Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 199: Line 199:
You've not shown your ability to perform the same kind of distinction you ask of me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 21:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
You've not shown your ability to perform the same kind of distinction you ask of me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 21:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*Well, fortunately for me, then,  you are not here to judge the actions of Sysops, and there isn't any rule, guideline or Commandment saying you should or could.  Stop jerking around, and either be here to help, or I will remove you. You are ignorant of the facts in the extreme, and judgemental to the point of it being laughable.  --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
==Separate Complaints About the Poster==
==Separate Complaints About the Poster==

Revision as of 20:40, 6 May 2007

Quick Links

Abuse Reporting
Administrative Abuse
Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion
Articles for Speedy Deletion
Conservapedia Panel

This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise.

Do not piggyback! One new header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.
Click here to file a complaint.





Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ TK MyTalk 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. ColinRtalk 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? 00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))--~ TK MyTalk 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ TK MyTalk 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ TK MyTalk 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. ColinRtalk 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning. --~ TK MyTalk 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it didn't belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. ColinRtalk 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ TK MyTalk 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson)

This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.

Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at Talk:Zach Johnson. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --Sid 3050 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

TK and sarcasm

While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about this edit and this edit which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --Mtur 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.
I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!
If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.
Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --Ed Poor 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. MountainDew 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes Mtur! Not at all like your Sterling good behavior. We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, or covert. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ TK MyTalk 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [1] [2] [3] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in rules. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I want to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search my contributions, you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --Mtur 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ TK MyTalk 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
As I have stated elsewhere, I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --Mtur 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ TK MyTalk 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The above statement by TK is quite misleading ... While it was quickly reversed when the error was pointed out, TK blocked me without even checking to see if I was the offending user. I think sysops should have the basic skills and knowledge to do a little fact/history checking before running to the block button. I'm sure I'm not the first one TK has blocked by accident, then tried to cover it up instead of adding an apology comment. Jrssr5 08:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Jrssr, you have now earned another, not mistaken, block. Your statement above is totally false, showing an edit of mine, where I decided to be more temperate, and not bring up the fact you could have been blocked by Hoji for name-calling, and that any Sysop still could, and implying it had something to do with your mistaken blockage of how long? You are disingenuous, and that will not be tolerated. Blocks do no "damage" whatsoever. You are building red herring non-issues to be inflammatory. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Blocking of NousEpirrhytos

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to this conversation in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if "Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible", user:TK responded "Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant". Nematocyte 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

  • When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ TK MyTalk 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. Nematocyte 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ TK MyTalk 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? Nematocyte 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being incredibly reasonable here. Myk 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." Flippin 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, this is what we got so far. Answers would indeed be nice. --Sid 3050 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. Airdish 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. Myk 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --Sid 3050 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their opinion, rather than promoting good faith. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your opinion, seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? Flippin 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on his User Talk page and on Talk:Bible:
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the Bible article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".
Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --Sid 3050 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Note: The other person addressed in this is User:Petrus, who also participated in the Talk:Bible discussion (and who got perma-banned by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --Sid 3050 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? Flippin 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --Sid 3050 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed towards any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.
But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --Ed Poor 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate. Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --Sid 3050 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh we are aware of just how hostile hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? Etaroced 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us not forget in all of this that a user was banned for idealogical reasons by self-conscious sysop. NousEpirrhytos should be unbanned now, or we need to toss out the conservapedia commandments and just leave it as "All editors are equal but some are more equal than others" and bask in the warming glow of censorship, authoritarianism, capriciousness, and hypocrisy. Etaroced 16:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll also add Petrus' ban for review. It appears that he was also banned for this, although by another sysop (TK). --Sid 3050 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I will just assume bad faith

on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. Flippin 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).
Writing quick, I might be next. --Sid 3050 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. Flippin 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --Sid 3050 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow. Just...wow. Murray 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my user talk page. --Ed Poor 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I don't think Flippin really meant you, at least I wouldn't include you on the list, you've responded more than any other on that list (by responding, I mean actually responding and not just whining like a little kid). ColinRtalk 16:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

This will probably earn me a ban

but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? Flippin 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Dissent is against conservative values. Etaroced 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Dissent's not so bad; stupidity might be frowned upon. RobS 17:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
...please tell me that you didn't just call me stupid and that I simply misunderstood your words in the context... --Sid 3050 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I appologize if/when I (may) offended (with all pertinent disclaimers). I thought the subject had been banned, so trashing him was ok. I dissent from my previous statement. RobS 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
re. Flippin's comment: Seconded. Airdish 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor and Reginold

Please keep posts in chron order!

Ed Poor banned Reginold because he didn't apologize for that offended Ed Poor putting words in Ed Poor's mouth, twice (as stated on the block log), even though a well stated apology is on his talk page. Perhaps I will follow; I can't tell. Sterile 18:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Avoid insults/snipes, stick to the facts, don't become idealogically biased against Conservative and Christian principles and avoid never-ending arguments and reverts, and I don't think you will have a worry. If you don't, you will be counting the days down. --~ TK MyTalk 18:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
No, what I said was put words in my mouth twice - did not apologize. That is not the same as "comments that offended me". Your comment here is tantamount to an accusation. Please clarify your remarks. --Ed Poor 18:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
He did apologize, though, didn't he? AKjeldsen 18:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry that I misrepresented your block log comments; I was focused more on the apology that is quite extensive on his talk page. As for TK's comment below, I see I have been placed on the Conservapedia:Abuse immediately after posting this message, which is an interesting commentary on justice on Conservapedia. (I also hope that you all blank your User pages in deference to the Virginia Tech victims as I have.) Sterile 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I would be a mistake to connect dots, Sterile. I have been down the hall, in meetings, since I posted, so I am not aware of you being "watched". Those kinds of comments, made by a Sysop, you would be posting about, calling them unfair, eh? --~ TK MyTalk 19:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to comment. The environment here is too hostile, and again I fear I will be interpreted. Instead, I think this afternoon when I get a chance, I'll write an article for justice and get off the 90/10 list, and be proactive instead of defensive. Sterile 08:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor

This is what Ed Poor wrote in a debate page "We should just blast you all into smithereens, you humorless bastards! BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!! --Ed Poor 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)" Doesn't this warrant a ban? Or can I say bastard without getting into trouble? --FredK 14:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

That was here. Auld Nick 11:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
If I interpret 'BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!!' correctly, as evil laughter, then it would seem to mitigate. Anyway, User:RSchlafly swore here to no repercussions, so it would seem that it is condoned. --Wikinterpretertalk?
  • I fail to see swearing at the link provided, Wikinterpreter. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Uh, here, TK:

'But Freud's work was crap,'


I intend to follow this up by referring to a female wolf as a bitch. Next month, I'll refer to a male chicken as a cock. Lighten up, eh? --Ed Poor 19:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I someone here thinks using the word "crap" is swearing, I submit you are far too sheltered and unworldly to venture out onto the Internet. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
So what's the point in Commandment Number 3, then? Where do we draw the line? Because if not, then it's a load of ... oh, well I won't stoop to that level. Is this a confirmation that the use of the words 'crap' and 'bastard' is sanctioned by two admins? --Wikinterpretertalk?


Aschlafly was acting like a bully. He's apparently the owner of this site, so he'll get away with it, but he pushed around me & 1048247 pretty ruthlessly & without cause. When confronted about it, he told me to leave his talk page, and discuss any problems on the article talk page itself, which he has not done, instead reverting without explanation on the talk page. I think this is inappropriate behavior for an admin. As I said, nothing will get done about it, but I think he needs to know that it creates a bad work environment. Of course, I can't tell him that on his page without getting blocked, so this will have to do. I'm new to the site, but already I can tell that. Doesn't that tell you something?-BillBuck 13:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been here for a couple of months and have nothing but good things to say about Andy. I have created new articles, edited some, suggested news articles for the Breaking News section, etc. In other words, I've made several positive contributions to this site without engaging in the endless debates and discussions on contentious talk pages. I've also been watching Andy's talk page, and I've seen the vandalism on this site as well as the constant badgering that he has to deal with on a daily basis. BillBuck, I have seen your side of this issue, and I disagree. I believe Andy is very tolerant of other editors and I fully support his actions. Crocoite Talk 13:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

That sounds like he's tolerant of people he agrees with. The test of tolerance & kindness isn't how you behave towards your friends. It's how you treat others with whom you differ in significant ways. One of the many remarkable things about Christ was that he treated all men equally; if He had only shown favor & friendship towards His disciples, it wouldn't have been that impressive. Although I'm glad it's been a positive experience for you.-BillBuck 13:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I got blocked for writing this, but I stick by it. I don't think complaining about admin abuse is the same as "starting a fight." The fight was started when Aschlafly insulted me.-BillBuck 20:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
  • You were not blocked by Andy Schlafly, but by Karajou. You personal page is nothing but a biased attack, not some intellectual criticism of Schlafly. Your intentions and outlook are clear. You were responsible for being blocked, no one else, and for no other reason than your picking a fight. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:55, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Look, when you start blocking people for disagreeing with you, how are you better than the Taliban?-BillBuck 20:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Obviously online wiki's are not the place for you if you cannot discern the difference between disagreements, intellectual debate, and going out of your way to provoke. I have no dog in this hunt, other than reading your comments, and Karajou's and the others. I have never shied away from criticizing Andy, or anyone, when I thought it due, but you can (and will) do so without keeping at it to provoke acrimony. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

You've not shown your ability to perform the same kind of distinction you ask of me.-BillBuck 21:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, fortunately for me, then, you are not here to judge the actions of Sysops, and there isn't any rule, guideline or Commandment saying you should or could. Stop jerking around, and either be here to help, or I will remove you. You are ignorant of the facts in the extreme, and judgemental to the point of it being laughable. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Separate Complaints About the Poster

"Kind of a bully", huh? Where did I here that before....hmmm...was it Chip Berlet, [4] author of Introduction to Propaganda Analysis who "recommends the terms 'bullying' and its variants". Wanna see a few thousand diffs to make the point? RobS 14:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What?! I don't see the relevance.-BillBuck 14:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

We've heard it all. And the cookie cutter textbook buzzwords and phrases just don't get attention anymore. It's kinda like Pavlov's dogs or the boy who cried wolf, after hearing the same stuff over and over again, eventually you just don't hear it.
Let me give a real simple example. This page is for sysop abuse. Your opening sentence is uncivil and a personal attack. Why should I read any further? RobS 15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've changed the tone so that the personal attack is gone. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the rest, now. I think it's sad, though, that you'd ignore criticisms after a while: just like the boy that cried wolf, you might miss it when it's the real thing. Also, since this is the first I've heard of it, it's news to me.-BillBuck 15:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

  • So, when "caught" you now show your revisionist stripes, change the tone, and want to continue your ad hominem attack? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

Is anyone going to address the substantive complaint? So far only RobS and TK have, and just to suggest a nicer approach (which I took to heart) or mock me (which I won't). Won't someone address the substance?-BillBuck 18:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

  • By "substance" you wish to have addressed your totally subjective, personal opinion, that Andrew Schlafly is a "bully"? That is my understanding. Is it correct? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

I mean that he doesn't care what other people have to say. And blocks them when they disagree with him. I mean, you've been here longer than me, so prove me wrong, but first impressions are really hard to shake, you know?-BillBuck 19:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate the support here. It's obvious to me that Bill is yet another liberal who may delight in pretending otherwise. Bill, I'm going to check your edits now but if you're violating the 90/10 rule and don't correct that violation soon, then you will be blocked as others have been.--Aschlafly 19:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Follow-up: after a quick look at Bill's edits, I estimate only about 10% could possibly be substantive. Next I'll check those substantive edits (a grand total of 5) and see what they were.--Aschlafly 19:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • You forgot to add "Moving on..." Andy. That apparently is another Liberal device to avoid directly answering. :p --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • He's blocked for three days for picking a fight. He could have handled it a lot better than he did. Karajou 20:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Aren't there still boards out there that welcome the constant fighting and never-sending debate? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Look at his edits to William Rehnquist and Anton Scalia. Not bad. [5] [6] RobS 20:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure those fighting boards are at Wikipedia. When it comes to people here wanting to start a fight, it has to be put down immediately and not escalate. Karajou 20:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Unlike you or I, Karajou, Andy is used to teaching young students, and that is why he appears (to me at least) to be if anything, overly tolerant of "spirited" discussion of a kind that always seems to turn into personal insults against him, or worse, insults to his family. I guess some here would faint dead-away to learn some of us wouldn't tolerate more than one paragraph of personal insults, compared to the pages Andy tolerates. I do always get a chuckle when sections like this, once the perpetrator is called out, and no longer is free-posting complaint after complaint, they flee. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Okey, I'm bit lost now... This is Administrative Abuse page isn't it? And when people post here it's usually because they had an fight with an sysop. If posting here only gets the complainer to be banned for causing more fighting then what is the use to have these pages? I don't know if the former complainer for example had specially good reason to complain, but he did it quite civil and would have hoped that using these pages for what they are meant to wouldn't have just caused more trouble for him. Timppeli 21:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

TK's got a good point; many of these are young people are anxious to learn the rhetorical arts, and we can show them how to be effective. It doesn't matter what your ideology is. A look at his contribs is impressive. RobS 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I am lost too. Is it at all possible you are so specious that you cannot tell the difference between someone complaining, and offering totally subjective, context-specific "evidence" to advance what is purely personal opinion, and something that is substantive, and possibly something that is truly questionable? This whole topic is mostly filled with personal opinions, highly subjective complaints, mainly of personal style, rather than specific, verifiable accusations of "wrong doing". It should more accurately be titled "X did something I am mad at, and I want attention!". Perhaps I need to make "rules" for this page, more narrowly defining what is and is not something that rises to the the proper definition of "abuse", since so very few seem to know what the word actually means. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I think thats an good idea TK, as i must admit that i thought i did, but seams some people have very different opinion on this subject. Mayby some clarification would be good for everyones sake. Timppeli 21:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I don't like fights; that point is clear. I also don't like people escalating those fights, and I have put a stop to the fights, usually by blocking. I honestly don't like doing that. But a fight must be put down before it gets out of hand; it cannot continue from the main page and escalate here, and that comes from having seen it and stopping it in police work. The individual causing such a fight needs to follow the rules for this site as well as the sysops (myself too) need to follow some good rules on stopping the fight. If TK can make those specific rules, I will follow them. Karajou 21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Karajou, I certainly hope you were not thinking anything I posted was directed at you, because it most certainly was not. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
No, I didn't take it that way. My thinking was that what you said was meant to improve our own performance overall. Karajou 09:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, I hope you realise that a fight involves at least two people and you have blocked just one. This page is for people who wish to make a complaint about something, and wish it to be looked at fairly by a third party(ies). Blocking one side of an argument doesn't immediately solve the argument (if anything it is much much worse leading to alienation and frustration). Regardless of who the complaint was directed at the argument should have been looked at objectively not just torn apart by any member of the "I love Schlafly" squad. Looking at what happened, it seems that the complaint was totally disregarded with preference to a set of ad hominem attacks on both the argument and the complainant. Surely you must see this defeats the whole point of this page? MatteeNeutra 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)


There are levels of "swear" words. I got "bastard" from a divinity student who later became academic dean of a small theological seminary. He translated the Latin Nihil illegitimati carborundum as "don't let the bastards wear you down."

Clearly, much of the "abuse" complaints here are actually protests against policy itself - not reports of policy violations by staff. It's part of the general adolescent angst endemic amoung Liberals. All authority is evil and suspect and deserves to be torn down.

The hypocrisy of this is the utter disregard of the evils of slavery in the Sudan, the double standard of enjoying electricity and fresh food in the West (while Africans should go without), and the neglect (amounting to censorship) of the totalitarian abuses of socialists.

What the heck is that all about? --Ed Poor 08:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

