Conservapedia talk:90/10 rule

Vote

Oppose

1. --ColinR^talk 12:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
   • I incorporated two of your ideas after you voted. --Ed Poor 12:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Comment

While I recognize the good intention behind this rule, it's hard to correctly use it. After all, an editor could make mostly worthless edits, cause problems on talk pages, and yet not violate the 90/10 rule. Or an editor could work really hard on one or two amazing articles, engage in a lot of discussion on talk pages about improving said articles, get in a small squabble with a sysop, and get blocked for 90/10 violation. If we're going to be blocking "dissidents" for too much "talk page use," we need to base our blocks on more than just the number of edits. ColinR^talk 12:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

This rule is just an excuse to stifle criticism. Auld Nick 12:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nick, that's not true! (blocks your account ;-) --Ed Poor 12:29, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Even with the recent changes, I still oppose the rule. I think if something is to be done for commenting on talk pages too much, it should be a simple warning, "hey buddy, quit jabbering so much and start contributing." If that doesn't work, and they still only engage in useless arguments, block them for no more than a week. I still don't like the idea of warning/blocking them, but I know it's going to happen regardless. ColinR^talk 12:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)