Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse"

Revision as of 16:24, August 10, 2007

Abuse Complaints
^Archives:1

Abuse by sysop Fox

I was permanently blocked under username TraJSmith by Fox apparently for being a liberal parodist. I have written no parodies on this site. I either contribute short, but stragiht forward factual issues, usually on matters financial, or offer opinions on discussion pages. My opinions are liberal, however. What parody was written? Should a sysop be given power to permanently delete a user for anything less than an egregious crime?

Comment by Fox:You're absolutely right - I believe there was a mistake, and I was actually blocking you for trolling in the Main page:Talk; (although that is often the place to find many liberal parodists posing as outraged conservatives.) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

not sure if this is where i bring this to attention...

A sysop might want to block User:RWest for this edit. Greg 16:02, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

• For a talk page comment? Hardly. More likely a sysop would block someone for a globalist POV, such as suggesting articles be renamed in compliance with WP's world view. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

David Landreth article

the article is extremely vain and i think the writer should be warned —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marowit (talk)

The main author has not edited here since the end of May, so appears to no longer be around. Perhaps you could simply improve the article yourself? Philip J. Rayment 04:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Deletion of article by Conservative

I wrote an article called "Abortion Attitudes" that was immediately deleted by Conservative. The article simply stated the results of polls about Americans attitudes about abortion. He or she claimed that it "wasn't nuanced enought" or some such nonsense.

He could have edited it to make it more nuanced. Wismike

Please respond.

See my message to you at: User talk:Wismike. Here is what I wrote: "I don't mind you doing United States abortion attitudes article or worldwide abortion attitudes article but please do a decent article. For example, Do people favor some restrictions? If so what restrictions? How have abortion attitudes changed over time" I don't think you made a very good attempt at creating a good article and I think it was intentional. Conservative 17:07, 3 August 2007 (EDT)‎

This is his criticism:

"I don't mind you doing United States abortion attitudes article or worldwide abortion attitudes article but please do a decent article. For example, Do people favor some restrictions? If so what restrictions? How have abortion attitudes changed over time?"

The article actually did say what restrictions people favored and specifically stated restrictions on "partial birth abortion". It also stated that some people would allow abortions in the case of rape, incest or the life/health of the mother. The implication being that they would restrict abortions otherwise.

A random walk through maybe 10 pages brings up these articles that are ridiculously "un nuanced" or short: Totalitarian State, Boolean Algebra, Pajama Media and Henry Cisnero's.

Maybe Totalitarian State should be edited to include Conservapedia as an example. Wismike

Wismike, your abortion attitudes article stunk. It only gave precise stats for the things you wanted to highlight and was vague about what you didn't want to highlight. When you are serious about creating a good article on the subject let us know. Conservative 17:21, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I would ask you to prove your allegations that my article "stunk" and that I only gave precise stats for things that I wanted to highlight. Was my article so grammatically incorrect as to be unreadable? I didn't save my own article but I believe that I gave a range of stats for each item that I highlighted. I also provided a link to the source so that the readers or future editors would have access to the same statistics. Why don't you let the article stand and let others criticize or edit it's content? Wismike

Liberal mercaptans are easily discernable. [1] Rob Smith 15:03, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

• This is not a debate site. If a senior editor says you were stacking the deck, I'm inclined to accept his judgment over yours. A possible rebuttal would have been, "But I included THIS for balance." Demanding "proof" is a sly way of shifting the burden.
• All edits must be trustworthy, which means the burden of proof is on YOU. Poor edits will be removed. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here." --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:50, 8 August 2007 (EDT)\

This is my final post on this matter. So far I have been told that my article "stinks", that I am a "whiner", that I stink like rotten cabbage (see mercaptan) and I have been blocked from editing for 3 days.

Ed - If you read through this entire discussion, my original rebuttal was that I in fact did include information for balance. I am only asking for proof from Conservative because the article was deleted so quickly that unfortunately, I can offer no proof myself. That seems to put the burden of proof on him.

I have reread the "Conservapedia Commandments" and as far as I can tell, I have not violated any of them either by the article that I wrote or by the entries that I have made on the debate pages. At the same time, I have been insulted and unfairly criticized. I say unfairly criticized because it is clear that no other sysops have even read my article but they have been quick to jump in and make declarations about the quality or content of it.

I guess thats all. Sincerely Wismike

Why don't you delete the recently added article about Woody Allen?

That article is just great. Really "nuanced". It is a shining example of a great contribution to this site. Wismike