Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 410:
Line 410: + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse (view source)
Revision as of 17:49, October 12, 2008
, 17:49, October 12, 2008→Bugler, and Everyone Else Who Ignores
:::::<blockquote># 12:17, 6 October 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked SamuelHTD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Inserting false information: "intellectual dishonesty" is not allowed on this site, especially by those who post an intention to do so. Bye.) </blockquote>
:::::<blockquote># 12:17, 6 October 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked SamuelHTD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Inserting false information: "intellectual dishonesty" is not allowed on this site, especially by those who post an intention to do so. Bye.) </blockquote>
:::::I fail to see the "intellectual dishonesty" in the posts of SamuelHTD's history, maybe the offencive ones have been erased...--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 13:02, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I fail to see the "intellectual dishonesty" in the posts of SamuelHTD's history, maybe the offencive ones have been erased...--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 13:02, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
First, user Wisdon89 was in a position of power (i.e. admin) at Wikipedia, complaining that Ed Poor was in a position of power here, banning people he didn't like; and Wisdom89 was using his own position of power in Wikipedia to influence the masses there to prevent Ed Poor from gaining admin priviledges there when the discussion within Wikipedia should have been restricted to what goes on in Wikipedia; joining him in Wikipedia were the trolls and vandals who did their worst here in Conservapedia. At the same time as that was going on ''off-site'', Wisdom89 ''expected'' to be allowed to edit in ''this site''. Someone who complains about my cooking next door, whines about my cooking next door, has others join him in complaining about my cooking next door, yet expects to sit down in my house and eat what I cook, I'm just going to take him by the scruff and toss him out of my house. Period.
Then there's what Sam stated on his user page as to what he was going to do. His "intelectual dishonesty" was to consist of a deliberate attempt to insert such dishonesty within the articles; that was why he was blocked, and not for his previous edits. Deliberately placing misleading or false information in any article is not going to be tolerated. If he disavowed just that statement in an email to myself or any other admin, I will immediately unblock him, and support anyone else who unblocks him.
And then there's the blocks of "people we don't like". It serves no purpose to just have a complainent leave it at "people we don't like", as if that was the only excuse. Some of these complainents need to grasp the possibility that we don't like vandalism and those who practice it; we don't like trolling; we don't like those who cause fights or engage in edit wars. This is supposed to be a family-oriented, Judeo/Christian, conservative website, yet there are those who demand to insert material detrimental to that; we don't like those either.
As to Sam's complaint of abuse of power by the admins as stated above, including myself, I am going to take that for action. Changes do need to be made, and made quickly. Editors need to realize that edits can only go so far, and conflicts need to be resolved respectfully and in a civil manner; sysops need to be more even-handed, and learn to take a time out; they also need to have valid reasons in blocking. Simply "not liking someone" isn't it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)