Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative/Archive 1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Original Complaints

Deletion of pseudogene

Erased by user:conservative for not having a reference link. This is the state of most of the articles on this site and they aren't erased. This was purely for ideological reasons, I request the article be brought back and I can go through and source it as needed. Etaroced 00:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

(and my $0.02 worth - bah edit conflicts) The article Pseudogene was hastily deleted by Conservative. Instead of asking for facts and citations, the entire article just went *poof*. The talk page attempts to chronicle this, however this executive decision without any attempt to reach a common ground is disappointing. --Mtur 00:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Make a sandbox version at User:Mtur/Pseudogene, write the cited and sourced article there, and when you're done, copy it to the Pseudogene article. --Hojimachongtalk 00:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I will write it AGAIN it just is annoying to have to redo work because of one sysops fear. Etaroced 00:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
T'wasn't "mine" (so much as any article should be considered "owned") to start with. I was just following the silliness on a related article. I seem to recall Etaroced being the original author of it. He's outraged at the deletion of his work, I'm disappointed at the failure of communication. --Mtur 00:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Does anyone stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, some have too much time on their hands? --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm just waiting for the time that I can be reasonably sure that the bits on geological science that I am familiar with will not defaced and locked and that people addressing what is perceived to be deficiencies within the article will addressed in the talk page prior to massive additions or deletions. I at this time, I am uncertain as to if this will be the case and the current issue of the pseudogene (necessary to understand if one is to read "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe (a pro-creation book that in part claims that a retrovirus following the ark lead to a significant differentiation of species by turning genes into pseudogenes)) continues to weaken my faith that conservapedia can have an article on anything relating to science without someone destroying its educational integrity. --Mtur 00:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


User:Conservative again

I erased a non sequitur comment in the article "Endogenous retrovirus" which was a refutation purporting to refute something that was not actually contained in the article. User:Conservative reverted the change without explanation. The article has since been altered by others to make sense but the actions of User:Conservative were wrong and unscholarly. --Horace 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I set it so that it's not a non sequitir. MountainDew 04:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservative blocked Horace for this, I believe his block should be overturned as it is defiantly not fair. Sysops should not block users they are having an ideological dispute with. Etaroced 18:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
For what its worth:
(Block log); 18:25 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:Horace" with an expiry time of 2 weeks: removal of factual and cited material)
I can't find any reasonable edit that says otherwise within Special:Contributions/Horace. I suspect that what is being referred to is this edit, though that needs to be taken in context with the surrounding edits of "Creationists assert that endogenous retroviruses are invalid as proofs for the theory of evolution" when the article at the time said nothing about the theory of evolution. This has since been cleared up. Alternatively, it is about this edit, which lacks a citation (and continues to do so today - even the fact tag was removed). In either case, there was good reason to remove it (see the associated talk pages). --Mtur 18:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
  • It might serve you well to read Andy's page, the section where he is talking about the contraception/birth control issues. He states that many things, while appropriate elsewhere, are not here. I have asked Ed Poor for help in perhaps putting something up explaining for the uninitiated, the Wiki ways of editing, etc. That said, constant arguing, over religious and political views contrary to the purpose of this site, isn't going to fly. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No one is arguing religion or politics, Horace was blocked inappropriately and I am requesting it be undone since it was about an article i started. Etaroced 19:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

TK - Eh? whats that have to do with the price of tea in China? Can you please point out what instance Horace was blocked for and how it was in conflict with what was being discussed on the talk page? I'm not even talking about contraception here - just the matter of "this sentence made no sense in the context of the article and was mentioned in the talk page... and don't you think that two weeks is a bit long?" --Mtur 19:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Etaroced, the topic of the article, and its contents, has nothing to do with religious, moral or political ideas? Mtur, I don't even read those pages, except for once in a while, so forgive me for pleading ignorance. As for how long, could it possibly have something to do with the fact that there have been many incidents of reverting/editing contrary to Conservative's editing? I'll ask once again, isn't there someplace else with the thousands of entries needed, that people could spend their time on? All of you know full well that hardening positions only leads to rancor and suspicion.--~ TerryK MyTalk 19:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Retroviruses are pretty areligious for the most part, but I haven't discussed it too much with them. If you want people to focus on new content articles quit blocking them and harassing them after they make them. Thats a good start. If I had been left alone then I wouldn't be on this page. Etaroced 19:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

