2,149
edits
(→Let's end this once and for all: new section) |
Shadowcrest (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
So, I see you've blocked Zeldasmash and Doc King. Honestly, I can't disagree with the reason, but since their last blocks I do think they have been trying to edit better. How about I let them edit their talk pages for the next month, and if they can write a compelling 500+ word reason as to why they are valuable to the community, they get to come back. If they whine for "teh unbanz" they get perma-baned. If the response sucks, they get the month without the talk page. Sound good? It should be amusing if nothing else. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 15:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC) | So, I see you've blocked Zeldasmash and Doc King. Honestly, I can't disagree with the reason, but since their last blocks I do think they have been trying to edit better. How about I let them edit their talk pages for the next month, and if they can write a compelling 500+ word reason as to why they are valuable to the community, they get to come back. If they whine for "teh unbanz" they get perma-baned. If the response sucks, they get the month without the talk page. Sound good? It should be amusing if nothing else. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 15:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:When over 80% of their past 100 contributions have been in their userspaces, I'm inclined to disagree with them "trying to improve". They still constantly talk about their own made-up useless tier lists on IRC (and wiki), and even when they do edit the mainspace it's generally a sub-par contribution. To me your proposal seems like "playing with your food"-- I don't believe you think they have a chance to "succeed" at writing, and you mostly just want to see it because you'll think it's funny. I typically don't block people just to unblock them a day later-- if the block was warranted in the first place, I see no reason for it to be overturned, regardless of what they may think about it. They have repeatedly failed to be a useful contributor, and an essay about why they have been (which is bound to be false) doesn't change that. They can try again in a month, if they truly believe they're valuable to the wiki. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 22:11, August 17, 2010 (UTC) |
edits