Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Abuse"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Current Alerts)
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
==Current Alerts==
 
==Current Alerts==
 +
*somehow, the user [[User:box|box]]'s page had a category "Worthless Conservapedians" that included everyone.  I deleted everything on his page and now it is gone.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
 +
 
*look at this [[Albania|page]]. Its completly messed up? I dont get it?-[[User:box|Box]] 22:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
 
*look at this [[Albania|page]]. Its completly messed up? I dont get it?-[[User:box|Box]] 22:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
 
::Oh i made out the writing it spells "icewe"????? -[[User:box|Box]] 22:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
 
::Oh i made out the writing it spells "icewe"????? -[[User:box|Box]] 22:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:19, 15 May 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:


Current Alerts

  • somehow, the user box's page had a category "Worthless Conservapedians" that included everyone. I deleted everything on his page and now it is gone.Bohdan
  • look at this page. Its completly messed up? I dont get it?-Box 22:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh i made out the writing it spells "icewe"????? -Box 22:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Figleaf You'll see what I mean when you check up his edits. See Vietnam War and Alexander the Great. You may wish to stop him before he can do more damage. Learn together 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Blocked for infinite duration. Thanks!--Aschlafly 13:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
  • jp Other than 7 edits to Separation of Powers of which 3 are simply adding internal links and one is adding a return, this user has made no edits to actual articles. This user has however, made a total of 330 edits to Conservapedia so less than 3% of his edits are to actual pages. This user is in clear violation of the 90/10 rule. --Reginod 10:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Human Declared Conservatives are actually not welcome on this one tiny little corner of CP. Who_will_liberals_support_for_President_in_2008. Liberals can post anywhere Conservatives not allowed.--jp 01:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I left him an offer he can't refuse, so I think it will be okay now. BUT please don't taunt the Liberals too much, they completely have no sense of humor when it comes to things political. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
What JP, fails to mention here, is that this took place on Human’s user page.
Human asked that users who self identify as conservatives not post on his personal user page asking liberal users who they would support as president but rather to post on his user page asking conservatives who they would support—that seems to be a very reasonable request (which JP chose, knowingly, to ignore). He seems to have been acting under the assumption that his user page was his castle and he could tell people who could post where on it. This doesn’t seem like abuse at all, but rather making a reasonable request that is well in line with the Conservapedia policy that a user has the right to decided how his user page is treated.--Reginod 11:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Hi Liberal Reg, I am fine with what Human says however, people like you will comment on Republicans even though they are not one. Must be fair all they way around in order for his system to work. Otherwise, you'll have a section of liberal false hoods without rebuttal.--jp 15:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I count at least three errors of fact in your first sentence, allow me to clear them up. My name is neither “Liberal Reg” nor “Reg”, I identify as a Libertarian and not a liberal, and I have not posted to the conservative page and have no plans to do so. The first two are minor mistakes, but the third strikes me as a serious accusation (that I will violate the castle that is another user’s page and that I am a hypocrite). I would ask that you be clear about the facts before you accuse me of anything in the future.--Reginod 17:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for offending you nod, first of all 'people like you' doesn't mean you have posted to Republicans. Second of all, all libertarians are just other liberals with a different name. You are defending John Edwards so strongly, yet he's not a libertarian. Who said anything about hypocrite? lighten up. Sysop, are we really allowed to debate here in the abuse forum?--jp 23:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • No, this isn't a debate place, and I will be removing such posts here, and cleaning it up later. Let me say this about user pages...your ONE user page and ONE discussion page is your castle. You cannot create dozens of other pages, like the political discussion page of Human, and expect to be entitled to the "rights" of your one user page/discussion page "castle". Now please move those extra pages, Human, out to the debate page space where they belong, or it will be done for you, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for any data loss, or edit conflicts. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


Blocked Geo.Talk 20:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Flippin Posted he was leaving for a while, left attack on CP and other users on page. Blocked two weeks. Pray for his returning rested and positive! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
    • It appears that our "castles" are built out of very thin paper... gives me article/essay ideas, though. --JLindon 16:23, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually I think Sysops pages are castles, where as normal editors only live in the fields in mud huts. Jrssr5 16:25, 11 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 icwdg 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 block count) vandalized my user page and other pages. --AdrianP 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Jesuslover143 (talk contribs block 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 )
Blocked infinitely Geo.Talk 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Blocked infinitely Geo.Talk 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Muschifresser (talk contribs block 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 block 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)
User made a mistake Geo.Talk 18:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Tennis Sweatshirt (talk contribs count) I think he might be icwdg 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 Icwdg. 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)
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 codeSupport my RfA) 07:47, 28 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)
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

  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]
  • User:Auld Nick. In this edit, he added Image:Soldiers wearing Kilts.jpg, with the edit comment "Image of soldiers in kilts" and the picture caption "Kilted Scottish Soldiers paying respect to their fallen comrades." He does not say in the talk page or in an edit comment why he chose an image in which one soldier's kilt has been lifted by wind to expose part of his bare buttocks. The use of such an image ought to have been discussed in Talk. If the point was to illustrate that kilts are worn without underwear, and if he sincerely thought such an image was appropriate, then the edit comment should have said something like "Image showing that kilts are worn without underwear." Therefore, I consider the edit comment misleading, and that trips my threshold for labeling it as "abuse." Put plainly, it's my opinion that Auld Nick is figuratively mooning Conservapedia. Dpbsmith 09:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT) P. S. Undoubtedly a copyright violation, too, although widely reproduced all over the Net. It appears to be an Associated Press photograph of one Lee Wotherspoon in Hong Kong on April 24, 1997. Dpbsmith 10:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
    1. Blocked for two hours. That'll larn 'im. --Ed Poor 12:40, 10 May 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)
Extended to indefinte for sockpuppetry during block. RobS 13:51, 14 May 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 Icwdg. GodlessLiberal 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Blocked by TerryHTalk 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Aydindrill (talk contribs count) Causing havoc. CrocoiteTalk 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Blocked by Aschlafly as a sock of icwdg. 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)
    • Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-AmesGyo! 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)
  • 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 Icwdg 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 icwdg".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)
  • In response to the question by Jssr5, the reason for no action is that this is not the appropriate forum to debate tohe actions of a current Sysop. Geo.Talk 22:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)