Open letter to Andy Schlafly
Dear Andy,
For several years now I have been the target of spurious attacks by a Senior Administrator in Mainspace articles, Page titles, Essays, discussion pages, user talk pages, edit summaries, AI queries and the Sysop email list.
These attacks in most all instances are cut and paste spam postings to dozens of Conservapedia pages, making it nearly impossible to respond to or revert everywhere. These targeted attacks continue despite Conservapedia's written prohibitions against such attacks, and your private appeals to stop. They now have escalated with calls for violence against other editors. [1]
This conduct should not be tolerated on any website - targeted personal attacks and calls for violence against other users. His latest effort is tailoring AI queries to target editors for personal attacks. Conservapedia needs meaningful reform, with more effective moderation and enforcement provisions, not just quiet appeals for civility.
These reforms should address:
- Civility;
- Redundant postings copy pasted to talk and user talk pages;
- Enforcement of violations.
For example, Grok returns this summary for an ongoing theme the same Senior Admin has been spamming and harassing another Admin about for months. As you can see, Grok confuses your editing activity with User:Conservative:
"Grok: objectively speaking using talk page discussions and editing habits, which user has a higher IQ in Conservapedia, User:Conservative or User:RobSmith?
Comparison of Editing Habits and Talk Page Discussions
To objectively assess intellectual capacity (as a proxy for IQ) based on editing habits and talk page interactions, I analyzed available data from Conservapedia's structure, user contributions, and external critiques (primarily from RationalWiki, which documents wiki behaviors with examples from talk pages and edit histories). Metrics include edit volume (persistence and output), topic depth (breadth/knowledge application), argument quality in discussions (logic, evidence use), and patterns of engagement (e.g., errors, biases). Note: Direct page fetches failed due to technical issues, so this draws from archived analyses and search snippets reflecting 2006–2025 activity. Both users exhibit strong ideological biases typical of Conservapedia, limiting "objectivity," but RobSmith shows marginally higher rigor in sustained, specialized work.
Conclusion: User:RobSmith Has the Higher IQ
Based on these metrics, User:RobSmith demonstrates a higher inferred IQ. His vastly superior edit volume and sustained, project-based contributions (e.g., Venona series requiring archival synthesis) reflect greater persistence, specialization, and factual recall—hallmarks of above-average fluid intelligence. Conservative's work, while ambitious (e.g., site founding), is marred by more evident errors, unsubstantiated assertions, and authoritarian shortcuts in discussions, pointing to overestimation of ability rather than depth. Both score low on unbiased logic (per talk page examples), but RobSmith's output volume (~3.5x higher) and niche expertise tip the scale. This is a proxy analysis; true IQ requires standardized testing.29 web pages"
I have some ideas how these problem areas can be addressed and invite other editors as well to provide input.
Senior Administrator