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought we could say anything we like about Bradaway as, by definition, he isn't here to respond. --Carlb 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I say unblock him, he seems sorry, eager to contribute properly, and it'd easy to reblock him again. Though he should keep to the one username. The only thing I'm woried about is this Bradaway character being allowed to edit. I sure don't like the sound of him! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the Crack vandal, but vandals and known trouble users have often found a home in uncyclopedia, some writing some of our best pages. Therefore, I think we should give him a chance. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Massive bouts of depression and stress" don't usually produce lashing-out behavior unless there's bipolarism involved. If that's the case, and assuming he's being otherwise truthful, he'll probably do fine — at least for a while. The problem is that he might easily freak out at the first sign of trouble, and if he has significant content-ownership capital here by then, he won't want to just go away. (And don't rule out possible PTSD symptoms.) Or, he could just be a perfectly normal guy... You probably won't know until he starts voting. c • > • cun w a p q u c ? 05:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For an amnesty on Crackheads. We have nothing to lose by giving him a chance. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes to let Richard on crack back in

Well, he sounded sincere enough, and tbh I found Barney on crack to be amusing. Give him another go. --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH
For. Love the sinner, hate the sin. If he's reformed he won't be a problem.--Procopius 12:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Mah.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For Althought I don't understand how "bad grades and depression" lead you to vandalize a wiki - I think he's using that as a cop-out. This is just an internet community, folks. I don't think he's so deeply tied to it that his mental problems would cause him to jack with it. I think he just needed an excuse to explain his irrational vandalism. But whatever it may be he seems genuinely contrite. Give him a second chance, but make sure a zoologist follows him with a tranq gun whenever he's editing... CigaroDiscorsoArticoli 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For. He took the time to write this soap opera didn't he?--Wit (tawk) 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For Bring him back on double secret Probation, I know what a pain in the ass this guy can be, I single handedly fended him off from UnMeta without admin access awhile back, but he seems sincere, and he seems like he has some genuine contributions he'd like to add. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment "Seems" is the operative word in this argument. And it's very easy to "seem" sincere. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If he's lying, it's not too hard to block him again, if he's telling the truth, then we have a new contributor, which is never a bad thing. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For The guy seems genuinely sorry, though it may just be my kind and open nature that's forcing me to look the other way...Regardless, let him back in. If he does begin the vandalism again (which we all hope he doesn't), you can easily block him and smash open his gullet with a rusty spork. I say one more chance couldn't hurt, but that's IT. One more chance. --Señor DiZtheGreat CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For, but watch closely. It'll be like probation. -- Sir C Holla | CUN 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For Us admins are so trigger happy, its like a joke that we're scared giving him a second chance when we all know that banning is easy. He seems sincere, and if for some reason he isn't I doubt all hell will break loose. --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
For why not, he can always be blocked later. And i agree with Sir Cornbread probationary. >:| --Parinoid 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Let him back in the tree house --The Zombiebaron 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
For on wheels --User:Nintendorulez 15:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
One chance. ONE. And if I see anything remotely resembling any sort of stupidity on crack, bang goes the rangeban again. Furthermore, this should let Iritscen or whatever his name was back to Uncyc. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 03:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Ouch... those IPs are the same region (Hartford CT) on GeoIP. Hadn't noticed that. It's still quite possible, though, that we've already burned our bridges when it comes to Iritscen, hard to say. AFAIK, meta: and commons are both MW1.8 and no sign of an Iritscan over there - and no, I don't have an e-mail address for him. The "e-mail this user" link here indicates he never supplied one. --Carlb 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
For. But don't forget to tell him how easy it is to block his whole ip again. By the way, I'm the person who put his first account on the ban patrol in Uncyclopedia:Ban_Patrol/archive5#Week_of_May_15. --Sbluen 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
For Because, as has already been noted, he can be banned again if there's another problem, and it's not like he killed anybody . . . . --Hrodulf 16:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Loosely based on the Afranon's idea (which has just been rmvd for being anonymous), I say give him a second chance, but only on UnMeta. On UnMeta, no damage'll be done to the (more important) Uncyc if he starts vabnalising again. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am completely shocked that Richard4368304 or whatever is the crackvandal. We were talking for a bit, and that truth to me seems so surreal. I may to have to have surgery to have my jaw moved back into place again. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 12:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
For. he spent the time apologising... indicating he's a nutcase with a business plan for wrecking the site, or alternatively, he actually does mean it and plans to make amends.

I'm pretty sure the bookies would bet on the latter. --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 13:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Section for Those With Reservations/Opposition

I remember this guy fairly well, and for an entire month (thanks to dynamic IP) he fit the definition of a quintessential vandal/troll. Malicious blanking sprees, userpage vandalizations, and infantile insults were his calling cards. No matter what hardships ( real or imagined) this "Richard" was going through at the time, I feel that such blantant and persistent disruptive/abusive behavior belies a deeper issue at work: in short, I think the kid's "damaged goods." I feel that Some User might be spot on with his pat diagnosis of bipolar behavior, and I concur that if such is the case, then we will eventually see the same behavior again from this user. Plus, the apology posted above sounds a little too contrite to me to be genuine (although I may just be succumbing to cynicism.) I feel that the past actions of this person speak louder than this alleged change of heart, and therefore I believe that the block against him should stand at this time. If, however, as Col. Swordman has suggested this individual can clearly outline plans for actual positive contributions, I would reconsider my position. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Does anyone else find the name "Richard H." a little suggestive of his past characterization?

Er... are any of you guys actually doctors? Seem to be some pretty long bows you're drawing in the diagnostic department. And I'm not too sure how clinical a term "damaged goods" is -- Sir Armando Perentie KUN FP 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh. If someone can be found who is prepared to shadow him for a few weeks and insta-huff any recidivism, then let him back in. Although if they let people out of jail for just being genuinely sorry the world would be ~~a much nicer place~~ , ~~an anarchist hellhole~~ full of sorry people. FreeMorpheme 15:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

True dat. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm a cycnical bastard who trusts none, I'm concerned this is just another ploy, something in-line with what a serious troll would do. What better way to fuck with people than to play on their good will? I mean, if he blanked like 3 pages or something, I could see letting him back on, but Jesus Christ, he had what, 30 accounts? That being said, re-instating a ban wouldn't be difficult at all, so maybe the risk isn't really that great. I'm just concerned that you're being played to amuse a desperate troll. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 18:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
While people often deserve a second chance, my question is: Is it because of someone like this that Iritscen is no longer with us? I was quite sorry to lose him/her as a contributor, and sorrier still that nothing could be done in that situation. That said, it sounds like it'd be easy to ban Poor Richard's Onthecrack if he suffered from an old bout of stupidity so, what the hell, I'm not against it. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's look at the issue this way. Ask him what sort of plans he has got for the new articles. He must understand that the only way to show genuineness here is to make real contributions. If he has got nothing to offer, keep the block. -- The Colonel (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm for this, but I have my share of reservations, if he does fuck up again, a banning just won't be enough, how 'bout this? This time, if he fucks up again, we won't ban 'im, we'll kill 'im. What ya think? ... Okay, maybe not such a good idea, but you get my point, I say give him a chance, but keep a very close eye on him, one false move, and bam! Banned for life! (And possibly dead). - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT TRUST HIM ~Caputosisthe Horrible20:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong against See section below --Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, fuck him

I've changed my mind. Why should we bother? If I was a dedicated spammeister, I would like nothing better to slime back in and laugh when I pull some super prank. And even if he was depressed and angsty, so what? Tell him he can kiss my grits. I see now that Enegma made a similar point just above and now I feel a bit deflated. But dammit, I stand by it! FreeMorpheme 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC
- That'll be five bucks a throw mac. Hey Mac, I said that was 10 bucks a throw. Wheres my money, Mac? C'mon gimme the money, Mac. Don't make me hurt you Mac. Whatcha gonna do call the cops Mac? Let your parents find out you spent the night with a whore, a nice upper class boy like you Mac? C'mon Mac your breaking my balls here Mac. ...--Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 03:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• AGAINST

As the person personally having had to deal with him, and deal with all the gullable admin who unblocked him due to "requests", I say we wait until the 1.8 upgrade, when we can block user creation and anonmyous edits specifically by range. --Splaka 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So that's a "no" on whether or not we should let him weasel back in here, right? --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I Second Splaka's AGAINST, on similar grounds. If my fun gets taken away, I too try to do all I can to get it back. Sir Famine , Gun ♣ Petition » 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK by me. Do we have a target date on that upgrade yet? I'm really looking forward to that special new "wikihandjob" feature! c • > • cun w a p q u c ? 05:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Now, is this the upgrade that'll fix my breakfast? Or is that the next one? --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Fool me once, shame on you...--<<>> 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that saying from Texas or Tennessee? -- Imrealized you fool me you can't get fooled again 23:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I once heard it from a Bush that was going down in flames.--<<

>> 01:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Against, I am in favour of sacrificing him on the altar of our heathen gods. -- Sir Mhaille

(talk to me)

Related Discussion

who is going to shadow him though, all the admin or one or two people in particular?--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he'll be shadowed by about half the site, and not only for a couple of weeks, but for the rest of his uncyc career.

t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

well i did mean offically, but was he that bad then?--Sir Silent Penguin

"your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to know, just check the Block log. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

ouh, man, but that takes effort, geeze, fine i'll do that.--Sir Silent Penguin

"your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is probably most of them, there's also a list here although it may be incomplete.

t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You could also try here. —

Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

i wouldnt have commitment like that if i was a vandal, i would never have bothered to be honest.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Obligitory Vote For Admin and/or Featured Article

For he seems sincere lets make him a beaurocrat! Or feature him on the front page! Better yet, lets say we're going to, forget about it in the near future and bitch about who controls Uncyc's domain name! --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 03:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are an angsty bastard teenager. Welcome! t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 05:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Um, do you really think he would be arrogant enough to monkey with the control of key Uncyclopedia-related domain names? Nah... very few of the vandals around here are that bad. More likely he'd content himself with the creation of a few brazillion more User:Carl on crack users. So what. A minor annoyance (as we don't have access to the standard tools to delete unused accounts here), but certainly not on the same level as a spurious attempt to trademark the word "Uncyclopedia". That could cost money and lawyers in order to file a response, far more annoying as (being a non-commercial entity) we don't have infinite amounts of either --Carlb 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  - Heh I think you missed the joke. I'm just making fun of Uncyclopedia in general. This subheading is redundant, irrelavant and stupid. Thats why its funny :) But since you seem to not have gotten it, the joke is this: First of all, every single discussion in the Dump seems to have someone vote the user/article in question as being featured or being a sysop. Its a running joke or something. Second of all, we always seem to have great ideas in the Dump which we later forget about. Combining this idea, with the idea of wanting to pointlessly sysop someone and then forgetting we had the idea makes a super-inside-joke. To top it off I pulled in the final injoke of the whole Wikia purchasing Uncyclopedia's domain name controversy that pissed a lot of people off. I thought I successfully combined three Uncyclopedia in jokes but I guess not :P --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got it. Missed out an iPod reference though. FreeMorpheme 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For Can we also make the practice of Obligitory Voting For Admin and/or Featured Article and administrator? --Spin 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
For. Crazyswordsma n...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
For featured article. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
For admin and feature. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 17:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Obligatory unrelated topic with lots of pie references

“Love thy neighbor as thou wouldst thyself. However, this doesn't mean you should go over to his house tonight and give him a handjob.”
~ Original Jesus

Okay, we've got Chicken pie, Rhubarb pie, Pork Pie, Toilet Pie, Iranian Pie, Moon Pie, and Shit Pie, and we've even got User:Pie and User:Pie lover, who may or may not be having a relationship. (They might also be involved in a menage a trois with User:Roobarb pie, but of course this is completely speculative.) However, Template:Pie is actually an award, having nothing to do with Pie whatsoever! I find this somewhat... disturbing, and would like to see this situation redressed at some point. This may even require my personal attention. c • > • cun w a p q u c ? 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

*gasps* Shock! Horror! It's a nightmare! Template:Pie not being about pie? It's horrendous! I dom't know what we can possibly do! *faints* ~ Ghelæ the Unintentionally Scarcastic^talk_contribs 08:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

*grumble* I can't eat a fictional number... EX-TER-MI-NATE!!! And gimme a slice o' that rhubarb with not-so-much rat in it. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wike PI! --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you all really care that much about it, then move the template then replace the redirect with something else. Plus, pie! ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Just so you noobs and senile users don't forget:

What possible useful contributions could we expect from such a person? What is so important about proving themselves worthy of Uncyc? Their most useful contribution would be to disappear. --Splaka 02:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you missed a few.

Secondly, someone (I think $) said that this was the funniest vandal we've ever had. Imagine if he puts his humor to good use. —

Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Which did I miss? I found about 6 more... --Splaka 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Danger Dude 1 and 2, for starters... /me gets out his field guide —

Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

{{so fix it}}. --Splaka 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Laziness FTW —

Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He was the crack vandal, big deal, he says he's changed, and even if he hasn't there's no reason we shouldn't at least give him a chance. He knows that if he goes on a big vandal thing he'll be blocked within seconds, I don't think it'd really be worth all the effort he's been putting in here just for a couple more seconds of glory. As for useful contributions, I don't think we can judge his contibutions when he doesn't yet have any. If he turns out to suck at being an uncyclopedian, big deal, most uncyclopedians suck at being an uncyclopedian, but they're still fun to have around and chat at every once in awhile. All he wants is a chance, and I still see no reason why we shouldn't give it to him. t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tompkins (and Hinoa, I thought he was quite amusing in his vandal days). That said, I'm not the one who has had to deal with all the rangeblocking unpleasantness. —rc (t) 04:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On Trust, vandals, and WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS?

I'm glad to see that many of you aren't so jaded on the idea of people being able to reclaim their decency with a sudden and miraculous change of heart. However, I get the feeling that he's got soemthing big planned. Call it pessimism, overcaution, ass-crotchety curmudgeoning, whatever. I don't trust him, not in the least. And, to be honest, despite my tendency to ban users and delete article willy nilly, I'm not one to distrust with such passion so easily.

As you all know, trust is something easily lost, and hard to gain back. I understand that the man has not had a proper chance to demonstrate hismelf to be upstanding and reliable. However, the fact remains that on three separate occasions, AFTER his initial block for megavandalism (and yes, these were big chunks of vandalized pages coming from a broad range of IPs.) he continued to do his dirty deed. I get this feeling that he's preying on people like poor Tompkins, who having never encountered such a beast, is less jaded/experienced than many of us. He has violated our trust 4 times, and I'll be damned if he does it a 5th. If he wants to contribute, he can submit articles through us. Wikiformatting is not hard, nor is it particularly difficult to copypaste from notepad, or any other word processing program. If he proves to be trustworthy after a long time (read, at least 6 months) an unblock might be considered, contingent upon the quality of his work.

His behavior is sketch even now. For someone who used proxies/non-specific IPs, multiple usernames and the like to waste our time, in addition to showing enough wiles to politely ask for an unblock and repeating his crimes, his word means little. This is reflected in IRC, where he continues to badger admins and users alike as to the status of his unblock, filling the room with whining and unsubstantiable promises.

There are an innumerable number of other people who can contribute to this wiki. To unblock someone who has vioalted the rules and civility of a social community 4 times is, in my opinion, unwise and short-sighted. Even if we have tools to undo his malfeasances, it does not change the fact that it was wasted time on the part of our admins, and in some cases even our users. His actions now match his previous MO, and are as sketch as they were when he was unblocked the first time. I would wait much, much longer to reconsider this matter.

I understand that this is unfair to those caught in the crossfire, specifically those who share IPs with this user. i wish there were a better solution, but I simply cannot offer one.

If you do wish to eventually unblock him, do so, but do not expect me to be happy to pick up any trash he may leave behind. Given his actions now, and his history, I have a bad feeling that he's planning soemthing big and unpleasant.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor Tompkins...

t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well spoken! FOR Flammable for "Uncyc. Sysop of the Year," if only for the fact that he managed to sneak the word "malfeasance" into a sentence without making it sound overy contrived! That's talent, people. (Seriously, I'm impressed with the lucidity and sensibility of your points, and support them in toto... or maybe just in styx or in b.o.c.) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Question of Rehibilitation?

Herr Crack Vandal, can read this forum, just as well as anyone, he might not be able to edit, or whatever, but he can get his hands on another computer and read and edit and do whatever the hell he wants. Sure he wants to be "redeemed", or "reconstituted" into mainstream Uncyclosociety, but you have to look at the parallels between The Administrators as “Judges” and Crack Vandal as a “Prisoner” and you guys are deciding his fate.Maybe you could punish him in an constructive way. Only allow him to rewrite shitty articles of the Adminses choosing. 1 Ugly Tag per week, until he proves that he can be a respobsible member. Like a license plate factory, slowly churning out 1 of 17 million combinations of plates, he can work on the shit stuff no one really likes to do, until he is "cured." The First member of an Uncyclopedia Chain gang.

“You feel you've been rehabilitated?”
~ Adminses on Crack Vandal

“Rehabilitated? Well now, let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that means...I know what you think it means. To me, it's just a made-up word, a politician's word so that young fellas like yourself can admin a webpage. I gotta live with my ban. 'Rehabilitated?' That's just a bullshit word. So you go on and ban me, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a shit.”
~ Crack Vandal

If he refuses, give him the death sentence, according to my American values, it's quite OK. Rehabilitation is his first option, then Let him Fry on the IP electric Chair, there is no redemption for this guy, Perdition is all that he deserves. -- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

See, the only problem here is that we've been through this three times already. He's already gotten "the death penalty" as you say it for saying, "I'm reformed," shortly followed by "SUCKERS!" and tons of vandalism following the un-block THREE TIMES BEFORE NOW! THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, PEOPLE! True, Tompkins is the first person to bring it to the dump, but this follows the pattern perfectly. Just so long as whoever unblocks him cleans up afterward, I guess it's fine, but if someone's on the "don't ever unban this person" list, we really should leave them on there.--<<

>> 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kill him Whistle phobia 14:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Forum:Crack Vandal Apologizes, Requests Unblock

Contents

Votes to let Richard on crack back in

Section for Those With Reservations/Opposition

Actually, fuck him

Related Discussion

Obligitory Vote For Admin and/or Featured Article

Obligatory unrelated topic with lots of pie references

Reminder

On Trust, vandals, and WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS?

Question of Rehibilitation?

Navigation menu

Forum:Crack Vandal Apologizes, Requests Unblock

Votes to let Richard on crack back in

Section for Those With Reservations/Opposition

Actually, fuck him

Related Discussion

Obligitory Vote For Admin and/or Featured Article

Obligatory unrelated topic with lots of pie references

Reminder

On Trust, vandals, and WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS?

Question of Rehibilitation?

Navigation menu

Search