183
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 72:
Line 72: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Administrators (view source)
Revision as of 07:42, April 13, 2007
, 07:42, April 13, 2007no edit summary
*Andy approved the guideline, and it was moved here, as policy after being in a talk/comment page. I think Andy's thinking was not be getting so many "Commandments" since God only had 10 for all of humanity. So, community guidelines became the name, and no too strict as to create lots of reviews, panels, another whole bureaucracy to deal with. I suggested on the Sysop page that we include the designation on your sigs, as well as our user page, but a couple of Sysop's claimed it was self-aggrandizement, never seeing that it would be useful as you suggested here. Well, Rome wasn't built in a day, little by little we will make this work, and it will get better, I promise you! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 03:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
*Andy approved the guideline, and it was moved here, as policy after being in a talk/comment page. I think Andy's thinking was not be getting so many "Commandments" since God only had 10 for all of humanity. So, community guidelines became the name, and no too strict as to create lots of reviews, panels, another whole bureaucracy to deal with. I suggested on the Sysop page that we include the designation on your sigs, as well as our user page, but a couple of Sysop's claimed it was self-aggrandizement, never seeing that it would be useful as you suggested here. Well, Rome wasn't built in a day, little by little we will make this work, and it will get better, I promise you! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 03:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
== Proposed reformatting of Duties & Authority section ==
I find the Duties & Authority section pretty hard to read (why is it a bullet list with just one bullet for the whole paragraph?). I'm reluctant to change the formatting without prior approval, so instead I'm posting the proposed formatting here. I do not believe I've made any semantic changes (if I haven't captured the intended meaning, it could be seen as evidence that the current paragraph is hard to understand). --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
* Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the group of Sysops to make changes on a manual basis based upon suggestions on the Talk page.
* Obscenity is a blockable offense with no warnings required.
* A pattern of continued use of vulgar or sexually based words is a blockable offense.
* Silliness and other problems should be warned for.
* Unceasing reverts of articles is a blockable offense.
* "tit for tat" editing is a blockable offense.
* Argument without end, on points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy, is a blockable offense.
* Repeated name calling and insults are blockable offenses.
* Sysops and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.