User talk:Conservative/RobSmith was stripped of his Admin powers and kicked out of Conservapedia before due to acting like a jerk. He has learned nothing. He is still acting like a jerk
How do you feel about Ken? I would just like to know, I never see you talk about him. Have you explained how you feel to Andy? Opcn (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I will now answer your question. I didn't really know him back in June when you asked this question, nor read much of any of his work. But I was asked by another (I think DickTurpis) if I thought he was mentally ill. I could not answer then. User:Conservative first asked me for phone contact back in 2007 (under the name David Jensen, and it should be noted, this same user accuses others of lies, deceit, and parody). I refused then. After questions from several users, I accepted maybe 4 or 5 calls from him. IMO, (since I've already been accused of saying nasty things about fellow CP sysops) I do believe the man to have deep-seated mental or spiritual problems. He prays to God for other members to get kicked out of he church he attends. He wants to do harm to User:Human's business by a cybervandal attack on its website. As a Christian, and a small business owner, I find people like this revolting and appalling, if not dangerous. RobSmithI have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls 01:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) He prays to God for other members to get kicked out of he church he attends. He wants to do harm to User:Human's business by a cybervandal attack on its website. That's pretty revolting. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 01:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC) He lied to me about his own name when we first collaborated on cp:Homosexuality#Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence in 2007 (claiming it was David Jensen); his accusations about me "pesterfesting" him about User:BobSherman were based on his claim BobSherman was a liar, and Andy backed him up. That singularity was the issue. A liar, someone who claimed they were someone they were not, could not have a user account on Conservapedia. RobSmithI have been defamed by anonymous CP trolls 02:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You're a fucking disgrace Rob. A fucking disgrace. It's no spouting this shit now, you actively cooperated for over four years with this utter cretin - someone you knew to be a pathological liar and nasty sociopath - just because you had somewhere to post your ridiculous cold war-style shite. You are a fucking disgrace. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 06:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Good post! B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 13:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Bullshit. I barely knew the guy. He was never part of the CP sysop cabal til recently, and doesn't really contribute anything of substance there (few do). He & my paths probably did not cross in CP a half dozen times since 2008, maybe a dozen times in 2007, and virtually never in Conservaleaks. It is all a matter of record. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC) So you never noticed the Flying Kitty on the front page, or the fatatheistatheistfatfatfatatheist stuff, and that's why you let that material ride for so long? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 19:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Didn't care either. Still don't. Bit by bit, more and more, Rationalwiki editors have somewhat piqued my interest in this "flykitty" whatever. One even put some on this talk page. Someday, I may actually investigate. But right now I'm de-KenDemeyering the Josef Stalin article and a few others at Ameriwiki, so I'm not really interested in absorbing any new information. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 20:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC) So ... there's this wiki project that you're looking to save from itself ... but you have no real knowledge of one of its most prolific contributors ... and the epic lolwut? / facepalm nature of his contributions... Shit. I'm convinced. That's totally plausible. --Robledo (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Never read his stuff, didn't care to, no reason to. I guessed the guy was a little strange based on my extremely limited contact with him for four years. Conservaleaks bares me out -- there are virtually no exchanges anywhere I can recollect (User:Consertvative evidently followed the Spring 2010 WP dispute peripherally, and made several postings that I couldn't decipher the meaning under threads he created, but there was no dicussion between him/her me, TK & Karajou). And longtime observers of WIGO know User:Conservative & my interaction on Conserpedia discussion or mainspace has been non-existence since at least June of 2007. Even before then, it was sparse. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 22:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC) An aide-mémoire: behold The Day Conservapedia Flew The Kitty. No need for time-consuming "investigations" and the laborious absorption of "new" information, when in just a couple of seconds a simple picture says it all. --Xyr (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC) So that link leads in to a picture of an allegedly obese PZMyers holding a beer; pardon me for asking (and I know I'm going to regret this), but just what does an evolutionary cartoon creature have to do with an allegedly obese blogger drinking a beer? You may be able to make more sense of this than the original author, I hope. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 01:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC) I dunno Rob. YOU were a senior administrator of that webpage for almost as long as anybody else; why don't YOU explain to us how the project took such a tun under your oversight. B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 01:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC) We're gonna do a Compendium of private emails & chats with TK; that, along with Conservaleaks, and my contribs (not to mention my history of blocking), tell the story. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 01:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Here's the story as I saw it; with the exception of the usual wikibreaks that we all take (you had one lengthy one, IIRC), you edited Conservapedia on a regular basis for about four years, blocked vandals, participated on talk pages, and did everything else a sysop does, but claim that you paid no attention to the edits made by a guy who regularly monopolized Recent Changes, and had no idea that the MAIN PAGE of the wiki, the public face of the project, had, at different times while you were administering it, an animated gig of a flying cat wearing goggles or stories about obese atheist scienctists drinking a pint at the pub. Where exactly do I have it wrong there? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 01:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC) That's about it. I made some postings to MPR, TK & I collaborated well on that, TK could dress them up with imgs that looked nice. MPL was usually crazy Ken crap that I ignored, cause complaining about it risked being unceremoniously desysoped and blocked. At some point in the summer of 2010, Ken mentioned somewhere (I think on the open wiki) he was burning out and didn't have any ideas for MPL and could someone take over. I stepped in and largely shaped what became cp:Recovery Summer. User:Conservative noted the revamp here in Conservaleaks, and readers of Conservaleaks would find little, if any discussion (I can recall), about me taking over MPL during that election cycle. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 02:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC) So basically, then, you're admitting that you were a really, really, really incompetent sysop. A GIANT ANIMATED FLYING CAT RIGHT BESIDE YOUR MPR MATERIAL, and you never even noticed it? Wait, maybe if it was "The transitional animal the flying Kara Duhe", maybe that would have caught your eye more than the cat? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 02:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
How did it differ from any other bullshit he regularly posted? What was I supposed to do, revert it? How long do you think that would last? RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 02:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC) How does it feel when someone has your balls in their purse like that, son? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 02:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) We'll see. Ken & Andy may want me back for next years election cycle for MPL. It did make cp:Human Events, after all, Ronald Reagan's favorite publication. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 02:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC) So are you saying that you didn't give a shit about how ridiculous CP looked as it gave you somewhere to post your tripe? Or if we assume good faith here and say that you genuinely thought CP was a respected resource for American conservatives; you didn't feel it necessary to speak up about Ken ensuring that CP was nothing but a laughing stock to people right across the political spectrum? You can't have it both ways Rob. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 07:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC) No matter the outcome someone will complain about RobSmith not doing what they wanted him to do soon enough and then make fun of him, call him obscene names, swear at him and attack him for even trying. Some of you guys are are very eager to say nasty things to someone who looks like he's very frustrated about the same kinds of things you were frustrated about and is trying to be friendly and helpful to you, but you are not very critical of your own behavior and mindset. If your everyday goals are not fellowship, charity, and learning you might ask yourself why you are wasting your time on energy on anything else. The question is especially important to those who believe this life is all there is. Nate Nate Keaton (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Rationalwiki, as Conservapedia, is indeed a mission field. On another matter: I recently recalled User:Conservative & myself also had telephone contact last summer, about June or July. I don't recall if it was once or twice we spoke. It was in connection with User:Conservative's Project Socialism, which he announced on MPL (as I learned from WIGO) that I'd be participating. When he first asked I said "yah sure", thinking I could incorporate some old material into whatever he had in mind, but he soon had a list of 20 or 30 articles he wanted me do to. In our phone contact he pressured me closely as he seemed to think I'd be the driving force. It wasn't a bad idea, but I explained at the time I was just beginning a new business that month, and my time was pretty well committed for the immediate foreseeable future for taking on another large project. He wasn't happy with being put off and his ambitions thwarted, but ever since then, and you see it repeatedly, User:Conservative recycles that excuse he learned from me about how he can't fit things into his schedule, and time demands are too pressing to be involved in the immediate future, etc etc. But if you're listening, Conservative, I think you use that tired excuse a little too much, it's overkill. If you need anymore business management consulting on public relations, time management, or dealing with underlings, my consulting fee is $60 an hour. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 01:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his Personal remark removed concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to Personal remark removed.
I think RobS is at heart an Personal remark removed who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him. Although he did do a service in unblocking all of those IPs and I think clarifying block policy and not having an overly aggressive block policy is good, I do think now that RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call "a useful idiot" and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist website.
If he continues down his present path, I see him losing his Admin rights. Conservative 17:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Conservative - you and I have discussed this in an entirely civil manner to this point, and my opinion of you has not changed with this section, but I am requesting that you remove this section on your own accord (but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am sending an email to Andy); even in quotes, "useful idiot" is a personal attack - and I am convinced that this type of name calling is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--IDuan 17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT) The term "useful idiot" is political term and I have also heard it used outside of politics as well. Here is a definition: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot I see no reason retract this information and I am very positive that RobS doesn't want me to oversight it given his previous statements. In short, I think the shoe fits and I am giving others a warning. Conservative 17:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Conservative, I quote from your source: "The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial" - I maintain its not keeping with site decorum to call an established editor any of these things (certainly at least calling an editor either of the first two - "naive" or "foolish" - would constitute a personal attack).--IDuan 17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I also see Rob losing his sysop rights soon. After all, he is trying to do three things: (1) Make the rules clearer so people have a clear idea what can get them blocked and don't have to live in constant fear of breaking some obscure rule interpretation. (2) Apply the rules also to sysops. (3) Generally hold sysops accountable for their actions and limit abuse of powers. The last person who tried to drag the site down this absolutely horrible path was some liberal... what was his name... oof... oh yeah, Philip J. Rayment. You know, the guy who tried to stop Bugler and TK from driving out everybody? The guy who actually dared to ask why some people were banned and wanted to see evidence? Yeah, that went well, didn't it? Because we all know that a community will grow if a group of people can waltz all over the place with editorial authority, no pressure to follow the rules, and the power to block anybody for any reason. It's a true tragedy that Andy is looking away as Rob is trying to salvage and help this community. --Sid 3050 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. MaxFletcher 17:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Sid, you are trying to cloud the central issue. I clearly said I was not against clarifying block policy. It's RobS's other behavior that I have a problem with. Conservative 17:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT) But wasn't the central issue to start with your own behavior Conservative? It seems to me you dislike having your own behavior called into question so believe it is Rob causing trouble. MaxFletcher 18:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I say both of them are causing trouble. Conservative is doing things people find wrong, People state this, Rob backs them up, which from Conservatives point of view is wrong, they argue, Conservative/Rob takes it to pages across the wiki while others either side with or against Rob/Conservative, pushing the fight to multiple fronts and spamming andy with "new message!". So both are to blame for exasperating the situation. --SeanS 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. Conservative The central issue is indeed Conservative's behaviour. Years ago when Conservapedia had an abuse page it was almost entirely filled with complaints about Conservative. I don't understand why he has been allowed to run amok for so long. All Rob is doing is trying to introduce the rule of law to the site. --JarradD 18:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT) No, the central issue is the power structure on this site being so screwed up that sysops have all the rights while regular editors have pretty much none (while conversely the sysops don't have to follow the rules while editors have to follow all of them and then some). Conservative's behavior (rapid and frequent deletion of articles or talk pages, oversighting of edits, refusal to communicate constructively, etc.) is simply the most noticeable symptom. Rob's attempts to start a sweeping policy reform and to, as you said, introduce the rule of the law to the site, would indeed restrict Conservative's power abuse, but it would also be a solid step to fix the structural issues the site has. (Which also nicely explains why no other sysop is actually siding with Rob.) --Sid 3050 18:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT) JarradD, I have never been popular among atheist/evolutionist whiners. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue. Conservative 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT) No. You are not popular among editors who wish to be treated with respect and according to the rules. --JarradD 18:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Your Fairly well-acquainted with the anti-conservtive viewpoint for somebody who made an account 20 minutes ago. You reek of sock-puppetry/ill-intentions. --SeanS 18:31, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Why do I reek of ill intent? I want to see this site succeed. Which is why I want properly enforced rules rather than bullying and arbitrary authority. --JarradD 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Because you seem to know a lot about this situation despite only having just made your account, which either means you pointlessly lurked for a while or your a parodist. --SeanS 18:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Somewhat fitting, given that part of the problem is that various people who made good points in the past have been banned because the sysops don't like people who dare to speak up. And Sean, PLEASE don't throw around "parodist" so easily. --Sid 3050 18:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I have sided with neither Rob or Conservative. I am pointing out that a new user who suddenly comes into a debate speaking with knowledge of the situation is going to appear suspicious. --SeanS 18:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT) A parodist is someone who pretends to be something they are not. There is no evidence JarradD is a parodist. MaxFletcher 18:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anything I have written could be regarded as parody. You have successfully derailed this discussion. Congratulations Sean. How about getting back on topic. --JarradD 18:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT) If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. As it stands, he brings more doubt and distrust