Conservapedia:User complaints/Archive/Archive9

Well, now we have another list of lies with no evidence to back it up, such as the site's viewership going down since I returned; Robbybaby wants to blame it on me, but I'm counting all the remaining editors - and there are just a handful of them - and I can rightly blame Robbybaby for driving them all away. Nobody wants to work with a jerk.

So, since he is a jerk, as well as an arrogant, narcissistic little bully, the best way to deal with such an individual is right out of Andy's playbook, which is to ignore him. Don't even talk to him, don't respond to him, don't even give him the time of day. Just let him whine, scream, pout, whatever, because there's absolutely nothing he can do about it. And he cannot block you for not talking to him, can he? Karajou (talk) 18:53, October 7, 2023 (EDT)

Yeah, man. If no-one acknowledges the bonkers guff he regularly inserts into articles and MPR, then that ... means it isn't there and the rest of the world can't see it either! This will definitely work. No notes. ConwayIII (talk) 21:03, October 7, 2023 (EDT)

Oct 1, 2023

Oct. 2, 2023 Karajou reactivated.

Oct 6, 2023.

RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:12, October 7, 2023 (EDT)

In order to successfully blame myself for this drop in numbers, people would need to look and see that I have returned, which would mean the viewing numbers would go up. Nice try, moron. Karajou (talk) 08:12, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

I am initiating a vote of no confidence in User:RobSmith. Over the past few months, I have grown increasingly distressed with the state of Conservapedia. I would like to contribute good-quality conservative content, but I have not because of the shadow RobSmith casts over the encyclopedia. A by no means exhaustive list of grievances:

• He is the king of "rules for thee, but not for me". He often complains about people "peeing all over the carpet" by joining in discussions they were not a part of. And yet he finds the need to respond to every thread over at User talk:Aschlafly, adding his "two cents".
• He claims that anything critical of Russia or Putin is Russophobic
• He believes that he is responsible for the decrease in vandalism over the past few months, when anyone with a functioning brain would realize it is because creating new accounts is disabled
• He believes that page protection is the first tool against vandalism. No. Blocks are used when the problem is the user, page protection is used when the problem is the page. Protecting pages because of one user just prevents good faith contributions to the page by other users.
• His views on content are wildly off-base with those of the general readership of CP. See: Conservapedia:AFD Essay:Russian war crimes in Ukraine
• He views any popular challenge to his authority as a mobocracy, when it is simply an exercise in the taking the views of the best of the public
• He needs to collaborate with everyone, not just members of Team CP. There was no elitist gang of editors until RobSmith started one.

The undersigned users endorse this statement and believe RobSmith needs to be de-sysoped for the good of Conservapedia, and humbly request Andy remove his admin rights:

Endorsements

1. The problem is RobSmith, not the supposedly "Russophobic" contributors he keeps attacking. MayGodBless (talk) 20:34, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   You're lucky this isn't the good old days; Karajou and User:Conservative would have just blocked you and deleted everything by now. Don't I get credit for stopping that? RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:08, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   How did *you* stop that? MayGodBless (talk) 21:11, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   Have you been blocked and this page deleted for initiating this vote? You know darn well Karajou and Cons would have booted your butt in 5 mins. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:18, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   I actually don't, given that I am a fairly new editor. And If I had initiated something like this without good cause, I would deserve to be blocked.

   But you have not answered my main point: how did the actions of RobSmith change the dynamic at CP? MayGodBless (talk) 22:52, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   Read some of the items you enumerated above. You're just lucky you're still here, cause Karajou and User:Cons would have deleted any trace you ever existed if you tried anything like this with them. Heck, I'm the guy who created this place for people to come and air their grievances without fear of getting blocked. 23:07, October 9, 2023 (EDT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobSmith (talk)

   Gorbachev opened up the USSR and it led to criticism of the system. And again, you have not addressed my point: what action(s) taken by you are preventing Karajou and/or Conservative from blocking me for criticising you? And know this: I am not trying to attack you. Your heart is in the right place. I am merely expressing the viewpoint that you need to be a regular editor while you learn how to be a net-positive to this wiki. MayGodBless (talk) 23:27, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   I'm not getting into our internal politics. Why haven't you taken the pledge to edit in good faith? All you've done here is cite a bunch of second and third hand hearsay, and don't have a personnel grievance yourself. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 23:39, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   What do you find objectional about this language, and what would you propose to improve it: "We the undersigned editors at Team CP pledge to work cooperatively with other signees as a cooperative editor to produce content for Conservapedia under the Conservapedia:Commandments and Conservapedia:Guidelines. We pledge to treat other editors with dignity and respect, and not engage in ceaseless acts of incivility, edit warring, and trolling, etc. We pledge to make, good, well researched content for Conservapedia readers. We pledge to work together as cooperative editors, and not engage in unnecessary, senseless trivial disputes, personality clashes, carry grudges, and to work for a spirit of cooperation among editors."

   RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 23:42, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   My personal grievance is it is destroying this website. And I ask that you withdraw your comment "Don't I get credit for stopping that?" if you are unwilling or unable to back it up with sources. And I strongly object to the line "We the undersigned editors at Team CP pledge to work cooperatively with other signees" (bold in original, italics mine). At a wiki, you work cooperatively with everyone, even if they don't particularly want to work cooperatively with you. That is a basic tenant of editing that anyone with SkipCaptcha should know, let alone an admin. I would also consider asking Andy why he has not signed your pledge if you want to know why people have not signed it. MayGodBless (talk) 23:53, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   I don't need to, cause I did. I don't block on sight editors such as yourself who engage in the type of conduct you are engaging in right now - that's one of my reforms. You have no personnel grievance, yet are soliciting a conspiracy against another editor. That's bad faith editing. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 23:59, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   So upholding a basic sense of decency to allow constructive criticism is a "reform" you want credit for? Inflation is coming down, but that doesn't mean we should re-elect Joe Biden. And I absolutely have a personal grievance: I want CP to thrive. You are acting as an impediment to that. And if you understood what the phrase "good faith" means, you would know it is a belief that you are doing good regardless of if you are successful or not. I believe I am being successful, but even if I am not, it is still good faith editing because I believe I am. Something any editor should know. MayGodBless (talk) 00:04, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   The fact you just redirected bad faith editing to an entry of inappropriate behaviour says a lot. Bad faith editing is about faith. You might be trying to accuse me of disruptive editing? MayGodBless (talk) 00:07, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   No, the Etiquette section still needs rounding out, but it has the link to the specific section you are in violation of right now. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 00:12, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   See, we've had problems at this website in the past that too often were met with the sledgehammer by Karajou and User:Conservative. You have no discernible complaint, as far as I can tell. Specifically mentioned in the Guidelines: Flaming or flame wars; posting user disputes over multiple pages. And you don't even have a personnel dispute or grievance. As an Admin, I make a judgement call to call that "trolling". Now I can issue a warning, or a suggestion. I'll begin with a suggestion: My suggestion is you stop trolling, me, other users, and this website. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 00:19, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Let's go over this again. I believe I am helping CP => I am acting in good faith. By definition. MayGodBless (talk) 00:22, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Ok. You may believe that in your mind, and I'm not challenging that. As a 16-year senior veteran Administrator on this site, I see things quite differently; I see someone who is not familiar with our rules and guidelines, a wayward child as it were, who needs to be guided back to the right path. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 00:32, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Good. We can agree that I "believe that in [my] mind". Which means that your assertion that I am partaking in "bad faith editing" is patently false and a personal attack. MayGodBless (talk) 00:50, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   No it doesn't it. It means I, in good faith, respect your assessment of your own conduct in violation of our Guidelines as being in good faith. And it also means by my Adminship, I believe you are in error, and my job is to steer you back to a proper course. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 00:55, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   (outdenting) RobSmith, I thought we had an agreement. I am acting in good faith, yes? Which means that I am not partaking in bad faith editing. Pretty simple logic. What part of that do you need me to explain again? MayGodBless (talk) 00:58, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   I would love it if you could persuade one (1) other person that your view is correct. I have already convinced two (2) people that you are in the wrong, which is more than have signed up for your Team CP. MayGodBless (talk) 00:59, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   I said, I believe and respected your belief that you were acting in good faith. I now believe, since you've been showed chapter and verse the type of editing that you engaged in - which there is no way to undo short of issuing several public retractions and apologies - can be considered trolling activity. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 01:02, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Do you believe trolling is the same thing as bad faith editing? Hint: they are not. MayGodBless (talk) 01:05, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   That's a very good question. I'd be interested to sit back and hear you expound on the matter. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 01:08, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   I asked the question, oh wise administrator. Guide me; show me the light. Explain the difference between trolling and bad faith editing, please. I am, after all, a newbie and need to be guided by a powerful administrator who is respected such as yourself. MayGodBless (talk) 01:12, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Oh, ok. Nevermind. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 01:21, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Are you incapable of answering that basic question? You don't get to hand-wave this away. What is the difference between bad faith editing and trolling? MayGodBless (talk) 07:40, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Another complaint: RobSmith has reverted me with no comment when I remove unattributed quotes. See: [1]. MayGodBless (talk) 11:00, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   He has now re-added the material, this time with a source. Just one problem: the source does not support the given assertion. That is an egregious violation of academic integrity. MayGodBless (talk) 11:06, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

