Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is for Conservapedia Sysops to collect documentation, in the form of diffs, of possible misuse or sysop rights. Only Conservapedia Sysops and assistant sysops can originate complaints and post diffs as evidence here. If an editor wishes to include diffs as evidence after a complaint has been registered, please contact the initiating sysop who may be of assistance.


To document evidence, please post as the following example:

User:XXX

  • Incivility. [diff][diff][diff] ad infinitum
  • Personal remark. [diff][diff][diff] "
  • Edit warring. [diff][diff][diff] "
  • Abuse of blocking privileges. [diff][diff][diff]
  • Inappropriate deletion. [diff][diff][diff]

DO NOT post monologues or commentary, such as, "User:XXX is a bad guy because...." Other sysops can read the evidence themselves and determine if a complaint is trolling, without merit, or bona fide. To see who qualifies to post evidence on this page, see User group rights here.

Case #1

User:LT (contribs)

Since signing the Conservapedia:CP Civility Association pledge, User:LT has violated Conservapedia Commandments and Guidelines at least a dozen times in the first 24 hours by posting trolling comments and personal attacks across multiple project and user talk pages.

Case #2

User:Karajou (contribs)

Case #3

User:Conservative (contribs)

User:Conservative has attempted to intimidate editors from participating in, or making and limit nominations to the annual Conservative of the Year award.

Case #4

User:RobSmith (contribs)

User:RobSmith has repeatedly violated Conservapedia Commandments and Guidelines by posting trolling comments and personal attacks across multiple projects and user talk pages while falsely accusing his critics of doing same, self-righteously painting himself as the "victim" and lying about same when confronted about his behavior and actions (including manipulatively twisting the words of his critics out of context to try to gain an advantage for himself).

He has also repeatedly and willfully abused his administrator privileges by unjustly and vindictively blocking critics of his behavior and actions (despite stating otherwise regarding the use of blocking) to silence them and prevent them from defending themselves against his actions while he resorts to the above-noted behavior on his critics (including piling on abusive remarks and resorting to taunts and mockery against his critics for spite and his own amusement and doing so across multiple talk pages, whether his critics want him to or not), has used same to enforce his will against his critics and on this site, has hypocritically exempted himself from the same rules he makes up (without input from anyone else on the site, including even Andy) and imposes on others, denies to others what he demands for himself (e.g. demanding that other editors be civil while refusing to be civil himself, as well as the "My user/talk page is my castle" rule), inappropriately reverts edits on articles to favored LPOV edits - including here, here and here - and then locks the articles to protect those favored edits, and deletes edits and hides edit summaries to cover up and hide his guilt and evidence thereof.

Every time he continues to engage in the actions and behaviors he is accused of (backed with the evidence documented and linked above and below), all it does is prove the points of his critics, as well as demonstrate increasingly irrational, paranoid and extremely thin-skinned behavior on his part (the criticism of which, given his history, he falsely calls "trolling" and which he willfully misinterprets as "personal attacks" on himself).

  • Abuse of administrator privileges (including above-noted reversion of edits to LPOV-favoring edits, removal/hiding of edits and edit summaries to cover up his wrongdoing on the site): [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]