Grammar Vandal Discussion

Is it just me, or is there an EditWar going on under the GrammarVandal topic?

There isn't, actually. GrammarVandal deleted it once when I wrote something he didn't like, but other than that, there's been no edit war. I used the GrammarVandal page to do some experiments regarding the problem where deleting and restoring a page results in a munged page history. Then I deleted a load of old rubbish and ThreadMode nonsense in order to keep the page relatively brief and clear. Due to the munged page history, it looked like an EditWar but the majority of edits were mine.

I'd like to request that until the GV phenomenon goes way, discussions related to it not be deleted. If you wish to move GrammarVandal content to GrammarVandalDiscussion to seperate out thready stuff, that's fine by me.

I was careful not to remove any legitimate content, whilst removing duplication and (particularly) responses by GrammarVandal. He's subject to a HardBan; I see no reason to give him a voice anywhere here, including on "his" page.

[I'd like to propose a challenge: "Find a way to use the information and PatternMatching the SharkBot uses, to completely block GV from even being able to post to this Wiki i.e. a WikiDenialOfServiceAgainstGv."]

Some time ago, Ward and I discussed the idea of integrating SharkBot functionality into WardsWiki for precisely that purpose. I objected to strong integration because false positives, rather than being merely irritating like they are now, would potentially outright exclude legitimate users. The current system obviously isn't ideal, but it mostly serves the purpose. Ideal would be for GrammarVandal to finally accept the degree to which he's unwanted here and leave. I'm sure WikiPedia would be happy to have him, assuming, of course, he hasn't been banned there too. -- DaveVoorhis

{Or you could simply spell and punctuate correctly. You never learnt how in school, it seems.}

• Reminds me of NarrowStaffSelectionFactors.

Hi GrammarVandal! What you don't seem to understand is that neither spelling nor punctuation (especially your highly-particular and peculiar standards thereof) are as important as the unfettered exchange of ideas, which means not injecting pointless changes into the middle of active discussions and not badgering participants until they leave. Many of your notions of spelling and punctuating "correctly" are your own personal opinions -- e.g., your insistence on what you consider to be the one "correct" em-dash surrogate, and your insistence on "correcting" certain British spellings -- which are mostly harmless in and of themselves, but when they're injected into active discussions and clutter RecentChanges -- even when you're asked repeatedly to tone down your efforts -- there is a problem. However, those we could probably tolerate, but you badgered a regular, valued participant until he withdrew from active participation. For that, plus numerous instances of UnethicalEditing including identity theft (spoofing UserNames), you were and remain HardBanned. That means you may not participate here, and all discussions regarding "spell and punctuate correctly" are rendered moot. Go edit WikiPedia. You're not wanted here.

{As usual, mostly incorrect and no evidence. For example, the clutter you mentioned is due to the removal of the MinorEdit facility.}

I doubt there's even one participant here (except you, obviously, but then you're not a participant, you're a pest) who would disagree with a single point above. Spoofing UserNames alone is sufficient to get HardBanned, and you did it (using the UserName 'DaveVoorhis') when you wrote the above text. For further evidence, see CeaseAndDesist, ZeroTolerance, PissedOffAndExtremelyAngry, etc. As for the MinorEdit facility, note that I wrote above, "those [referring to your tweaks] we could probably tolerate, but..." The text after "but" is the crucial bit.

Your editing is now done. Further edits of yours will be reverted. Go. Edit. WikiPedia.