|
|
| (278 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | <noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center><br></noinclude> | | <noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center><br></noinclude> |
| − | <big><font color="blue">Abuse Complaints</font></big><br>
| + | =<font color="blue">Abuse Complaints</font>= |
| − | <sup>Archives:[[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]</sup>
| + | Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive3|3]]<br> |
| | + | Conservapedia no longer handles complaints of abuse on the wiki. This allows us to handle such matters carefully and professionally, and allows all parties to retain their dignity. Previous discussions here tended to be ignored by one side while the other side would spin popular opinion. Such is not efficient, effective, or businesslike. |
| | | | |
| − | == Abuse by sysop Fox ==
| + | Before filing any complaints, please take about five minutes to assess the situation from an outside view. Carefully notice any errors you made and try to see things from the other side's point of view as well. If you still think there might be a problem, rationally attempt to contact the other party by email. Do not rant or send hate mail, as that will not help your case. Many people have the innate capacity to be calm and rational if approached as such. If this route is unsuccessful, please contact an active senior sysop and we will work from there. Please note that we will treat anything told to us as a personnel matter and will hold it in the strictest confidence. Many resolutions may not appear publicly but the matter will be resolved. Thank you and have a wonderful day. |
| − | 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.) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter/1&diff=prev&oldid=248430 this] edit. [[User:GregLarson | 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. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 05:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == David Landreth article ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | the article is extremely vain and i think the writer should be warned {{unsigned|Marowit}}
| + | |
| − | :The main author has not edited here since the end of May, so appears to no longer be around. Perhaps you could simply improve [[David Landreth|the article]] yourself? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Wismike|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Wismike|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. [[User:Conservative|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? [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::::[[Liberal mercaptans]] are easily discernable. [http://www.mflohc.mb.ca/fact_sheets_folder/mercaptans.html] [[User:RobS|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." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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 [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *Why would you assume none of us have read the article? I tried to email you a copy of it, which you say you don't have, but you have not entered your email address so that I can. My contact information is listed on my talk page. You can get at me on AIM if you would like. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 13:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == 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. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
| + | |
Before filing any complaints, please take about five minutes to assess the situation from an outside view. Carefully notice any errors you made and try to see things from the other side's point of view as well. If you still think there might be a problem, rationally attempt to contact the other party by email. Do not rant or send hate mail, as that will not help your case. Many people have the innate capacity to be calm and rational if approached as such. If this route is unsuccessful, please contact an active senior sysop and we will work from there. Please note that we will treat anything told to us as a personnel matter and will hold it in the strictest confidence. Many resolutions may not appear publicly but the matter will be resolved. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
