Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,469
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 710:
Line 710: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 23:55, July 31, 2011
, 23:55, July 31, 2011trolling rants moved here
::::Mr. Schlalfy approved [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 changes to the Conservapedia:Guidelines] on July 23 2011, with copies sent to DMorris, Jpatt, TerryH, EdPoor, User:Conservative, and myself. User:DouglasA may not have been aware of the change. It was my mistake in not removing that language immediately from the Editing Etiquette page. The specific language removed no longer gives Sysops dictatorial charge over editors, as was the subject of numerous complaints in recent years. I apologize to any editors this change may have inconvenienced. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:25, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Mr. Schlalfy approved [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 changes to the Conservapedia:Guidelines] on July 23 2011, with copies sent to DMorris, Jpatt, TerryH, EdPoor, User:Conservative, and myself. User:DouglasA may not have been aware of the change. It was my mistake in not removing that language immediately from the Editing Etiquette page. The specific language removed no longer gives Sysops dictatorial charge over editors, as was the subject of numerous complaints in recent years. I apologize to any editors this change may have inconvenienced. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:25, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am new user here but how am I supposed to know what has been added by an administrator? Do I have to find names of every administrator in the past and then check every edit in an article before I can change anything? And what about edits made before someone became an administrator, are they also inviolable? It all seems very confusing to me. --[[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am new user here but how am I supposed to know what has been added by an administrator? Do I have to find names of every administrator in the past and then check every edit in an article before I can change anything? And what about edits made before someone became an administrator, are they also inviolable? It all seems very confusing to me. --[[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
== 4 Sysops believe that RobS should lose his Admin rights - Another Sysop emailed me ==
I unexpectedly had another Sysop email me. Including myself, 4 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights. I will qualify my position that RobS should lose his Sysop rights by indicating that I believe he should be able to earn them back. I also believe he should apologize for his recent poor behavior and alter his behavior. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:Have they asked that their identities and reasoning remain a secret? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::TerryH and I have gone on record. If you want further elaboration from Sysop TerryH, I suggest contacting him via his talk page. If the 2 other Sysops want to elaborate they can certainly do so. I hadn't planned on commenting on this matter further, but I did receive an unexpected email from another Sysop. I thought the most expeditious way to handle the matter would be relay the information to Mr. Schlafly and let others know about it as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Make your case here of site policy violations [[Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation]] or cease trolling this talk page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Conservative, even if Rob gets demoted, infinitely blocked, and unperson'd, do you really think it's going to stop? You're the one being unprofessional, look at your response to AugustO [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=894878&oldid=894871]]. Maybe the other four sysops should lose their privileges along with you. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 23:45, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I have to agree, Terry. It doesn't really matter what happens to RobS (not that his actions warrant any demotion anyway). So long as Conservapedia allows editors to speak their minds without fear of censorship or reprisal, Conservative will be at risk of demotion because his behaviour has been, and continues to be, so abysmal. His constant deletions and oversighting, his rudeness to editors and his refusal to address issues raised with him are legendary. In addition, his raft of locked pages bring the site into disrepute as a result of their generally low quality, their trolling nature and their propagandistic content. Anyone supporting Conservative in these matters should also lose their privileges. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 00:16, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::We're just seeing resistance to reform. Cowards, and petty dictators who feel threatened. None of them are qualified to be Wikipedia editors, let alone Conservapedia sysops. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::RobS, before making another run at building a community, perhaps you should consider taking a Dale Carnegie course and read some of his books. Judging from some of your recent posts, particularly this latest one, I don't think your current methods are working too well. But I could be wrong, maybe your winning friends and influencing people and I just don't realize it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:57, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I've done that, my friend, and trained more people in sales (i.e., taught them to feed themselves) than you've arbitrarily blocked, which says a lot. The difference between RW & CP is, RW has a community, and CP sysops are hell bent on destroying any sort of collaborative cooperation. RW started from nothing but foul-mouthed trolls to an open, thriving, talented and successful wiki project, while while {{Personal remark removed}} elements such as yourself have recklessly abused willing volunteers who wanted to help. You've destroyed your own reputation, and the reputation of the Conservapedia project along with it. RW is a community, despite nasty differences between users, they can function. As long as {{Personal remark removed}} [people] such as yourself continue to wield sysop & oversight tools on this site, I pity any poor fool who comes across it and tries to get involved. They'd have a better chance -- with no talent -- surviving at Wikipedia. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:21, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Whilst, as a new user, I do hesitate to weigh in User:RobS has a very valid point. Community, I believe, is what is required to expand what has already been achieved here. --[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 02:32, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::It is just common sense that people working together will achieve more as team than single editors monopolising parts of the wiki, surely it is also more American - 'E pluribus unum'! [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 03:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
"Willing volunteers" wanting to work here? Is that what you say about RW, RobS? A "functioning community"? I looked on your user page in that freak show that is RW, and my question to you must be said in front of all of these witnesses: who authorized you to take private email accounts from private Google groups that we were all a part of and post them to Conservaleaks? You claim we're the problem? You're part of their little trolling world, you're part of the problem, and you're the cause of a huge amount of damage to this site and the raising of hate and discontent among us, and all because you decided on your own to abandon reason for madness. You're done here, RobS. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:*'''Q.'''''who authorized you to take private email accounts from private Google groups that we were all a part of and post them to Conservaleaks?
''
::'''A.''' (1) Those are private communications between me and a deceased person. I am free to disclose my own private correspondance, whilst presumably the estate of an anonymous username, which the anonymous user always denied matched his real life identity, may possibly have some claim of breach of privacy, but I doubt it; (2) you Karajou, need some understanding of facts before you perform an action such as the above post. You seem to have a habit of jumping to conclusions without any facts or evidence. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS, touting your supposed accomplishments while bashing other Sysops and perhaps others with various allegations is not proving to be a successful strategy. If you are an accomplished salesman, I would suggest using your interpersonal skills at this wiki with your fellow Sysops and others. Third, you haven't sold me on your claims about another wiki and I remain skeptical. For example, I have a hard time believing that a website of former foul mouthed trolls with current nasty differences between users is still not a foul mouthed place. It is largely an atheist wiki and the [[Barna Group]] found among other things that atheists and [[agnostics]] in America were more likely, than [[theist]]s in America to use [[Profanity|obscene language]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard] As long as you continue down this same path while blaming others for your failure due to your ego, I don't see things changing as far as your ineffectiveness at gaining the cooperation of others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I have contacted the FBI and Rob will be taken away within the hour. As we all know collaborating with liberal vandals in punishable by death and I for one look forward to seeing the look on his face in court when he is condemned. [[User:PatK|PatK]] 07:05, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===User:Conservative asks ASchlafly to invoke mob rule===
::::RobS, as it stands, I think it would take a considerable amount of work to repair your relationships with various individuals at this wiki and I don't see you being willing to do that work due to your excessive ego. In addition, due to some of your recent activity, there is now a feeling that you can't be trusted which further compounds matters. I haven't asked a particular Sysop if your Sysop rights should be removed. I believe if I did ask this person, the tally of Sysops who think you should lose your Sysop rights would be 5. Do you really want to continue down your current counterproductive path? If you continue to shoot yourself in the foot, you will eventually cause your own demise at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:What_exactly_is_Conservapedia%3F&diff=prev&oldid=48123 Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy]. ...Aschlafly 12:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::*A wiki need not be a direct democracy, just as most countries are not. It is essential to avoid mob rule. Wikipedia fails in this essential regard. Consevapedia, in contrast, is based on rules [Ibid]... Aschlafly 11:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::*'''There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and [[mob rule]], we don’t. Violators of the CP Guidelines will be blocked. [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]]''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:I'm actually amazed that a simple request from a sysop for user:Conservative to be a bit more accommodating in the spirit of a wiki, has degenerated to the point where the latter, rather than amend his ways, openly rallies the mob to have the first sysop hanged, drawn and quartered in public. Is keeping your talk pages locked ''that'' important to you? Are you ''that'' afraid of responding to criticism and questions. Those that you might have a few precious seconds of your valuable time to respond to, of course.
:Just in case user:Conservative is unaware, this is the definition of a wiki: '''A Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content.''' From your actions, it would appear as if you would be happier at WordPress or Blogger. You certainly are not interested in collaboration.
:User:Conservative has brought Conservapedia into disrepute through his actions, including dragging the sysops into it - this reference to vague sysops supporting you smacks of deceit. If they do, it should be up to them to admit it, as Karajou has done, not for you to be whispering in Mr. Schalfly's ear like some Tolkein-esque Wormtongue.
:In addition, Karajou appears to have missed the point. He seems to be dismissing RobS's complaint because of something totally unrelated to user:Conservative's actions. This is sad, as it would appear as if the whole mess has boiled over into petty rivalries and the participants can no longer see the woods for the trees. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::You ask excellent questions, Tracy, but you're missing an important one: Assuming that those anonymous sysops exist, why are they supporting Conservative and not Rob? I think that fact alone speaks volumes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I'm guessing it's more important for them to have abysmally written articles about flying kitties and Indian Christian dancing girls (even if the accompanying picture is of a Hindu!) on their main page, than to have accountability. There can be no other explanation. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Something just hit me: "[[Big Government]] refers to a government that is very influential in the everyday lives of citizens, often due to its far-reaching agencies." So it shouldn't be so surprising to see a conservative fighting to reduce the reach and power of the local ruling class (whose power currently reaches as far as making them right by default in ''content editing''), should it? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I registered on the 1st of January 2011 but for some reason editing seems to be almost permanently blocked for someone in the UK as I am, hence I have made no real contribution - along with my earlier comments about user:conservative childish articles putting me off. Truth is (and I KNOW I will be blocked for this and this edit reverted but_ I get the impression that some sysops and admins here have very little power elsewhere in their lives so instead of addressing the evident shortcomings in the <i>input</i> and hehaviour of user:conservative to the wiki, they prefer to hold on to what little power they have as it justifies them. I watched and witnessed TK slowly destroying this site from within, user:conservative and user:karajou are completing the late TK's work. Now feel free, go ahead and prove me right by blocking me and reverting this edit. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT) I put it there for a reason obvious troll PatK. You are the kind of idiot that is slowly destorying this wiki, along with Conservative.
<br>
::For your treasonous actions and treacherous words, I have also reported you to the FBI. We shall string you up alongside Rob. [[User:PatK|PatK]] 08:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The proposals of Sid and David sound suspiciously like [[communism]]. [[User:PatK|PatK]] 08:21, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I have no shortage of things to do and there are a lot more enjoyable things I could be pursuing. RobS and his sidekick Sid 3050 can rant and rave, but I will not be paying attention to these clowns. I shouldn't have allowed RobS to distract me from pursuing more important matters. I am sure Andy would have put an end to RobS's pestering if I had asked him to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Regardless of what Rob did on RW, I agree that RW has a thriving community and articles that are well written and informative. Here we have Conservative's "articles", and no quality control. Like I said, it's not going to stop with Rob gone. As long as sysops like Karajou and Conservative continue doing what they're doing, Conservapedia will be nothing more than a third rate wiki. ...and Conservative, how many times have you said that? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 09:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
"I am sure Andy would have put an end to RobS's pestering if I had asked him to do so." Um, excuse me - if you never asked Mr Schlafly to intervene, then just why exactly is this discussion taking place on his talk page? Just looking for attention? You really should try and keep your story straight if you're going to make things up. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Also, just this Friday, you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ACommunity_Portal&action=historysubmit&diff=894562&oldid=894559 said] "As far as the RobS matter, from what I have been told Aschalfly is going to review matters in the very near future and decide what to do. I have said my piece on the matter and have decided to move on." Interesting how "moving on" now means returning here yet again to proclaim that Rob should lose sysop rights and that another anonymous sysop (who may or may not exist) agrees with you. (Oh, and I'm still not an atheist. But I guess you will ignore this fact yet again the moment you need to vilify those who dare to criticize you.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:07, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Just a general comment for Andy from a new editor. I don't think it's relevant at all what other wiki projects are doing be it Wikipedia or wikis dedicated to criticizing Conservapedia. Of course, we should be sympathetic to a conservative POV. (Why call this Conservapedia then if we were not?). As a general point which I think applies here, I am getting tired of conservatives having to act apologetic towards underachieving liberals who dedicate their whole lives to personally maligning conservatives with providing any ideas of substance. [[User:HP|HP]] 10:48, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::User:HP, how did you get past Karajou when you added this content with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 potentially racist overtones] to the current MainPage Fetaure? It was in for over a month and neither User:Conservative nor User:Karajou spotted, reverted it, nor blocked you? Are you a sockpuppet of User:Conservative or Karajou? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:39, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:I think an end needs to be put to this bickering caused by the misguided attempts of User:RobSmith to drive this website in a more atheistic and liberal direction. As an outsider (avid reader but non-contributor) I see that User:Conservative has created (and continues to create, unless bogged down in timewasting arguments initiated by User:RobSmith as he attempts to undermine the core conservative Christian values of the site) huge amounts of high quality material on subjects that really matter, where as User:RobSmith seems content to merely defend liberal trolls and actively prevent the site from dealing with atheists and others who hate all we stand for. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 11:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You should go back to coaching Nottingham Forest, Mr Clough. or may I call you Brian? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::You are so transparent it's pathetic. Conservative's material is extremely low quality and a lot of it is just copy and paste jobs from other articles. He knows this, so he reverts, burns, locks talk pages, and bans users. Rob is trying to put an end to these community strangling practices by holding sysops accountable. Is that such a bad thing except to those in power? As far as other wiki's go, there is a reason why RW is successful and CP isn't. Think about it. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 11:38, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::BClough, it's not unlikely you are a sock of another sysop. I know I'm a first time contributor (although I am a long-time reader), but your use of certain key phrases like "liberal troll" gives you away. If this is true, that sysop would be in violation of the site's policies that prohibit multiple accounts per person. Can someone run check user on BClough and other sysops just to make sure? You seem to run check user on '''everyone'''. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 11:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Given that Mr Schlafly recently removed RobS's checkuser rights, there might be some merit in the question. After all, if Mr Schlafly was going to punish RobS, it seems a strange right to remove. Is there a cover-up going on? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I wouldn't be surprised. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 11:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that [[User:FergusE]] is a sock of a sysop...can check user be run on him also? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 13:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Conservative has been suspected of creating socks. His writing style is extremely unique. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:38, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm not much involved in this wiki politicking, but it seems utterly extraordinary to me that one of the few very senior administrators of this website, who seems intelligent and fair, and who wanst to establish fair rules and systematic policies across the website, is being disciplined while another incredibly childish and noisy sysop who seems to fill up 75% of Recent Changes posting ludicrous articles on the main page about "walrus slides" is being supported. While I like this website and the article content quite a bit, I've found that it's almost impossible to get any of my like-minded friends to take it seriously, as any time I've ever forward a link to here, the response is usually "Why are there all those ridiculous articles there? - that place looks like my child's bedroom after a birthday party" (an actual response from a friend of mine). I would like to publicly support RobS and if I had any power would like to give "Conservative" a good talking to. [[User:JanW|JanW]] 13:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Folks,
:Once again, Mr. Schlafly's talk page has been turned into a general opinion form--much of it from "new contributors" who seem remarkably conversant with Conservapedia nonetheless and who are not directly involved in this matter.
:I am going to ask politely: please stop. It's rude, and it's not what a user's talk page is for. Mr. Schlafly knows the facts, and he is, I'm sure, quite capable of reaching his decision without endless debate by those of us who aren't directly involved.
:In particular, accusations of "conspiracy" and deception directed towards sysops are an extremely serious matter. Unless you have some substantial evidence to show, I strongly suggest refraining from such accusations. Thus far, they've been remarkably tolerant and patient with respect to such accusations and personal attacks, but that doesn't mean they're justified or appropriate.
:If you have a question or a direct message for Mr. Schlafly, please feel free to ask. Otherwise, please show some respect and take the discussion to another venue.
:Thank you. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::But Mr. Schlafly isn't responding and as the site owner and ultimate authority on issues like these the community feels that he should be made aware of it. He hasn't provided a response yet. Also, with Conservapedia's self-proclaimed record breaking monthly viewership, why are you surprised at all the new members? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:07, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::It's less that we have a lot of new people... its the fact we have a lot of new editors who seem to show up with the "Long time listener, first time caller" statement, who then get involved almost immediately in a dispute between Synops and have more knowledge of the way the site works and the various Personalities that populate the site that is the problem.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 14:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::You don't think three days of incessant spam on his webpage has "made him aware?" He knows what's going on. And I'm not surprised at the new members--or the way they're swarming to this particular issue--in the slightest. As SeanS has pointed out, sudden influxes of "new editors" with remarkable knowledge of the doings here are not a new phenomenon.
::::I asked nicely. I will repeat myself: please take it elsewhere. Those who are directly involved are more than capable of resolving this for themselves. Again, thank you. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ben, Conservative chose a public forum for his provocative comments, so why are you complaining about reply by the public? If he had wanted to inform Andy in private, he would have sent him a mail. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:36, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Conservative is a senior member of this project who regularly communicates with Mr. Schlafly. So is RobS. As I said before, they're quite capable of resolving this for themselves, and it's not my place to tell them how to go about doing that. However, pointing out that people who are not directly involved are being inconsiderate is another matter entirely.
::::::I'm asking people to show basic respect for another user by not cluttering up his talk page. It has nothing to do with Conservative and RobS, and everything to do with basic manners. Is that really such an unreasonable request to make? The general discussion was moved to the Community Portal for a reason. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"it's not my place to tell them how to go about doing that" - It's also not your place to go around acting like a sysop, telling everybody else to ''look away'' while one person alone goes around crowing in public about how he assembled a mob to throw Rob out.
:::::::This isn't about some inconsequential proposal, this is a turning point for the entire site, and the community senses it. So no, we won't look away while Conservative, TerryH and Karajou (and two mystery sysops) stomp around on the ''one sysop'' who actually realizes that the current system needs to change in order for the community to grow beyond mindless yay-sayers.
:::::::I reiterate: Conservative has the option to use private communication, yet he keeps making public sections (like the new one below). What does that tell you? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
== 5 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights. ==
Another Sysop indicated to me that RobS should lose his Sysop rights. Including myself, 5 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights.
Karajou, TerryH and myself are Sysops who are publicly declaring RobS should lose his Sysop rights. The other 2 Sysops are choosing to remain anonymous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:That's great. I could find plenty of diff's proving Terry and Karajou as bad as you. And like I said before, it's not going to stop when Rob is gone. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:36, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::Actually, it ''will'' stop once Rob is gone. Why else do you think that Conservative, Karajou, TerryH and our two mystery sysops are pushing so hard to get him thrown out? Rob is advocating user rights and sysop accountability. Rob is undoing blocks left and right while trying to set up fairer rules. Do you ''seriously'' think you would last a week after Rob's demotion/departure? I know that I'll face the banhammer minutes after Rob's defeat, and I'm quite sure who is going to swing it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
User:Conservative, I admire your restraint in dealing with User:RobSmith who for some reason has decided to attack you. I hope User:Aschlafly acts quickly to remove User:RobSmith before User:Robsmith destroys the good work of User:Conservative and many other by opening the floodgates to liberals, atheists and evolutionists to turn this site in to another Wikipedia. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 14:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::A Poll has started at [[Debate:Should RobS loose his Sysop rights?]]; (please note, I will exempt voting participants from the 90/20 rule for each click while participating in this poll. This should gain some Community input regarding User:Conservatives excessive trolling of ASchlalfy's talk page which he has been asked by several editors several times to stop. Thanks.) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
== RobS's upcoming RINO-like rule - supposed "conservative" point of view rule ==
RobS is about to advise Conservapedia to have a conservative point of view rule which appears to have a [[RINO]]-like bent. It is located [[User:RobSmith/Conservapedia:Conservative point of view|HERE]]
The "conservative" point of view rule indicates that the [[neoconservative]] view is part of the conservative point of view. Conservapedia says "A [[neoconservative]] (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government...Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead."
RobS's upcoming conservative point of view rule mentions none of the social issues directly. It also does not bring up the evolution issue directly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:This is exactly why User:RobSmith should be stopped before he gets the chance to implement his plans regarding the direction of this website. True conservative and Christian information is why this site continues to grow, if User:RobSmith gets his way and starts allowing atheistic and pro-evolutionism content on this website then it will no longer continue to grow by attracting conservative Christians who reject atheism and evolutionism. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:This is exactly why User:RobSmith should be stopped before he gets the chance to implement his plans regarding the direction of this website. True conservative and Christian information is why this site continues to grow, if User:RobSmith gets his way and starts allowing atheistic and pro-evolutionism content on this website then it will no longer continue to grow by attracting conservative Christians who reject atheism and evolutionism. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::Somewhat premature, but thank you for bringing to light the proposal '''[[User:RobSmith/Conservapedia:Conservative point of view]]'''. Note the page is unlocked, and open for others to be bold in helping to draft a proposal. When it's ready, I'll present it to Andy for his ideas on it. If it were to work, we could eliminate once and for all bickering over what is liberal/parody/etc. And I'm sure Mr. Schlalfy would agree, cause it's already written into numerous Commandments & Guidleines, an editor can be an obese liberal homosexual atheist ''and still'' abide by site policy mandating CPOV content. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::P.S. User:Consrvative, you are welcome to share you ideas in drafting this proposal; please be bold in editing its mainspace, that is, if you are capable of collaborative editing with others. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I believe that RobS's intention is to have an inclusive policy for conservatives. [[Neoconservative]]'s views are definitely a mainstream conservative viewpoint, with many of the past Republican presidents( Bush, Bush and Reagan) all adhering to many of the belief's that make up the neocon doctrine. I'm not entirely sure why you would go here over this issue however. Also as Rob has stated above this appears to be a work in progress so perhaps collaborating would be a better way to achieve your goals than to accuse him of trying to harm the site..--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Agreed, I have no idea why this wasn't brought up on the corresponding talk page, really. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:13, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Neoconservatives]] are part of the reason the United States: owes over 13 trillion dollars, is filled with abortion clinics and is involved in 3 wars. Perhaps RobS should buy the domain name www.rinopedia.com and start his own wiki. And again, the social issues were noticeably absent in his proposal as far as them being mentioned directly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:You were told the page was open for editing (unlike so many pages you have written). Instead of complaining, go edit it. This is a wiki. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:26, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
== Thank you, [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ==
== Thank you, [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ==