Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Foxtrot and the Axiom of Choice)
(@TK: range blocks)
Line 575: Line 575:
  
 
:::I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:48, 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. --[[User:BRichtigen|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.
 +
 +
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 14:43, 2 December 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)


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.



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)

Severe abuse of power by Karajou

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can find it here, if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore put this message there, supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":

Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. Karajou 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library today and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)


Separate Section

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--jp 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the minor changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --Jareddr 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

TerryH threats and blocking.

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --DinsdaleP 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--Jareddr 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. Bugler 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --Jareddr 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. Bugler 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? Philip J. Rayment 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. Bugler 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh?
  • Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
  • Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that was DannyRedful.
  • He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
  • Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to not do something that is not his job to do?
So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
Philip J. Rayment 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: How is it an offence to not do something that is not his job to do?

It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. Bugler 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr didn't remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email ("It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [2][3][4][5][6][7].
I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. StatsMsn 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr was removing the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was helping you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained why he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
Philip J. Rayment 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he knew they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. Bugler 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr knew that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. Philip J. Rayment 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the Hollywood Values article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. ---user:DLerner--- 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Joaquin Martinez

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. Wandering 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). Philip J. Rayment 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with Greek influence on Western Culture with Joaquin is getting absurd. This was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. My version is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. He proceeded to add a bit of good material and some other things. I incorporated his material and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. After several people questioned him, Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found here. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I did remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? HenryS 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Someone tried to hack my account

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --Alpnineone 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

And again with IP 139.102.254.38 from Indiana State University. http://samspade.org/whois/139.102.254.38 --Alpnineone 13:59, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
First of all, phishing is not hacking. Second of all, how are we supposed to know that this IP address tried to phish for your password? We can't just block anyone who claims abuse from an IP, or someone with ill intentions could have the entire world blocked from the site. HelpJazz 19:34, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
I had the same thing which was linked to a blocked user who attempted to mailbomb my e-mail account in revenge. That IP has now been blocked. BrianCo 19:39, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

DeanS abusing power

DLerner complaint

DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking Jirby. Here is the history:

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is not an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

DLerner 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Philip's response

I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --DeanStalk 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you have a right to block for an invalid reason. Matthew 7:3 Philip J. Rayment 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Bugler's response

My reading of the situation is that Dean has not abused power at all, but is using his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose sole motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. Bugler
Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. Daphnea was not such a case. Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. Bugler 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. Learn together 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. Bugler 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on evidence. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. Philip J. Rayment 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Bugler 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to detect troublemaking, but finds other evidence before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to your comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the only thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't seem to be guilty to me; rather, because the evidence was lacking. (The evidence is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a substitute for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is all that is required.
Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block JasonH recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
Philip J. Rayment 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Dean's response

In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit here. 2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [8]. 3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs here. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter." 4. Then I revert Impm's edit here. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this article, and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. His contributions show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles. 2. Jirby comments on my talk page, protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --DeanStalk 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --DeanStalk 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB IS NOT a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. JamesLRay 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
"Jirby is not an innocent bystander": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
"Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
"...not complaining about another editor's block": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our responsibility to do something about that.
"He is not "Minding his own business".": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
"...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
"To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
"I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
"To me, this contradicts Philip's statement": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
"To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
Philip J. Rayment 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Other editors responses

I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--MHayes 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at Ed Poor's block log? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (not "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. Fyezall 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"

I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --DirkB 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. Bugler 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --DirkB 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. Bugler 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking those rules, not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --DirkB 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --MHayes 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was not justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. Philip J. Rayment 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Au contraire, mon vieux. Bugler 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Karajou's Abuse

I would like to inquire User:Karajou's blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are here, main page talk, here, Karajou's WP talk page, Karajou's CP talk page, and a small note here, Wisdom98's WP talk page.

