Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Abuse"

Revision as of 19:17, May 9, 2007

This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.

Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives: 1 2 3 4

Other links:

• Abuse Reporting
• Administrative Abuse
• Articles for Deletion
• Articles for Speedy Deletion
• Conservapedia Panel

Current Alerts

1. Hope (Latest: 02:38, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 02:36, 9 May 2007) [3]
2. Solstace (Latest: 01:46, 9 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:37, 9 May 2007) [2]
3. Talk for me (Latest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) (Earliest: 01:20, 8 May 2007) [1]

• All socks. Blocked infinite. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

• Favor (talk • contribs • count) sock of icewedge --AdrianP 20:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Proof? DanH 20:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

He has a user box that says AmesG is the leader of conservapedia. And I have been seeing a lot of vandalism on this site that has been saying icewedge thinks AmesG should be unbanned. --AdrianP 20:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

That's not proof. DanH 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It is easier to block and unblock later than to fix the pages that a person has vandalized. --AdrianP 21:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

AmesG does a better job of getting himself blocked than any Admin here. He likes the attention, but I agree with DanH, that box isn't much "proof" and check it, several others do, or did, have that same box. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

• Sacrificialzeus (talk • contribs • count) vandalized my user page and other pages. --AdrianP 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
• Jesuslover143 (talk • contribs • count) vandal. --AdrianP 15:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
• 04:37, 8 May 2007, TK blocked Muschifresser (infinite, account creation blocked) (Parodist/Subtle Vandal: "Owing to their diet of eucalyptus leaves, which contain a volatile oil, Koalas are highly flammable. For this reason, it is recommended to consume them raw in the form of a carpaccio or Koala tartare."Also has sock,LordWhimsey‎ )
• 04:38, 8 May 2007, TK blocked LordWhimsey (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Sock of Muschifresser )

• YouGuysSuck (talk • contribs • count), replaced Theory of Relativity with insults.

Blocked infinitely Geo.Talk 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

• Commodore Morgan (talk • contribs • count), replacing user talk pages with "Icewedge has pwned Bronzefinger", in my case. Bronzefinger 13:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Blocked infinitely Geo.Talk 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

• Muschifresser (talk • contribs • count), user name needs explanation. No apparent justification for blocking, but "Fresser" means "to eat like an animal," and "Muschi" is, uh, blocked by Google's Safe Search filtering. I'm about to leave a note on his Talk page. watch for his reply. Dpbsmith 08:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
• Swordofdestiny (talk • contribs • count) using specious reasoning to defend a troublemaker. --Ed Poor 10:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Blocked by ed poor Geo.Talk 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

• Boris Johnson, MP (talk • contribs • count) obscenity Crocoite ^Talk 15:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
• The Black Angel of Death (talk • contribs • count) Crocoite ^Talk 15:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
• Czolgolz (talk • contribs • count) - Karajou says he lied about sources. [1] --Ed Poor 07:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

User made a mistake Geo.Talk 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

• Tennis Sweatshirt (talk • contribs • count) I think he might be icewedge and he also posted "This place is pretty worthless so I would leave Tennis Sweatshirt 12:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)." So I am not sure if you can trust any of his edits as being of any worth. --AdrianP 20:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
• Pokeisthemon (talk • contribs • count) mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. GodlessLiberal 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.Talk 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cool. My apologies to Poke. GodlessLiberal 22:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

• JoshuaZ (talk • contribs • count) Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from Noah article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --Ed Poor 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--Aschlafly 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• User:Fred -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [2][3] RobS 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• GeorgeJ.W. (talk • contribs • count) keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --Hacker^{(Write some code • Support my RfA)} 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--Aschlafly 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --Hacker^{(Write some code • Support my RfA)} 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• Scorpion (talk • contribs • count), vote fraud via sockpuppets. --Hacker^{(Write some code • Support my RfA)} 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

• Hacker (talk • contribs • count) Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--Aschlafly 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. Flippin 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

• Flippin defaced my user page here (my castle? see here) also

Ed Poor added to Ian St John's user page here and here. (his castle? see here) Auld Nick 15:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Dealt with

• CaptainCAVEMAN (talk • contribs • count) ought to be blocked. Murray 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Blocked.
• Pussyfooter (talk • contribs • count) check out edits to Pudding Murray 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Blocked. --Ed Poor 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

• JeffersonDarcy (talk • contribs • count) He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --AdrianP 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Blocked for 1 week. --Ed Poor 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
• Auld Nick (talk • contribs • count) User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --Ed Poor 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  - Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles is traditional Scottish dress. Unthank 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --Ed Poor 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
• Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ TK ^MyTalk 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
• Alfa Papa (talk • contribs • count) causing havoc. Crocoite ^Talk 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a sock of Icewedge. GodlessLiberal 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocked by TerryH^Talk 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

