User talk:MRellek

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, MRellek, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, MRellek!


--JamesWilson 19:47, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Contents

Image DEBT

Done. --Joaquín Martínez 21:29, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Why are you here?

Hi, MRellek. I'm wondering about your purpose of visiting our project. You said you would contribute to math and engineering, but your contribs show nothing in these areas. You've "talked" a lot, and last month you demanded more sysop accountability. [1]

What about contributor accountability? Please submite a Conservapedia:writing plan. --Ed Poor Talk 12:47, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Unfortunately my life is extremely busy, and I haven't been able to contribute much. Most of my edits have been on the run from my phone, which has limited me primarily to reverting vandalism, and trying to be active in the community. I, dont believe anything I have contributed has been antagonistic or otherwise so I am largely confused as to why you are demanding a "writing plan". Your message comes across as rather rude, but I will understand this once given the large number of vandals which seem attracted here. Also my demand for sysop accountability is directly related to the minor annoyance I get from the intellectually offensive material featured on the main page by one user. Once I get more free time I plan on working on some of the math and engineering articles or chemistry related to my field.--MRellek 13:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
On a side note reviewing the diff you provided does not scream me demanding sysop accountability, as I was simply commenting on an oddity in a conversation. Additionally, I made no promise to write on math and engineering exclusively, and I have made some edits to chemistry. --MRellek 13:30, 5 August 2011 (EDT)


Leaving

Due to not having much time to devote to this project, and editorial differences with some fellow users I will be leaving for at least a bit. I may return to check in from time to time. However, at this point I do not feel as though the little time I have to edit a wiki will best be used here, as it has not been appreciated thus far. --MRellek 21:55, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

  • Parting shot rebuttal. You did demand sysop accountablity (no one said "screamed"): "I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why." And at the point I called you to account, I had not seen any of the promised math or engineering contribs; your parting shot muddies the waters by protesting that you didn't promise only to write on these; my request for a writing plan comes because you didn't write on these at all.
  • Liberals like to pretend that they are blameless, while blaming everyone else. Just like the guy in Oslo the other week. Well, peddle it somewhere else, you're not fooling anyone here.
  • If you really want to make contributions you (or the RW "neighbors") are always free to do so. You need not bother to keep up the pretense of persecuted rationality any more. Rational people do what is requested and keep their promises. --Ed Poor Talk 18:09, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Ed, your Writing Plan policy comes over as nothing but "You didn't break the rules, but I still would like to have an excuse to ban you, so follow my orders or else." You single-handedly drove a user away, and now (three days later) you basically dance in his abandoned house and declare yourself to be correct?
And your bit about what "rational people do" is hilariously wrong. Rational people will consider the costs and benefits when it comes to spending their limited free time, and then act accordingly. As such, MRellek acted perfectly rational:
  • User didn't break any rules, yet is suddenly on probation and has to submit a writing plan
  • User delivers a writing plan ("Once I get more free time I plan on working on some of the math and engineering articles or chemistry related to my field.")
  • User is banned. Forever.
  • User is gradually unbanned, no word on whether the probation is lifted, and the loose-cannon sysop barely gets a slap on the wrist.
Things like these tend to make people feel unwelcome. CP already offers close to no benefits for the average user, so even "minor things" like getting a permanent ban for not unconditionally submitting to a specific sysop will tip the scales towards "Oh well, I tried, but whatever."
I know you and your fellow sysops think that Conservapedia is soooooooo much better than Wikipedia and that people would do anything to be allowed to stay and contribute to this glorious project, but... uh, no. It's not. It's a safe haven for fringe opinions ("Jesus disproves General Relativity! Beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution! Declining SAT scores disprove an old Earth!") and for parodists who get their kicks out of parroting Andy while behaving like jerks to regular non-sysops.
And how about CP's awesome reputation that makes editors want to contribute? Liberals think that CP is a troll site (literally - ask Conservative, he's the one to thank for that), conservatives just look at the "The Bible needs to be retranslated into Conservative English!" project and shake their heads, and when Dawkins mentioned Andy's little Lenski episode in his book, a Creationist site accused him of attacking a straw man.
Conservapedia was founded more than four years ago. Look at the site in its current state, look at its history, and then ask yourself whether you can afford to drive away people who did no harm just because they didn't do exactly what you expected them to do. --Sid 3050 20:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
It is due to my respect for your early contributions to discussion about the purpose and policies of this site that I will take what you've said at face value, even though in this rebuttal itself you are violating site policy.
  1. You say I resorted to an excuse. I suppose you feel I had an ulterior motive in mind for blocking Rellek. If so, what do you imagine it was? Rellek promised to write some articles, and when asked to make good on his promise he gave the phony excuse of not having time (although he had plenty of time to argue for changes in site policy).
  2. I know it may sound arrogant, but I've found that users who will offer a writing plan turn out to be good contributors; those who balk or refuse are more quickly revealed to have motives contrary to those of this project. I might have "driven away" a user or two at Wikipedia, but with tens of thousands of writers ready to replace them I hope I may be forgiven for my haste there. Here, in contrast, most new users come to undermine the project. They must be weeded out. If you support the idea of creating a trustworthy encyclopedia, you'll no doubt be in favor or excluding those who want to make it untrustworthy.
  3. Announcing a list of topics is not a writing plan. I'd like more detail, such as an article name (at least). I wanted to know whether "he" came here primarily to persuade us to change our goals or policies. Such people are free to contribute to our debate topics (where they'll get as much attention as they merit). They are not free to waste our time. I'll pay more attention to those with a track record of useful contributions. (You're a special case, because you epitomize and therefore represent the opposition.)
Name-calling is hardly called for, and in this case inaccurate. Your "loose cannon" remark does not fit someone who allows another sysop to undo a block, or who is willing to explain site policy.
I intend to do my best to make people who come here to undermine our goals feel unwelcome. If there were a social dance at the local high school, and someone wanted to turn it into a debate, the principal would kick him out of the building, whether he we enrolled there or not. There is a time and a place for everything.
I need not answer all your points, but I'll just make my annual appeal to the "loyal opposition".
  • If you want to add critical commentary to article, you are welcome to do so provided you adhere to editorial policy. It's so simple that you can't pretend you don't know it already: merely say that X said Y about Z. (Same as Wikipedia! :-)
If any contributor, especially a sysop, stymies your efforts, please drop me a note on my talk page. I won't stand for any ideoligical censorship. If there is any point, important or trivial, serious or silly, which another contributor censors from an article - merely because it's a liberal (or "rational") idea, let me know. I will show you how to describe it in a fair, objective and trustworthy manner - or if you can't learn how, I may choose to do it myself.
Unlike Wikipedia, we do not censor opposing ideas; we describe them; we attribute them to their advocates.
Unlike Wikipedia, we do not tolerate cabals of subversives who game the system to undermine our purpose.
Now if you remember me and trust me, you can help me build the world's most trustworthy encyclopedia. Or you can giggle into your hand and pretend to be a frustrated reformer. The choice is yours. --Ed Poor Talk 15:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Rebuttal Rebuttal

Ed, let me see if I've got this right. You DROVE AWAY a user who could have made useful contributions to chemistry and math? I'm sure you know, as well as anybody here, how rare good contributors in math, science, and engineering are. (Quick quiz: Name an active math contributor. Chemistry? Physics?)

User MRellek appeared on July 5. He said "Hopefully I'll be able to do some work relating to the field and some other areas such as Math and Chemistry in which I am well versed." He didn't promise anything; he expressed hope.

He then made 4 contributions to Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 2 to physics, and 1 to "Women in Science and Mathematics".

He welcomed another user.

He requested block of an obvious vandal (who was blocked), and reverted damage.

That doesn't sound all that subversive.

He entered into many discussions on a wide variety of topics, including the currently very hot topic of the recent attempts to improve sysop accountability etc. etc. etc. I assume you have been following recent events, and know all about that. And know that a great number of people, including fairly new users, have been actively participating in those discussions. His behavior was not unusual or unreasonable in the least.

At 12:47 on August 5, you complained about his non-contributions in math and engineering, notwithstanding what I have listed above. (I assume you accept chemistry and physics as being acceptable in this area.)

And you complained that he "demanded" sysop accountability. He didn't demand anything. He advocated it, as your own cited "diff" shows. You were deceptively putting words in his mouth. You also requested a "writing plan". You have requested/demanded such things many times before, but not once did you ever respond to a request from a user about where to file such a plan. Your edit comment also mentioned "probation". What is that? You have never explained. Is it just a phrase you use to make people feel unwelcome? (By the way, you put me on probation in August 2008, and never explained.)

Do any other sysops complain to users about not contributing enough? Do any other sysops demand a "writing plan"? Don't we pretty much allow people to contribute wherever they have the talent and inclination, with the usual concerns about vandalism, parody, or other inappropriate material? Is your treatment of MRellek the way Conservapedia should be treating people? Can you name any other user that was required to make and keep promises about what they would contribute? Is this the way you attract math and science writers?

His reply explained that he was busy with a lot of things, but hoped to make contributions in the indicated fields. He denied, quite rightly, having "demanded" sysop accountability, or having "promised" contributions in any particular field. He claimed your message was rude, which it was.

Then, at 12:07 on August 6, you blocked this person. Giving as a reason "failure to follow sysop direction", referring to the demand for a "writing plan". As I'm sure you know, that is not a valid block reason, and that sysops are expected to follow the rules.

Then he posted a note saying that he was leaving, at least for a while. You issued the "rebuttal" above. Let's go through it point by point.

  • You did demand sysop accountablity (no one said "screamed")
It's true that no one said "screamed". But he did not demand.
  • I had not seen any of the promised math or engineering contribs; your parting shot muddies the waters by protesting that you didn't promise only to write on these; my request for a writing plan comes because you didn't' write on these at all.
He didn't "promise" anything at all. And if you didn't see his contributions on technical topics, it's because you didn't look. Your request/demand for a writing plan was based on a completely false premise.
  • Liberals like to pretend ..... the guy in Oslo ......
WHAT? Liberalism, and perceptions of liberals, has nothing to do with any of this! Nor does Anders Breivik. Connecting him with MRellek's situation is just preposterous and outlandish.
  • Well, peddle it somewhere else, you're not fooling anyone here.
Peddle what? And whom does he think he is fooling? And about what?
  • If you really want to make contributions you (or the RW "neighbors") are always free to do so.
No, not if you've blocked him. And the innuendo that he has RW "neighbors" is the oldest trick in the CP book. I'm sure that you know that you have a number of RW "neighbors", including past and present trusted sysops. I'm sure you know that "being a member of a vandal site" doesn't convey nearly the opprobrium that it used to, and has been explicitly de-listed as a block reason. And has always been implicitly not an offense due to the clause about people not being held responsible for actions elsewhere on the internet.
  • You need not bother to keep up the pretense of persecuted rationality any more. Rational people do what is requested and keep their promises.
"pretense of persecuted rationality"? Huh? What is that? Are you putting more words in his mouth? Keep their promises? What promises?

SamHB 21:45, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools