Conservapedia talk:Locks and Blocks
Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks Discussion
- Sysops, please remember this has been approved by Andy. Therefore, it is basically not to be edited or changed, changing any meanings to his approved text, without fist checking with him privately. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:00, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
# Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block only for ideological reasons.
Isn't this rather badly phrased? If conservapedia does not block only for ideological reasons, then presumably it blocks for other ideas in addition to ideological reasons. I'm sure that this is not the intent of the instruction- but it's what it says.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- What the phrase is meant to convey is that CP, unlike WP, will not block users for their ideology only. We do block users for repeatedly changing the ideology of an article to be something it wasn't intended to be, contrary to the CP Commandments, etc. I think the recent change might clear that up. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:00, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, it makes sense now.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:12, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- When has Wikipedia blocked someone "only for ideological reasons", rather than something they edited? --Gulik3 17:43, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
More than two warnings, a user may be blocked as appropriate to the violation.
I'm sorry to be pedantic here, and I would correct this myself, but as it has all been reviewed and checked and approved by everybody and everything I'm reluctant to touch it. The thing is that the above quote isn't, grammatically speaking, a sentence. It's not as bad as the "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block only for ideological reasons.", as this one more-or-less makes sense. But, still, it should be correctly written if it's part of the rules shouldn't it? --bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:59, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- One cannot, in all cases, make specific those things which come from subjective judgements, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:34, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, "eh?" indeed. Is this your response to my pointing out that the "sentence" "More than two warnings, a user may be blocked as appropriate to the violation." is not a sentence? Are you trying to be surreal or or have you misunderstood my point? It would be very easy to correct it, but the page says it may not be changed without top-level authorization. --bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:24, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
- To make the sentence grammatically correct it should read, "After more than two warnings a user may be blocked ...". To be honest, the termination "as appropriate to the violation." is not particularly elegant either, but at least it doesn't jump off the page as being part of an incomplete sentence.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 17:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
- BillM, people might get the idea your soul purpose for being here is to criticize others, and make snide, not particularly friendly remarks. I am sure that isn't your intention, right? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
- I almost never engage in talk pages, so that's hardly my soul (sic) reason for being here. I saw that the mistakes in these pages couldn't be corrected without reference to the powers that be, so I mentioned it here. I'm sorry if that was inappropriate behavior and I won't do it again. --bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I think you have misunderstood my post, Bill. This is a talk page for our Guidelines, they are not editable by users, because they are part of our official site documents, our procedures. On Wikipedia its the same. You weren't inappropriate, so much as I thought you didn't understand why they are locked. We will try and work your suggestions in. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Unblocking
How do I unblock, I have not figured that out yet.--Will N. 13:22, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
- Go to the list of blocked users here: [[1]]
- Either look for your block by scrolling down, if it is recent, or enter the user name of the person you blocked into the search box there.
- If you unchecked the first box, as you should have, when blocking the person, you will see two lines for the block. One is the Username, the other is the IP block. You will need to unblock both, and enter something understandable for the reason.
Thank You!! I felt so bad for blocking Sevenstripes. Thank you so much TK.--Will N. 13:35, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
- No problem, Will. Don't feel too badly, as his argumentative tone, regardless of his several good edits, is bound to land him in trouble again. I hope not, but that's how these things seem to go. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:46, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
what is the conservapedia philosophy?
The Locks and Blocks policy states: "Unceasing reverts of articles, "tit for tat" editing and argument-without-end, on points contrary to the "Conservapedia Philosophy", or in defiance of an Administrator's instructions, are all cause for blocking a user."
What is the "Conservapedia Philosophy"?
Conservative 14:23, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
NAT
Should we add here that two users on two different computers who are both behind a NAT Firewall and share an external IP address aren't both allowed to have accounts? My brother was blocked and I was warned about being a sock puppet because he was posting from the same IP address as me, so I assume that this means that all users must have unique external IP addresses to post. I also assume that two people sharing a computer are not allowed to have individual accounts as well. There's nothing in the guidelines I could see against this, so maybe it should be clarified here. Chored--11:51, 7 November 2007
- Socks are not allowed on CP. Check the "CP Commandments". We assume our users have the basic intelligence to email one of the Administrators if they encounter such unusual problems. Most have email enabled through this wiki and/or post their contact information on their pages. Unlike Wikipedia, we try not to make 10,000 "rules" trying to cover any and all eventualities. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:05, 7 November 2007 (EST)