SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 992:
Line 992: + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 23:45, March 15, 2015
, 23:45, March 15, 2015→Sloppy presentation of block reasons: new section
::Imposter or not, he deserves a welcome. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 10:56, 21 February 2015 (EST)
::Imposter or not, he deserves a welcome. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 10:56, 21 February 2015 (EST)
:::The kenammi account account is not going to be used. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:22, 23 February 2015 (EST)
:::The kenammi account account is not going to be used. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:22, 23 February 2015 (EST)
== Sloppy presentation of block reasons ==
A recent vandal spree (by user "Drunkard"; it was quite hideous) was brought to an end with a block, as expected. Followed by lots of reverts, of course. But the given block reason was "Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial". Now the user name was clearly silly and/or foul, and the block was done with account creation disabled. But doesn't the menu for blocking list "vandalism" as a possible reason? If not, it should. And if so, people should make an effort to use the block reason menu properly. There's been a lot of sloppiness in this regard lately. (Though "lack of machismo" hasn't been used for quite a while :-)
We recently had a user (Burke39) blocked for 2 months for "inserting false information". Some of his edits were later reverted by the blocking sysop, some were left alone, and some were praised on that sysop's own talk page. This raises the question: What were the false edits? There's too much stuff for me to track down. But, since he may come back in 2 months, he's going to want to know. Could someone leave a note on his talk page explaining just what it is that he must not do when he comes back? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:45, 15 March 2015 (EDT)