Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation"
|Line 14:||Line 14:|
== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
Revision as of 19:51, 10 April 2007
|Quick Links||This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise.
Do not piggyback! One new header per complaint.
Discussions about Conservative have been moved to here
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    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)