I take your point (about the general tone of the RobS/Conservative argument), but of course I daren't redact comments made by sysops. I've been rather appalled, however, by all the users who really have no say in these matters shooting their mouths off. I think it hurts the site in a lot of ways, so I've been trying to clean it up. However, I'm sure you're right; I'll back off and leave it to the sysops. Jcw 10:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
- No I absolutely agree that the general tone of the debate is terrible (and the newer users instantly jumping it is also unsettling to me, so I share your resentment towards that kind of trolling). I've been trying to clean it up as well - and I applaud your effort; it's just that I have been, on occasion, been using Template:personal remark removed or reverting sysops, and I can't in good conscience say that TracyS's comment - while, again, I completely disagree from it - wasn't far more civil than content from higher-ups on both sides that I haven't reverted, but you're doing a great job.--IDuan 10:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
- Thanks, I quite understand the position now. Jcw 10:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop
Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop:
If you want to create a more collaborative spirit and increase the esprit de corps of Conservapedia, my suggestion at the present time is for a group of Conservapedians to pick a topic and then have editors create as many quality articles relating to that topic that are at least 500 words long. I would suggest that the articles not be stubs because that is not going to enhance the reputation of Conservapedia nor give it a sense of accomplishment. I created this project for a couple of editors who seemed interested in this topic: Conservapedia:Atheism Project I suggest creating a project with more widespread appeal because atheism is not on most people's radar in terms of the public at large - especially in the United States. Conservative 09:54, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, I've been distracted, as have we all, by you-know-what lately, and it's time to pick up a few loose ends. This will mostly involve talk pages; I hope I'm not running close to 90/10 territory.
I need to answer ELWisty rather than leave him hanging. I think all he needs is a little guidance. He now seems to understand how to behave.
Also, there's this guy "JimJast" or whatever, posting stuff that is setting off my crackpot alarms. I've got to sound him out. He may need serious refutation. There is just so much about what he writes that is, well, wrong.
SamHB 22:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11
The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Blocking_policy_refinement_panel_proceedings You can ignore my email asking you to invite people as I already did it. Conservative 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
Hi Iduan. I understand why you've changed RobS's block back and I have no intention of arguing over it - you have a lot more standing around here, so I'm sure you've done the right thing. However, I don't want you to think I was acting without reason. As I've said elsewhere, I don't want to drag the details out in public, but since his demotion and blocking RobS has been on a spree, insulting CP's sysops in the basest fashion on the vandal wiki. If you say that doesn't warrant an infinite block I'll accept that, I just wanted you to know what my reasoning was. To be perfectly frank, I was - and am - somewhat angry at RobS's behavior. Jcw 19:12, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
- I understand the anger. To be clear, while I agreed with a good percentage of Rob's ideas - as many users did (as evidenced by Conservative's current effort to change blocking policy) - I think that he contributed to a spirit of incivility that plagued every user on the site. You don't have to travel to see this - inflammatory comments by him can be found in the archives of pages on Conservapedia (but I would also point out that he was not the only guilty one). Still, pending evidence to the contrary, I firmly believe that Rob is a good faith editor - who has made many real contributions to this site; if and until Andy or another sysop makes the decision that he should leave permanently, I will obviously respect that, but for now Andy's decision appears to be that Rob should take a short break. And as far as my "standing" goes - I see you as an equal and I respect you as a user, so please don't take any of this personally.--IDuan 19:21, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
- I think that's a very reasonable position, in light of which I won't say any more on the subject. I certainly don't take any of it personally. Jcw 19:33, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
The panel proceeding have begun here
The panel proceeding have begun here: Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. Conservative 12:56, 17 August 2011 (EDT)