2. Agree with motion of no confidence. Conservative (talk) 20:45, October 9, 2023 (EDT)
3. Absolutely agreed without a doubt. Remove RobSmith's “Administrator” tag ASAP. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Tuesday, 21:38, October 9, 2023 (EDT)
4. Agree: Rob's coverage of the war in Ukraine is flat-out bonkers, pro-Putin fan fiction. It's brimming with deceit and, as it regularly splashes over on to MPR, you've got actual plague signs on your front door for any minimally informed, new conservative readers / editors. Many socks died over the years trying for a similar effect. ConwayIII (talk) 17:10, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Yep. We take a hardline stance against Nazism and the real Nazis cry ouch and come crawling out of the woodwork. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:53, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Is it possible to be anti-Putin and anti-Nazi at the same time? Hint: does 2+2=4? MayGodBless (talk) 18:46, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   In the context of the Ukraine war, no. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 18:49, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   It's Nazis all the way down, man. The swines probably bio-engineered your brain worms, too. Like, on their moonbase or something. ConwayIII (talk) 18:53, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Although I was recently delighted to obtain the book Alice in Wonderland in both text and audio, I generally prefer nonfiction over fiction. So I don't go down the rabbit holes of RobSmith's fictional encyclopedia entries or talk page posts. Conservative (talk) 19:04, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Absolutely, unequivocally false. Stalin fought Hitler, but that does not mean we must support Stalin or else be Nazis. MayGodBless (talk) 19:06, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Here's the Catch-22 many anti-Putin and anti-Russian bigots painted themselves into: Putin says: "We're going to war against Nazism". Critics says, "Oh, that's just Putin propaganda for the stupid Russian masses", which of course then makes you a Russophobic Nazi bigot. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 19:15, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Putin can go to war against Nazism, and still be responsible for the murder of Litvinenko and countless others. Your simplistic view of the war is that there must be a good side and a bad side. Guess what? In real life (something you, a realist, should care an awful lot about), both sides can be bad. MayGodBless (talk) 21:24, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   No, I think that's the charge that could made against critics - being simplistic. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:17, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

5. Agree: Sometimes Rob sounds like he means well, but then he deletes good content, acts abusively towards other good-faith editors, and pushes pro-communism views. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 22:19, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Being anti-Nazi is not pro-communist - unless you somehow got Nazi = conservative confused. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:31, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Yeah, RobSmith has become a full Communist shill for the past year. He has admitted that aligning with Communists is a supposedly necessary effort to fight off the Ukrainian Nazis, and thus stifles any meaningful anti-Communist exposé because he believes in the neo-Marxist and neo-Nazi narrative that "Nazism = anti-Communism," while conservatives by contrast acknowledge that both National Socialism and Marxist Socialism are very similar far-left ideologies. He rollbacked my well-substantiated, highly sourced edits here and then slandered me on Andy's talk page as a "Nazisymp." I in no way excused Nazism; I simply pointed out that Communists let Nazis into power. The sooner he is defrocked, the better, so Conservapedia finally purges this cancerous stain. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 22:45, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   The problem basically is editors falling for Western propaganda alleging that Vladimir Putin is a communist, or that the Russian Federation is attempting to re-create the Soviet Union. If you bit off on that line of garbage (which you were warned against), don't be surprised if you were labeled a nazisymp. Just as you unfairly labeled Putin and Russia as "communist", now it boomerangs back at you - especially since NATO and the West has lost the war. It would have been easier to listen and pay attention earlier. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 23:06, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Ah yes, I referred to the wrong brand of communism, and made the unforgivable sin of calling it just that. To an outside observer they are nearly identical, but in this perverse "king of the communist mountain" game, it apparently makes all the difference. That's why Germany and Russia were enemies in WWII. Each was under an authoritarian system which crushed the populace under the boot of the corrupt regime in power. I wondered if you would jump to the defense of today's rebranded Leninism when I wrote that. Sadly, I'm not surprised that you did. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 02:58, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

