Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Blocking policy"
(→"visitors who do not appear to support this project": new section) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*Well, that is a productive statement, eh? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 18:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT) | *Well, that is a productive statement, eh? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 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)? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 15:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:04, August 30, 2008
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)
"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)