• Aydindrill (talk • contribs • count) Causing havoc. Crocoite^Talk 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Blocked by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.Talk 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
• User:Staple -- vandalism and other questionable content. RobS 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--Aschlafly 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--Aschlafly 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
    • He had a swastika on his userpageBohdan
      • The Category:Liberal Users he created as a subcat of Category:Communists [4]; he & I were the only Category:Conservative Users in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[5] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. RobS 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-AmesG_yo! 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
• user:MontyZuma, for instances of minor vandalism, and the creation of a profane page which involved moving an article into and changing the content. Karajou 18:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to unblock him; this particular article he wrote is actually a dish, as I just found out. My apologies. Karajou 18:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

• Please investigate User:RSchlafly's edits to Geocentric theory. They are simply cutting out well-justified and relevant material, and there is no rationale given for the decision. This is tantamount to vandalism. User:OfficerDibble

• I second that. User:RSchlafly hs been deleting and reverting a lot of my stuff and instead of debating the changes on the talk page he made statments like "Your beliefs are ridiculous". He has now protected the page so I can't make any changes.Mmeelliissssaa 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT) ^{This user is a sock of Icewedge and has been blocked.}

I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible IMO. --Liπus the Turbohacker^{(contact me)} 22:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

This is not the place for insults. Please see my detailed account on Talk:Geocentric theory before you make such judgements. --OfficerDibble 04:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

• Insults? Where? Please don't make random accusatory posts, OfficerDibble, okay? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

"I oppose this alert, at the risk of POV-pushing, geocentrism is risible" I take "Risible" to be insulting, since I have worked long and hard to make the points I have on the article. --OfficerDibble 05:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

• Well, if you object to furious editing of your work, and debate about it, a wiki is the wrong place for you. Your tone borders on the dramatic. If you are into drama, might I suggest working on one of the acting/dramatic arts pages? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  OfficerDibble and myself have been following the comandments of conservapedia, RSchlafly has been deleting our work with out discussing our valid points. Be even objects to relevent bible verses being included. And the page block prevents us from making any changes. Clearly we are in the right here, as can plainly be seen in the history and talk page of the article. Also I have not been blocked and I am not a "sock of icewedge".Mmeelliissssaa 12:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No Action Rschlafly is a Sysop Geo.Talk 12:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So are we to take this to mean that Sysops have carte blanche and can do whatever they want whenever? Jrssr5 14:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

• You are to take it per the CP Guidelines. [[6]] Failure to follow the directions of an Administrator, as to what is, and is not, appropriate behavior/content/actions, is a blockable offense. So is never-ending argument. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, is a simple precise answer such as No, Sysops do not have carte blanche and cannot do whatever they want whenever they want to much to ask? Auld Nick 05:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

• When you leave your glass house, Auld Nick, perhaps you would make a better spokesperson for transparency and short comments. Either you are completely obtuse, or just ignoring what the Guidelines say, for a better (read dramatic) retort. Obviously at any website in the world, Administrators have more leeway than users. Just as that aging hippy Jimbo has at WP. Anything else on your mind? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the civil answer. That has clarified things for me. Auld Nick 06:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I greatly resent users putting me on the spot about what another Sysop does or does not do. First, it isn't fair or polite. Secondly, if the intentions of the user were honorable, in my opinion, they wouldn't seek to make a public scene about it, and might, if they were using good manners, email about it. Is that really so unreasonable? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 09:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

For the record we (or maybe just myself) didn't put you on the spot, the question was asked of Geo and you chose to respond. And I disagree about the honorable thing, if it is honorable, why not talk about it in public to let others decide. Doing things by email, behind everyone's backs make it seem like someone has something to hide. Jrssr5 09:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Well of course you do. But I was addressing Auld Nick. Sorry, we all don't agree with your wiki ways of doing things. It is a software, not a way of life. Your post smacks of Wikipedia bullying, it won't work here. You are now warned. Don't continue this. Take it up with the Sysop in question. Geo, BTW, answered you; "No Action". --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 09:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

When you say your wiki ways, are you refering to me or Auld Nick again? And am I warned or Auld Nick? What wikipedia bullying tactics am I or Auld Nick using that are so different from you warning to block me or Auld Nick from this wiki? It is very hard to fill in the blanks and figure out what you mean when replies are very cryptic and sarcastic. And I did take it up with the sysop in question (as seen above), I asked Geo for an answer after he stated "No Action", he never replied. Jrssr5 09:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

• Well, sorry to have confused you. By the way, the Sysop in question is RSchlafly, not Geo, not me. We merely attempted to provide answers, for which we have been whipped for. Now, take me seriously, no more on this. You have been given instruction by a Administrator to take it up with the Sysop you were/are complaining about, and told no action will be taken. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 09:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)