  • Wisdom98's block log shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: "Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care." which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 opposed Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply voted against someone else on another wiki.
  • KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but here for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he blocks KevinM for infinite.
  • A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately blocking the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
  • This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. JamesLRay 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! TomKilt 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power

I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. Mobpdevijql5 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. Mobpdevijql5 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. Jinxmchue 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
No, now innocent people are being affected by YOUR actions, Jinx. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.
At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. Mobpdevijql6 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. Mobpdevijql6 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. Learn together 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
That sounds nice - theoretically. --DirkE 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. Human 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

My recent block

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for "too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break". As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on Talk:Main Page not an edit war. DLerner 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

DLerner, If you think it is acceptable to defend anarchists and call police fascists, you are wrong. I'm not going to tolerate that talk here on Conservapedia. --DeanStalk 06:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
It is not up to you whether free speech and the right for individual opinion is allowed. Your block did not follow the rules or even the vague and unilateral blocking policy; The block was entirely on ideological grounds. I believe that police (no doubt under orders from their superiors) can sometimes act in a fascist manner, you don't. I don't suggest that you should be blocked, or stripped of your sysop powers, and I would be a hypocrite if I did! Furthermore, my remarks (which by the way, never defended anarchists) were in the context of a debate (albeit on the Main page talk, where as you most certainly are aware, the news of the day is discussed with opinions running through the gamut of opinions).
If you cannot tolerate free expression and differing opinions, then I humbly suggest that this project is not right for you. It it not your job to be the ideology police, nor anyone else. The symbol of our project is the flag of the United States of America, whose first amendment ensures free speech and opinion. Unless the policy wonks here come up with Conservapedia:Alien and Sedition act, I think I can say what I want about the government, military, police, fire brigade, CDC or anything or anyone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DLerner (talk)
DLerner, I'm writing this so the OTHER admins should be aware -and act- against this abuse) sounds suspiciously like a threat. My strong advice to you is to drop this, and devote your considerable energies and intelligence to constructive additions to this project. Bugler 08:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
<in order> Bugler, I assure you it wasn't a threat, it was mainly written because my blocker has so far been the only to respond, as is his right, to my complaint; and even if it were a threat, what could I possibly do if it was ignored? Come on! I've been here almost as long as you have and I'm still not allowed to night edit (despite me living in Australia...). Thank you for the compliment, but since this is not the first time that I have been blocked for disagreement, I find it difficult to simply let go. And this isn't strictly out of a personal quest for justice, (though I would be lying to say that it's entirely impersonal), if protest isn't made early against abuse, it will eventually be so rampant that -like at the ending of Animal Farm you won't be able to tell the pigs from the humans. DLerner 09:19, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree that the comment that Bugler picked up on does not constitute a threat. However, I consider calling the police "fascists" to be name-calling rather than ideology. You do not have the freedom to say whatever you like on this site; the "free speech" guarantee does not apply in places such as private web-sites. I support DeanS in the case of this block. And you are on your way to getting one from me, for not resolving the matter of your signature template that I told you about on your talk page more than a week ago and Ed Poor has reminded you of since. Philip J. Rayment 09:30, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I did not did I call all police fascists, and even if i had, so what? Yes, name calling is against our policy, but I did not call DeanS a fascist, nor did I attack him for his beliefs, why then do I get blocked?. Of course I don't expect to be able to say whatever I want, in fact, since children use this website, it is against the law for me to write whatever I want, I can't write obscenity. (Not that I have any desire to...). I had forgotten about the signature template, but rest assured I will get onto it right away, thank you for a reminder where others would have given a block. DLerner 09:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Two side notes---what exactly constitutes a "signature template"? Can someone insert, say, an American flag next to their name on each of their sigs? Also, if calling the police "fascists" is name-calling, would calling liberals "fascists" be considered name-calling as well? Thanks! --Jareddr 09:50, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
DLerner, no, you did not call all police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation. I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did? Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal? If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions. My point about not saying whatever you want was to point out that there are limits.
Jareddr, a template, if you don't realise, is a page (usually, but not necessarily, in the Template: namespace) that is included in another page by means of a link (the Main Page, for example, comprises two templates, i.e. separate pages, that make up the left and right columns of the Main Page respectively). DLerner uses a sub-page of his user page as a template that he has used for his signature. You can insert a flag by means of making a customised signature on your preferences page (I'm not sure how, but I have seen it done). Calling fascists (such as Hitler) "fascists" is factually correct and therefore okay. Otherwise, calling someone "fascist" is merely namecalling, particularly when referring to an institution of a democratic state.
Philip J. Rayment 10:45, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I support the block, I would have blocked him myself at the time. HenryS 13:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Reply: "no, you did not call all police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation.. And therefore making a generalization during discussion is a blockable offense?!
"I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did?" No. I wrote that in response to what you wrote above, indeed calling some police action fascist is name calling, but to my understanding, we only need to be civil and avoid name calling towards each other, not to government organizations . This is to the best of my understanding the name calling policy as written in the guidelines. And frankly I would be shocked if a consensus was reached amongst the movers and shakers of this project that attacking local or federal government agencies was a punishable act. And if such policy is eventually made, I propose it be aptly named Conservapedia:Sedition Act. (For those not in the know, Google "Alien and sedition act".)
"did someone claim that you did?" No.
"Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal?" Yes.
"If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions." Even when they are not deserving?
I do not believe that an organization is exempt from criticism merely because it is an arm of the democratic state, nothing is ever exempt from criticism, period. (IMHO, of course).
If the administrators disagree with me on this, as is most certainly their right, I suggest they draw up clear, concise and easy to understand site policy defining what we may criticize, and what is forbidden. (see above for a name suggestion).
Cheers and Shabbat Shalom
DLerner 21:27, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
DLerner, I told you it's not acceptable to call police fascists. Apparently you didn't get the message the first time. Stop lecturing me and other admins. You have crossed the line of acceptable free speech and your insistence in defending your incorrect actions has resulted in a longer block. --DeanStalk 22:57, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
The offence was not in generalisation per se, but in a name-calling generalisation.
I don't know where you get the idea that we should only be civil to each other. It sounds rather like you're saying that it's okay to be civil to someone to their face but you can say what you like behind their back. Being civil applies regardless of whether you are talking directly to the person.
I mentioned democracy because, depending perhaps on your precise definition of "fascism", it is by definition undemocratic. Therefore calling an arm of a democratic society "fascist" is not technically correct, which means that it is an insult.
And I'm not saying that we can never criticise a government institution. Rather, I'm saying that it is the proper thing to do to respect the authority of our governments. Yes, we can respectfully disagree with some of their actions, and offer constructive criticism of them, but we should still respect the institution, just like we should respect the office of the President or Prime Minister (as the case may be) even if we disagree with the policies, etc. of the incumbents. Your comment was disrespectful of the institution, not merely a legitimate criticism (if it was even legitimate at all).
Philip J. Rayment 02:53, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Requesting Arbitration

