Conservapedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a COPY of Terry's comment, in response to the post "Please don't block me!"

Don't beat yourself up, Ed. You're a good guy. There is a reason Andy (among others) advises to block early. Once you have been an Admin on a site or two, you spot them, and go with your gut, not your heart or mind. ;-) Easier to add someone back, than to block too late, imo. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

  • One might add that there isn't some codified "right" to belong anywhere on the Internet. Users removed for real or preceived violations are not abused in any manner. Fairness is what matters. If you are wrong, or there is the strong possibility you are, your actions can always be reversed. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Also, repeated reverts, after a warning either on the Talk page of the article, or the users Talk page, should suffice for blocking grounds. --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
If you are wrong, or there is the strong possibility you are, your actions can always be reversed. If you can make your case heard, haing been blocked, and against entrenched and dogmatic oppositiuon. There are too many pharisees on this site. Unthank 18:49, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, that is a productive statement, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

"visitors who do not appear to support this project"

Could somebody maybe clarify this one? It currently sneak-attacks both the Commandments (by saying that even if you follow all the rules, you can get blocked anyway) and the "we don't block for ideology" comment (though I can't find that page on the fly... been a few days...). This is another carte blanche because it's so extremely fuzzy. Who gets to decide what behavior counts as "doesn't support the project", and is there any sort of actual guideline other than arbitrary decisions made by sysops who openly disagree about blocking decisions already (as can be seen on the Abuse Helpdesk page)? --DirkB 15:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

The answers to all these questions are in the commandments and the guidelines. Please consider yourself on probation until you have studied these thoroughly. --Ed Poor Talk 20:34, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
I have, and thoroughly. I just assumed that you wouldn't change a guideline to effectively read "For those visitors who violate the rules or violate the rules..."
I simply oppose phrasings that are vague, and "does not support the project" is a vague phrase, especially when it's portrayed as not simply breaking the rules. Going by a harsher interpretation, any user disagreeing with a sysop on a talk page could be portrayed as not supporting the project. Do not mistake my desire for clarity with a lack of knowledge. --DirkB 20:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Link to the Rules

I believe we should have a link to the rules themsevles so everyone is on the same page as to what they are. Referencing the rules without the ability to easily see what we are talking about could lead to confusion. Learn together 18:29, 31 August 2008 (EDT)