   I'm afraid you lost me. If Germany & Russia were such authoritarian communist allies, what were they fighting over for years that tens of millions were caught up in and killed? RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:45, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

6. Agree. Continually lying; blatantly hostile towards others. Acts like he owns this website. Karajou (talk) 08:10, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

   "Toxic leaders work to promote themselves at the expense of their subordinates...". - Lieutenant Colonel Darrell W. Aubrey, United States Army, The Effect of Toxic Leadership. Conservative (talk) 09:05, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

   Some of the most active people in Conservapedia's user complaints section in recent history need introductory knowledge of interpersonal relations such as these: Interpersonal relations and How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Conservative (talk) 10:38, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   Over the last year or so, RobSmith has been the most active person in the Conservapedia User complaints. It's good that there is starting to be a growing realization that the complaints need to be directed towards him. He is one of Conservapedia's biggest problems right now and so is Conservapedia's technical problems. Conservative (talk) 11:38, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   Oh, so you advocate for making Conservapedia a hot bed of Holocaust revisionism, too. Huh? RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 11:52, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   I put my above two posts in the wrong section initially. So I moved them to the right section. I already commented on the Holocaust issue below. I said I did not like LT's lead version. Conservative (talk) 12:46, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   That was commendable. But you never know when to leave well enough alone. Always stirring up caca with a stick. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 12:49, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   Actually, I could have chosen to promote User: MayGodBless' motion of no confidence vote concerning your adminship so it would have about 10 votes. Nevertheless, I did vote in favor of it. Conservative (talk) 12:57, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   I'm afraid, once again, you've demonstrated that you can't see the forest from the trees. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 12:59, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   You are the one who put User:LT up to his Holocaust revisionism:

   Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Somebody_made_a_great_point_about_Communism_being_deadlier_than_Nazism. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 13:02, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   There is not a single vote indicating that people have confidence in your adminship. It is you who does not see the forest or the individual trees.

   NischantXavier said that historically communism has been numerically deadlier than Nazism. I agree with this because it is true. Conservative (talk) 13:06, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   This isn't the place to debate that. Nonetheless, it appears User:LT was encouraged by your posting. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 13:09, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   Keep grasping your at your straws. Speaking of grasping at straws, I find your April 2020 fixation very humorous. Setting people who had personal/family birthdays, anniversaries and other non war in Ukraine events aside, I bet I could approach 5,000 people and not a single one of them could tell me what they were doing on April 9, 2020. Conservative (talk) 13:16, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   I never said living with the prospect of nuclear war minute to minute was a cause to celebrate.

   Just put the ladle down, you've stirred up enough caca. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 13:25, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   I'm looking forward to your next piece: Essay:Israeli war crimes in Gaza. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 13:14, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   In 2022, more than half of Americans (55%) had favorable views of Israel.[2] I bet it's even higher now. In February of 2023, less than 10% of Americans have a favorable view of Putin".[3]

   But feel free to get on your hamster wheel of Russian cheerleading. But you don't seem to be making much progress at Conservapedia judging by your recent AfD vote. Conservative (talk) 13:42, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   bla bla bla you got your own Nazi apologetics to worry about. Just put the ladle down and stop digging. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 13:47, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   "Negative sentiment toward Russia and Putin has increased by double digits in nearly every middle-income country since 2019. For instance, 74% now express a negative view of Putin in Argentina, up from 51% four years ago." - Pew Research.[4] Et tu, middle-income countries? Conservative (talk) 13:50, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   If all the kids jumped in the lake, would you, too? RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:04, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   Modern Russian propaganda is of a better quality than Soviet propaganda, but I still find it humorous that some Westerners have bought into Russian propaganda hook line and sinker. Perhaps some of them will change their mind in 2030 or 2035 when the fruit of some of Putin's recent follies come more into fruition. Conservative (talk) 14:13, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

   Voenkom. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:23, October 12, 2023 (EDT)

7. Agree: I'm going to weigh in here with MayGodBless, Conservative, LT, ConwayIII, DavidB4 and Karajou and agree, particularly with all of MayGodBless's original points above (particularly the first one - especially in Rob's accusations against other posters, and even fellow admins, of what he is guilty of doing and saying himself [i.e. trolling/incivility, etc.], his playing the "victim" when called out, and his inherent need to snark against his critics not just on Andy's talk page, but on any other talk page as he sees fit, and even to hide critical comments against him through his abuse of warning collapse templates to keep those comments from being seen), and add in more reasons why Rob not only needs to be de-sysoped (again - and this time, permanently), but to have his blocking privileges removed to prevent the abuse thereof by him for spite against his critics:

   • He unjustly and spitefully blocks anyone who stands up to him for his abuses of power and his behavior here (particularly to me, 14 times as of this post, just to try to make an example of me) and his critics' criticism thereof, which only further proves the first of the points noted above;
   • In the fourth point (his unnecessary protection of pages), he reverts reversions of edits made by liberal editors that inserted LPOV edits, then protected the pages to protect the favored LPOV edits and keep them from being re-reverted;
   • He openly and snarkily defies fellow admins like Conservative and Karajou and, as the first point notes, he thinks the rules don't apply to him, he thinks he can do whatever he pleases and he thinks he is "protected" against/immune to criticism and sanctioning against him for his words/actions, to the point of even defying Andy himself when he sees fit; basically put, this is January/February 2021 all over again, when Rob began coming unhinged over the outcome of the 2020 election and the January 6 protests and started acting like a supporter of the Biden regime in response and started acting out against the critics of his behavior until Andy put a stop to it by de-sysoping him and revoking his other privileges (including blocking, for the reason I noted above);
   • He even claims that "site viewership has gone down" since Karajou's return and posted "evidence" claiming such - but I call shenanigans on that, as such claims (as posted in the section above) can easily be faked with Photoshop

   Long story short, Rob is the direct reason I have had to curtail my activity on this site for the past two-plus years since his reinstatement of admin privileges and subsequent abuse thereof as he sees fit (which Karajou was right on the mark about). So, in this event, the right thing to do here is for Rob to be dealt with as is needed and to see to it that he can never again abuse his power with impunity. Northwest (talk) 07:50, October 26, 2023 (EDT)

   Some of the POV RobSmith inserted never made any sense to begin with. Here, you see that he's almost trying to conflate Nazism with neoliberalism, which only a hardcore neo-Marxist would ever reach the extents of ridiculously feverish fantasy-conjuring depths of acute delusion to say with a straight face. Neoliberalism is the resurgence of conservative liberalism (the right wing of classical liberalism) that emphasizes deregulation and free-market capitalism to spur worldwide economic growth. Did Nazis then and now ever support classical liberalism? Do not the neo-Nazis and broader "alt-right" vilify neoliberalism?

   Long story short: RobSmith's edit on the National Socialism article promotes the Marxist narrative that the Nazis were not Socialists, but instead were and are a bunch of greedy evil capitalist shills. First by labeling Obama and Biden's administrations "neoliberal," he ignores that they have continuously promoted socialist policies. By even pointlessly throwing around "neoliberal" at all in the article as if there's a positive correlation to Nazism, it feeds nothing short of a far-left narrative that could've been written by a Comintern propagandist. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Thursday, 08:37, October 26, 2023 (EDT)

Anti-endorsements

Hi Andy, to let you know, I'm more than happy to pour in hours more time to add conservative content to this wiki and do what I can to flourish page view growth. However, I cannot do that if my additions are reverted. For example, more recently here, my edits were point-blank rollbacked with no reason given, with the page locked, because the rollbacker, a bitter opponent of reality he cannot face, decided I was too anti-Communist (I provided quality citations, but those were ignored).

I very much hope you would like to retain my presence on the site so I can gain extra page views for you, as much as I myself would like to. But I cannot do that any longer if my good-faith edits for the cause of advancing conservative values are removed. Please make the right decision here; thank you. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Sunday, 17:24, October 8, 2023 (EDT)

No, Conservapedia is not going to allow nazi apologists to blame the Holocaust on Communists. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:28, October 8, 2023 (EDT)

And it's insulting to sit here and listen to your attempts to deny the Holocaust was solely the responsibility of Nazis, and shift the blame to Communists, and call that "conservative content".

