Conservapedia:Community Portal

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DouglasA (Talk | contribs) at 01:32, 13 August 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

Archive 1 Archive 2

How do I request/apply for upload rights?

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the Federal Debt Limit. HP 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

I would recommend asking at User:Aschlafly talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a merit system. See: Conservapedia:User rights. Rob Smith 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--JamesWilson 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --SharonW 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

HP, this edit is problematic; it looks like malevolent parody ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. Rob Smith 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. Personal remark removed HP 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --SharonW 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. HP 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc,

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board HERE.

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: Daniel Came's recent commentary about Richard Dawkins and Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see Christian apologetics website resources.

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is no proof and evidence for atheism and as mentioned above there is a great deal of evidence for Christianity. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. Conservative 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

  • I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content.
Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's Conservative Bible Project.
Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
  • I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter
I beleive I did here. [1]
  • suggested a blocking review board
You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
  • I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future
And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. Rob Smith 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Rob Smith 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the Conservative Bible Project (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained HERE. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. Conservative 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
  • I cannot find it on the talk page of the project
Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
  • I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
We're all waiting with baited breath. Rob Smith 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Rude and insulting behaviour

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to insult me and question my faith. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. MaxFletcher 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. JohnMcL 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along." (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: and this Conservative

I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. MaxFletcher 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)

Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. MaxFletcher 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. Karajou 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the support, Karajou. Jcw 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...MaxFletcher 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? Karajou 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. MaxFletcher 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. Karajou 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? Rob Smith 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. Karajou 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other good faith contributors.
And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is trolling, nothing more. Rob Smith 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. Jcw 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on reversion, not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. Rob Smith 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. Jcw 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're immediately reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where other editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of disrupting ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and not disrupt the other editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to other editors who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please. Rob Smith 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? Jcw 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. MaxFletcher 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? Jcw 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! MaxFletcher 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --Benp 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. Rob Smith 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, my faith, questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. MaxFletcher 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --Benp 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
but do try to see it from our position "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. MaxFletcher 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility states,
  • Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,
and Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility states,
  • Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying. Rob Smith 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

a perspective from a pianist

MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as modus operandi is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. JDWpianist 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. MaxFletcher 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. Jcw 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. MaxFletcher 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This is a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. RobertE 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. Jcw 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. Rob Smith 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are facts. Here conservative questions my faith and this is but one page and here again he displays open hostility towards me for asking simple questions. MaxFletcher 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
My point, to re-clarify again is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. MaxFletcher 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. Rob Smith 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. Conservative 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. Jcw 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? MaxFletcher 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. Jcw 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. MaxFletcher 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is

Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... RonLar 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. MaxFletcher 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

And end to this

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. Jcw 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. Conservative 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

May I draw you attention to Conservapedia:Proxy IP? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! RonLar 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".Conservative 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
  • You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
  • You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that a user's talk page is his/her castle: the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case heavily moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
  • RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
RonLar 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--CamilleT 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. Karajou 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? BradB 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? Karajou 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? Jcw 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". BradB 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. Jcw 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)


I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even bad publicity is good publicity. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc. (see here for example.) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: (1), (2) (3),(4), (5) Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

RonLar 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? JohnMcL 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. Conservative 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

RonLar 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

<stern face> Stop picking on the autistic kid, RonLar. Not big, not clever. </stern face> --JackZ 20:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.Conservative 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Seems like a good idea.--JamesWilson 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
Likewise. Jcw 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. Conservative 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --SharonW 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. MaxFletcher 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

Yes votes:

Yes. Conservative 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. Jcw 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--JamesWilson 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --AlejandroH 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. DouglasA 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

No votes:

(EC) For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. RonLar 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. RobertE 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. JDWpianist 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --MarkGall 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --SharonW 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)