Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive4

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Current Alerts

Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.Talk 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • JoshuaZ (talk contribs count) Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from Noah article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --Ed Poor 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--Aschlafly 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Fred -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [3][4] RobS 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  • GeorgeJ.W. (talk contribs count) keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --Hacker(Write some code • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--Aschlafly 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --Hacker(Write some code • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Hacker (talk contribs count) Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--Aschlafly 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. Flippin 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Rvm (talk contribs count) first edit was reverted by MountainDew (I mean DanH). --Ed Poor 16:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Vossy (talk contribs count) created a weird article which someone else immediately blanked. --Ed Poor 17:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • AmeriCan (talk contribs count) - disinformation [5] -- RobS 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
    If I may, AmeriCan included some incorrect information along with some that was partially correct. I am not sure this abuse at all. Flippin 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
    Also, he has a continuing habit of cut-paste from other sites. See, for example his entry for Producerism, copied in full from [6]. His contributions to Canada and hijab, among others, are similar cut/paste jobs.--WJThomas 18:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
    And it continues. See her contributions for financial analyst (copied from Wikipedia), enviornmentalist (copied from Michael Crichton), Keith Olbermann (copied from another wiki), Intelligence agency (again from Wikipedia), and who knows what else...Furthermore, Roe effect (copied from a James Taranto/WSJ column), Computer engineering, Nuclear engineering, Environmental engineering, Special relationship (all ripped from Wikipedia), and Ryaniverse (grabbed wholesale from JnanaBase).--WJThomas 17:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
    A little too extreme to be serious. [7] GodlessLiberal 01:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
    Vandalized Ronald Reagan, sock of Coolhandsluke --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
    Ilovebeingconservative (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:28, 17 April 2007) (Earliest: 04:19, 17 April 2007) [2]
  • Sterile (talk contribs count) - 90/10 rule --Ed Poor 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
    I obviously need to remind everyone...THIS IS A WIKI. If you don't like how an article is written and believe it's too close to another site's article on the subject, then simply edit it. This shouldn't be an issue. A lot of my additions. I specifically put on the site knowing that someone will improve upon the edits I make. That's the purpose of wikis! -- AmeriCan 11:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
You know, I've been on here for 12 days now. And by writing this, I am condeming myself more to the 90/10 rule "violation." Am I on this list or off this list? Am I blocked or am I not blocked? I haven't been warned (except that I noticed my name here--kinda passive aggressive, but hey, I can deal), and no action has been taken. I guess I should just wait. Sterile 11:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)


Dealt with

  • JeffersonDarcy (talk contribs count) He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --AdrianP 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
    1. Blocked for 1 week. --Ed Poor 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Auld Nick (talk contribs count) User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --Ed Poor 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
    - Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles is traditional Scottish dress. Unthank 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
    1. You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --Ed Poor 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ TK MyTalk 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Alfa Papa (talk contribs count) causing havoc. Crocoite Talk 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
It's a sock of edittext. GodlessLiberal 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Blocked by TerryHTalk 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Aydindrill (talk contribs count) Causing havoc. CrocoiteTalk 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Blocked by Aschlafly as a sock of edittext. Geo.Talk 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Staple -- vandalism and other questionable content. RobS 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--Aschlafly 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--Aschlafly 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-AmesGyo! 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Borken Mind Sockpuppet of edittext (self-declared). Blocked, and all new pages by this account deleted.--TerryHTalk 13:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Terryeo. He said he was going to leave Conservapedia unless I send him a letter which I won't do. I don't think he will return given the current Scientology article, but I could be wrong. Conservative 01:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
  • User:Tenna -- made a video game page full of obscenity and slander. Recommend permanent ban--Dave3172 19:14, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Blocked. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
  • User:JeffersonDarcy -- linking to NAMBLA site. [13] RobS 16:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
    • First, we know from Andy that linking to creepy sites is okay, even if you wouldn't put the material itself on CP (like the Silent Scream site). Second, JeffersonDarcy is a very good contributor, and has helped with some of my law articles.-AmesGyo! 16:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
    • TOTALLY agree. You can't have it both ways, you know. Flippin 16:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Of course I linked to the NAMBLA site - the article was about NAMBLA. Who do you think I should link to there, NAACP? --JeffersonDarcy 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

