604
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 222:
Line 222: + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse (view source)
Revision as of 13:34, December 19, 2008
, 13:34, December 19, 2008→TK: "Shame on you"???
This is ''exactly'' the kind of situation the proposal I e-mailed to several people yesterday, (ironically before all this happened), including those here, is meant to address. If we implement that, the problem should be stopped, or at least minimised. Please give it serious consideration, as others already have done. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']]</sup> 08:33, 17 December 2008 (EST)
This is ''exactly'' the kind of situation the proposal I e-mailed to several people yesterday, (ironically before all this happened), including those here, is meant to address. If we implement that, the problem should be stopped, or at least minimised. Please give it serious consideration, as others already have done. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]<sup>[[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']]</sup> 08:33, 17 December 2008 (EST)
#I want to thank Ed Poor for his generous offer. I hope that I won't have to take it up...
#I hope that KotomiT's interesting ideas will become reality, sometimes.
#''errare humanum est'' - and even blocks may happen out of error (''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=50&type=block&page=User%3ABRichtigen inconceivable]'')! How to act in such a case? In my opinion, it's the best thing to keep as much as possible in the open. That's the best way to let others learn from our mistakes...
#a blocked editor is on his own. A policy of non-intervention into other administrators' affairs combined with the inaccessibility of some administrators via email sometimes leaves him without any possibility to appeal. Especially then it's nice for him to see that other editors try to act on his behalf. If the block is correct, it doesn't hurt to elaborate the block reason a little bit for the sake of the questioners, as TK has done [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#For_the_attention_of_Andrew_Schlafly_only_please here]: ''The range block discussed is but only one of several the user has edited from, all the previous ones, anonymous proxies, were blocked long ago. We will not tolerate that.'' BTW, it isn't necessary to reveal the exact reasons, if you think that they are touching security issues - and it's even less necessary to scorn an editor who takes an interest in a block.
#as I stated above, it is important to feel to be treated fairly: '''If you want to have good contributions to this site, you have to care for a pleasant working environment. That is especially important as all the ''workers'' here are volunteers.'''
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)