604
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 508:
Line 508: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse (view source)
Revision as of 22:17, November 13, 2008
, 22:17, November 13, 2008Dubious 90/10 blocks
Thanks to all who get this mix-up untangled. At last, this page seems to work - I just hope that I don't have to report here to many mistakes in the future. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:09, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks to all who get this mix-up untangled. At last, this page seems to work - I just hope that I don't have to report here to many mistakes in the future. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:09, 5 November 2008 (EST)
==Dubious 90/10 blocks==
A. Schlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#What.3F.21 stated] yesterday: <blockquote>[...] Also, it's very simple to avoid violating the 90/10 rule. It only takes a few minutes to make substantive contributions. Unless, of course, someone has a bad attitude. It can seem impossible for him.--Aschlafly 17:49, 12 November 2008 (EST) </blockquote>
The last week, this easy task became much more difficult: [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] blocked various users for violating the rule. In at least two cases, [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] and mine ([[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]]), the ratios of substantial edits to comments on talk site (or the own user site, etc.) are far away from the ratio of the 90/10 guideline.
I have never violated the ''formal'' aspect of the rule - as I've never posted more than [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=BRichtigen&month=&year= seven comments] to talk/User sites in a row. But I think that I have not violated the ''idea'' of the rule: I'm a member of this site since Oct 6th, 2008 and contributed over 200 comments to it. Roughly a third of my edits have been the removal of vandalism, and I think that I have contributed valuable comments in my area of interests, too.
I know, that the sysops are advised to use their discretion, so Ed Poor is right when he states - concerning the blocks of LiamG and me:
<blockquote> There is no set quota. I simply judged their proportion of unproductive activity as excessive. --[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=555125 Ed Poor Talk 08:00, 12 November 2008 (EST) ]</blockquote>
But to judge my ''unproductive activity'' as ''excessive'' is just false, as any investigation of my comment history would show. And it is a slippery slope if we leave the measurable area of the 90/10 guideline and start to estimate the proportions.
Ever since my first block - and my blocking history got depressingly long, too - I took an interest in blocks. It is so hard for an editor to appeal a block. I wrote countless of emails - and I do thank all the administrators and editors who took their time and answered me.
It would have been nice if Ed Poor had answered to any of my questioning mails, too. I suspect that he is pestered by emails of vandals of all kinds beyond the legitimate mails. I just thought that my posting history would have vouched for me.
So, I ask all administrators:
*please, use the 90/10 rule less capriciously in the future
*please, keep contact with the folk you have banned. It's a shame to put off legitimate users by a high-handed handling of the bannings
Not everyone is as persistent as I am. Many will give up, and turn their back to Conservapedia. That's a thing I want to avoid, and therefore - I'm afraid - I'll keep contributing to the Desk/Abuse section of CP.
Thanks for listening, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:17, 13 November 2008 (EST)