Thread:Noreplyz/@comment-5887667789-20180509071602/@comment-14250-20180510175431

To clear this up:
 * 5887667789 is incorrect in saying the pages were "mistakenly" deleted, they were clearly intention objections
 * 5887667789 is correct in saying that the pages are not vandalism. I restored one, and GethN7 restored the other at my request.

I understand Geth's motives in deleting them were to try and create a chilling effect but I'd rather address that through the proposal of creating a mandatory minimum waiting period (adjustable by admins hopefully) for new accounts to edit certain wikis which have suffered from spam. I like that more than removal of edit histories that accompanies page deletion.

Assuming that 5887667789 is this a user trying to violate a global ban (I'm not sure how that was determined, that's Staff prerogative) and this person has previously engaged in vandalism, that wouldn't be grounds to assume future edits made while evading a ban are vandalism too.

Ban evasion still shouldn't be done of course, but I'm not going to revert edits or delete pages unless they're policy violations, even if they are made by people who are later banned or re-banned. Contributions should be judged based on their content, not on who contributed them.


 * it's my right to expand it

Expanding wikis is presumably a privilege extended to users by the Wikia corporation, as opposed to a right. If we actually paid some kind of fee to edit Wikia and then were prevented from doing so, I could understand making a 'rights' complaint in that case, but even then, I'm sure people get banned from subscription services all the time without reimbursement if they can be proven to violate ToU. In this case though, nobody is losing any money by losing editing privileges so it's not some kind of human rights violation.