Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,629
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 79:
Line 79: + Line 96:
Line 97: +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 01:45, August 12, 2011
, 01:45, August 12, 2011→Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are in an active, ongoing discussion with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the presonal remark template and '''''not'''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in an ongoing discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
==a perspective from a pianist==
==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.