Last modified on November 3, 2023, at 20:08

Conservapedia talk:CP Civility Association

Return to "CP Civility Association" page.

Name

"The Squad" may not have been the best choice of words. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:13, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

We are reclaiming the title. AOC does not own the exclusive rights to being called a squad, and we need to remind her of that fact. MayGodBless (talk) 12:15, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
I dunno. Seems pretty lame. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:16, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
How about CP Goon Squad? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:17, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
It would actually be easier to make a counter proposal for alternative language at Team CP, ifd you really intend to promote cooperative editing. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:19, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

Contradiction

  • We agree that holding administrator privileges does not make you a "leader" of CP.
  • We recognize that Andy Schlafly is the leader of this website

Given that Andy Schlafly is the recognized leader of the site and appoints administrators, this appears to be a direct challenge to his leadership. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:30, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

If you do a Google search on the word Administrator you get this: Administrator - Google search. It does appear that an administrator can be likened to a manager in some contexts.
Also, there is a difference between a manager and a leader and here is a Google search: Managers vs. leaders - Google search. Conservative (talk) 12:38, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

Motion

Move to strike the language, "We agree that holding administrator privileges does not make you a "leader" of CP." RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:31, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

  • I don't see where User:Conservative opposes the contradiction in wording. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:48, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
  • Admins are managers. They are not leaders. MayGodBless (talk) 13:05, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
More ankle biting. Is that the best you can do? Conservative (talk) 13:24, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
  • So Conservapedia doesn't need leadership anymore, Google algorithms do the job. Ok. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:28, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

"everyone here in good faith"

Including sockpuppets? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:57, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

Sockpuppets are not here in good faith. MayGodBless (talk) 13:03, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
So that is a judgement call? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:06, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
I am not sure what you mean. MayGodBless (talk) 13:07, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
An editor with blocking rights can make a judgement call that a user account is a sockpuppet, not acting in good faith, and block without warning or discussion. Only an Administrator can override the block.
Furthermore, are you saying ALL sockpuppets are acting in bad faith? This may not necessarily be the case. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:12, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
If they are here in good faith, then the clause applies. If they are not, then the clause does not apply. MayGodBless (talk) 16:58, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Again, so it's a judgement call on the part of a blocking editor which can be overriden by the judgement and leadership of an Admin. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:06, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Ah. Unfortunately, blocks can be overridden by anyone with the block userright. Leaders need to have followers. MayGodBless (talk) 17:07, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Admin blocks cannot be ovverriden by blocking editors.
Now, if you wish to dispute the leadership of an Admin, simply register 70,000 sockpuppet accounts, have them join this group, and they can pass a no-confidence vote against an Admin, correct? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:06, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Not what I claimed. Anyone with the block right can override a block placed by someone with the block right. And the votes cannot be from sockpuppets. MayGodBless (talk) 17:14, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
For example, you are not a leader on Conservapedia because you have not convinced a single person to support you in the vote of no-confidence. By contrast, I have convinced six people. MayGodBless (talk) 17:15, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
And this group can only expel members from the CP Civility Association. MayGodBless (talk) 17:16, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
That vote is meaningless in the Conservapedia:Kangaroo Court. And I never claimed to be a "leader". RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:18, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

"we will criticize fellow conservatives when they deserve to be criticized"

Alternative language: "we will criticize fellow conservatives when they deserve to be criticized within the bounds of CP Guidelines." RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:57, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

I have updated the sentence. MayGodBless (talk) 13:04, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Without reference to CP Guidelines, you are saying that both Trump and Biden have to be criticized in good faith, but leaving open the most vile abuse toward other CP editors beyond CP Guidelines. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:08, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
The entire sentence says "we will civilly criticize fellow conservatives – both Conservapedians and political figures – when they deserve to be criticized" (emphasis added). "Vile abuse" is not civil. MayGodBless (talk) 17:00, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Vile abuse is not restricted, either. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:12, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Furthermore, the wording is discriminatory. "We pledge to be true conservatives." This language (a) excludes people who do not identify as "conservative" and opens them to vile abuse; (b) at present, we have several editors pushing neo-fascist, Holocaust revisionist, and the Liberal World Order claiming to be "true conservatives". Who is to decide who and what is a "true conservative"? The mob? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:16, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
RobSmith, I expect better from you. Vile abuse is not civil. A two year old could understand that. Therefore, vile abuse is not permitted.
Non-conservatives may not join. This is a conservative association. MayGodBless (talk) 17:18, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
The wording at Team CP is much simpler, less restrictive, and less cult-like (I should have created it with a sockpuppet, perhaps more editors would have signed up sooner). RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:21, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
So basically, the difference between this proposal and Team CP is, Team CP pledges to cooperate with other Team members, by the Civility Association pledges to grant sockpuppet trolls "good faith" and spells out a mechanism to kick members out (once it becomes dominated by sock trolls). Brilliant improvement. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:39, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
We extend good faith if they are here in good faith. We "pledge to work cooperatively with everyone here in good faith". That does not include trolls. Pretty simple. MayGodBless (talk) 17:42, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
The language is too ambiguous. Team CP is simply an agreement to resolve differences civilly. Spelling out dispute resolution processes can and should be done by editors who pledge to work with each other civilly first, not granting a blank check to trolls and sockpuppets. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:49, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Again: We only extend good faith to people here in good faith. That excludes trolls. MayGodBless (talk) 17:51, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
You have no definition of troll. Nor agreement how to define one. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:52, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
The word "troll" is not mentioned anywhere on the page. Trolls are here in bad faith, so they are not to be treated civilly. Pretty simple concept. MayGodBless (talk) 17:55, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
If a troll signed up at Team CP, would they be treated with good faith? MayGodBless (talk) 17:56, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
If they violated their pledge, they obviously could, would, or should be kicked out. That language does not need to be spelled out in the pledge.
What is needed is a group who respect and/or trust each other first, not a group that promises "good faith" to socks and trolls from the outset. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 18:15, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
We will figure out which phrasing the best of the public prefers by comparing the number of people who sign up. You are welcome to join! The motion of no confidence is in your abilities as an admin, not as a contributor or member of CPCA. MayGodBless (talk) 17:43, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
CP is not a mobocracy, nor a democracy. You should know that by now. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:51, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
I know that. But the best of the public is a way to determine what is truly the best. MayGodBless (talk) 17:53, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Okay, let's see if the leader of the website, Mr. Andy Schlafly, is open to allowing sockpuppets and trolls to write the websites rules of civility without first making a pledge to each other to act in good faith. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:56, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
Vile abuse is technically already prohibited by CP Commandments and Guidelines, yet there is no enforcement against it in Essay space or talk pages. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 17:24, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
It is clear that you are intent on setting up a straw man argument. We treat good-faith editors civilly. We do not extend such a promise to bad-faith editors. MayGodBless (talk) 18:00, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
That is not what the language of the pledge says. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 23:28, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

Viva la difference

Team CP is a pledge to each other to act civilly (if a pledgee violates, it can be worked out between members). The Civility Association grants a blank check of "good faith" to trolls and sockpuppets. Not rocket science. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 18:03, October 28, 2023 (EDT)

RobSmith, as I have already said: trolls and sockpuppets are not to be treated with good faith because they are not here in good faith. Read the pledge. Evidently you were not taught to read with phonics. MayGodBless (talk) 22:30, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
MayGodBless, as I have already said, your language says, "the CP Civility Association pledge to work cooperatively with everyone here in good faith." It makes no exception for socks and trolls. In fact, it specifically invites them into CP & the Civility Assoc. with the term "everyone", and limits our ability to deal with them, by placing members under a binding pledge to extend trolls good faith.
Whereas the language of Team CP simply says, "Team CP pledge to work cooperatively with other signees", which will ferret out trolls much quicker. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 23:02, October 28, 2023 (EDT) RobSGive Peace a Chance! 22:59, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
The Civility Assoc neuters and castrates good faith editors efforts to ferret out trolls, Team CP is focused on building respectful, working relationships between editors. Team CP is a pledge to each other; the Civility Assoc is a nebulous pledge to "everyone", including socks, trolls, and non-members. The Civility Assoc pledge hampers out ability to build trusting relationships because the pledge is to everyone and no one at the same time. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 23:20, October 28, 2023 (EDT)
A suggestion: Reword it to the following: "We, the undersigned editors, at the CP Civility Association pledge to work cooperatively with all good faith editors to produce content for Conservapedia under the Conservapedia:Commandments and Conservapedia:Guidelines." Conservative (talk) 00:02, October 29, 2023 (EDT)
(a) that's no different than what exists now; (b) that's highly unethical, changing the wording of the pledge after editors have signed. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 00:24, October 29, 2023 (EDT)
RobSmith, I will explain this one more time. There is no pledge to treat everyone civilly. There is only a pledge to treat people who are here in good faith civilly. MayGodBless (talk) 01:57, October 29, 2023 (EDT)
MayGodBless, I will explain this one more time. Your proposal is a meaningless blank check to "people who are here" - including trolls. Team CP is a commitment to respect and civility between fellow members of the Team. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 08:49, October 29, 2023 (EDT)

The advantage of Team CP is, Team CP has yet to work out disciplinary measures against violators, whereas someone who violates the Civility Assoc pledge commits an offense against all users ("everybody").

When the Civility Assoc fails to act on complaints from anybody, and refuses to enforce its own strictures will demonstrate its sterility and impotence, whereas Team CP will have a more active, cooperative membership. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 20:41, November 2, 2023 (EDT)

Teams generally have more than 2 people. You need to rebrand given that you only got one person to sign up for Team CP. If you practiced more civility, you would have gotten more than one person to sign up for Team CP. Conservative (talk) 20:48, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
The Civility Assoc is a meaningless pledge - it pledges to extend "good faith" to CP:Trolls. Read it. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 20:51, November 2, 2023 (EDT)

Proposed rewording of the first sentence of the CP Civility Association pledge

Proposed rewording of the first sentence of the CP Civility Association pledge is the following: "We, the undersigned editors, at the CP Civility Association pledge to work cooperatively with all good faith editors to produce content for Conservapedia under the Conservapedia:Commandments and Conservapedia:Guidelines." The previous wording of the first sentence is given HERE.

Members of the CP Civility Association please vote below:

Questions

Who and how do members determine is a good faith editor? RobSGive Peace a Chance!

If you don't know the answer to the question, I am afraid we can't help you. Conservative (talk)
I don't. Apparently each member can pull it out of his butt who is "a good faith" editor, which nullifies the whole purpose of the association. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 01:55, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
We can't clarify things for you if you are incapable of understanding this matter. I trust this clarifies this matter for you. Conservative (talk) 01:57, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
It's not always a perfect science, but it also isn't rocket science. --DavidB4 (TALK) 02:00, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
(ec) The whole thing looks like a classic bait and switch. You get a half dozen members to take the pledge, then you alter the language of the pledge.
Then without bylaws, do you accept the change if only 4 of 6 approve it? Doesn't seem like good faith editing. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 02:05, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
That is 5 6 out of 6, and the 6th is currently blocked for... what was LT blocked for again? MayGodBless (talk) 10:03, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

More closely defined...

Let's look at the change in the language:

  • "to work cooperatively with everyone here in good faith" [bolden emphasis added in original]
  • "to work cooperatively with all good faith editors"

This takes the "good faith" requirement off the signee and allows the member to decide for himself who is. and who is not, a "good faith editor". This is a complete 180 degree reversal of the original purpose of the association, and a classic bait and switch. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 02:35, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

RobSmith, I think I finally understand where the confusion is. You read it as "work cooperatively and in good faith, with everyone". However, "here in good faith" was supposed to modify "everyone". As in, work cooperatively with everyone who is here in good faith. MayGodBless (talk) 10:07, November 3, 2023 (EDT)