|
|
| (231 intermediate revisions by 55 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> |
| | =<font color="blue">Abuse Complaints</font>= | | =<font color="blue">Abuse Complaints</font>= |
| − | Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] | + | 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. |
| | | | |
| − | == Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==
| + | 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 tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The articles were:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *Billy J. Guin
| + | |
| − | *Allison R. Kolb
| + | |
| − | *Hall M. Lyons
| + | |
| − | *Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Please unblock me,
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Billy Hathorn
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | bhathorn
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
| + | |
| − | : If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
| + | |
| − | : [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | ::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Micheal Moore ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In the talk section, there is article with an image of Moore in high school, and with the quote <blockquote>
| + | |
| − | He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. Scorpio 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | </blockquote>
| + | |
| − | Isn't this against the rules? Now I realize it is called '''Conserv'''apedia, but isn't this even going a little too far?
| + | |
| − | [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]
| + | |
| − | :That's the talk page, not the main space. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:10, 24 December 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Oh, i see, well nevemind then, I just thought I should bring it up in case it was. [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | ::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == [[User:GoObama]] ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
| + | |
| − | ::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
| + | |
| − | ::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
| + | |
| − | :::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
| + | |
| − | :::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)
| + | |
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.
