User:LArron/Abuse-desk-2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to the Desk

Someone tried to hack my account[edit]

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[edit]

DLerner complaint[edit]

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[edit]

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. Template:Bible ref Philip J. Rayment 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Bugler's response[edit]

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[edit]

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 [1]. 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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

I would like to inquire cp: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[edit]

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[edit]

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 cp: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 cp: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. — Unsigned, by: DLerner / talk / contribs
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 cp: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 cp: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[edit]

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 cp:crime, but he tells me I'm obsessed with it and it's not educational. Compare that to cp:User:Conservative domination over atheism and homosexuality articles, and ASchlafly's ax to grind on the political agenda with cp: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[edit]

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[edit]

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 cp:http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Bugler#Calculation_of_the_90.2F10_ratio 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 cp:Liberals, cp: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 cp:user:Jonsen[edit]

    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 cp: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[edit]

    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)

    Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:LArron/Abuse-desk-2&oldid=563371"