  • I think I am pretty plain spoken. And I know you are intelligent enough to have gotten my drift. The purpose of this site is made pretty clear, and if you don't enjoy arguing with committed fundementalists, and yet still want to contribute, then perhaps other topics outside of those areas, away from the articles Conservative is editing, would be beneficial to check into. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
The article in question is about a retrovirus insertion. It has no moral or religious or political implications itself. The talk page is critical for understanding the edits made to the page. And thus, I suggest reading Talk:Endogenous retrovirus. The problem was that prior to Conservative inserting a bit about what AiG mentions about retroviruses the article did not mention anything about evolution or common descent. There were two options - either remove the bit that conservative added or add into the article the implications that are read into it. The first option was discussed and enacted upon. Since then, the article has changed to have a referenced link to the implications and Conservatives AiG references. Whatever the case, the later makes no sense without the former. As I have said above I hesitate to make any contributions until I can feel reasonably confident that the article that I contribute to will not be changed into a travesty of what was originally said. I additionally have reservations of waiving all copyrights to Conservapedia in the event that some litigious type would claim that work I have published elsewhere that is substantially similar to what I have added to Conservapedia is in violation of the copyrights that have been waived. --Mtur 19:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Does this suggest that once Conservative makes an edit to an article that one should not attempt to correct any incorrect facts or misleading statements? Why not just lock every article at that point? --Mtur 19:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe we should make a template for conservative to put onto any page he touches that changes made to those pages after he edits them will result in blocking...errr wait if we create such a template that too is a blockable offense. Etaroced 19:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
And there are two issues here. One is the untouchability of articles that conservative edits, the other is the blocking of Horace for soemthing not covered by the commandments. The entire point of those commandments is that they are supposed to be easy to understand and eliminate the allegedly capricious bannings on wikipedia. Myk 19:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

With all this discussion, has there been anything said to show that Horace should have been baned? And if not, isn't it about time that the ban was removed or reduced to "time served"? --Mtur 22:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely, 2 weeks is a travesty. Etaroced 22:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Cluck, cluck, cluck.--~ TerryK MyTalk 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
If you have nothing productive to add except your condescending attitude why bother posting? Go produce some of that much needed content. Etaroced 23:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Etaroced has been blocked by Conservative. Geo.Talk 23:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Oh dear! I hope it wasn't for him lecturing me! Wherever will he keep arguing over and over, the same things? --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
No, it wasn't. i have unblocked horace and will unblock Etaroced. Geo.Talk 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Geo, I wonder if it is wise to continually undo blocks other Sysop's have instituted, without first getting an opinion from a Bureaucrat? --~ TerryK MyTalk 23:57, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Normally, i would ask Andy, but the fact that they have posted here is the deciding factor. Geo.Talk 23:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
All the more reason to make sure we have this kind of thing covered in the coming policy and procedures for Sysops, I guess. --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Dishonesty

It seems that user:Conservative does not take constructive criticism well either, there was a well written post on his user page about disputes users have had with some of his editing practices. Conservative soon after deleted this content and pretended it wasn't there. This kind of dishonesty of a sysop shouldn't be tolerated. If there are concerns (very legitimate ones) they should be addressed, not swept under the rug and continue to occur. Conservative also locked his talk page so messages can't be left, practically rendering him untouchable as he can ignore anything directed to him. Jrssr5 13:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservative yet again

The Theory of evolution article has been a problem for a long time. More recently, with the decision that the "panel" is going to decide on the future of the page, there has been agreement that the page will not be edited (indeed I understand there was a direction from Aschlafly). However, guess who continues to edit? See the discussion here.

Not only that but when a template was placed on the page warning that the page was subject to the review Conservative removed it. See here.

When is he going to have his sysop privileges removed? This abuse page is entirely devoted to his misbehaviour. How long will he be protected?

I should also put in a mention of his attempted blocking of me for a two week period. I still don't know exactly what that was about, presumably one of the two matters mentioned by Mtur above, neither of which justify blocking. Blocking an editor for two weeks without a good reason is, in my view, a serious matter. I contribute to this site because I want to make it a decent resource and I believe that the same motivation is what drives most editors. If editors are to be blocked without good reason then this site will suffer heavily as a consequence because editors will decide that their time is being wasted and will leave (as a number already have). Perhaps that was what he intended by blocking me. Bad news Conservative, I'm not going anywhere. --Horace 21:13, 6 April 2007 (EDT)


  • Given all of that, Horace, you are aware, as we all are, that Andy has placed the Student Panel in charge of this matter, to decide the issues already laid out many times. Your continued efforts, therefore, are not in the best interests of this site. You will abide by the decision made by the students, as this is, ultimately their wiki and site, along with Andy. Your maneuverings, along with some other users, would be considered obstructionism, and indeed vandalism and/or disruption, on most other sites. I see you have had several warnings, more than most of us would ever get. Perhaps it is time to end this unhealthy obsession, and contribute to other topics, if indeed you are here to contribute. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 21:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I hope you're not letting this sysop thing go to your head. --Horace 21:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
  • No more than the several jobs I have had with authority over others, including the one where 100+ people work for me, Horace. But that is a canard, a dodge, to shift the subject on your part. What has my state of mind have to do with your frame of mind? Nothing. Your continued efforts to disrupt have only to do with your being presumptuous enough to think your answers are correct, and that other's beliefs be made small to accommodate your own. That is 180 degrees opposite of intellectual freedom. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 21:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Terry, this is one of the many times I have suggested to you to take a big step back, a deep breath and chill. Horace's complaint is that he has agreed to abide by the panel's decision and that part of that agreement entailed no one editing the article until the panel made a decision. Horace is not being disruptive, Conservative is. I would refer you to any of the probably hundred or so times Andy has mentioned people here will not be discriminated against based on ideology.
Conservative also blocked two editors with whom he was having a conflict immediately following their complaints appearing on this page. Let me ask you this. If one of those 100+ people that work for you went to human resources and complained about you and within five minutes you had suspended them, how soon would you be fired? Myk 23:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Never! I am the Owner. :p As is Andy here. I learned long ago that I am too much a pain in the ___ for a corporation to endure me!Like I have posted several times, I am aware of all you speak of. But perhaps just a bit more of a realist, eh? Since the complaints have been made many times, and Andy hasn't done much about it, so far as we can see, what is the point of harping on it daily? Perhaps there are actions being taken now, or recently, we know nothing of. Me, I'm an OEC, ID, kinda guy. But do you see me on the talk pages trying to tell anyone my ideas are better, have more "proof" than the other guys? Heck no! What would it serve? Should I go argue that Conservative is (and many of you as well) going to burn in eternal damnation for not accepting the divinity of the Holy Virgin? No! When God (or even the Holy Virgin) comes to me and instructs me to tell others they are wrong in their point of view, I will. Until then, I am not going to argue in a never-ending debate, about what someone else needs to accept as Gospel. My question is this: Why can't we have three or four entries for Creation? User types in "Creation" and is directed to a page with links to all widely-accepted theories, and a brief synopsis of each under the link. Each page could be pristine as to the beliefs of those supporting it. The users would then have the ability to decide, as they should, which they accept. Or not. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 00:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT
Well, imagine you had an HR department. Conservative is not the owner of this site so the analogy holds. Myk 09:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I also would like to point out that after the page was locked by CPWebmaster stating that the version of the article will be decided by the Panel and no further edits should be made, roughly 190 edits have been made, most of them by none other than Conservative. ColinRtalk 01:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? MountainDew 01:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Check the article history. Or better yet, check the talk page archive for "Panel and editing" and look at the links I provide there. ColinRtalk 01:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • And the charge given to Conservative, by Andrew, when making him a Sysop, was what? It is on his page. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 01:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I saw no such charge by Aschlafly on his page or talk page, the only charge I saw was given by Philip regarding editing the evolution article long before the Panel incident, which is what I'm referring to. Next time try paying attention to the topic of the discussion. ColinRtalk 02:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Terry, you wrote: "Why can't we have three or four entries for Creation? User types in "Creation" and is directed to a page with links to all widely-accepted theories, and a brief synopsis of each under the link. Each page could be pristine as to the beliefs of those supporting it". Perhaps you are unaware that we did have exactly that. It lasted for a day or two. Then guess what? No, go on, guess. Yes! Conservative deleted it, protected it, and redirected it to his Anti-Theory of Evolution page. Oh, the irony. --Horace 02:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, it wasn't Andy, it was Phillip. "You have been made a sysop so that you can implement your propositions to The Theory of Evolution page. Thanks... PhilipB 11:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)" --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 04:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

