Conservapedia:Abuse

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karajou (talk | contribs) at 03:08, March 14, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Justice never sleeps


This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Crossed out notes have been dealt with.

Current Alerts

Liebniz

I am asking that Leibniz be warned, if not temporarily banned, for repeatedly interjecting argumentative opinion into articles.--Dave3172 17:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationism

Creationism

Evolutionist JoshuaZ has arbitrarily erased the correct definition of Creationism two times now.

Issue #1:

I think it is logical and plain common sense that an evolutionist should have no say in defining his scientific rival because said rendering is bound to be riddled with bias and error.

Issue #2:

At any rate, I ask that my rendering of Creationism be reviewed by Administration to be the correct rendering and that JoshuaZ be informed of the ruling if in my favor.

Proposed Rendering

"Creationism is the belief that physical reality plainly reflects the work of invisible Divine power (Romans 1:20) and original causation of matter and life was by supernatural agency (Genesis 1:1; chapters 1 and 2). Universally, Creationism is the belief that a Creator is responsible for producing reality (general revelation) and that this revelation is the primary way of deducing the existence of said Deity. Based on observation, Creationism asserts scientific evidence is better explained when a Creator is presupposed to have created reality."


Ray Martinez 14:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Finished

I'm trying to upload a photo of a nokia mobile phone, and the server is abusing me. Ilove69 06:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT) it says Could not copy file "/tmp/phpydXiTn" to "/home/conserv8/public_html/images/b/bd/Nokia.jpg". Ilove69 06:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are having minor problems. Geo. 16:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

User:CWilson; looks like an obvious parody to me. Tsumetai 13:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I'm not sure what you mean when you keep accusing people of "parody." Is parody quoting parts of the Bible you disagree with? Show me where they misrepresent truth found within the Bible when you make accusations please. Meekrok 13:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
This is actually in the bible, but should be reworded. No Block. Geo. 15:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Re "parody," see note below.[1]

User:JC and User:Madonna should also be banned for their inappropriate names. No one should be permitted to call themselves by a holy name, and that should also include names that are blatantly imitating or abbreviating holy names. --Jlovesu 13:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


User:JC looks suspicious; this edit seems a bit off to me. Tsumetai 12:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Tsumetai invites people return to hell. JC 12:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

  • No, not really. It's a screenshot. He was apparently amused when, due to the way MediaWiki works, Conservapedia seemed to be inviting him to return to Hell. Dpbsmith 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
JC is the user's initials ,Madonna is good contributor. No Block. Geo. 15:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Meekrok - pi = 3? Flat Earther? Parody account. Tsumetai 12:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

  • No-- I'm not a parody, this is outrageous and offensive. Nothing I've said is against conservative views nor the Bible. Meekrok 12:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


User:Christianist, vandalism pure and simple. Replacing articles with short sentences like "you can't call it vandalism if it's instantly revertable." Dpbsmith 10:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT) User:AschIafly impersonating our own Aschlafly; note that the first 'l' is actually a capital 'i'. Tsumetai 09:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocked Geo. 15:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Madonna Vandalism of "Satan" article --Dave3172 12:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

  • No-- I didn't vandalize the Satan article. I added the link to "Satanism" and somebody else (I don't remember who) made some prank edits right around the same time. --Madonna 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
My apologies, Madonna. Admin, disregard my first report.--Dave3172 12:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Rjohnson Vandalism of multiple pages --Dave3172 12:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed, he recently vandalized one of my recently created pages. --Meekrok 9:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Blocked Geo. 15:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Zedek for Crucifix and Premarital sex.


User:Bonki, created Mormonism with the prank content "Mormonism began in the late 1980s as a response to the New Romantic movement." (Article is now a redirect to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Has a mix of valid edits (to John Milton) and strange edits. Dpbsmith 20:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Wikilover for vandalism of Ronald Reagan page

All three blocked. Geo. 00:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Richard for the unfunny, satirical Warren G. Harding page.

Entry is good. No Block Geo. 00:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Tsumetai for persistent vandalism of pages e.g. Wolfbagging with no justification.

Not blockable, clean up Geo. 13:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User:BaggerOfWolves and User:Smurge for this page. The page should be deleted, too. Tsumetai 12:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I cleaned up that stuff and blocked BaggerOfWolves for a month. I did not see sufficient basis for blocking Smurge--Aschlafly 12:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Correction. I just blocked Smurge for a month for participating in that silly Wolfbagging entry.--Aschlafly 12:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Luke-Jr. Doesn't believe in Vatican II and is rewriting Catholic-related items to call the current Pope a heretic. Perhaps a warning first? He seems to be doing it out of belief, not for the sake of vandalism.

Just warned him. Thanks.--Aschlafly 12:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Weregerbil. Unhelpful edits. Try jawboning? At Conservapedia Talk he asks Conservapedians to vandalize the user page of a Wikipedian whose Wikipedia account name is also Weregerbil. His third edit here is the prank edit Steven Colbert asked his listeners to make at Wikipedia (though here it's just replacing another prank). Dpbsmith 09:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocked for infinite duration. Thanks for the astute observation, Dpbsmith. By the way, obscenity in one edit gave him away. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User User:BillyBoy; - blatant vandalism --AustinM 08:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed - Some of it is subtle, so it will take some work to revert. --Hsmom 09:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Several of his edits were inappropriate, and he's been blocked for a month. I don't think he falls into the category of vandalism, however.--Aschlafly 10:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

All four of these have been blocked, and their edits reverted. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User User:Badnewswade; pick an example. Tsumetai 08:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User Designee - blatant vandalism. Tsumetai 07:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User UncleO'Sama is currently vandalizing the site--Dave3172 07:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

User Foxnewsforlife has been vandalizing pages.--Elamdri 02:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

All four above have been blocked, and their edits reverted. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


Two users (Boogerman and Repubssuck) seemed to go crazy this morning and vandalize more than 20 articles. Both should be blocked.--Dave3172 08:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Christianity was vandalized with an insult about Christians being all gay. I removed that untrue statement. --Orion Blastar 08:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Both have been blocked. ~ SharonS 11:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

User:ChooChoo is a blatant troll; see for example his article on Shellfish. User:Christ seems extremely suspicious too. Tsumetai 16:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Christ is blocked. ChooChoo will be watched Geo. 21:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

He might just be a very hardcore Fundamentalist, you know--the bit about shellfish _IS_ in Leviticus. --Sandbagger 16:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Add User:Intelligent to the list of trolls who can't spell. Tsumetai 16:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

No, add him to the list of trolls that are blocked. Geo. 21:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Sandbagger is vandalizing global warming with untrue and insulting statements. I am trying to revert or change them to more factual ones. --Orion Blastar 20:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Sandbagger cited his edits, therefore it is not vandalism. Geo. 21:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually he edited text and added insulting text in lines that used my citations, but his words were not part of the sources cited. For example "since the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy will only provide grants for pro-Global Warming research" and that was not part of the citation someone else added, or "rather than some boring, obscure climatologist with no experience at public speaking who we can ignore conveniently" that had no citation source and was added to one of my entires. Even "Furthermore, Gore exhaled molecules of Carbon Dioxide while lecturing on tour, proving that he is a hypocrite who can be ignored without loss." was not cited either. The text was intended to insult and make the article less accurate. --Orion Blastar 22:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Blocked, your assistance is appreciated. Geo. 22:54, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Cocks - inappropriate name, inappropriate edits.

And yet it is necessary and proper that "evolutionists" - a true neologism - have a say in the biased rendition of scientific topics.--AmesG 18:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ray Martinez

I take issue with your telling a user that he is not allowed to edit just because he is not a conservative. As long as people follow the Conservapedia Commandments, they ought to be allowed to post. There is no rule that states that we must be conservative. In fact, I can think of at least one sysop who isn't a conservative. MountainDew 18:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it is plain common sense that non-conservatives be disallowed to edit pages for factual content. How do you expect the conservative view of truth to be reflected if this rule is not in place?
Ray Martinez 20:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

That's the spirit. ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Viewpoint! --BobA 20:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


By that logic Ray, you shouldn't be allowed to edit the pages for evolution, atheism, theistic evolution, Darwin, etc.--Murray 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This is not Wikipedia. How do you expect the pages on Evolution to have accurate information if Wikipedia-evolutionists write the page? Do Creationists get to write ANY page of this subject matter at Wikipedia?
I am asking Administration to implement plain logic and common sense: only conservatives edit pages that are controversial because otherwise the Wikipedia pro-atheist view gets duplicated over here. If Administration rejects this logic and axiomatic truth then I am gone from here and do not want my name associated with a nonsensical reason for being (= conservative intent negated by allowing non-conservative participation).
I suspect Administration is a little too flat headed and does not really stand for conservative viewpoint of facts across the board. They are more concerned with pseudo-objectivity than implementing their vision. You probably have nothing to worry about, atheist.
Ray Martinez 19:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, they kind of do. Geekman314(contact me) 13:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
You're just plain wrong, Ray. You're right that I disagree with you about evolution, etc. (presumably that's what you meant when you referred to me as "atheist."). And yet a couple of days ago you thanked me for "quality clean-up of the Darwin page" which doesn't seem to fit with your assumption that only conservatives can edit controversial pages to your satisfaction.--Murray 21:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


If you continue this generally incivil and confrontational tone, you'll find yourself blocked quite quickly. And controversial things (ideally everything) on Conservapedia needs to be sourced. But the commandments demand a source (Commandment 1). --Hojimachongtalk 20:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Does your opinion have anything to do with the fact that you agree with my opponents? You have intentionally mischaracterized my views and revealed yourself emotionally attached. I suggest that you do not issue a veiled threat of censorship against me when you cannot refute. And nobody argued against having a source; you have set up a straw man.
Ray Martinez 20:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Please explain how I revealed myself "emotionally attached" anywhere in that comment. 2) You are the one attempting to censor opposing views; as long as people abide by the commandments (and warnings issued by sysops), they are free to edit. --Hojimachongtalk 20:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

By accusing me of something untrue: "If you continue this generally incivil and confrontational tone" which indicates rage - that's why you do it. And I am attempting to influence Administration to actually implement their vision of relaying the facts. This can only be achieved by disallowing non-conservatives from editing controversial pages. You guys can edit pages about France, bubble-gum, Britney Spears, dolphins etc.etc. but not about Creationism, Evolution, abortion, Constitution etc.etc. for obvious reasons. If you want your view heard then edit at Wikipedia. I am asking Administration; that's the way change is effected; request and argument. If they deny then I have lost.
Ray Martinez 20:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)\

Because obviously no good at all can come from the opposing viewpoint</sarcasm>. If they add their opinion, it will be easier for the conservative editors to find 50 sources to disprove the liberal arguments. --Hojimachongtalk 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Cannibal corpse

Is the Cannibal corpse page appropriate for Conservapedia? CEinhorn 00:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

well what is cannibal corpse. Geo. 00:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Apologies. I mis-capitalized it. CEinhorn 01:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
It had enough profanity on it that I just deleted it. In any event, a Satanic metal band (who hasn't been in the news or notable for anything else) has no place on Conservapedia. MountainDew 02:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Libertarian

User:Libertarian has been blocked, but an admin really needs to check the edits and delete a few from history, not just the current version of the article, and delete the uploaded image, too! --Scott 10:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Crimesofthelemon is a vandal. Edits have been RV but needs ban.

Blocked and cleaned. Geo. 16:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Notes

  1. ↑ "Parody" as used by Tsumetai means mocking conservatives by exaggerating real conservative views for comic effect. To take a less subtle example, at one point the Hillary Clinton article said "An appellate court reversed this ruling... She had the appellate court executed and drank the blood of the judges." Conservatives may believe many bad things about Clinton but not that. In my opinion, this is a parody, and the last sentence gives it away. But of course there's never any way to be sure. ~~~~

User:Itsjustme is a liberal vandal.

recent vandal

There is an individual who raided many articles here, including Bible, and moved the contents to new pages under new article titles that reflected his own contempt for this site, such as The Bible is for Cun...you get the picture. With each ban he returned under a new name within minutes. We need an IP nuker up and operational here. Karajou 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Abuse&oldid=33587"