Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse"
m (Reverted edits by Georgebushy (Talk); changed back to last version by Philip J. Rayment) |
(Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information) |
||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST) | :Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST) | ||
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST) | ::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information == | ||
| + | |||
| + | After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way. | ||
| + | |||
| + | On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 21:23, February 17, 2008
Abuse Complaints
Archives: 1
Wrongly block from Conservapedia
I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.
The articles were:
- Billy J. Guin
- Allison R. Kolb
- Hall M. Lyons
- Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans
- and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.
Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.
Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.
I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.
Please unblock me,
Billy Hathorn
bhathorn
I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.
- You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[1]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the night-editing restrictions?
- If you are still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
- Philip J. Rayment 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. Jallen 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Micheal Moore
In the talk section, there is article with an image of Moore in high school, and with the quote
He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. Scorpio 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
Isn't this against the rules? Now I realize it is called Conservapedia, but isn't this even going a little too far? thegovernator
- That's the talk page, not the main space. DanH 18:10, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, i see, well nevemind then, I just thought I should bring it up in case it was. thegovernator
Unblocking User:LardoBolger?
I've been trying to get my account unblocked (Lardo Bolger) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.
I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.
Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though I'm not Atheist.
Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.
I apologize for not understanding what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. PhilB 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)
- I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
- Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) LardoBolger 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)
User:GoObama
POV pusher. TheEvilSpartan 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
- Began vandalizing after I warned him. ThomasB 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
- Andy's dealt with him. Philip J. Rayment 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information
After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:
Both Democrats and Republicans have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.[1] However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."[2] Chris Mooney, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."[3] During that same period, he was planning to run for the House of Representatives, which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for U.S. Senate, in which he defeated Republican candidate Alan Keyes, also an African American.[4]
Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.
On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.
It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--ElliottRosewater 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)