by getting involved in a dispute between Senior Admins despite having no reason to fully understand the situation. The fact his first edits were to get involved raise even more doubts to his intentions--SeanS 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT) If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. How is that possible? they all get banhammered at the door. Rob Smith 21:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT) If anyone's intentions are suspect, it is you. You have totally derailed this discussion. It was a discussion on a vitally important topic and you have made it all about me. Could you please attempt to get back on topic? --JarradD 18:50, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I would like to return this discussion to matters of significance. The feeling among a number of editors is that there is a lack of uniformity in enforcement of rules and that some sysops act in an arbitrary and, sometimes, capricious manner. What is sought is, in essence, the rule of law. A system wherein all editors know where they stand and are not subject to whim. In my view this is a hugely important issue for this site. In any venture these issues are important, but in a co-operative venture such as a wiki they are absolutely vital. --JarradD 19:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
If I recall correctly, haven't people been banned from Conservapedia for being a member of an atheistic site before? If we do want consistency of rules/sysop accountability and if Rob is indeed a member of said site, then shouldn't he face a penalty? --BradleyS 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia states, 15. We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs;, and has been CP site policy since 13 April 2007. [2] The blocking of editors for alleged "membership in a website supporting vandalism" has always been illegitimate, and if anything, an apology is due. Rob Smith 16:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT) How cute of you to start enforcing the most idiotic "rule" ever that was likely introduced by a troll who wanted CP to fail. But hey, sure, all for it. I'm sure Ed Poor will agree; after all, he has no account on-... oh, wait. :) --Sid 3050 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT) And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --JarradD 20:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT) In his/her world, there is no evidence at all unless he/she personally admits anything, such as his/her gender or his/her name. So what makes you think he/she would admit his/her username on any site? Give it up, liberals! --Sid 3050 20:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Indeed. We seek him/her/it here. We seek him/her/it there. Those Frenchies seek him/her/it everywhere. Is he/she/it in heaven? Is he/she/it in hell? That d****d elusive Pimpernel. --JarradD 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Obviously Conservative is not a member of that atheist website because it would be really stupid of him to complain about Rob's association with it while simultaneously holding an account there. --BradleyS 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Yes, it would. --JarradD 20:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Gentlemen, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. Schlafly's talk page is not the place to hold such debates? And that it would be both prudent and considerate to move this discussion to another forum? --Benp 21:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Seeing how Andy seems determined not to chime in, this may be for the best. I'd support a mass move of the last few sections (starting with "User: RobS") to Conservapedia:Community Portal. --Sid 3050 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. MaxFletcher 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT) You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--SeanS 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Let me explain Conservapedia Kremlinology (tea leaf reading): If the site owner likes the idea, he'll speak up. If he's neutral or negative, silence. That's traditoinally how Senior CP Sysops read the tea leaves. Conclusion: neither RobS nor User: Conservative desysoped; Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed has been repealed; Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interfact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors is added; and moving forward with other initiatives has been endorsed. Now, somebody want to go around with a mop bucket after User:Conservative's incivility here and hang the Personal remark removed, per CP:Guidelines#Civility? I'd do it, but I have a COI. Let's help this man/woman/other become a better editor. He/she/it needs to learn how to play nice with others. Please treat him/her/other respectfully. But remember, his/her/other days of being an allegedly abusive sysop are over. Rob Smith 22:23, 27 July 2011 (EDT) It would be nice if we didn't have to give a PC-esque list of pronouns for him. --SeanS 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT) The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. Rob Smith 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I wouldn't suggest trying to sweep this discussion under the rug. I believe Admin Karajou wants to give his thoughts to Ashlafly on this matter. And of course, I can certainly consider asking other Sysops to weigh in as well. I would suggest that RobS not thrash around in this tar pit he has jumped in. Conservative 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. Rob Smith 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT) RobS, I have been asked if I felt you should lose your Admin privileges and if the benefits you bring outweigh your costs. So far, I have said that you should not lose your Admin status. You most recent behavior which I mentioned above, is tipping the scale in the wrong direction. I suggest making some changes and avoid trying to dodge issues. Conservative 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. Rob Smith 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT) I certainly don't think the discussion should be swept under the rug, but I do feel that consideration for Andy merits moving it to a more appropriate venue. I support the idea of moving the discussion to Community Portal. --Benp 23:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT) If this discussion is attempted to be pushed under the rug and RobS chooses not to address matters. This certainly would be another sign that RobS should lose his Admin status. If a an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion, this certainly does not work in his favor. I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not willing to give RobS infinite second chances in terms of how I feel about his behavior. I have also been told that Karajou wants to join the discussion on Ashlafly's talk page. Conservative 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT) Then where is he? Rob Smith 16:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT) RobS, I can live with you being an Personal remark removed|. On the other hand, a Personal remark removed is a problem. Conservative 23:36, 27 July 2011 (EDT) "If a (sic) an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion..." I'm sorry. Who were we talking about Pot? --JarradD 23:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT) play power games and try stifle discussion My friend, User:Conservative, seriously, who stifles discussion by locking their user page? who stifles discussion by placing redirects on article talk pages? who stifles discussion by deleting other Sysops comments? who stifles discussion by oversighting other sysop's comments? Need I remind you, you started these threads claiming I wanted to discuss things with you and you want no discussion on your talk page. Then, you came here, claiming some offense, but deleted and oversighted the evidence. Do I have to point out to you, what other's see, extremely erratic behavior? I'm sorry, but this really borders on trolling. If it wasn't for the fact Conservapedia can be improved from discussing some of these problems, I'd really rather remain silent. I'm sorry, but this is not an issue of personalities, it regards the future of this project. Rob Smith 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT) RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have Personal remark removed as my friends. Second, people are free to leave me messages to me. I know you like to whine about my talk page, but please restrain yourself because a user's talk page is still his/her castle. Next, I am certainly amenable to admitting where I can make improvements and the talk pages on comedy/satires on now open. On the other hand, I have yet to see you apologize for your backstabbing behavior. And your poor behavior in terms of altering my talk page was also never apologized for. Of course, your modus operandi is avoiding taking responsibility for your bad behavior. This does not work in your favor. Conservative 00:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT) Am I the only who thinks all Admins should have their talkpages left unlocked so people can ask them things? MaxFletcher 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT) I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--SeanS 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT) I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. NickP 00:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT) Right now I am neutral however. I see Conservative's points on this, but Rob has done a lot of good work for this wiki too. I think it is best of we leave to to Andy to decide. NickP 00:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT) RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy. Conservative 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
The offending comment presumably was, The subject seemed to think it quite comical, and basically conceded it the motivation was only to tweak his RW & Youtube critics, the latest "kick" so to speak. nobs RW, 02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Please cease speaking in innuendo. Rob Smith 16:31, 30 July 2011 (EDT) Hold on. Why is RobS even a member of an Atheist website. Surely he of all people knows that they will not accept the logic of conservatism and that it is a hopeless cause to try to convert them that way. NickP 00:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT) There is converting going on. I just received an email saying RobS is becoming more and more like the members of a atheist vandal website. Conservative 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT) In that case I am not sure RobS should be given this much power, if he has such close affiliations with sites that support such illogical viewpoints. RobS, you are a good contributor, but I'm sorry; if what Conservative says is true, then it is better safe than sorry. NickP 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT) Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --BradleyS 02:45, 28 July 2011 (EDT) If this atheist vandal website is wikipedia, than I should admit that I have an account there. However I have not used it for quite a few months now. I think it would be wrong to punish people like me, who only were trying to help when they made Wikipedia accounts but have since moved on. User:MorrisF I have an account at just about every "wiki" type site. I was an active member of "the trio of wiki" (Cpedia, censored, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? ~ JonG ~ 08:09, 28 July 2011 (EDT) Section Break Wait a minute. Why were Conservative's posts replaced with "Personal attacks removed"? He never personally attacked anyone. Plus, many of his key points were removed. NickP 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
this user did it. ive since reverted it.--SeanS 10:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT) SeanS, that's a diff, not a user. I replaced Conservative's several personal attacks with the template that is prescribed at Guidelines#Civility. NickP, I cannot tell if you are being serious. Conservative's post in this section are full of personal attacks against another user, that user has been conscientiously polite in response. If the personal attacks that I removed are the key points then that merely shows them to be invalid points in the first place. SeanS, you have now reinstated the personal attacks, in clear contravention of site policy. Please read the policy, and replace the templates. LowKey 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT) Yes, I know what they are. IF you notice, the Diff has your username in it, therefor, I can say who did what. And if it is indeed a personal attack, why make it harder for an admin to see what it is and judge accordingly? --SeanS 23:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT) Also note that a lot of the comments you removed were not really personal attacks. When Conservative said that RobS was a "useful idiot", he wasn't actually calling RobS stupid. "Useful Idiot" is actually someone who sympathizes with the enemy, as Conservative was accusing RobS. "Egotistical" is not a personal attack; it is a critique (though arguably impolite) on a user's behavior, not an attack on the person. NickP 23:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT) In the same way that "Sleazy Nazi", for example, is really just an assessment of a person's moral fibre and political views, not a personal attack. --JarradD 23:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Put up or shut up
Where is the evidence you based your assumption on to make the accusation that I am a non-Christian "useful idiot"? RobSRecovering Republican 14:32, December 17, 2025 (EST)
