Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Abuse"

Revision as of 21:09, April 30, 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

Other links:

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

Current Alerts

• 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)

• Britinme (talk • contribs • count) history of adding copyright violations.[1][2] RobS 14:06, 28 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. [3][4] 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)
• CaptainCAVEMAN (talk • contribs • count) ought to be blocked. Murray 10:45, 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)

• Rvm (talk • contribs • count) first edit was reverted by MountainDew (I mean DanH). --Ed Poor 16:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
• Vossy (talk • contribs • count) created a weird article which someone else immediately blanked. --Ed Poor 17:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
• AmeriCan (talk • contribs • count) - disinformation [5] -- RobS 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

  If I may, AmeriCan included some incorrect information along with some that was partially correct. I am not sure this abuse at all. Flippin 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

  Also, he has a continuing habit of cut-paste from other sites. See, for example his entry for Producerism, copied in full from [6]. His contributions to Canada and hijab, among others, are similar cut/paste jobs.--WJThomas 18:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

  And it continues. See her contributions for financial analyst (copied from Wikipedia), enviornmentalist (copied from Michael Crichton), Keith Olbermann (copied from another wiki), Intelligence agency (again from Wikipedia), and who knows what else...Furthermore, Roe effect (copied from a James Taranto/WSJ column), Computer engineering, Nuclear engineering, Environmental engineering, Special relationship (all ripped from Wikipedia), and Ryaniverse (grabbed wholesale from JnanaBase).--WJThomas 17:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  A little too extreme to be serious. [7] GodlessLiberal 01:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

  Vandalized Ronald Reagan, sock of Coolhandsluke --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

  Ilovebeingconservative (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:28, 17 April 2007) (Earliest: 04:19, 17 April 2007) [2]

• Sterile (talk • contribs • count) - 90/10 rule --Ed Poor 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, I've been on here for 12 days now. And by writing this, I am condeming myself more to the 90/10 rule "violation." Am I on this list or off this list? Am I blocked or am I not blocked? I haven't been warned (except that I noticed my name here--kinda passive aggressive, but hey, I can deal), and no action has been taken. I guess I should just wait. Sterile 11:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• ILikeCookies (talk • contribs • count) - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
  1. This edit to Dan Quayle wasn't too bad. [8]
• The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers Myk 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
• GofG (talk • contribs • count) useless edits - warned
• Vyngarsson (talk • contribs • count) - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [9] for a good example. Another example [10]
• Phiattiangel (talk • contribs • count) - 11 April 2007, trolling.

Dealt with

• 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 [11]; he & I were the only Category:Conservative Users in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[12] 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:Borken Mind Sockpuppet of Icewedge (self-declared). Blocked, and all new pages by this account deleted.--TerryH^Talk 13:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
• User:Terryeo. He said he was going to leave Conservapedia unless I send him a letter which I won't do. I don't think he will return given the current Scientology article, but I could be wrong. Conservative 01:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
• User:Tenna -- made a video game page full of obscenity and slander. Recommend permanent ban--Dave3172 19:14, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocked. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

• User:JeffersonDarcy -- linking to NAMBLA site. [13] RobS 16:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  • First, we know from Andy that linking to creepy sites is okay, even if you wouldn't put the material itself on CP (like the Silent Scream site). Second, JeffersonDarcy is a very good contributor, and has helped with some of my law articles.-AmesG_yo! 16:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  • TOTALLY agree. You can't have it both ways, you know. Flippin 16:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Of course I linked to the NAMBLA site - the article was about NAMBLA. Who do you think I should link to there, NAACP? --JeffersonDarcy 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• In the future, maybe you should get permission to place links to questionable content. Naughty naughty Flippin 16:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  • that's a fair concern - but when someone posts the necessity for citations on the discussion page, I don't think that linking to the organization's official website would be a bad idea. --JeffersonDarcy 16:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
    • The link could violate the Commandments, however this user's contributions do not show that this was anything more than a good faith attempt to improve the article. Therefore, No Block. Geo.Talk 12:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
      • I endorse the block for edit warring after being warned [14], and I agree linking to the site was a good faith attempt by JeffersonDarcy to improve the article until it was proven the site goes beyond issue advocacy and is inviolation of Commandment 1. [15] RobS 11:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
• Truthandjustice (talk • contribs • count)
  1. The reason given for Truthandjustice's block is: "Vandal") --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
• AdamNelson (talk • contribs • count) new user making sudden, unexplained big changes
  1. ---Ed, I saw it, about the same time Andy did. He's gone --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 09:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  2. 09:49, 21 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AdamNelson (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandal & Per Andy
• AL (talk • contribs • count) off to a bad start --Ed Poor 17:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. 17:42, 19 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AL (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (made about a dozen edits in an hour, virtually all of which had to be reverted by others and myself because they removed factual info (e.g., SF entry) or inserted opinions as though they were facts (several instances))
• Nematocyte (talk • contribs • count) - warned not to annoy TK Terry.--Ed Poor 12:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

  Ed, are you sure that TK has another problem with him? I am the one who has had problems with Nematocyte over my article Extraterrestrial life.--TerryH^Talk 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

  I misunderstood I guess. --Ed Poor 17:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

• Dw1237200 sock of Ak1053287 (Who had a 3 day block by DanH starting on 12 April) got the second name on 13 April. Blocked, Infinite, both ID's. --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
• RightWolf2 (talk • contribs • count) - threats, no useful edits --Ed Poor 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

  I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--Aschlafly 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

  Threatening, breaking the rules, blackmail... I'm no lawyer, but I don't think he has any legal grounds for his latest threat. I'll be blocking him. --Hojimachong^talk 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

  Isn't he already blocked? I got one of his socks earlier today. Tsumetai 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

  Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". DanH 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

  You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
  2. 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
• Jeremiah4-22 (talk • contribs • count) - for this edit http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biscuit&diff=97586&oldid=78309 (Blocked for 3 days) DanH 14:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
• Hillarycliton (talk • contribs • count) - blocked, all five contribs reverted --Ed Poor 12:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
• Save Our Values (talk • contribs • count)
  1. No contribs since 13 April --Ed Poor 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
• AppliedFaith (talk • contribs • count) -trolling, see [16][17], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
  1. I gave him a question to answer at talk:Heterosexuality. --Ed Poor 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  2. Blocked for ONE YEAR --Ed Poor 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
• User:AnonymousLegion - Vandalism--Epicurius 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --Elamdri 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
• User:Mjc12 - blocked by Conservative
• Polarbear (talk • contribs • count) - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by Elamdri 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
• TK blocked Cheney123 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
• User:Theelephant - Vandalism--Epicurius 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. 18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
• Cooperstown4 (talk • contribs • count) - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
• Zac4213 (talk • contribs • count) - Was my block too hasty?
• Jaques (talk • contribs • count)- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See Whale and Plankton.

Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--Aschlafly 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• Mandolin2k (talk • contribs • count) - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
• Godblessamerica (talk • contribs • count) - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [18]
• Hamtandrus (talk • contribs • count) -self identified Holocaust denier. [19]

I think he's just being facetious.--Elamdri 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

He also says that he's 'done with this - place' Wikinterpreter

No block Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.Talk 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• SRogers (talk • contribs • count) - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [20] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --RobS 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
• Sureal (talk • contribs • count) - altered RMS Titanic to blame liberals for the loss of the ship, as well as previous bad edits for which he was warned. One week. Karajou 18:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
• Homeschool mom (talk • contribs • count) lays it on too thick - suspected parodist

Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--Aschlafly 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--Aschlafly 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Homeschool mom agreed to leave on her own. Case closed.--Aschlafly 19:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)