Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(censored words)
Line 167: Line 167:
  
 
:'''Sysop reply:''' If you realize you were "insulting my friend" then you agree it was an insult? Anyway, today's comment ''you approach everything with such hostility'' violates [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. So come back next week if you want to help the project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:'''Sysop reply:''' If you realize you were "insulting my friend" then you agree it was an insult? Anyway, today's comment ''you approach everything with such hostility'' violates [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. So come back next week if you want to help the project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Without wanting to tread on anyone's toes, the user did not once acknowledge he insulted TK. He placed the word in quotation marks to show that this was the belief of Ed, not himself, and repeated several times that he perceived there had not been an insult made. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:43, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 12:43, April 11, 2008

Back to the Desk

Abuse Complaints

Archives: 1

Wrongly block from Conservapedia

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[1]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the 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.
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. 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

He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. Scorpio 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't this against the rules? Now I realize it is called Conservapedia, but isn't this even going a little too far? thegovernator

That's the talk page, not the main space. 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. thegovernator

Unblocking User:LardoBolger?

I've been trying to get my account unblocked (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. 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. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) LardoBolger 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

User:GoObama

POV pusher. TheEvilSpartan 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Began vandalizing after I warned him. ThomasB 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Andy's dealt with him. 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.[1] 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."[2] 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."[3] 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.[4]

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.--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 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 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. 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? 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? SSchultz 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Is there no response? 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).
Philip J. Rayment 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Block of SSchultz

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the O'Bannon article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. Philip J. Rayment 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Index item - Bible is for C**ts

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.


Abuse by Crocoite

Once again I believe Crocoite has abused his position as a Conservapedia Sysop. Yesterday DHayes mentioned several articles that blatantly violated the Conservapedia commandments and guidelines, then stated his honest opinion that such articles do not belong in a trustworthy encyclopedia. Seven minutes after helping and receiving thanks from Conservative for pointing out a problem with a link in an article, Crocoite blocked DHayes for one day. After I told Conservative about the block, Crocoite did the same thing to me. But it doesn't stop there. TomMoore was also blocked for a day when he pointed out Crocoite's abuse of power.

When will it end? Crocoite has blocked me twice so far and I never even violated any of the guidelines and commandments linked from the main page. Even when following the editing guidelines on his talk page, (If the article is not protected Don't just complain on the talk pages. You're an editor... make the changes) I managed to violate an unwritten rule that he apparently made up on the spot. My efforts to confirm these unwritten rules with Mr. Schlafly were unsuccessful.

As of 14:49, 15 March, there is a new rule posted on Crocoite's talk page. "Some of the editors on Conservapedia will see one of their buddies get banned and they will rush to their defense. You will receive a 1 day ban if I ban another user and you "tattle" to another sysop or post your tattle to other talk pages. After you return from your block, you should concern yourself with improving Conservapedia or your next block will be longer." By the way, DHayes is not a buddy of mine. Unfortunately I was blocked at 00:37, over 14 hours prior to this new rule being posted on his talk page. Maybe I am being unreasonable, but I think it is common sense to post a change in the rules and then start the enforcement. But that's just me. According to the guidelines page, the only rules are on the commandment and guidelines pages, not Crocoite's talk page. Yet apparently this sysop has determined that he can add rules to suit his personal taste whenever he wants. I have unfortunately run afoul of two of these rules.

This is my first post after my block has expired, and yes Mr. Crocoite, it is geared towards "improving Conservapedia". Such abuses of power will not help this encyclopedia. Punishing editors for writing constructive criticism will only turn this encyclopedia into a 'cult of personality' for the Sysops that abuse their power. I fully expect to be blocked again for pointing out the obvious problems that are occurring here, but then again, maybe that won't happen. We shall see. --Jimmy 00:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)


Censored words

When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource. AdenJ 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. Philip J. Rayment 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing. AdenJ 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't be a d***. --Ed Poor Talk 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Blocked by Ed Poor

I would like to complain about my recent block from Edpoor.... The block reason states that I was blocked for insult But this message shows another motive. I was blocked because I "insulted" Edpoor's friend TK. The edit in question is this message to a user. I simply stated my opinion. I did not "insult" TK. Also, I find the very flimsy excuse of "last dozen or so contributions (being) talk" as thinly veiled at best. I sent the sysop the following message via email:

   Please forgive me if this is comes across as hostile, it's not meant to...
   But I feel you are mistaken. Of my 20 posts this site, they are categorized
   as the following:
  *2 Changes to my user page
  *2 changes to the Al Franken page (one which is simply correcting a typo I
     missed)
  *6 Changes to Main page talk
  *1 Message to Mr Schlafly
  *2 Messages to Crocite pointing out a violation of rules
  *2 Posts to the Bob Jones University Page (again, one correction of a
     mistake)
  *1 Message to Bohdan asking about how things work here
  *1 Post to the Marijuana talk page to request a change (the page is blocked)
  *1 Change to the Schlockumentary page (removing red links)
  *1 Changes to the Lawrence V Texas page where I added a brand new summary to 
   the top of the article for clarity and 1 message to EuropeanUnion
   The last post is obviously the one I got blocked for, and forgive me saying
   this... But that is completely hypocritical. I simply expressed my opinion
   to another user, I didn't broadcast it on the main page, I didn't insult TK
   on his userpage, I simply offered advice to a new user. 
   

I would also like to say, Sir, that I find it funny that I'm getting blocked for insulting TK when he himself as given free run to insult and patronize anyone he gets the urge to. As I look at other postings, I find it clear that you are friends, but I don't think revenge blocks because someone posts something bad about one of your friends is very democratic.</blockquote>

The response I got, in my opinion, reveals the motives even more:

   "In other words, you're prepared to take it back and apologize if reinstated?
   Uncle Ed"

To which I responded:

   "Under no circumstances. I have done nothing wrong here.  I simply gave another user an 
   honest example of my opinion as regarding another user.  I see no reason to apologize.  My
   last dozen edits were not all talk.  As a matter of fact, even when you take out the 
   doubles for correction and leave the non-talk talk posts, my posts are 5/20 or 25% main 
   space edits.  I would rather sit out the three days that give in to the fact that TK is 
   invincible and can do what he pleases but if another user says anything unflattering about 
   him they get blocked."</blockquote>

I'm appalled at the blatant abuse of sysop power. I was told that this was the formal page to complain about such matters and thought I would leave my messages here. If there are any questions, feel free to leave them here or contact me through my email, which is enabled. Thank you Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 00:14, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Sysop reply: If you realize you were "insulting my friend" then you agree it was an insult? Anyway, today's comment you approach everything with such hostility violates Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks. So come back next week if you want to help the project. --Ed Poor Talk 08:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Without wanting to tread on anyone's toes, the user did not once acknowledge he insulted TK. He placed the word in quotation marks to show that this was the belief of Ed, not himself, and repeated several times that he perceived there had not been an insult made. TheGySom 08:43, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html
  2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437
  3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437
  4. http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp