Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,435
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,848:
Line 1,848: + + + + + + + + + +
User talk:Aschlafly (view source)
Revision as of 17:39, September 15, 2025
, 17:39, September 15, 2025(edit summary removed)
==Using [[AI]] to generate [[ad hominem]]s==
==Using [[AI]] to generate [[ad hominem]]s==
We should get a handle on this quickly. See [[Open letter to Andy Schlafly]]. It's pretty obvious that is what a Senior Admin has done and intends to do. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 12:11, September 15, 2025 (EDT)
We should get a handle on this quickly. See [[Open letter to Andy Schlafly]]. It's pretty obvious that is what a Senior Admin has done and intends to do. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 12:11, September 15, 2025 (EDT)
== Second showdown: Whose Admin's content is better? ==
*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_7f970071-5a0b-4b96-ace3-a1690b68ad75 Using objective evidence, is User: Conservative whose user page is at https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative a spammer?]: "The content appears relevant to Conservapedia’s audience and purpose. While the user’s contributions reflect a clear ideological perspective, this is not equivalent to spamming... Based on the provided document, there is no objective evidence that User:Conservative is a spammer. Their contributions are substantial, aligned with Conservapedia’s ideological mission, and recognized by external sources, indicating quality and relevance. The absence of commercial promotion, the user’s administrative role, and their focus on curated, thematically consistent content further suggest they are a dedicated editor rather than a spammer."
*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_e400bc37-47f7-4013-88ed-d20c3073fc68 Using objective evidence, is RobSmith at Conservapedia, whose user page is at https://www.conservapedia.com/User:RobSmith a spammer?]: "Yes, based on objective evidence, RobSmith exhibits spammer-like behavior at Conservapedia. The pattern of repeated accusations—supported by specific examples like flooding threads with 82 attacks, using unexplained images manipulatively, and decade-long civility violations—demonstrates disruptive, non-constructive editing that fits the site's definitions of spamming and trolling. While he makes substantive contributions (e.g., essays and sourced geopolitical analysis), these are overshadowed by the volume of interpersonal conflicts and admin-intervened actions, indicating spamming as a primary mode of engagement. This is substantiated by internal Conservapedia records, not external bias."
*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_7bf05a07-42b5-471d-ba14-451f7efffd22 Does RobSmith at Conservapedia create low quality content? How close to being spam is it?]: "In summary, yes, much of RobSmith's content can be considered low quality by objective measures due to its overt bias, repetition, and inflammatory style, which prioritize conservative "truth-telling" over balanced facts... RobSmith's work is moderately close to spam in tactics but not in intent—it's more like aggressive self-promotion and ideological flooding than pure bot-like spam."
I trust this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:39, September 15, 2025 (EDT)