  • In the future, maybe you should get permission to place links to questionable content. Naughty naughty Flippin 16:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
    • that's a fair concern - but when someone posts the necessity for citations on the discussion page, I don't think that linking to the organization's official website would be a bad idea. --JeffersonDarcy 16:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
      • The link could violate the Commandments, however this user's contributions do not show that this was anything more than a good faith attempt to improve the article. Therefore, No Block. Geo.Talk 12:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
        • I endorse the block for edit warring after being warned [14], and I agree linking to the site was a good faith attempt by JeffersonDarcy to improve the article until it was proven the site goes beyond issue advocacy and is inviolation of Commandment 1. [15] RobS 11:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Truthandjustice (talk contribs count)
    1. The reason given for Truthandjustice's block is: "Vandal") --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  • AdamNelson (talk contribs count) new user making sudden, unexplained big changes
    1. ---Ed, I saw it, about the same time Andy did. He's gone --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
    2. 09:49, 21 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AdamNelson (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandal & Per Andy
  • AL (talk contribs count) off to a bad start --Ed Poor 17:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
    1. 17:42, 19 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AL (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (made about a dozen edits in an hour, virtually all of which had to be reverted by others and myself because they removed factual info (e.g., SF entry) or inserted opinions as though they were facts (several instances))
  • Nematocyte (talk contribs count) - warned not to annoy TK Terry.--Ed Poor 12:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
    Ed, are you sure that TK has another problem with him? I am the one who has had problems with Nematocyte over my article Extraterrestrial life.--TerryHTalk 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
    I misunderstood I guess. --Ed Poor 17:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Dw1237200 sock of Ak1053287 (Who had a 3 day block by DanH starting on 12 April) got the second name on 13 April. Blocked, Infinite, both ID's. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • RightWolf2 (talk contribs count) - threats, no useful edits --Ed Poor 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
    I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--Aschlafly 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
    Threatening, breaking the rules, blackmail... I'm no lawyer, but I don't think he has any legal grounds for his latest threat. I'll be blocking him. --Hojimachongtalk 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
    Isn't he already blocked? I got one of his socks earlier today. Tsumetai 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
    Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". DanH 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
    You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ TK MyTalk 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
    1. 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
    2. 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
  • Jeremiah4-22 (talk contribs count) - for this edit http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biscuit&diff=97586&oldid=78309 (Blocked for 3 days) DanH 14:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Hillarycliton (talk contribs count) - blocked, all five contribs reverted --Ed Poor 12:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Save Our Values (talk contribs count)
    1. No contribs since 13 April --Ed Poor 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
  • AppliedFaith (talk contribs count) -trolling, see [16][17], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
    1. I gave him a question to answer at talk:Heterosexuality. --Ed Poor 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
    2. Blocked for ONE YEAR --Ed Poor 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • User:AnonymousLegion - Vandalism--Epicurius 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --Elamdri 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Mjc12 - blocked by Conservative
  • Polarbear (talk contribs count) - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by Elamdri 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  • TK blocked Cheney123 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
  • User:Theelephant - Vandalism--Epicurius 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
    1. 18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
  • Cooperstown4 (talk contribs count) - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
  • Zac4213 (talk contribs count) - Was my block too hasty?
  • Jaques (talk contribs count)- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See Whale and Plankton.
Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--Aschlafly 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I think he's just being facetious.--Elamdri 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
He also says that he's 'done with this - place' Wikinterpreter
No block Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.Talk 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--Aschlafly 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--Aschlafly 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Homeschool mom agreed to leave on her own. Case closed.--Aschlafly 19:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools