Just figured I might as well share the joy since I put so much work into it. ;)
Here, I'll make it easy for you: Look at the section on my talk page you posted in.
Andy first made a ban threat because I dared to revert his removal of a fact tag ("Pulitzer Prize" entry). When I didn't go all "OH NOES, MUST BOW TO TEH ANDY", he fired off ANOTHER ban warning, this time about implied 90/10.
Here are my current stats, according to the official CP edit counter: Total edits: 476 Mainspace: 221 If we add my template edits, that sorta amounts to 50% mainspace contributions. So even if ALL edits aside from those were criticism, I still wouldn't be anywhere near 90/10. (But we both know that 90/10 doesn't work that way. It's not about "90% talk, 10% editing". It's "x% talk, (100-x)% editing, and I want to silence the user".)
And if we go a bit back in history, let's examine my ONE MONTH block. Check out my Mercury edit. Compare it with the rest of my edit history. ONE MONTH. Hostility? What hostility? CP is a perfectly friendly place!
Or just take Andy's generally cold tone whenever somebody dares to request the "right" to edit 24/7. I got away lightly there (just an indirect reply on the Contest4 talkpage), but still. The hostility is there. It's all over the place. And it's certain SYSOPS being hostile. The USERS (at least the ones who are not blatant parodies) are actually a sort of community, separated from The Ten.
Just look at Andy's talkpage contribs. Talk:Drugs, Talk:Gun Control, Talk:Richard Dawkins, Talk:Main and what was the name of the older case... some dead bird where Andy praised Hoyle as being the greatest scientist since ever or so... RW had highlighted it as a classic... one sec... Talk:Archaeopteryx (there we go), and many more.
I mean... Andy's entire pattern seems to be to accuse people of liberal deceit, liberal denial, liberal censorship, liberal spin, liberal style, and when challenged, he makes up statistics and declares his wild claims to be obvious and indisputable. And don't you ever dare to oppose him then. Don't tell me that's not hostility.
Maybe it's harder for you (and most other sysops) to spot. That's certainly a possibility. Andy trusts you, so you only encounter Nice Guy Andy. I can understand how you might maybe view Andy's belittling and hostile remarks as playful jabs or something. But why don't you ask PJR? He has seen Bad Guy Andy. Multiple times. I think Andy even claimed to know Australian politics better than him (re: gun control).
Look at my edit on Talk:Dawkins and my last and long reply on my user talk page. Closely.
CP has a problem, and that is that Andy gets to decide what is true, what is obvious, what needs a fact tag, what is liberal censorship, who is a conservative/liberal, and what counts as evidence for what. And once he does so, his decision is fact. Period.
Check out Dawkins. Andy decided that Dawkins is not a professor. And not even OXFORD UNIVERSITY can change his mind by specifically stating that he is one. (He also claimed that M-W's definition proved that he's not a prof, and when M-W sent a mail stating that they DO consider Dawkins a prof according to their definition, he basically went "What do they know?", apparently claiming to be more of an authority on M-W definitions than the M-W staff.)
Check out Gun Control. Andy decided that liberals introduced it in Australia and that since then, the crime situation got worse. Oh, and don't forget that gun control caused the people to vote liberal because of emotional dependency or something. I think it was PJR who actually dug out numerous statistics that showed that Andy's arguments were horribly flawed, but Andy had already decided what is true, so no dice.
Check out Archaeopteryx. Andy decided that Hoyle's findings are 100% correct and that modern scientists from both the YEC and evo camps who pointed out flaws were wrong and/or not notable. Again, PJR pretty much blasted Andy out of the water, but the discussion simply died without resolution.
Check out Pulitzer Prize. Andy decided that two examples (out of a 90 year history with multiple awards per year) are proof that the Prize is "often" awarded to liberals. When I re-introduced the fact tag (because, frankly, that's not proof), I got a ban warning. I didn't touch the article ever since, and Andy thus won again.
Check out the Main Page discussion about JKR. Andy decided that she only got invited because of the Dumbledore thing, and pointing out that she had also sold a couple hundred million books and scored seven movie deals changed NOTHING.
I could go on and on.
The bottom line is that there is no point in contributing to CP. Would you change the wallpaper in a house that is built on quicksand? There is a name for a place where one guy with an agenda gets to state wild claims as truth and to silence those who oppose him, and that name is NOT "encyclopedia". It's "blog". And that is what CP is. It's Andy's blog, disguising itself as an educational resource.
You might as well perma-ban me. Whatever. I came to CP (and returned to it time and time again) in order to correct flaws and improve the project. But by now it's clear that it's impossible to correct the worst and most glaring errors because they were introduced by a guy who claims to be the authority about everything, including truth.
You can check my contribs. They're good. High-ranking editors even occasionally praised some of my more significant edits (like the Periodic Table). But tons of Bad Faith, hasty and frequent blocks (instead of communication), open threats, and Andy's impression that he is infallible finally pushed me over the edge: I will contribute to an encyclopedia project to make it more trustworthy. And that encyclopedia project is called WIKIPEDIA.
In case you haven't heard of it (*snerk*), it's a place where people can edit 24/7, even without the owner granting them a special right that has to be earned. Oh, and nobody suddenly accuses you of having a bad edit ratio. Sounds Utopian, I know! (Sorry, I really couldn't resist there. It's just too hilarious to compare WP and CP when it comes to user rights. You guys SERIOUSLY crippled your site. What's next? A MediaWiki hack so all edits have to be specifically approved by a sysop before they become visible?)Jenkins
I'm actually surprised it took that long to get perma-banned. I figured that my talk page edit summary "YO, ANDY! WHAT-FREAKING-EVER! GO AHEAD AND BAAAAAAAAAAAN MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO THREATS AND BANS TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION!" would get some results, but apparently, you're quite safe at CP when you're literally asking to be banned. Funny how that goes...