They hate the word "conservative" in Conservapedia; they think that this is a free and open wiki; they think that no one is in charge; they think that this should be a free-for-all in which whatever it is they believe in should be shoved down our throats, and if we prevent that, why they cite free speech violations. These people have to be told otherwise, one way or the other. Karajou 09:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Hi Ed, might be better on a debate page, but I'd love to address some of these topics. First of all, I do not feel a special existential angst similar to that in my youth, but I have seen many abuses of authority over the years. This has led me to believe that not all conservatives are bad people, but that people in power can, if unchecked, use it poorly (no pun intended ;-) ). If you look at the case of Fargo, ND, they raised their speeding fines by about 100% a few years back. That's all well and good in theory, except it violates the state law, and now they are going to have to pay the overage (based on five years of tickets) back. The authority issue comes in because they did so knowingly---they would not let defendants see a judge, they increased the overall number of tickets by almost half again and they have now spent (no kidding) thousands of state taxpayer dollars trying to keep my sister-in-law from getting back $86 in wrongful fines. Have you ever heard of a traffic ticket that has yielded over 300 man-hours of legal work by a state?
Abuses like these are why I became a liberal. I have seen many such instances and realized that too much authority in one person's hands makes for a dangerous situation. I regard the evils of slavery as a real threat to our security--more so than Iraq.
Not all authority need to be torn down, but it deserves questioning and a watchful eye. I don't hate George Bush anymore than I hate Mother Teresa (I didn't hate her either), but asking tough questions is my duty as a citizen.
Finally, I think you have a point when you say many of the questions here are about policy. I won't spend all day on bias, but it is very difficult to measure bias. Writing it into an article--possible, but how do please the more conservative among you as well as the more moderate? Once that dis-equity is designed, can it really be self-sustaining? I am here to see if any of you can actually do what you intend, or if eventually, you will create something nearly identical to wikipedia without blocking, protecting and guarding everything. Good comment Ed, but I hope you appreciate my position. Flippin 09:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I hate to be the one to break it to you, Flippin, but the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives. And if they self-designated themselves as such, they are wrong. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, I don’t think this is a particularly liberal way of thinking (look at how conservatives treat liberal authority figures on this site)—I think it is human to want to see those you disagree with have less power (how many Conservatives do you think would support warrantless wiretapping in 2009 if a Democrat is in the White House (especially if Hilary is there), and how many Liberals who opposed it when Bush did it will change their minds?). So, yes I have no doubt that there are some liberals on this site who would like to see the current people in charge have less power. I freely admit I’d like the religious conservatives to have less power here and those with more libertarian leanings to have more (I want people who agree with me to have more power).
But I also think that part of the problem is that the rules are unclear. I might have thought that the words in question above amounted to foul language and some sysops may have enforced the rule that way (say I used those words to describe my opinions of YEC how long do you honestly think t would take before that earned me a ban?). There are clear double standards on what is acceptable here, at least in terms of how some of the rules are enforced, and that bothers people especially those who get the bad side of that deal.--Reginod 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree, Reginod. Religion and political issues bring out the worst in people. Those of us who have had a "professional" involvement positively cringe at the thought of getting involved with "the public" about political things, as most are at best disingenuous and at worst totally unscrupulous, in discussing all things political. Not to mention most citizens, either here or the UK, are woefully ignorant of the whole process. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Reginod, the example you cite is an extrememly poor one; warrantless wiretaps have been legel since 1938. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt authorized by Executive Order wiretaps on American citizens, and he approved foreign Intelligence doing it. Why isn't this commonly known? Why liberal media bias, of course. RobS 12:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I disagree. FISA requires a warrant for wiretaps and outlines exactly under what circumstances a warentless wiretap is allowed. FISA post-dates 1938 and so any conflict between it and a 1938 executive order would come out in favor of FISA, more importantly FISA is a law, not an executive order, and laws have more legal weight than executive orders. But, I think that strays from the main point I was trying to make.
I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror? If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program? Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror? My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives). My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power. Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program. Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).
I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--Reginod 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies. When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap. Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA. A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement. You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di? None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed. It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement. Forget FISA. It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying". FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since. All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.
As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps against US citizens by a foreign government. RobS 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I don’t know the full details of the program getting all the media coverage—I was under the impression that it didn’t involve the kind of information sharing that you describe (I am under the impression that you are quite right, if it was the sort of behavior you describe it would be legal). But, as I said, I think that is a side point.
For the record, let me be clear I don’t want any President (or any President’s administration) having the power to tap phonelines without some form of oversight from the judicial branch (I’d prefer something stronger than FISA, personally) -- Bush, Nixon, FRD, Clinton, you name them I don’t want any of them having that kind of power (the police power of the executive is incredibly prone to abuse and I want it at all times to be checked by at least one, and preferably two, of the other branches of our government).
Let me get back to my point—would you want, should she become President, Hilary Clinton’s administration to have the power to wiretap phones of Americans without any judicial oversight? I assume the answer is no, because I assume most people don’t want those ideologically different from themselves to have that much power.--Reginod 13:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
The point is, it has been legal for nearly 70 years now, and it would probably take revamping the NATO Charter to make it illegal. FISA had weaknesses, (1) it assumed all countertintelligence was directed at foreign governments; (2) while it made provisions for Americans acting as agents of foreign governements, it made no provision for counterintelligence agaisnt non-national entities like drug cartels or terrorist organizations; (3) its provisions for industrial espionage committed by non-governmental multinational corporations were ambiguous. In short, the whole Patriot Act & FISA Acts have nothing to do with the established procedures for domestic spying, and have been distorted by members of Congress and media allies for partisan politcal purposes. RobS 14:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --Reginod 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin FISA out of this discussion. RobS 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
First of all it isn't president bush deciding who to wiretap, and who not to wiretap. Secondly, I would support the same program with a democrat as president. --CPAdmin1 13:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Let me clarify I was using “President Bush” as a “controller-for-controlled” metonymy[7] —if that was a source of confusion I apologize.
I think you are in the minority (conservative or liberal) in supporting such a program under both Republican and Democratic presidencies, but I applaud your logical consistency. --Reginod 13:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
"the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives" How you could no thank boggles the mind. Maybe self-deceit is not just a "liberal trait." Sometimes I think you just make broad pronouncements to sound important. Flippin 11:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
  • That is just the point, Flippin. We Conservatives find that all people are important, unlike Liberals. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 12:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like. After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them. Sterile 15:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with all of this; when someone crosses the line into activism coordinated and aligned with the extremes we may be able to make a judgement then. RobS 15:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Getting off topic We're going to have to end this debate here, and choose another page (a talk page at that) for this discussion. This page is supposed to be for abuse of admin/sysop authority, and should remain as such...so, if everyone pleases...(it was a good debate, by the way!) Karajou 14:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)