If you had used talk pages properly as what they were intended for, rather than trolling, your edits would not have been reverted on sight without discussion. Just as you had spent much time in researching those edits, and I know you did, it also takes much to engage in the type of trolling you have engaged in over the past week and a little longer. Yes, I know, your edits do have a place in Conservapedia, only not on the Holocaust entry. There was one other series of edits, I also felt did not belong on another page but perhaps elsewhere. You are the one who has refused discussion of content, hence you were reverted. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:54, October 8, 2023 (EDT)

Oh, I'm a Nazi apologist because I point out that Communists helped Nazis get into power? I'd call your lying hide a turd, but you're such an abominable stink to humanity and abhorrent to the point of being unfit for composting. As the old saying goes, ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. Thus also saith the scriptures, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. When you scream and howl as you burn in hellfire, about to face eternal destruction, no sympathy will be found from me as you look up and find the saints disgusted that a piece of garbage like you ever came out of a womb. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 22:52, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

You can do that, but you can't do it on the Holocaust page. The Communists were not responsible for the Holocaust. The same article lists Communists in the paragraphs before your insertion as the next target for Nazi extermination in the Holocaust.

You need to learn how to use Talk pages properly; and Conservapedia is not going to be a platform for nazi apologetics, which is exactly what you tried to insert, knowingly or unknowingly, into the Holocaust page. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:58, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

1. REDIRECT Template:Hide collapse

Re: LT. I told LT putting that communist material was inappropriate for the lede of the Holocaust article and I explained why to him privately. It belongs somewhere else in the main space. Hopefully, this will end the conflict. Conservative (talk) 17:11, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

I also told him that gratuitously telling people that their father is the devil (including myself) is not only ridiculous, but it virtually guarantees that people will not want to cooperate with him. And for that matter, RobSmith gratuitously calling every Tom, Dick and Harry that they are Nazis is also ridiculous. I recall reading my father's copy of Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People and there was no chapter about gratuitously calling people children of the devil or Nazis. Conservative (talk) 17:19, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

My insertion does belong in the lede section. Had not the Communists abetted the Nazis in the Berlin transport strike, Hitler may never have seized supreme power and been able to mass-murder six million Jews. You understand this, right? —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 17:25, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

Now, I know you're simply looking for a simple compromise, Conservative, and I appreciate you unblocking me. You still need to keep the relevant factual record in mind, notwithstanding. Conservapedia has no reason to become another Comsymp website. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 17:29, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

This is Holocaust revisionism. The best 'compromise' for a nazi apologia like you propose would be to write an Essay:Why Communists are responsible for the Holocaust. Even at that, I suspect you'd meet resistance. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:39, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

Personal remark removed —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 17:42, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

LT not only tried to imply Communists were responsible for the Holocaust, he likewise removed any reference to Communists being victims. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:31, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

"bUt ComMunIstS wErE viCtIms oF nAzI pErSecUTioN" The Communists brought the Nazis to power in the 1932 Berlin transport strike, and as with all ☭Real Socialism☭™, the stalwart lackeys are the first to be deposed for knowing too much. Not that Nazism is ever justifiable (except arguably, depending on how loosely you define "Nazism," in Nanjing where John Rabe saved countless Chinese lives from Japanese war criminals who colluded with the CCP), and yet God can use the most evil people to serve his will in judgments, evident in countless Communists getting killed by the very Nazis they brought into power. (don't even think about taking what I said here out of context)

So says the scripture: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52) —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 17:40, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

Study this Guideline: Conservapedia:Topic bans, cause that's the next step. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:54, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

Topic bans are a signature RW characteristic. But thanks for demonstrating your true colors as a RW goon. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Sunday, 01:35, October 29, 2023 (EDT)

It's quite obvious what's going on here - and I'm not pointing the finger at any one editor or group of editors - I'm pointing the finger at the information sources they have allowed themselves to absorb over the past 20 months. The argument is, 'Putin and Russia are communists who are responsible for the Holocaust, and therefore that justifies lending aid and support to Nazi democratic freedom fighters.' That my friends, is in error. And it's best to just stop thrashing about in the water when you're about to go under for the 3rd time. Just sit up, take note, note that you have been deceived for the past 20 months, eat the loss and move on. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 18:18, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

My man, for the past 20 months you've been serving us nowt but reheated QAnon NWO guff with the satanic pedos swapped out for globalist Nazis. And you still haven't had the decency to write me a moonbase into your fan fiction despite countless polite requests. Is it really that much to ask? ConwayIII (talk) 18:47, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

I realize you'd like to see CP transitioned into a hot bed of Holocaust revisionism, but it's not happening. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 18:57, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

The only real Holocaust revisionism here on Conservapedia currently is RobidenSmith's denial that the Holocaust was the result of the Nazi aim to achieve a Socialist Utopia™ by killing the Jews. And it is RobidenSmith who promotes the neo-Nazi/neo-Marxist narrative that Communists are "anti-Nazi" and vice versa. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Sunday, 01:33, October 29, 2023 (EDT)

This is the official list of Conservapedia Administrators. RobSmith is listed as having the following tags: "Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrator, template."

I motion that the "Block," "Siteadmin," "delete," "rollback," and "Administrator" tags be removed from RobSmith due to his incessant, unrepentant, arrogant and continuous record of lying, undue blocking, unilateral alteration of Conservapedia guidelines, removal of conservative content, Holocaust denial, Communist/Nazi propaganda, Putin-venerating propaganda apparatus, and otherwise abuse of Administrator powers in endless debauchery. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Sunday, 01:45, October 29, 2023 (EDT)

I also propose adding the removal of the Protect tag to keep him from protecting articles to protect favored LPOV edits. Removal of the Block tag from his privileges will also prevent him from abusing the feature to unjustly silence opponents who criticize his recent behavior here. Northwest (talk) 01:53, October 29, 2023 (EDT)

Yep, that's precisely why I specified the removal of both "Block" and "Administrator." And as for the "protect" tag, it's utterly useless if a user does not have "Administrator," because protection to the autoconfirmed level has zero restricting impact on any editor (a user must have the "Administrator" tag to protect pages to, or change from, the Administrator level), because every user upon creation is already "autoconfirmed." Don't worry, I thought all this through. If all five of those tags are removed from RobSmith, then he is powerless. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Sunday, 01:58, October 29, 2023 (EDT)

Vote

For

1. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Sunday, 01:45, October 29, 2023 (EDT)
2. I have never felt more confident in casting a vote – and I voted for Trump in 2020! Huge thank you to LT for proposing this. MayGodBless (talk) 01:49, October 29, 2023 (EDT)

   No problem. :) —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Sunday, 01:55, October 29, 2023 (EDT)

3. User: Conservative. RobSmith just blocked User: MayGodBless for allegedly violating the 90/10 rule. But I checked his user contributions and User: MayGodBless did not violate the rule. I have seen other conduct unbecoming a CP Admin - especially in terms of civility. On this basis, I recommend he lose his Admin status. Conservative (talk) 01:57, October 29, 2023 (EDT)
4. Count me in too. Northwest (talk) 01:53, October 29, 2023 (EDT)

Against

I am going to provide an illustrative scenario.

Let's say all of us put all kinds of false, denigrating accusations against Andy on Andy's talk page, main page talk, the community portal, Conservapedia's complaint page, and in our own personal pages. Furthermore, let's say the blockers kept blocking Andy for bogus reasons and Andy was unable to reverse the blocks.

Question: How long do you think such a state of affairs would last?

It wouldn't last long. Andy needs to practice the golden rule and do something about RobSmith ASAP. And then all RobSmith's garbage accusations against Conservapedians need to be deleted.

Key point: The Conservapedia:CP Civility Association has 6 members. RobSmith's Team CP merely has one member besides himself. It's not a big mystery why so few people signed up for Team CP. Conservative (talk) 14:28, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Fair point. RobSmith has acted in an unbecoming, unconservative, and just downright degenerate Leftist-characteristic behaviors. For example, RobSmith has posted links to neo-Nazi websites and openly defended white supremacist propaganda. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Tuesday, 14:37, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Key point: the one member of Team CP other than User: RobSmith is also a member of Conservapedia:CP Civility Association. This is the best of the public in action! MayGodBless (talk) 15:03, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

So User:Conservative is colluding with a bunch of Ratvandal sleeper socks against CP Admin. What else is new? RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 15:13, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Please support your personal attacks with evidence. MayGodBless (talk) 15:20, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Should CP Admin be allowed to create article Mainspace and Essay pages for the sole purpose of attacking and trolling other Admin or users?

To wit:

User:Conservative admits to creating Mainspace article and Essay pages out of animosity toward other editors and not for any education benefit:

CP will not allow registered users to abuse the wiki in a such a manner. Why are Admin allowed to do so? RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:36, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Another bogus charge by someone who insists that nothing be posted at Conservapedia that is contrary to his personal political opinions. Yawn. Conservative (talk) 14:39, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Yeah, Socialists hate natural competition, and insist all rivals and enemies be wiped out. They know their ideas are inherently inferior and impractical, so they resort to suppression tactics shutting down any effort by others to debunk their ideologies. RobSmith's Nazi tactics here on Conservapedia to shut down dissent is unacceptable Leftist behavior. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Tuesday, 14:42, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

And RobalaamSmith's entire argument that he's "fighting Nazism" is bogus when you consider the extent he went to just last year to defend neo-Nazi propaganda. When I removed RationalWiki/white supremacist subversion, RobSmith added it right back. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Tuesday, 14:45, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

I merely said that I chose to post my material in essays rather than in main page talk and the community portal. Why? It's no mystery. It was because someone was engaging in censoring and lodging denigrating bogus accusations in main page talk and in the community portal. If I create essays, RobSmith is reduced to posting on the talk pages of my essays which few people read given the poor quality of his commentary. I have learned not to read or respond to his lame posts on the talk pages of my essays because doing so causes much, much fewer people to read his talk page tripe. Conservative (talk) 14:47, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

That's also why I likewise created an essay exposing the Communist roots of Nazism instead of wasting my time bickering on the mainspace where RobSmith can unilaterally revert and protect articles. Since Andy has now limited deletion powers, I believe Administrators can't delete pages so easily anymore, forcing RobSmith to comment on my essay's corresponding talk page, and in doing so directs more attention to the essay itself! It would appear that my plan worked quite considerably well. :) —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Tuesday, 14:50, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

(ec) User:Conservative admits his Essay creations are not created for any educational value, but rather out of personal animosity and a spirit of revenge toward other users. See for example:

• Rational Media Board of Director and RationalWiki Moderater User: Spud and ultra-processed/unhealthy/junk food

This is a mainspace article, not even in Essay space. Conservapedia would not allow registered users to use the wiki for the sole purpose and intent to attack and harass living persons on outside platforms with contnent devoid of any educational value. Why does CP allow Admin to troll and attack other Admin in Essay and article Mainspace?

I am not calling for disciplinary action. I'm calling for a clear statement of policy regarding Admin conduct toward each other. This statemnet can be done publicy or privately. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:52, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

RobSmith, you posted links to neo-Nazi websites on my talk page and defended white supremacist propaganda last year; I posted the receipts above. You are in no standing to criticize User:Conservative. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Tuesday, 14:58, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

(ec) You are trolling and being redundant. I count 6 edits trolling edits now. Go ahead, make four more so I can enforce 90/10. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 15:01, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

No matter how many useful edits I make to the mainspace, you'll point-blank revert my additions anyways if it doesn't fit your Communist narrative. So quit pretending like you're justly applying any Conservapedia rules, because you're the one creating problem after problem. But do go on with your psychological projection. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Tuesday, 15:09, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

That is not true. If you ceased trolling discussion pages with foolish and off topic content, and focused on the wording in dispute, you wouldn't be treated like a troll. BuT gO aHead, KeeP trOOling the Way You tHink Is Funny. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 15:16, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Millions of people are dying or getting disease due to ultra-processed food and junk food. An atheists/agnostic website that purports to embrace science promoted the eating of such food.

Andy himself made a post criticizing the eating of unhealthy food. In addition, he has made comments about engaging in unhealthy sports activities and watching such activities (See: Unplug the NFL). Conservative (talk) 14:59, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

That has zero educational value in a Mainspace article you created for the express purpose of targeting and harassing a living human being. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 15:17, October 31, 2023 (EDT)