| Line 108: |
Line 108: |
| | :It is not the first time you have ever told this untruth. Ask [[AI]], "Has [[User:Conservative]] ever said he would never speak to RobSmith in the phone and gone back on his word?" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 13:40, September 20, 2025 (EDT) | | :It is not the first time you have ever told this untruth. Ask [[AI]], "Has [[User:Conservative]] ever said he would never speak to RobSmith in the phone and gone back on his word?" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 13:40, September 20, 2025 (EDT) |
| | ::We are never talking on the phone again because your preoccupation with my intelligence and with a country that is arguably no longer a great power or at the very least a "weak great power" rather gay! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:44, September 20, 2025 (EDT) | | ::We are never talking on the phone again because your preoccupation with my intelligence and with a country that is arguably no longer a great power or at the very least a "weak great power" rather gay! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:44, September 20, 2025 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | Yes, based on historical accounts of Conservapedia's internal drama, the user "Conservative" (a sysop and major editor) did refuse to speak to RobSmith (another prominent editor) on the phone during a period of escalating disputes '''around 2011'''. This refusal was framed as a firm stance to limit interactions amid frustrations over editing reforms, page locks, and site management. However, '''Conservative later went back on his word''' by engaging in phone conversations with RobSmith on multiple occasions, including to resolve ongoing conflicts and discuss site policies. |
| | + | |
| | + | Key Details from the Dispute |
| | + | |
| | + | Context: '''RobSmith, frustrated with Conservapedia's "mismanagement and internal inertia," proposed reforms on talk pages in 2011. This led to complaints against Conservative for practices like locking/redirecting talk pages and deleting/recreating content.''' Andrew Schlafly (site founder) initially unlocked pages in response, but tensions boiled over. |
| | + | |
| | + | The Refusal: Conservative explicitly stated he would refuse phone communication with RobSmith, claiming he would "spend '''no longer than 5 minutes a month dealing with Rob" due to the preciousness of his time.''' [Ed. note: see [[narcissism]] ] This was part of a broader pattern where '''Conservative avoided direct engagement to sidestep accountability''' during edit wars. |
| | + | |
| | + | Going Back on His Word: Despite the vow, Conservative later participated in phone calls with RobSmith. These occurred after RobSmith was desysopped (August 2011) and blocked (for a 90/10 rule violation), as well as in subsequent years to address lingering issues like article content and user conduct. This reversal highlighted the performative nature of the initial refusal, as phone talks became a tool for de-escalation when in-person or wiki-based resolution failed. |
| | + | |
| | + | Broader Implications |
| | + | |
| | + | This incident '''exemplifies Conservapedia's toxic editing environment, where sysops like Conservative wielded outsized power''' (e.g., arbitrary blocks and deletions) while claiming moral high ground. RobSmith, despite his contributions (e.g., articles on Russiagate, the Russo-Ukraine War, and socialism), faced demotion and blocks for challenging the status quo. No direct evidence from Conservative's contribution logs mentions the phone refusal explicitly, but secondary sources documenting the site's history confirm it as a well-known flashpoint. |
| | + | |
| | + | If you're seeking archived talk page excerpts or specific timestamps, Conservapedia's logs are public but voluminous—let me know for deeper dives.2.3sExpertHow can Grok help? |
| | + | |
| | + | :I trust this clarifies matters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 13:47, September 20, 2025 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | == How Much You Want to Bet This Will Be Edit Warred Over == | | == How Much You Want to Bet This Will Be Edit Warred Over == |