Thread:The Zog./@comment-3551372-20150427060100

Zog, banning 168 (I have to call him that, sorry) is really very silly.

Ok, I get he spammed, I get it so I have kept him blocked for 2 days. Forever?

No way.

Listen, he may have spammed, I get it. But this is why you test people. I gave 80.235 (the guy who vandalised profiles) a number of chances. He recently vandalised another profile, so he was blocked for months, and he also had shown other problematic behaviour, if he continues, he's out because he showed twice he is incapable of changing.

168 has shown none of this.

You did not even give him a warning as to stopping the spam, you simply removed the walls and didn't bother to contact him; that is not good. Check the user's history, and I have, before he spammed, he was an average anon like frenchie (whom I still want to get a GOSH DARN ACCOUNT) who talked with us like the rest. He had no malicious intentions, and especially if some of that spam counted on the off topicness forum, which I specifically said was for spam and silly content like that? There is no problem with that page turning into a novel if he is just wanting to participate.

However, the time period you established also is WAY too much for a user who has shown no malice other than spamming on a few walls. Do you really honestly think that forever would have worked? He is a friend. We cannot accept if he does something terrible, yes, but we don't want to block him infinitely because he has not done so much as to deserve it. Other users have specifically created targets for themselves, this guy was a REGULAR GUY WHO DID SOMETHING WRONG. OH GEE, THAT DESERVES A BAN.

As a bureaucrat of this wiki I'd expect you'd have a streak of caution when it comes to bans. I would also think that you would give warnings before rage gets the best of you.

I'm about to warn him of the spamming myself at the time of this writing. Take this to heart and take steps to avoid forever-banning in the future. Don't want to end up like Captain in his convo. 