That's the 25th of February. A lot has happened since then. In particular the panel has been asked to examine what should happen with the page AND Asclafly said there should be NO MORE EDITING. --Horace 04:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, yes, I know. And has an explanation been forthcoming? No. So what do you hope to accomplish by bringing this up again, every day? --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 05:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I think it's reasonable to assume that some day, just maybe, the position of the administrator of this site will be clarified. Actually, having the posiiton stated would be nice but clarified would be even better. Myk 09:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a suggested set of editing rules for editors and sysop editors on Aschlafly's talk page. I would be delighted if you would look it over. --Horace 09:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • You mean delighted if Myk looked it over, right?--~ TK MyTalk 17:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm happy for anyone to look over it. Particularly sysops. Particularly you. --Horace 17:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I wish you had posted it on the proper page, is all. My comments mirror Ed's, a good start, given your authority fears, and all...;-) --~ TK MyTalk 17:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't fear authority per se. I only fear authority which is capriciously and arbitrarily wielded. Hence the proposed rules. I suspect that Aschlafly is a bit cold on them for the very same reason. --Horace 17:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Rules can be used for good or bad. Your fixation on one particular Sysop hasn't gained you any ground. Speaking as Spock here, your logic is flawed to keep pounding on the same topic, and there is no evidence that the tactic is working. Therefore, change tactics. --~ TK MyTalk 19:15, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Well "Spock," I'm sorry but what you just said is a non sequitur - Logically, it would make sense to continue our efforts in the proper venue, otherwise we're told to go here and complain, we're fussed at by someone, or some are even blocked. Instead of trying to cause a major disturbance, we've listed our complaints here multiple times, but apparently the higher-ups just don't care and have refused to take action or even take note of our complaints. ColinRtalk 22:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • No, that isn't correct. The "argument" has taken over a half dozen different areas. If the "higher-ups" have refused action, what are your options? It is Andy's right, you know. Principle would dictate to some not to participate further, some would resign. Still others would switch their tactics to something less confrontational, and try and broker some sort of peace, some compromise. Still others become passive agressive. --~ TK MyTalk 22:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Lets move all conservative related discussion to Sysop/Admin_Abuse/Conservative. Geo.Talk 22:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Second that! Do you know how to move the content, Geo? If so, please do so. --~ TK MyTalk 22:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
For the love of all things good and decent, TK, listen to what some of the other people are saying to you for once in your life. People have asked for it to be unlocked, it gets unlocked, he locks it again and reverts it. People have complained, there has been no response. Items are put onto the Talk page, they are ignored. Attempts have been made at compromise, they are either ignored or acknowledged, attempted, then reverted and ignored. He locks his talk page so people can't address the issue there. He block editors that he disagrees with. He does it after they file complaints with him. We have submitted the article for review to the proper channels and all we're told is that "Progress is being made."
All tactics have been attempted, none have had success. It is only natural that sarcasm and passive aggression have become the rule rather than the exception.
Andrew is perfectly within his rights to ignore all of those things. His site, his word, it has already been adequately demonstrated that his is the only voice here that matters. But it is an incredibly unhealthy environment for editors interested in science to work under. This is the proper channel for complaints against sysops and I would be very surprised if you don't see several here until it is at least acknowledge by someone with the authority to do something about it. Myk 22:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
As I said, he has barely even acknowledged our complaints. If he came out and said, I read your complaints and feel that Conservative is fine in his actions, then so be it. At least then we know our problems have been noted and a decision has been made. And what I said stands correct, logically, it would make sense to continue to lodge complaints here, as no other tactic works and could even have negative results. ColinRtalk
Myk, you write "Why Conservapedia is doomed to fail". [1] What is your point in being at Conservapedia if you truly believe it is doomed to fail? Conservative 23:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I want it to succeed for my own reasons. I love the conceit that conservatives need their own encyclopedia to get their own facts. Nothing like being able to go to a place to have your view of the world go unchallenged. Myk 00:03, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey, Congrats on getting your own abuse page. The only sysop to achieve that dubious honour. --Horace 23:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • You are confusing stubbornness with logic, here. Logic dictates that since you know Andy responds to other items, it follows he has read, and understood the posts which he has decided not to address. Continued carping is a stubborn insistence that you be answered, and you do not have that right. Each of us has the right not to answer, as well as to answer. Beyond a week or two, to simply keep stomping one's feet, and demanding to be answered is a waste of time, and like I said, an exercise personal vanity. Ergo, not logical. --~ TK MyTalk 23:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Horace, I have chosen to write research and write material on "culture war" issues for the most part and my material is highly conservative in content. It is not surprising that liberals would vehemently complain - especially when I put content which is not favorable to a central tenet of liberalism which is the evolutionary view. Conservative 23:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, shut up with the "liberal evolutionary view." Please. Evolution is not a political subject. Being a liberal or conservative does not depend on your view of evolution. Maybe if you knew what the theory of evolution was really about, you'd know that. ColinRtalk 23:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Colin, creationism is truly a conservative view. It was held by traditional Judaism and the early church fathers. Like it or not, the evolutionary view is a central tenet of the secular liberal establishment (It is no mistake the ACLU vehemently advocates the evolutionary view). Conservative 23:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
First off, learn to properly indent. Secondly, NO! You are wrong. The "liberal establishment" does not necessarily support the "evolutionary view." Quit with the logical fallacies. And creationism is a specific Christian view, not a conservative view. There are plenty of liberals who are creationist and a ton of conservatives who aren't creationists. Creationism is a view held by a branch of a religion, not by a political party. Just as evolution is a scientific theory regarded as valid and the best theory we have now by many people, regardless of creed or political affiliation. So please quit saying that anything you don't believe in is a liberal view and anything you believe in is conservative. Thank you. ColinRtalk 23:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
  • How does anyone have so much power over others, where we have a Sysop yelling at him to shut up? --~ TK MyTalk 23:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
If you'd read what I said, I didn't tell him to shut up, just to shut up about his "evolution is liberal" nonsense. ColinRtalk 23:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, you've lost me. How is the theory of evolution a central tenet of liberalism? Liberalism is a political ideology. It says nothing about the correctness or otherwise of the theory of evolution. And I assume that you are refering to me as one of the complaining liberals. You have no idea about my politics. You assume everything based on my criticism of your second rate evolution article.
Have some intestinal fortitude. Allow the article to be opened up. I am happy for an article to contain cricism of evolutionary theory. I just want to see a sensible balanced article. Work with me. I have some knowledge on the subject and am keen to contribute. There are a number of others who clearly have an even better knowledge than me. All of that knowledge is being wasted at the moment.
Now I don't want you to hide behind the panel. You are quite capable of going to Aschlafly and saying, "Look, I've decided that the best thing is for the article to be a collaborative effort". Show us all that I have been wrong about you. --Horace 23:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I guess I am wrong again and the highly liberal organization the ACLU does not vehemently defend the evolutionary view despite the fact that there are over a million google hits for "ACLU and "evolution". [2] I guess it is just coincidence that the ACLU vehemently advocates the evolutionary view. Conservative 23:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