I was blocked for not complying with a warning User:ASchlafly gave me on my talk page, but here's the problem:

I didn't make any edits between the warning and blocking, aside from the reply on my talk page. Though I was a bit brash, my userpage shows how friendly he's spoken to me before, so I treated him with the same respect. Down to the nitty gritty, though:

About 1/3 of my edits relate to crime, but he tells me I'm obsessed with it and it's not educational. Compare that to User:Conservative domination over atheism and homosexuality articles, and ASchlafly's ax to grind on the political agenda with Barack Obama. In other words, he's trying to bully me into telling me what I can or can't edit, when he and his own sysops are ten times as obsessed with certain articles. Note that my contributions don't focus solely on crime, so I don't get why I was being picked on in the first place.

I doubt I'd get an apology, since courtesy is in short supply here, and I'm probably going to get blocked for even reporting this. I just don't like being pushed around and bullied based on what seems to be invisible rules of hypocrisy. All of my edits are truthful, so I just don't get it. SamuelHTD 11:36, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Problems with PNAS reply talk page

Recall that DinsdaleP started the ball rolling by writing the early draft of the letter to PNAS that Andy sent under his name. Now, in the *talk* pages for the PNAS reply article, DinsdaleP (and others) make reasonable comments and get their responses reverted.--Argon 21:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

