Conservapdia:Sysop complaint documentation/archive3

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Fox was barred for protesting against an inaccurate and offensive article. He should be reinstated at once, preferably with an apology from the sysop who sought to stifle freedom of speech in such an arbitrary and high handed manner. Pachyderm 10:46, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

You need to remember that this is CP. If Fox sais something out of line with CP's principles, he should have been banned.--Fbaker 11:02, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Fox was blocked for a total of 24 hours, by me originally, and that was removed a mere 6 hours, if that, into it. Because of the "article" Fox got at me on YIM, and asked that his account be deleted. I have seen at least one edit from him since the block was removed, so it doesn't seem he has left to me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:17, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Crippes blocking

Crippes was a positive user with some good edits, but was still blocked. Duddgydids 16:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Crippes was blocked for creating a sock which caused some vandalism. Karajou 16:58, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
How would Duddgydids know--Duddgydids been here awhole two minutes. RobS 17:00, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Quite possibly because he's a sock from the same source. Karajou 17:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not the same as "Carlowcrab", Duddgydids 17:05, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Then what is your purpose here? Karajou 17:08, 8 June 2007 (EDT)


This administrator reverted twice, without justification, an edit to Talk:Shaken Baby Syndrome[1]. I think that this is an abuse of sysop powers. ...RingWraith 19:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Reverting isn't even a sysop power - anyone can do that. The first site that SSchultz used is inappropriate for CP - SSchultz was adequately warned of that the first time he posted.--IDuan 19:58, 12 January 2008 (EST)
How is that site not appropriate? It is merely a list of journals that are not recognized as legitimate, and I doubt anybody would want to cite on of those journals. And I recognize that reverting is not an administrator power, but I think this admin is using his position to intimidate SScultz. ...RingWraith 20:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)
For starters there's apparently no legitimacy to that site ("I consider") and also the site's url is also an attack--IDuan 20:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)
There is also no record of this admin warning SScultz... the users talk page does not exist, and there was no warning at Talk:Shaken Baby Syndrome. ...RingWraith 20:04, 12 January 2008 (EST)
The record isn't there - as the page was deleted - however I saw the warning prior to the block, and those with sysop privileges can see the history of deleted pages, so they could also see that.--IDuan 20:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
How can you prove this to non-Admins? you could be in cahoots with User:Aschlafly, and as the page does not exist, there is no way for non-Admins to verify that there was a warning. Even if there was a warning, it was not legitimate, as the name of the URL is a petty subject to raise issue with, and does not respond to the criticism. Everything considered, it looks like User:Aschlafly is trying to silence opposing viewpoints. This cannot be allowed by the rules. ...RingWraith 20:10, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Ok, I'm blocking you for a daytwo days - for suggesting a conspiracy theory (well, i should say suggesting conspiracy theories) and thus trolling. cool off, if you keep it up once you come back I'll indefinitely block you--IDuan 20:16, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Just chiming in for a moment (and I just got back from a lengthy block, so I don't really need another time-out, please): While that was indeed conspiracy-theory-ish, the revert of a legitimate talk page addition looks odd, especially when you consider what was being discussed:
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS) is the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)... and Andy, the reverting sysop, just happens to be their general counsel...
I freely admit that putting the edit back in was a foolish move (and pretty much asking for trouble), but I would also guess that Andy's actions were motivated by more than just his sysop duties in that case. That being said, I definitely know better than to dig deeper into the Shaken Baby Syndrome here. :)
PS: Our entry for Quack lists QuackWatch under the External Links... it was added by sysop Karajou. --Jenkins 20:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

It's all in how you phrase it. Try saying that "X disagrees with Y about Z." That's the formula that usually works on a wiki. But don't edit war over it. --Ed Poor Talk 20:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)