Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 288:
Line 288: − − ==Blocking [[User:TK]]== − − Please provide reference and/or diffs to illustrate "insinuating that motorcycle accident which put a valued contributer in a coma for 10 days didn't actually happen; if someone wants to extend this block be my guest". [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] was wrong to undo your block but you should have asked an admin yourself, or Andy. Users with block rights (but no admin rights) should only block for clear and cut vandalism. I know this is not in the commandments, guidelines or user rights page but we are forming some kind of policy to address this in the near future. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 05:00, 17 November 2008 (EST) − :Actually it is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|here]: "''To counter blatant vandalism, some editors have the ability to block vandals. These particular rights may be granted to users who demonstrate an ongoing ability to revert vandalism. Users are also encouraged to report suspected vandals to the administration (preferably supplying evidence with diffs). Editors granted '''blocking rights should only use them for blocking vandals or other cases where immediate blocking is required. Other violations should be referred to an administrator.'''''" It Just hasn't been enforced very well so far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 09:11, 17 November 2008 (EST) − ::Jallen: As you know, BrianCo is a valued contributer to our website who was in a horrible motorcycle accident which put him '''in a coma for 10 days'''. TK, when confronted with the fact that he was '''outright lying''' about the fact that he was the one who asked for the {{tl|liberalism}} template (which was his entire reasoning for being able to use the template in the manner he demanded, and not how the community decided), responded with the following accusation: "Was this on your trip to Mexico, Genghis, or your later motorcycle accident recovery? Inquiring minds want to know!" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Liberalism&diff=prev&oldid=560367]. There is absolutely '''no excuse''' for such an '''unchristian''' comment towards another editor. I may not have been within my rights to block him (though I would certainly argue that this was a case where "immediate blocking is required"), but TK's incredibly low blow was intirely inexcusable, and I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide. If Bugler was the one who undid my block, then I'm going to redo it; I've said before (and you apparently agree) that Bugler had no right to undo it. Until a sysop tells me otherwise that it's ok for an editor to make light of a life-threatening event, I won't unblock TK. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:17, 17 November 2008 (EST) − :::HelpJazz, you have overstepped your authority in blocking TK. You are only allowed to use your blocking rights for vandalism. I don't believe you were justified with the immediate block either. "I couldn't wait for a sysop to decide" is not valid in this situation. I have undone your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 12:37, 17 November 2008 (EST) − ::::Since you have undone my block, then you have made a decision. Thank you. I'm going to go appologice to BrianCo now, and I'll probably be too mad to edit today. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:39, 17 November 2008 (EST) − :Something both Tim and Dean "conveniently overlooked" in this little bashfest: '''"This restriction of only blocking vandals applies only to editors granted blocking rights after this amendment was posted in December 2007."''' (it's the footnote). And guess when HelpJazz got his rights: − ::18:34, 13 September 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:HelpJazz from (none) to Block − :So HelpJazz didn't overstep his authority. He is above that restriction. Unlike certain other people who block whenever they feel like it. − :Signed, a guy who will likely get instantly blocked for <s>correcting a sysop</s> <s>supporting HelpJazz</s> Not Minding His Own Business, Opposing The Project and Only Engaging In Liberal Claptrap That Goes Against Our 90/10 Rule. --[[User:SiemerD|SiemerD]] 15:09, 17 November 2008 (EST) − ::What you have found is true. HelpJazz did not overstep his authority. Of course a sysop can undo his block if the sysop believes there is a reason to do so, but it should be done with respect, recognizing that we do owe a debt of gratitude to the longterm editors who have been faithful contributors to this project and have a strong track record of helping us both with articles and with administrative tasks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:29, 17 November 2008 (EST) − − HelpJazz, I think it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate; you are correct in being concerned. The only thing being questioned is the block itself. During different times when he was on this site, TK has mixed obstinate gruffness with a jovail nature and helping out a number of users -- myself included. I owe much of my knowledge of Conservapedia to TK and so do many others. You wound up stepping in a tender area because there have been blocking wars in the past and it is still a senstive issue. I wouldn't take any personal affront to what has occurred. Your own contributions to this site continue to be valued. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:41, 17 November 2008 (EST) − ::: SiemerD seems to be (have been) a kind of prophet: − :::*17:39, 17 November 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked SiemerD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: Sole reason for joining: to make trouble) − :::BTW: − :::*10:25, 10 June 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Bugler from (none) to Block, edit and Upload − :::So, while we are discussing these rules: did SiemerD's post require immediate action? Was he a vandal?--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:55, 17 November 2008 (EST) − − ===Response=== − There are multiple issues at work here: whether or not I had the right to block TK, and whether or not the block was justified. − − It has been clearly shown that, due to a grandfather clause, I was within the rules in blocking an editor for something other than vandalism. (And despite SiemerD's swipe, I don't think Jallen or Tim intentionally neglected to mention the grandfather clause; I didn't know of it myself). However, it is always true that a sysop can undo a block of a regular editor, even if that editor had the rights to make the block − − Learn together claims "it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate"; this is mostly true ''de juro'' on my talk page. (However I think Ed Poor echoed TK's sentiments on the talk page, thus agreeing that TK's statment was not inappropriate; but nobody on this talk page ''de juro'' stated that TK's actions were ok). However, anyone involved ''de facto'' agreed that TK's actions were ok, by not exercising their own authority to reblock him. Had anyone placed the offence of his statement above their reticence of blocking a well-connected user, they would have had no problem reblocking him, or at least publicly asking if he should have been reblocked. As it is, he was not blocked, and no one (again, except Ed Poor, who seems to have endorsed TK's statement) made a statement either way as to whether it was a blocking offense. − − Perhaps I should explain the history of this case (most if not all relevant proof can be found at [[template talk:liberalism]]): − *BrianCo created the template in February − *In April, TK started adding the template in a manner inconsistant with other templates of it's type − *It was discussed in April, and decided that TK's use of the template was wrong − *TK leaves for ~7 months − *When TK returns, he almost immediately continues his previous actions − *When pointed to the April discussion, he claims that he was the one who wanted the template, therefore he could use it however he wanted (this argument was not brought up in April) − *Other users (really, just me) tried to argue that it doesn't matter that TK created the template, but eventually gave in to the futillity of the argument, and started adding the template to pages based on the fact that TK, as creator of the template, dictated its use − *BrianCo, the person who actually built the template, points out that TK could not have asked for the template, since he had not edited for a month before or after the template was created. − *TK, out of left field and out of arguments, accuses BrianCo of being a sock, and questions the validity of a motorcycle accident which could have taken BrianCo's life. − − Is such a response approprite or proportionate? Is this how we are to treat our fellow editors? Bugler calls respected editors maggots and long-time sysops idiots, and nobody cares. But there's a mile difference between calling someone an idiot and taking a jovial attitude on such a serious issue. What if TK had said "ha ha ha, yeah right like I believe you were raped" or "say, how's your murdered wife doing these days?" or "hey, sorry to hear about the miscarriage, good thing the kid never existed!" I can't, in good Christian conscience, allow someone to run around saying such hurtful, unwarranted, unproven and unChristian statements. Unlike the many users and sysops who know of and are ignoring this argument, I can't sit on the fence. This is a serious enough issue that I jumped off with both feet. And I hope that one day there is an issue strong enough to move others to take a stand as well, but I'm afraid to see what that issue is, when this issue is not it. − − [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:36, 18 November 2008 (EST) − − PS: Since this whole discussion is about properly enforcing the rules, I think it should be mentioned that it's very clear that they are only being enforced "fairly" when it is in the interest of the ruling sysop. As BRichtigen pointed out, Bugler does not have the authority to block SiemerD for 90/10 (and clearly, a 1 edit 90/10 is ludicrous anyway; are we to block editors who use the [[sandbox]] before they make real edits? I should think not) and yet nobody has decided to unblock SiemerD or punish Bugler. In fact, Bugler is the winner in this case: he won the block, and he was able to make racist remarks about ''two'' senior sysops without real penalty; proving again to himself (and everyone watching) that he clearly can do whatever he wants to, without recourse.
don't put personal information about others here - not without their express, written permission - give it to Andy if you have it
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to ''editors on CP''. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)