User talk:Kektklik/Avoid the 90-10

Hahahano.
Hate to burst your bubble, but while your advice is better than simply doing 100% talk, it won't save anybody who points out that some sysops (or people like Jinx and Bugler) are wrong about something.

Andy will carefully choose a window that makes you look bad and will then invoke the "There were no meaningful/insightful/good/substantive edits in your last 10 edits" twist. And as we've seen on the last Lenski-related talkpage, anything that goes against Andy's view of what is The Truth is not substantive or good. Additionally, if some other editor reverted some edit of yours for any reason, Andy will hold that up as a sign that the edit deserved to be reverted (which in turn means that the edit was not just Not Good, but actually Very Bad - you might be a vandal!). And if your edit contained a typo, he will revert it (which will also mean that the edit was Very Bad).

The list goes on and on.

There is no way to escape the 90/10 rule - it was designed to shut people up at any cost.

And even if you somehow manage to escape 90/10, you will be banned for "opposing the project" or for being a "parodist", a "vandal", a "troublemaker" or simply Ames. ;) --Sid 11:30, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I can easily make the case that none of my edits were ever substantial. All my edits have either been minor grammar/spelling, formatting, talk, user, template, or essay edits. I have never typed more than a sentence to (main) article.  12:05, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * And at the same time, you could argue that practically all your edits were good. ;) The whole "substantive edits" business is really shifting the balance towards pushing out as much content as possible while completely neglecting maintenance and minor fixes. People who focus on minor edits really shouldn't try to point out blatant errors of most higher-ups unless they somehow know Andy in real life (How often did you get blocked before the sysops realized that you're above their "I block you because you somehow pissed me off" mood swings?); it's much healthier for them to just look away and "MYOB". Which of course leads to very few people doing maintenance.
 * And the result of the 90/10 check depends on what the sysop wants to see, anyway. So really, you could do 50 minor-but-good (or even "substantial" edits, followed by two talk page edits that point out that Andy (for example) is hilariously wrong about some claim, and you could still be blocked for 90/10 ("Two out of your last five edits were talk, and the other three edits didn't offer any stunning insights, so STFU"). --Sid 12:32, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Hey Kettledik, there's a difference between substantive and substantial. Генгис    12:35, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * It's fairly good advice. As Sid said, it's by no means watertight for avoiding the 90/10, but you're less likely to get a ban without warning if you have a history of productive edits (even minor corrections), especially if you have also started a few new articles (i.e. two sentence stubs). It also gives some leverage for appealing if you do get a block (so have your email activated), & sysops aren't likely to look at each edit in detail if they see a long list of contributions.  w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 12:37, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks!
Thanks, Kettles. I'll try to follow this advice as closely as possible. 15:25, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Just don't purposely tick anyone off. If someone gets ticked and they block you, I'll unblock you if you promise to apologize. 16:05, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I very much do not intend to tick anyone off, trust me. I shall be the very model of civility and grace ^_^ 16:16, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * As you always are. [[Image:Nods.gif]] -- 16:17, 5 October 2008 (EDT)