Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations

I wish to file a complaint about the deletion of an edit I wrote for the Censorship topic. RobS falsely accuses me of subterfuge and an anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit agenda when I described one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, and one of the first instances (if not the first) of censorship entering the law. I neither mentioned Catholics nor Jesuits, and pointed out that the Pope had actually defended Michelangelo and prevented defacement of his work of art. The reference I cited is not a wiki mirror site, but an educational web site with many sources for its articles. One has only to look at the page I referenced to see that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. In spite of this, RobS has issued a warning on what I believe to be entirely unfounded complaints. Read the reference I sited, check its background, read my edit and let me know if RobS is justified in censoring my edit and issuing a warning. NitramNos 14:50, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Why did you try to hide the wikimirror cite [1] after inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation? --RobS 14:55, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
I have no idea what you are talking about. How would I hide a wikimirror cite? What does that have to do with inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation? You sound paranoid to me. NitramNos 15:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
So you wish to make charges, yet not respond to (a) my specific Warning in the edit summary; (b) my recitation of it here. This comes dangerously close to trolling. Again, why did you hide the wikimirror, and why do you deny it that it is not when anyone can see that it is?
And if you can't answer those questions, you have indeed trolled me by wasting my time. RobS 16:49, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't wish to get involved in this, but I think I see your confusion - Just to clarify, NitramNos, the wikimirror RobS refers to is the link to http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm which, like eg Answers.com, is simply a mirror of the wikipedia article of the same name. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 18:09, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Finally, a voice of reason! Thank you Fox. Can you tell me how to tell if a site is a wikimirror site? I am tired of being falsely accused and threatened by RobS. I am tired of the vandalism RobS perpetrates on perfectly valid additions to articles that follow all Conservapedia guidelines (although I admit I am in the dark about what sites and what sites are not the dreaded wikimirrorr sites). NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

NitramNos, you should be able to tell if a site has copied articles from Wikipedia by looking for somewhere on the page where they say so. Wikipedia material is copyrighted under the GNU licence, which means (among other things) that other sites can copy it, but must acknowledge that it came from Wikipedia. It's always possible, of course, that a site might copy it without acknowledging it (thus breaking the law), but normally it will be acknowledged, so look for that acknowledgement; that's how you can tell. Philip J. Rayment 19:51, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
I get it. I will certainly check for the GNU license information at the bottom next time I choose a reference. Thank you. But while we're on the subject of accusations, how do you explain RobS's constant accusations of subterfuge and "trying to hide a wikimirror." And accusations of being anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit? Accusations that I am a troll and engaged in vandalism? I apologize for my ignorance regarding wikimirrors. The accusations against me go a good deal farther than that, and I believe they are way out of line. NitramNos 21:59, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
The clock is running on NitramNos. The lesson to be taken from all this is, the bigotry that Wikipedia is known for will not be imposed on us here. We shall determine our own content, from constuctive and cooperative editors, not trolls attempting to spoon feed us wiki-pap during the incessant vandalism intended to distract us. RobS 18:17, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

If this page is designed solely for the abuse of complainants by those about whom they are registering a complaint, it is not performing a very useful function. RobS would seem to be the troll in this instance. NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

You have not answered the question. The material came from Wikipedia. Why did you hide the wikimirror? RobS 16:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
On the contrary, you have not answered my question. What do you mean that I "tried to hide the wikimirror?" I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about and suspect that you are letting your paranoid imagination run away with you. How does one "hide a wikimirrror?" How does one "try to hide a wikimirror" and fail? What does that have to do with "inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation?" What are you talking about? Could someone enlighten me as to what RobS is getting at, as he seems unable or unwilling to clue me in? NitramNos 17:37, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
I have just finished comparing the page from which I drew my material on Michelangelo and the Wikipedia page on the same topic. They are organized differently, worded differently, and have a dfferent focus. Obviously, as they are both about the same historical individual, they contain some of the same information. Equally obviously they were written by different individuals. My conclusion, and that of any reasonable person, is that it is definitely NOT a wikimirrror, and RobS's charges are entirely unfounded. I would suggest that Conservapedia has a loose cannon on its hands in the person of RobS and that his arbitrary and rather wild accusations will prove to be an embarrassment. NitramNos 18:21, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
You need to be a lot more cautious in accusing people. Ask questions to find out if perhaps you are wrong before throwing around accusations. You might think that you have a watertight argument here regarding Wikipedia, but you do not. As Fox has (and now I have) explained above, it says that it has copied the material from Wikipedia, so that in itself makes it very hard for you to argue otherwise. But the real point is that you have not ruled out (and this is almost certainly the case) that it was copied from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. It doesn't read the same now, but Wikipedia articles keep changing of course.
By the same token, many others tend to throw around accusations too freely too, often assuming that the person that they are criticising understands more than they actually do. Philip J. Rayment 19:51, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Right here [2] bottom of the page,

  • All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.

Last chance to explain yourself. RobS 18:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT

Perhaps most telling is that RobS has not attempted at any point to dispute the FACTS. He resorts to technicalities and wild accusations to obscure the fact that all his sound and fury is designed to keep historically relevant information off the site for whatever personal reasons he may have. The topic is censorship. I added one of the better known and one of the most organized campaigns of censorship in history, and RobS has censored me. My error was ignorance of how to detect sites that borrow from Wikipedia. His error is to overreact and recklessly fling wild accusations of subterfuge and disinformation. NitramNos 10:13, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools