I am not trying to cause trouble, just trying to improve what is, on the whole, a brilliant wiki NHousen 3 November 10:59 ACDT
- This doesn't say that you're trying to improve what you think is a brilliant wiki. DMorris 20:31, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
I very much doubt you reported that spam to the Federal Trade Commission as it is the wrong organisation. It would be similar to reporting a simple act of vandalism to the FBI, nothing would happen as they would direct you to local police branch. Dvergne 22:48, 12 April 2013 (EDT)
- With all due respect, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Read http://www.onguardonline.gov/articles/0038-spam. The local sheriff department in Charlotte County, Florida isn't going to do jack about a spammer located God knows where posting spam links on a website run by someone in New Jersey and hosted in (what ever place that isn't Charlotte County that Conservapedia's server is located). On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission does indeed enforce federal anti-spam legislation, and they do indeed have a system for reporting spammers. DMorris 21:31, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
I think you two are talking at cross purposes because you are using two very different definitions of "spam". The common definition (OK, the really right definition is a pressed pork product....) is unsolicited commercial mass email. This is the "spam" that most people mean, and it is indeed the subject of prosecution by authorities at various levels of government. Within a wiki, there is another common, and very useful definition--placing an the URL of a commercial web site on a wiki page. This is commonly called "spamming a link", and leads to having one's account canceled. But it is not against the law on a wiki, unless one has gained access to that wiki through criminal means. Neither the FTC, nor the FBI, nor any other government agency is interested in enforcing the Conservapedia Commandments. SamHB 21:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)
- I disagree. Checkuser evidence seems to indicate that spammers are using botnets to send their spam. The botnet most likely consists of computers infected with viruses, in other words, the spammers are illegally using someone else's computer to do their dirty work. Such conduct is illegal. Besides that, companies such as Facebook and MySpace have sued spammers and won, for spam other than traditional email spam. I think Conservapedia could do the same. DMorris 14:51, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
I joined this site mainly because it takes a very solid hard line against abortion and moral decline and am able to find articles that are relevant. I don't have and don't want the capacity to be able to edit the news section so have no choice but to post on the talk page and I don't really have anything to add to articles as the ones that concern me are covered rather well so I have little choice but to break the rule or not post at all. However to blame the world financial crisis on who may or may not be on a banknote is ridiculous don't you agree?
- It's not ridiculous. I'm sure you would agree that there would be an affect on the economy if we started putting a picture of Adolph Hitler or some other hated tyrant on the U.S. Dollar, for example. But welcome to our wiki! DMorris 21:18, 15 January 2014 (EST)
After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B (TALK) 15:41, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
"Server allowing spam" blocks
I'm glad to see you are doing some blocks on these IPs. I have records of some such IPs also, and would be happy to block them. However, do you know if I have the right to do so? I'm an "assistant SysOp" so I don't know if blocking those IPs falls under my jurisdiction. Thanks!--David B (TALK) 22:46, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
- Generally speaking, it's a good idea to ask Andy or Karajou before doing anything like that. I am also technically an "assistant sysop" but since what I have been doing has been in response to vandalism, there hasn't been any question about it. DMorris (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
- Another thing I am going to point out is that it is a good idea to check and see if a suspected open proxy is blocked on Wikipedia, unless you know for a fact (and can provide proof) that it is an open proxy. If an IP or IP range isn't blocked at Wikipedia as a proxy, run it past me before you block (you can email me rather than posting on-wiki if you wish). It's harder to identify ranges that need blocked without checkuser though. DMorris (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2017 (EDT)
- Okay, that makes sense. I do know for a fact that my list is composed solely of public proxies (also, I wasn't sure if I should post that name, in case some vandals didn't know, but it probably doesn't matter). Since I don't have checkuser, I wouldn't be able to block specifically based on actions on this site. However, they would be addresses which can be used for that purpose. Since CP's official policy is "no proxies," I see no harm in that kind of blocking, but will probably get a second opinion before doing so. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 00:44, 10 August 2017 (EDT)