Conservapedia:Abuse

This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.

Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives: 1 2 3 4

Other links:

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

Current Alerts

• Pokeisthemon (talk • contribs • count) mostly hunch, but I'm sure it's a sock of Icewedge. Should be watched closely, if not pre-emptively blocked. GodlessLiberal 21:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Inconclusive on checkuser Geo.Talk 16:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

• JoshuaZ (talk • contribs • count) Misleading edit summary + removed valid information from Noah article. Last 3 edits are questionable. --Ed Poor 05:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I reviewed his unproductive edits and a short block is appropriate. Please proceed as you think best.--Aschlafly 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• User:Fred -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [1][2] RobS 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• GeorgeJ.W. (talk • contribs • count) keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --Hacker^{(Write some code • Support my RfA)} 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Silly edits by GeorgeJ.W., I agree. Not quite enough to block him, but he's getting there.--Aschlafly 19:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

They're parodic, Andy, not silly, unless he's an utterly ignorant moron. --Hacker^{(Write some code • Support my RfA)} 07:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• Scorpion (talk • contribs • count), vote fraud via sockpuppets. --Hacker^{(Write some code • Support my RfA)} 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

• Hacker (talk • contribs • count) Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--Aschlafly 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. Flippin 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Dealt with

• CaptainCAVEMAN (talk • contribs • count) ought to be blocked. Murray 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Blocked.
• Pussyfooter (talk • contribs • count) check out edits to Pudding Murray 17:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Blocked. --Ed Poor 17:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

• JeffersonDarcy (talk • contribs • count) He put "this user doesn't have a problem with calling a person a faggot" on my user page. He also deleted my post putting his name on the current alerts. --AdrianP 14:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Blocked for 1 week. --Ed Poor 15:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
• Auld Nick (talk • contribs • count) User name means Satan ("Old Nick"). Uploaded picture of a man in a skirt and frilly blouse, mislabeled as "traditional attire". --Ed Poor 07:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  - Ed, a kilt (pleated male skirt) and (on formal occasions) dress shirt with ruffles is traditional Scottish dress. Unthank 07:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. You are both on probation. Let's see your writing plans. --Ed Poor 07:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
• Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ TK ^MyTalk 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
• Alfa Papa (talk • contribs • count) causing havoc. Crocoite ^Talk 17:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a sock of Icewedge. GodlessLiberal 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocked by TerryH^Talk 20:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

• Aydindrill (talk • contribs • count) Causing havoc. Crocoite^Talk 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Blocked by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.Talk 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
• User:Staple -- vandalism and other questionable content. RobS 22:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Feel free to make my one-month block permanent.--Aschlafly 08:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Staple has many counterproductive edits, and potentially offensive ones by labeling users with categories. I lengthened his block to 1 month. I don't know anything about a "swastika" but feel free to make his block permanent if that is what it sounds like.--Aschlafly 22:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
    • He had a swastika on his userpageBohdan
      • The Category:Liberal Users he created as a subcat of Category:Communists [3]; he & I were the only Category:Conservative Users in that cat after he put a swastika on his User page.[4] At a minimum this is incivility and trolling, and has little to do with his own use of his User page. A permanent block is warranted. RobS 02:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Swastika alone justifies it. Good block.-AmesG_yo! 22:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)