As Andy is the driving force behind the article, and the person who actually sent the letter and its followup and took the responsibility for its contents, it is his call to determine what he believes to be appropriate and edifying in the talk section versus what he believes to be inappropriate. This is not a reflection on Dinsdale's earlier work, but does show what Andy believes is appropriate at this time. Learn together 01:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Is it Conservapedia policy that anyone who creates an article can decide what is allowed in the talk section? And why was DinsaleP subsequently blocked given the tremendous amount of good work ans comments he has made? Shouldn't that also be Andy's call if he thought the comments were inappropriate for the talk page? Sorry for the number of questions but I'm confused about the structure for delegation of authority in this wiki.--Argon 12:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
It does seem that a policy wherein an author becomes the final arbiter on any content in an article or discussion page is not conducive to building a "trustworthy encyclopedia", as essentially this would relegate articles to essay status, no? Not only DinsdaleP's comments, but Argon's and Toffeeman's were entirely reasonable discussions, on what is after all, a discussions page. I too think clarification is needed on this matter. BenHur 12:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Sysops monitor articles and talk sections for compliance with Conservapedia standards. As someone intimately familiar with the article, Andy made the call that certain discussions on the talk page did not advance an understanding of the article. While it is less common decision than alterations to the article itself, it is certainly within the scope of responsibilities. Non-sysops are not allowed to alter talk page content except in the case of reverting vandalism. Dinsdale's difficulties were not related to the PNAS article, but rather were tied to another area of the site. Hope this helps. Learn together 03:47, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
"...Andy made the call that certain discussions on the talk page did not advance an understanding of the article..."In other words, he's doing what he wants, censoring anyone who disagrees with him specifically. Although you can't just admit it, it's too obvious. I wonder what deemed you to respond to this when my request for arbitration section right above was ignored, and removed, by you. The problem with that talk page is that he will only allow one side of the story (his own) to show, and that won't improve any further action he does or does not take due to the fact that there is no criticism questioning him. The kind of leaders who only had yes men agreeing with them without dissent were defeated in WWII. Sam 20:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
The problem with this is that while I can understand that CP wants to closely monitor and censor its article pages, if that rule is now extended to the Talk pages, then the Talk pages themsleves need Talk pages, which is why we're here. The famously 'locked for over a year' Evolution article has of course been attacked from many sides, and while the article remains locked under the conservatorship of one sysop, the Talk page is long - very long - and features very heated disagreements over the entire topic and article contents. But at least the dialog was had. The fact that this is not allowed of the PNAS letter page seems to mean the rules are 'pick and choose' by whoever wants to do so. And that's not a system, and without a system, you really have nothing but anarchy. BenHur 20:52, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Bugler, and Everyone Else Who Ignores

Okay, there's enough of this. Bugler's calling everyone who disagrees with him as "liberals" from a cesspit who are cancerous cells, Then he literally threatens and bullies HelpJazz (which actually is the norm these days on this site). Comparing his behavior that equates to a one day block to calm down, to his 5 year block on me for "insulting" ASchlafly, I find it deeply troubling. The double standards here are so obvious that I just don't know where to start.

For one, ASchlafly has not owned up to his responsibility as the owner of this site and THE governing authority over all users with blocking rights, that's the number one factor. He has completely ignored any abuse reported on this page, lets sysops quibble and argue and block each other so that other sites can point and laugh, and yet he does nothing. The sparks between Bugler and HelpJazz have been going on for quite some time, and ASchlafly has done absolutely nothing to any of it. As BrianCo said it best, "no one seems to be doing anything." I'm challenging Mr. Schlafly to stand and deliver for once.

Also, quoting BrianCo again, "What happens off-site should not be carried over here. That is a long-established principle at Conservapedia." Then can someone please unblock User Wisdom89, since as reported (and ignored by all) above, he was blocked for something "off-site", as the abuse report claims. Karajou has also threatened users who have block rights, Philip J. Rayment and NathanG, showing that he can't be trusted with his rights. DeanS blocks users with the reason as "MYOB", becoming increasingly rude if anyone questions him. Conservative dominates any article on homosexuality and atheism, using the site like its a toy to him, uploading images without any information of its origin. It just keeps going, and going, and going... and the only solution is to get at the root of the problem: mass negligence of responsibility. Regular editors without rights cannot do this.

Do any of the sysops care what happens here? Is there some unwritten rule that no matter how abusive a user with block rights can be, nobody of equal stature can confront them? ASchlafly claims that there are strict rules on this site, but he can't even answer a question by one of his own trusted users. So, in addition to reporting the troubles and words Bugler expressed openly without so much as a slap on the wrist, I'm reporting all other sysops who don't care about this project enough to right the wrongs, and to stop ignoring what other sysops do. I'm sorry if this earns me another lifetime block, but my conscious tells me that someone needs to say it and I myself cannot sit here and edit as if nothing was wrong. Sam 20:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Sam, up until very recently I was unaware that there seems to be a policy to source images. By the way, how do you like the new Stalin picture at the top of the atheism article. conservative 12:35, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
Sam's not here anymore. LiamG 12:47, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
A short survey of the editors who posted on this site to report abuse shows that most of them are banned, e.g.,
# 12:17, 6 October 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked SamuelHTD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting false information: "intellectual dishonesty" is not allowed on this site, especially by those who post an intention to do so. Bye.)
I fail to see the "intellectual dishonesty" in the posts of SamuelHTD's history, maybe the offencive ones have been erased...--BRichtigen 13:02, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

First, user Wisdon89 was in a position of power (i.e. admin) at Wikipedia, complaining that Ed Poor was in a position of power here, banning people he didn't like; and Wisdom89 was using his own position of power in Wikipedia to influence the masses there to prevent Ed Poor from gaining admin priviledges there when the discussion within Wikipedia should have been restricted to what goes on in Wikipedia; joining him in Wikipedia were the trolls and vandals who did their worst here in Conservapedia. At the same time as that was going on off-site, Wisdom89 expected to be allowed to edit in this site. Someone who complains about my cooking next door, whines about my cooking next door, has others join him in complaining about my cooking next door, yet expects to sit down in my house and eat what I cook, I'm just going to take him by the scruff and toss him out of my house. Period.

Then there's what Sam stated on his user page as to what he was going to do. His "intelectual dishonesty" was to consist of a deliberate attempt to insert such dishonesty within the articles; that was why he was blocked, and not for his previous edits. Deliberately placing misleading or false information in any article is not going to be tolerated. If he disavowed just that statement in an email to myself or any other admin, I will immediately unblock him, and support anyone else who unblocks him.

And then there's the blocks of "people we don't like". It serves no purpose to just have a complainent leave it at "people we don't like", as if that was the only excuse. Some of these complainents need to grasp the possibility that we don't like vandalism and those who practice it; we don't like trolling; we don't like those who cause fights or engage in edit wars. This is supposed to be a family-oriented, Judeo/Christian, conservative website, yet there are those who demand to insert material detrimental to that; we don't like those either.

As to Sam's complaint of abuse of power by the admins as stated above, including myself, I am going to take that for action. Changes do need to be made, and made quickly. Editors need to realize that edits can only go so far, and conflicts need to be resolved respectfully and in a civil manner; sysops need to be more even-handed, and learn to take a time out; they also need to have valid reasons in blocking. Simply "not liking someone" isn't it. Karajou 13:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

The arbitrary enforcement of the 90/10 rule is a nuisance on its own. But this act of creative calculation is even more embarrassing:

14:29, 14 October 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked KarlJaeger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)

(See [here]) --BRichtigen 15:20, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

In his most recent score or more contributions, KarlJaeger had flouted the 90/10 rule. User Brichtigen is just trying to cause trouble and should mind his or her own business. Bugler 16:24, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. --IanG 17:23, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

So, I got a one-day-block for my questions and statements:

16:34, 14 October 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked BRichtigen (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ? (Disruptive behaviour)

And BUgler elaborates here on my sins even more:

User Brichtigen is just trying to cause trouble and should mind his or her own business.

I'm afraid that I'm sounding a little bit toplofty, but: the whole affair is about rules and their application. Therefore, it's about justice. And justice concerns everyone. Martin Niemoeller made an interesting statement about minding your own business. Thus, I think BUgler's petty block of mine was inaproppriate.--BRichtigen 16:41, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

I honestly don't think anyone with a mind of reforming bad policies and procedures reads or acknowledges this section anymore, but that's just me.--IanG 16:45, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
I suppose I should feel honoured that the Liberals, Fellow travellers and troublemakers who worm their way into this project single me out for their puerile abuse. But I, together with many other hard-working editors, am only doing my job. If the vandals and saboteurs don't like it here, they can go to Wikipedia and indulge in leftist nonsense-mongering to their hearts' content. Bugler 08:10, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
As I'm neither a Liberal, nor one of their fellow travelers or a troublemaker worming in, I just want to know of BUgler why I was blocked. Mind your own business doesn't seem to be a reasonable answer... --BRichtigen 16:49, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Instead of answering, Bugler blocked me for three days - I needed to calm down. Now, I'm back here with a few observations:
  • One would think that a question at this Desk/Abuse section doesn't lead to an instantaneous block, as one should think that this is the very place where such questions can be asked.
  • One would think that the editor who is questioned is able to muster enough fairness (i.e., Gentleman-like behaviour) not to block the questioner by himself.
  • Indeed, one should think that on such a section the blocks are dealt out by parties which are not involved.
  • But I'm afraid that IanG was right with his statement: I honestly don't think anyone with a mind of reforming bad policies and procedures reads or acknowledges this section anymore, but that's just me.
    --BRichtigen 08:14, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    No, Mind your own business is not a reasonable answer, the second block appears unjustified, and the quote from Martin Niemoeller is very apt. Philip J. Rayment 08:49, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    Truer words have rarely been said. BrianA 08:52, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    BRichtigen, the fact that Philip for once didn't stick his nose in in this matter shows that it is not only I who see you as a troublemaker. You would be well advised to tread carefully, and not to spread dissent amongst a rabble of leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists. Bugler 10:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    If I didn't "stick [my] nose in", then what's that from me two posts above yours? Philip J. Rayment 21:37, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    Can we try to keep this page a place to report and discuss abuse allegations and not a place to practice it? Corry 11:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    Implying? Bugler 12:20, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    Blocking those who specifically accuse you of abusing your authority is an unprofessional conflict of interests. Obviously you're not going to side with the people who are accusing you of abuse, therefore a non biased third party should be involved in mediating these conflicts, not "I've got the banhammer, so I win" kind of exchanges.--IanG 12:35, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

    This entire section is a most unedifying display of intimidatory, gang mentality. Bugler 12:47, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

    No, it's a complaint about alleged abuse. Philip J. Rayment 21:37, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    1. On a lighter note: I'd think that everyone would applaud spreading dissent amongst a rabble of leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists.
    2. Conservapedia often reminds me of a city on the hill, under siege by vandals. But it doesn't help that Bugler shoots at the relief force, i.e., the new editors signing in.
    3. Of course, editors with obviously obnoxious names should be banned - indefinitely. But if there is any doubt, why block them preemptively? I'd think it's more harmful to disappoint a innocent newcomer by blocking him with some flippant remarks á là "we know your kind" then to allow some parodist to make one or two revealing edits.
    4. One person doesn't make a gang - though I'm feeling intimidated by you, Bugler.
    --BRichtigen 13:13, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    My point, Bugler, is that it does nothing good for you or anybody to come on this page and call people "leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists." If somebody comes here and accuses you of bullying and abuse, whether or not it is true, it severely weakens your case to some here and call names. For example, let's work with the assumption that BRichtigen is a troll. I'm not saying he is or isn't, but let's use the assumption. He posts some complaints about you. Were he a troll, they would likely not be genuine, or maybe he baited you, or whatever. If you come here and continue to verbally flog him, it builds sympathy for him and destroys any case you might have. So even if BRichtigen gets permabanned, your credibility is weakened. You're bigger than this, Bugler. Corry 13:16, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    I'm feeling relieved that Philip J. Rayment as an administrator stated "No, Mind your own business is not a reasonable answer, the second block appears unjustified, and the quote from Martin Niemoeller is very apt."

    But the procedure of appealing a block is somewhat lacking: writing a complaint on an abuse site and waiting that some sysops may (or may not) answer does work for a small blog with a couple of writers, but this is a wiki with some 20,000 registered editors. IMO it's to huge to rely on such informal a method... Especially the less prolific editors - like me - may fear to be ignored. --BRichtigen 14:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

    Block of user:Jonsen

    I seem to be the single contributor to this page, but nevertheless:

    Ed Poor blocked Jonsen because of "(misuse of {{fact}} tags)". But Jonsen never used any fact-tags.

    Fact is: I inserted fact-tags in an article of Ed Poor, and as far as I can see, I was the only one to do so in one of the last articles of Ed Poor. As these tags were not reverted, I suppose that they aren't misused.

    So, the block of Jonsen is factually wrong, a block of me would be just plain wrong :-) --BRichtigen 14:27, 4 November 2008 (EST)

    For the future record (and anyone who wonders where the heck BRichtigen went), Bugler blocked the issuer of this complaint for three weeks. HelpJazz 14:38, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    Can you explain that one to me? He added citation tags to unsourced statistics... what's the problem with that? Ed Poor's response in BRichtigen's fact page was "Please don't fact-tag my contribs unless you doubt their truth. Otherwise, I'd rather you did the googling yourself and supplied the references. Thanks in advance!" Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of posting an encyclopedia entry, if you put in data and expect somebody else to retrace your steps and find out where you got it? Mikek 14:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    Gosh, no! It's the very epitome of collaboration, Mike. I suspect BRich was merely expressing his personal doubts (or, worse, his commitment to an ideology). The sources are easy to find: I even left hints.
    The fact that we're spending more time on this, than it would take any one of us to do the googling, convinces me that my block was justified. --Ed Poor Talk 14:48, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    That is a key Liberal trick here, as I am constantly pointing out: creating endless sterile circular debates to inhibit the work of CP. Those who do so, including Mikek, should be barred. Bugler 14:56, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    Ed, if you know exactly where to find the references, then why not just insert them yourself? Having two editors do the work of one is less efficient. You say that spending more time on this shows that your block was justified, but had you put in the references yourself, we would have put zero time into this, right? HelpJazz 15:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    Can we also add that Jonsen was unblocked by Bugler as an innocent party in this, and that Bugler blocked BRichtigen as an admin clearly intended to give a one month block for that offence, and that if Bugler is in the wrong at all, it is for unilaterally remitting BRichtigen's punishment by one week as a reward for owning up. But HelpJazz's version reads better, for the Bugler-bashing club. Bugler 14:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    Of course, had you done the responsible thing and asked the relevant party about it, there would be nothing to bring up in our daily meeding of the BBC, would there? I'm not fabricating anything here. HelpJazz 15:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    I didn't need to ask anyone anything. Ed's intentions were perfectly clear, and that's good enough for me. And I'm sure the BBC wouldn't fall down on finding something. Bugler 16:14, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    Although I wouldn't have done what Bugler did, in simply transferring a block given to the wrong person, he does have a reasonable case here, HelpJazz. Philip J. Rayment 04:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)
    I'd agree with you, except that the original (intended) block was unfair and counterproductive. Bugler was not involved, so acting on assumption only made the mess more complicated, and gave one more hoop for BRichtigen to jump through. HelpJazz 12:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)
    I was going to do it later. Then I asked for help and was pointedly refused. That is anti-collobaration.
    I review my contribs periodically, looking for anything I may have left out or gotten wrong in my haste. I hope that other users will correct my errors and fill in my omissions, same as I do for them. My hero is User:Interiot. --Ed Poor Talk 15:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    I perhaps agree with you in most cases, but in this case you added very specific numbers, indicating that you either had the reference in hand, or made them up. Since I don't think you would make up numbers, why not just use the source that was already there? What happens if no other user notices, or if you overlook it when you go back through? HelpJazz 15:23, 4 November 2008 (EST)

    Blocking is not punishment. We merely kick out people who waste our time.

    If I've expelled someone by mistake, restore them (or show me how it will save us time if I restore them.) --Ed Poor Talk 14:43, 4 November 2008 (EST)

    It has been done. Bugler 14:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    You did Jonsen, I've done BRichtigen. Maliciously peppering articles with {{fact}} tags is blockable. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with it, and it's going to be easier for the original poster to find the figures than for another person. Philip J. Rayment 04:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)

    I nowikied the above use of the {{fact}} tag so that this page doesn't show up in the "sources needed" (something like that, I can't remember) category. I'm always worried about getting in trouble here, to be honest, so just to be clear, should we not use the {{fact}} tags? LiamG 15:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)

    On the fact tags, the only thing I object to in their use is when a user seems to insert those tags when and where (s)he likes to the point that is the only thing (s)he does, and at no time does that user go after and post relevant info that could remove the tag and help the article. My suggestion is this: if anyone inserts a fact tag within the article, then an entry must be posted as to why in the talk page; further, the user can and should do a search for any needed info, and not just an internet search only. If none is found, that fact should be added to the talk page as well. Karajou 14:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
    A statement like
    If "evolution" means the appearance of major new forms of life during pre-Biblical times, then around 60% of Americans believe in this; a substantial minority of 40% of Americans reject this aspect of evolution since it contradicts their religious belief that God created all forms of life less than 10,000 years ago.
    is hard to check if you don't know which original source was cited. Therefore, I inserted the {{fact}}-tags. Really, if in any article some numbers pop out from nowhere, I think that adding these tags is the appropriate thing to do.
    And this seems to be right, as the tags are still not removed after all these discussions. --BRichtigen 14:43, 5 November 2008 (EST)

    Thanks to all who get this mix-up untangled. At last, this page seems to work - I just hope that I don't have to report here to many mistakes in the future. --BRichtigen 14:09, 5 November 2008 (EST)

    Dubious 90/10 blocks

    A. Schlafly stated yesterday:
    [...] Also, it's very simple to avoid violating the 90/10 rule. It only takes a few minutes to make substantive contributions. Unless, of course, someone has a bad attitude. It can seem impossible for him.--Aschlafly 17:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

    The last week, this easy task became much more difficult: Ed Poor blocked various users for violating the rule. In at least two cases, LiamG and mine (BRichtigen), the ratios of substantial edits to comments on talk site (or the own user site, etc.) are far away from the ratio of the 90/10 guideline.

    I have never violated the formal aspect of the rule - as I've never posted more than seven comments to talk/User sites in a row. But I think that I have not violated the idea of the rule: I'm a member of this site since Oct 6th, 2008 and contributed over 200 comments to it. Roughly a third of my edits have been the removal of vandalism, and I think that I have contributed valuable comments in my area of interests, too.

    I know, that the sysops are advised to use their discretion, so Ed Poor is right when he states - concerning the blocks of LiamG and me:

    There is no set quota. I simply judged their proportion of unproductive activity as excessive. --Ed Poor Talk 08:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

    But to judge my unproductive activity as excessive is just false, as any investigation of my comment history would show. And it is a slippery slope if we leave the measurable area of the 90/10 guideline and start to estimate the proportions.

    Ever since my first block - and my blocking history got depressingly long, too - I took an interest in blocks. It is so hard for an editor to appeal a block. I wrote countless of emails - and I do thank all the administrators and editors who took their time and answered me.

    It would have been nice if Ed Poor had answered to any of my questioning mails, too. I suspect that he is pestered by emails of vandals of all kinds beyond the legitimate mails. I just thought that my posting history would have vouched for me.

    So, I ask all administrators:

    • please, use the 90/10 rule less capriciously in the future
    • please, keep contact with the folk you have banned. It's a shame to put off legitimate users by a high-handed handling of the bannings

    Not everyone is as persistent as I am. Many will give up, and turn their back to Conservapedia. That's a thing I want to avoid, and therefore - I'm afraid - I'll keep contributing to the Desk/Abuse section of CP.

    Thanks for listening, BRichtigen 17:17, 13 November 2008 (EST)

    Foxtrot and the 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)

    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