SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 769:
Line 769: + + Line 774:
Line 776: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
My reply.
OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:46, 6 March 2015 (EST)
OK? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:46, 6 March 2015 (EST)
====Cons====
::I see no reason to rescind privileges as far as the User: Conservatism since there has been no malfeasance and additional quality content has been created for Conservapedia under this arrangement.
::I see no reason to rescind privileges as far as the User: Conservatism since there has been no malfeasance and additional quality content has been created for Conservapedia under this arrangement.
::I have a good relationship with the rest of User: Conservativeism. I have been helped in the past by the rest of User: Conservatism outside of this wiki. Therefore, I do not wish to revoke access to the account to the rest of User: Conservateism. In fact, the number of editors under User: Conservateism may increase! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 8 March 2015 (EDT)
::I have a good relationship with the rest of User: Conservativeism. I have been helped in the past by the rest of User: Conservatism outside of this wiki. Therefore, I do not wish to revoke access to the account to the rest of User: Conservateism. In fact, the number of editors under User: Conservateism may increase! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 8 March 2015 (EDT)
====SamHB====
You wrote this at 14:52, 6 Mar, later reverted in the name of being more cordial:
:::Did you read the front page stories about creationism spreading quickly in Europe - it's stronghold? You are in no position to dictate terms! - signed, the lion and not the gazelle!
In answer to your first question, no. I don't have time to follow everything at CP, especially those things that are not germane to the topic at hand.
In reply to the second point, I am not trying to "dictate terms" to you. I would never attempt to dictate terms to someone with block and oversight authority. I'm simply trying to help you convince people that you are telling the truth, by presenting a course of action that would accomplish this. Think of it not as a "surrender document" but as an informal and friendly agreement whereby you clear the air.
I assume you know that many people are "Cons-watchers", with me, AugustO, and EJamesW among the better known ones. (My apologies to anyone I left out.) Many eyes are focused on this discussion right here, and on the similar discussions on other talk pages<ref>As an example of the notoriety, consider the talk page of user "ClintBarton". I have no idea who he was, but he appeared at 15:55, 6 Mar, made an insulting comment on main talk, and put this into his talk page, which you deleted at 1653: "By the way, which User: Conservative were you directing your comments at? SamHB is now convinced there is more than one editor who uses ...". I think his characterization of my beliefs was wrong (I think there's only one of you), but the fact is that he saw this page and chose to issue a drive-by insult.</ref>. Many people are quite convinced that you are lying when you say that your CP account is used by many people. You of course exacerbate that by all your claims of mystery ("No one knows my gender" or words to that effect.) You have an opportunity, right here on this page, to put an end to the perception that you are an habitual liar. I'm trying to help you do that, by pointing out what aspects of what you write lead to that perception, and how you can correct that.
The issue at hand is your claim that you, the person engaged in the discussion here on this page, wrote many of the articles that appear to be attributed to you, but specifically not the 'Atheist persecution of homosexuals' or 'Atheist actions against homosexuals' or 'Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals' article, or whatever its past incarnations may have been. I want to believe you, but you are making it difficult, for me and for all the other people involved in this controversy.
The reasons for this perception that you are lying include:
*You wrote above "I did not write [that article]. It was a total surprise to me that a person sharing my account would write that." '''A total surprise? Really? Your password is known by people that you don't know, and who log in to your account to write articles without your knowledge?''' And you reject my suggestion that you change your password? If what you say is true, your password might be shared by hundreds of people, making edits in your name. Doesn't that bother you?
*The evidence, based on writing style, that the edits in your name come from the same person is '''utterly overwhelming'''. You can't possibly convince people otherwise.
:"I see no reason to rescind privileges as far as the User: Conservatism". There's no reason for you to do that—I just want you to change your password. I assume you mean the other people in your "collective". You mention a user named "Conservatism" and one named "Conservativeism". There are no such users.
:"I have a good relationship with the rest of User: Conservativeism. I have been helped in the past by the rest of User: Conservatism outside of this wiki."
::Even the unknown imposter? The person, unknown to you, who wrote the "Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals" article? All 32 revisions of it? Without your being aware of it? Other than renaming it, changing its protection, making wikilinks related to it, and putting it in the "Nb Atheism" template at 16:42, 26 April 2014?
:"In fact, the number of editors under User: Conservateism may increase!"
::Well, yes. It might be in the hundreds by now. If you show these people how to create their own accounts, they will still be your friends and will still be helpful.
If I found someone impersonating me with unknown edits to my account, I would change my password immediately. (I'm confident that no one is doing that; I've never shared my password with anyone, and my CP password is completely unrelated to any of my other passwords.)
You also write about "opponents of the User:Conservative account attempt[ing] to launch ad hominem attacks", and that you defend yourself by "point[ing] out that more than one editor uses the account", followed by a smiley-face<ref>I'm not sure what to make of the smiley-face.</ref> Uhhhh, no. Claiming that multiple people use your account, especially when that claim is utterly ludicrous, is not a good defense against these attacks. A better way would be to change your password, indicate that you have done so, and say that you will take full responsibility for what goes on in your name. (By the way, I hope you are not including me in the set of people making ad-hominem attacks. That is certainly not my intent.)
You also write that "They resort to these type of attack due to their inability to find a single factual error in ...." and that they have "issues", perhaps relating to morality, emotional intelligence, or social intelligence. You might do well not to second-guess the motives or possible mental problems of your detractors. They might simply be attacking you because your claims of being multiple people are ludicrous.
==References==
<references/>