Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Unwarranted 90/10 block)
(Unwarranted 90/10 block: Nice quote.....)
Line 187: Line 187:
 
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910</small>}}
 
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910</small>}}
 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 14:01, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 14:01, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
:So, you concur that Ed Poor made a mistake. But shouldn't you post be in the quote-of-the-day section? Here, I'd expect the arguments to be closer to the point. Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:16, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 14:16, 16 December 2008

Back to the Desk

Abuse Complaints

Archives: 1 2

Axiom of Choice

Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in Axiom of Choice (which I'll just call AC).

Brief summary:

  • AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning.
  • Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM.
  • BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct.
  • Full conversation - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk".
  • BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue.
  • I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts.
  • Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow.
  • When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer.").

The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --AlanS 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? Bugler 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --AlanS 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -Foxtrot 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
  • The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.
His edit to Axiom of Choice corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you also reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
  • Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble
Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
  • And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.
"Valid criticism"? The claim was wrong. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
  • Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance
I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --AlanS 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A five year block of a new user without any warning for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we trying to shut down Conservapedia? HelpJazz 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I think this is just bad style:

  1. 14:49, 28 November 2008 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)
  • looking at the list of his contributions, AlanS hasn't violated the 90/10 guideline
  • granted, he was involved in some discussions: it took a while to show that Foxtrot was wrong
  • for the record: AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong, and AlanS is blocked...

Is this the way we want to perform discussions to improve the quality of our articles? --BRichtigen 09:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Ceaseless arguments like this only help the enemies of Conservapedia. For the benefit of the project, please all drop this matter and get back to making more substantive contributions. Bugler 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)
I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --BRichtigen 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Range Blocks

TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:

  • Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the anon proxy part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable. Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--BRichtigen 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
  1. 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
  2. 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
  3. 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
  4. 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
  5. 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
  6. 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --AlanS 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. Jallen 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks! --BRichtigen 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  • Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --₮K/Talk 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --BRichtigen 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  • Well, that's the problem with assumptions. Your email was in with the spam. In the future, you might consider actually making a post to a person's talk page, if you don't hear back, as anyone should, getting a question. I will respond to your email in a few minutes, or perhaps Justine would prefer me to forward it to her? --₮K/Talk 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I didn't assume anything. I use e-mail only as a last resort, i.e., when I'm blocked, as it was the case - I've this idea that one should try to produce at least the modicum that any discussion takes place in the open on a medium like this :-)
I'm now used to be an editor at CP, so I take some effort to be able to edit - which you can't expect from a casual visitor. These /16 blocks are - at least - bad PR.
Of course, I care for the Poles and others, as I'm one of them. I know that CP is American-centered, but I resent this high-handed approach to us few foreigners.
--BRichtigen 17:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I too am non-American and have nothing but praise for the way that we are accommodated within the welcoming bounds of this fundamentally American project. I would add, BRichtigen, that this page is for issues to be noted, whereupon sysops will decide on the action to be atken. [Inappropriate remark removed by Administrator] Bugler 17:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)
As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. Jallen 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  • Justine, I know you know my email, and I also think you can tell what was done was in consult with others, including Geo. As I stated above, taking my queue directly from Andy and other Senior Administrators, we should not be discussing particulars here, but rather privately. Conservapedia does not now, nor has it ever, discussed security issues on the wiki, nor blocks. That is what the wiki email system is. I think it violates peoples privacy to be discussing such things here. you go right ahead and unilaterially take whatever action you feel is justified in regard to blocks. You are, after all, one of our most senior and trusted administrators! I just thought given all the unilaterial arguments going on, this was something better dealt with directly among those of us who can block,is all. --₮K/Talk 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I'll consult Andy with these range blocks asap. Jallen 16:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Isn't that what should have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "Terrorists! Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --AlanS 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us. Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... share his knowledge. But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The URL you gave shows that the network this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's a fourth. This means that at least 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --AlanS 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. Jallen 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)
I don't have time to perform every single block. It is for that reason that I authorized TK to perform these rangeblocks. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 23:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It's better not to discuss range blocks. If you can't access CP because of a range block, contact a sysop via email. --Ed Poor Talk 12:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It seems to me that it's better not to perform range blocks. What if the "you" in question is a new user? When I first started at CP I didn't know what a sysop was, let alone how to contact one. How many complaints a month do we get from people who don't understand that "night editing" being turned off doesn't mean that they are blocked? The fact remains that it doesn't make sense to block 4 times more people than you intend to, unless your intent is to shut down editing on this site. HelpJazz 13:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Interference and Collusiveness

AlanS received the following block:

  • 20:00, 2 December 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Interference)

The interference seems to be the following edit on a talk-page:

Well, the information is freely available, so there is no need to invade anybody's privacy: The user was blocked for "Evolutionist Vandalism", and only one of his/her edits has been reverted: This one for being made by a "liberal evolutionist" --AlanS 19:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

So, he answered a question of another editor in a civil manner. How is this interference? And what is bad about interference, anyway?

When the administrator HenryS lifted the block, the editor with blocking rights Bugler blocked AlanS again, stating the same reason.

To use the terminology Bugler had introduced: we common grunts are interested in what's happening here at CP and want to be dealt with fairly. And why don't the sergeants follow the orders of the officers, but expect us to be obedient to them, not allowing us to raise even simple questions - because that's what AlanS's block is about?

Another troubling tendency in the last days was that frequently the instruction to use email or other non-public venues of information popped up, more often than in the months before.

As this is a board where high-school pupils and elder women and men communicate, A. Schlafly has rightly tried to provide an environment where any idea (how misguided ever) of creepiness is ruled out. As any teacher knows, one should try to stick to the open door policy and refrain from contacting pupils via email, IM or such.

--BRichtigen 07:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Simple questions are always okay. Rhetorical questions might not be. Using "simple questions" as a disguise for opening a debate about the rules is strictly out. Next time I see someone doing this - other than in the Debate Topics - he's gone. --Ed Poor Talk 12:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)
Personally I find the actual block the least important issue here. The most important issues are the flagrant breaches of the chain of command, the total lack of recourse on the off chance that abuse occurrs, and the likelyhood of an encouragement of off-site communication (which, to me, seems counter to the idea of having a wiki anyway; why else would the software include talk pages?) leading to an increased likelyhood of placing minors in an inapropriate position. HelpJazz 13:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Is (was) Tolkiendil a Vandal?

Ed Poor blocked Tolkiendil, stating:

  • 08:48, 12 December 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked Tolkiendil (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting nonsense or gibberish into pages or edit comments)

I don't regard Tolkiendil as a vandal, and elaborated this on Ed Poor's talk page:

As far as I can see, He wasn't vandalizing the Tolkien articles - most of which he had created. There is - a minor - quibble of interpretation over the role of Eowyn. When I tried to find a resolution in the internet, I found much of debate instead, nothing clear cut, IMO (and nothing to important). I understand both positions Tolkiendil's and Ed Poor's , but Ed Poor enforces his view via his blocking rights.
And then there are other minor points. For instance, have a look here:
Tolkiendil had written:Herugrim was the sword of King Théoden of Rohan. It had been given to Gríma Wormtongue for safekeeping, but was returned to Théoden when he rode to war.
Ed Poor changes this to: Herugrim was the sword of King Théoden of Rohan. It had been kept by Gríma Wormtongue along was "many other things that men had missed", but was taken back to Théoden when he rode to war.
Ed Poor claims in his edit comment: No record that Grima was "given" this sword - or anything else for that matter
In Book III, Chapter VI, "The King of the Golden Hall". we read:
[...] At the moment Háma came again from the hall. Behind him cringing between two other men, came Gríma the Wormtongue. His face was very white. His eyes blinked in the sunlight. Háma knelt and presented to Théoden a long swarod in a scabbard clasped with gold and set with green gems.
'Here, lord, is Herugrim, your ancient blade', he said. 'It was found in his chest. Loth was he to render up the keys. Many other things are there which men have missed.'
'You lie,' said Wormtongue. 'And this sword your master himself gave into my keeping.'
'And he now requires it of you agaian,' said Théoden.'Does this displease you?'[...]
So Grima - as thief and a liar - claimed in front of Théoden that he was given the sword, and Théoden doesn't deny this. Unnecessary quibble in my opinion: I think that Tolkiendil is right, but Ed Poor's version isn't wrong, altogether. But I think that Ed Poor is very wrong in the way he tries to enforce his version.
Tolkiendil has made countless edits on the Lord of the Ring. I daresay that he knows more about Tolkien than any of us, including Ed Poor. But perhaps that's the rub: Maybe Ed Poor doesn't like the idea that someone has a greater knowledge of this subject than he does.
Of course, there may be a few honest mistakes made by Tolkiendil. The infinite ban because Ed Poor dislikes some of his interpretations, or because he added to many details, seems to be absolutely unjustified - and the instantaneous deletion of Tolkiendil's user page just undignified!
OTOH, I don't think that one should take the whole middle-earth universe to serious, it should be fun!
BTW, Tolkiendil seems to be right with his categorization of the Eskimo-Aleut languages, too.
I have said this a couple of times: This high-handed approach to us common editors destroys the spirit which is necessary to be a volunteer on this project. Here, the work of months was disregarded in seconds!
Therefore, I appeal to Ed Poor to lift the block of Tolkiendil. Though I don't know whether this action is futile, but I hope that Tolkiendil rejoins us editors though he was treated in such a capricious way.
--BRichtigen 08:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)

For this, I got a block of one day.

Tolkiendil made more than 1000 edits on CP. Most of these regard Tolkien's The Lord of the Ring. This is - of course - not a central part of CP, but nonetheless, it is nice to have it on board: The book - and the movies- impressed millions of teenagers around the world, and perhaps, one or the other finds via Tolkien to CP. As far as I can see were Tolkiendil's edits careful and diligent. But we shouldn't forget that we are talking about a piece of fiction, so, there are always different interpretations possible. The examples Ed Poor gave for Tolkiendil's vandalism are examples for such different interpretations: was Éowyn recognized when she was under disguise? Tolkien himself attributed her the male pronouns, so she was shielded from the eyes of the readers. And as no one in Tolkien's needs the loo, why should she be discovered? It's futile to debate about this point (there are endless debates on the net), but it is worse to decree a point of view.

Tolkiendil described Rivendall as a city. Well, it's more of a village, or a hamlet. But is this chose of wording vandalism? I don't think so.

As I stated above, this is a discussion at the fringe of CP. Most of us don't take that much interest in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkiendil did, and he put quite an effort in his posts. To disesteem such an effort is to disappoint the editor badly. To destroy his user page within minutes after his block means to add insult to injury.

--BRichtigen 10:34, 14 December 2008 (EST)


Unwarranted 90/10 block

Does my history violate the 90/10 guideline at any time? Or is the block reason "Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk" just a handy tool to quell inconvenient questions? Frankly, for me this seems less than administrator's discretion but administrator's caprice --BRichtigen 10:33, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Frankly, if others sysops think I have made a mistake I'm inclined to trust their judgment. --Ed Poor Talk 10:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)


It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt, "Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

--₮K/Talk! 14:01, 16 December 2008 (EST)

So, you concur that Ed Poor made a mistake. But shouldn't you post be in the quote-of-the-day section? Here, I'd expect the arguments to be closer to the point. Thanks, BRichtigen 15:16, 16 December 2008 (EST)