That isn't nec. the best argument because I get 633,000 hits for creationism + ACLU. However, I think that everybody *should* agree that the ACLU is in strong opposition to creationism. It's one of their main crusades in Kansas. MountainDew 23:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

MountainDew, be prepared to hear that the ACLU isn't all that liberal! Conservative 23:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Yeah, they're a good ol' moderate group who wants to get rid of the Boy Scouts. MountainDew 23:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

How about Conservative addresses the substantive suggestion in my post? --Horace 23:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, are you familiar with the fallacy of Composition? You're saying that some liberals defend "the evolutionary view," (which I'm assuming you mean the current accepted scientific worldview) thus all liberals support "the evolutionary view." And google hits alone are not evidence of a connection between two subjects. Sorry. And the ACLU doesn't "defend" evolution, it fights against the presence of "Intelligent Design" (a laughable term, but that's neither here nor there) and religion being used as science. Thus, many supporters of ID claim that the ACLU is an evolutionist organization. Moreover, you're committing the fallacy of equating atheists to be liberals. Nowhere in the definition of conservative does it say Christian, or even believing in a God. (And I won't deny the fact that the ACLU is pretty liberal. But evolution does not equal liberal. Ever.) ColinRtalk 23:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Colin, does traditional Judaism adhere to creationism? Did the early church fathers hold to creationism? You can try to whitewash the evolutionary view to make it appear to be truly conservative but it isn't a truly conservative view. You never address this matter but remain silent on it. Conservative 23:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
What do you mean by traditional Judaism? Orthodox Judaism? Reform? What? Did the early church fathers know about the theory of evolution? And quit calling it the "evolutionary view." It's not an evolutionary view, it's a logical, scientific view. Furthermore, by your logic, the ancient Greeks were completely correct about their myths and gods, after all, did they know about the Judaic story of creation? Did they know about Jesus? ColinRtalk 23:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
HELLO??? Conservative??? --Horace 23:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Traditional Judaism, held by current Orthodox Jews, holds a young earth creationism view. [3] "The traditional Jewish calendar starts from 3760 BC, which is taken to be a date for the creation of the Earth."[4] Conservative 23:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I guess I prove my point about you yet again. To what end? I don't know but I feel compelled to keep making it. Call me kooky if you will. --Horace 00:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe

Maybe it's time to unionize the editors? Crackertalk

A union on Conservapedia? Haha. MountainDew 23:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

okay a "guild". Crackertalk
Right, we could have a strike and all withdraw our labor and then... hold on a minute... --Horace 23:28, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Do I detect the smell of subversive activity... wiff wiff.... RobS 23:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, the thing is, there will always be more to take their places, socks, sockpuppets and even actually new people! --~ TK MyTalk 23:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

As if guilds/unions/whatever you want to call them don't already exist here? MountainDew 23:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Just as long as my union dues don't go to elect pro-aborts and greenie weenies like all the other ones do. Teresita 23:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think Conservapedia needs a COINTELPRO Unit. Ever notice, those guys in Counterintelligence go berserk in the end, like Hoover, McCarthy or James Jesus Angelton? Sheeesh....I can see why.....RobS 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I miss that MOB, Hoover. At least he was someone who could keep things in check! --~ TK MyTalk 00:11, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Yep, the image of him walking around in the evening wearing a pink nightie thinking of which bogus files to feed McCarthy next is one of those enigma's that will haunt historians for years. RobS 00:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Thoughout history, and least since Jesus died, many stories have been made up to discredit those who people hated. Nixon said that crap didn't take place. I believe him, because if it had, Nixon would have used it to get rid of him. --~ TK MyTalk 00:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Another great irony of history is, G. Gordon Liddy built a radio & TV career as Nixon's loyal man--loyal to the end. The myth endured for 30 years, then the tapes got released, and Nixon asked "Who's the @$$ole who thought of this?", meaning who's idea was the breakin to start with. RobS 00:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Back to my suggestion

If the editors were "unionized" they would have to elect a person to do the "collective bargaining" this would entail no end of people vying to both stay away from the post and those who seek it; reducing, somewhat, the edits to the talk pages. Maybe three others would be the "stewards" seeing that the job would likely prove too much for one person. "Management" could then implement a policy that ONLY these four (or so) people were to speak to and about problems that may arise, on pain of blocking accounts for violating said policy, also further reductions of the whining on talk pages. It might also prod "management" to implement it's own hierarchy, (delegating the more mundane aspects of day-to-day issues and grievances that are going to arise) and provide a framework within to remain productive (and grow) in spite of still having major unresolved issues. Crackertalk

Personal tools