Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-17T14:16:25Z

KarenWu: /* Perfect number of teeth? */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Erythema Multiforme

2011-08-04T14:33:51Z

KarenWu: links

'''Erythema multiforme''' is a medical condition characterized by inflammation of the [[skin]] or [[mucous membranes]] (including the[[ mouth]], [[throat]] and [[eye]]s). Erythema multiforme has been reported following infection.

It is the name applied to a group of hypersensitivity disorders, affecting mostly [[child]]ren and young [[adult]]s, and characterized by symmetric red, patchy lesions, primarily on the [[arm]]s and [[leg]]s. The cause is unknown, but EM frequently occurs in association with [[herpes]] simplex [[virus]], suggesting an immunologic process initiated by the virus. In half of the cases, the triggering agents appear to be medications, including anticonvulsants, [[sulfonamide]]s, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory [[drugs]], and other [[antibiotic]]s. In addition, some cases appear to be associated with infectious organisms such as mycoplasma pneumoniae and many viral agents.

Symptoms persist anywhere from 2 days to 4 weeks and include skin lesions, blisters, itching, fatigue, joint pain and fever.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#e</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Penn and Teller

2011-08-04T14:29:34Z

KarenWu:

'''Penn & Teller''' are are a performing duo of [[magic]]ians currently based out of Las Vegas. Penn Jillette is the taller of the two and does all of the talking during their acts and shows, Raymond Teller is almost always completely silent and does the bulk of the on stage conjuring. In addition to their stage show Penn & Teller made several movies in the 80's and 90's and have had multiple television appearances together; They also star in their own television show "Bull****" which focuses on debunking myths and espousing their personal brand of libertarian atheist politics. Teller speaks freely outside of the confines of the act. The pair have appeared on ''[[The West Wing]]'', on which they appeared to make an American flag, wrapped in a copy of the Bill of Rights, disappear in a puff of flame and smoke.

From a conservative perspective, Penn and Teller can be both loved and hated. They have mocked things like [[religion]], the [[war on drugs]], the [[death penalty]], warrantless [[wiretaps]], [[illegal immigration]] opposition and [[circumcision]], but also debunked aspects of [[environmentalism]], [[9/11 conspiracy theories]], and [[gun control]] on their show ''Penn & Teller's Bull****'', on Showtime. The duo are both atheists, and both have [[libertarian]] political views. Penn has verbally announced on their show that they do not at all agree with American conservatives.<ref>http://movies.ign.com/articles/454/454422p2.html</ref>

==Hate Speech==
Penn and Teller have been very outspoken anti-Catholic activists, often openly mocking [[Catholic]] people for their faith. They vilified Mother Teresa for her work with the poor.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2005/06/03/penn_and_teller_trash_mother_teresa Penn and Teller trash Mother Teresa] Townhall, June 03, 2005</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Entertainers]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]

Penn and Teller

2011-08-04T14:27:44Z

KarenWu:

'''Penn & Teller''' are are a performing duo of [[magic]]ians currently based out of Las Vegas. Penn Jillette is the taller of the two and does all of the talking during their acts and shows, Raymond Teller is almost always completely silent and does the bulk of the on stage conjuring. In addition to their stage show Penn & Teller made several movies in the 80's and 90's and have had multiple television appearances together; They also star in their own television show "Bull****" which focuses on debunking myths and espousing their personal brand of libertarian atheist politics. Teller speaks freely outside of the confines of the act. The pair have appeared on ''[[The West Wing]]'', on which they appeared to make an American flag, wrapped in a copy of the Bill of Rights, disappear in a puff of flame and smoke.

From a conservative perspective, Penn and Teller can be both loved and hated. They have mocked things like [[religion]], the [[war on drugs]], the [[death penalty]], warrantless [[wiretaps]], [[illegal immigration]] opposition and [[circumcision]], but also debunked aspects of [[environmentalism]], [[9/11 conspiracy theories]], and [[gun control]] on their show ''Penn & Teller's Bull****'', on Showtime. The duo are both atheists, and both have [[libertarian]] political views. The Penn has verbally announced on their show that they do not at all agree with American conservatives.<ref>http://movies.ign.com/articles/454/454422p2.html</ref>

==Hate Speech==
Penn and Teller have been very outspoken anti-Catholic activists, often openly mocking [[Catholic]] people for their faith. They vilified Mother Teresa for her work with the poor.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2005/06/03/penn_and_teller_trash_mother_teresa Penn and Teller trash Mother Teresa] Townhall, June 03, 2005</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Entertainers]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]

527 organization

2011-08-04T14:15:48Z

KarenWu:

A '''527 organization''' is a non-profit group organized to raise money for political activities including voter mobilization efforts, issue advocacy, etc., which is tax-exempt under Section 527 of the [[Internal Revenue Code]].

==External links==
*[http://projects.publicintegrity.org/527/default.aspx?act=faq The Centre for Public Integrity: 527 FAQs]

[[Category:Organizations]]

527 organization

2011-08-04T14:15:23Z

KarenWu:

A '''527 organization''' is a non-profit group organized to raise money for political activities including voter mobilization efforts, issue advocacy, etc., which is tax-exempt under Section 527 of the [[Internal Revenue Code]].

==External links==
*[[http://projects.publicintegrity.org/527/default.aspx?act=faq The Centre for Public Integrity: 527 FAQs]]

[[Category:Organizations]]

527 organization

2011-08-04T14:12:38Z

KarenWu: Created page with "A '''527 organization''' is a non-profit group organized to raise money for political activities including voter mobilization efforts, issue advocacy, etc., which is tax-exempt u..."

American Right to Life Action

2011-08-04T14:07:26Z

KarenWu: add red link

The '''American Right To Life Action''' is a [[527 organization]] that campaigns for [[pro-life]] candidates. Their [[president]] is Steve Curtis, former chairman of the [[Colorado]] [[Republican]] Party.

==External Links==
[http://artlaction.com/ official website]

[[Category:Organizations]]
[[Category:Right to Life Movement]]

Jack London

2011-08-01T14:27:34Z

KarenWu:

[[Image:Jack London.jpg|thumb|right|Jack London]]
'''Jack London''' (January 12, 1876 – November 22, 1916) was a famous writer and novelist of the early 20th century. He had a traumatic early life, two troubled [[marriage]]s, and a [[death]], possibly due to [[suicide]], shrouded in mystery. After engaging in "oyster pirating," becoming a tramp, and getting a grueling, low-paying job, he went to the [[University of California at Berkeley]] in 1896, only to stay a year and fail to graduate. He joined the Klondike [[Gold Rush]] in 1897, during which he developed Scurvy. However, some of his best known and most successful stories, such as the ''Call of the Wild'' and ''White Fang'', were based on his Gold Rush experiences.

London became a [[socialist]], and his ''political'' leanings are revealed in some of his writing, especially the less-known ''[[The Iron Heel]]'', an early pro-socialist [[dystopian]] [[novel]].

The cause of his death is unknown. In the past it was usually claimed to be suicide. However, there is no real proof of this, and it is based heavily on events in his [[fiction]]. In the present day, his death is usually credited to uremia, a type of blood-poisoning related to renal (kidney) failure.<ref>http://www.jacklondons.net/nosuicide.html</ref>

Among his best-known works are the novels ''The Call of the Wild'', ''White Fang'', ''Martin Eden'', and ''The Iron Heel''. Also well known is his autobiographical work ''John Barleycorn''.

== External links ==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/l#a120 Jack London]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:London, Jack}}
[[Category:Authors]]

Jack London

2011-08-01T14:26:53Z

KarenWu:

[[Image:Jack London.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Jack London''' (January 12, 1876 – November 22, 1916) was a famous writer and novelist of the early 20th century. He had a traumatic early life, two troubled [[marriage]]s, and a [[death]], possibly due to [[suicide]], shrouded in mystery. After engaging in "oyster pirating," becoming a tramp, and getting a grueling, low-paying job, he went to the [[University of California at Berkeley]] in 1896, only to stay a year and fail to graduate. He joined the Klondike [[Gold Rush]] in 1897, during which he developed Scurvy. However, some of his best known and most successful stories, such as the ''Call of the Wild'' and ''White Fang'', were based on his Gold Rush experiences.

London became a [[socialist]], and his ''political'' leanings are revealed in some of his writing, especially the less-known ''[[The Iron Heel]]'', an early pro-socialist [[dystopian]] [[novel]].

The cause of his death is unknown. In the past it was usually claimed to be suicide. However, there is no real proof of this, and it is based heavily on events in his [[fiction]]. In the present day, his death is usually credited to uremia, a type of blood-poisoning related to renal (kidney) failure.<ref>http://www.jacklondons.net/nosuicide.html</ref>

Among his best-known works are the novels ''The Call of the Wild'', ''White Fang'', ''Martin Eden'', and ''The Iron Heel''. Also well known is his autobiographical work ''John Barleycorn''.

== External links ==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/l#a120 Jack London]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:London, Jack}}
[[Category:Authors]]

Orange County

2011-08-01T14:06:05Z

KarenWu: Created page with "'''Orange County''' is the name of several counties in the continental USA. It may refer to: *Orange County, California *Orange County, Florida *Orange County, Indiana *O..."

'''Orange County''' is the name of several counties in the continental USA.

It may refer to:

*[[Orange County, California]]
*Orange County, Florida
*Orange County, Indiana
*Orange County, New York
*Orange County, North Carolina
*Orange County, Texas
*Orange County, Vermont
*Orange County, Virginia

Perhaps the most famous, because of its size, is Orange County, California.

[[category:United States of America]]

Orange County, California

2011-08-01T14:04:44Z

KarenWu: Undo revision 895833 by KarenWu (talk)

'''Orange County''' is a county in [[California]].

Although originally called Richland urban legend has it that the name was decided over a game of poker with four players taking the names of Almond, Lemon, Olive and Orange.<ref>http://www.socalhistoryland.mysite.com/Orange.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:California County]]

Orange County, California

2011-08-01T14:03:08Z

KarenWu:

'''Orange County''' is the name of several counties in the continental USA.

It may refer to:

*Orange County, California
*Orange County, Florida
*Orange County, Indiana
*Orange County, New York
*Orange County, North Carolina
*Orange County, Texas
*Orange County, Vermont
*Orange County, Virginia

Perhaps the most famous, because of its size, is Orange County, California. Although originally called Richland urban legend has it that the name was decided over a game of poker with four players taking the names of Almond, Lemon, Olive and Orange.<ref>http://www.socalhistoryland.mysite.com/Orange.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States of America]]

Levi Strauss

2011-08-01T13:49:51Z

KarenWu:

[[Image: Levi Strauss.jpg‎ |thumb|right|Levi Strauss]]

'''Levi Strauss''' (1829-1902) was the creator of [[blue jeans]]. He was born in what is now [[Germany]] and traveled to [[San Francisco]] in 1850 at the same time as the [[Gold Rush]]. He originally wanted to sell tents and wagon covers to those who had come looking for gold, but upon finding that there was insufficient demand for these items, he converted his canvas material into a new type of pants - blue jeans.

==External Links==
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/s_z/strauss.htm

[[category:Inventors]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Strauss, Levi}}

Levi Strauss

2011-08-01T13:49:26Z

KarenWu:

[[Image: Levi Strauss.jpg‎ |thumb|right|Levi Staruss]]

'''Levi Strauss''' (1829-1902) was the creator of [[blue jeans]]. He was born in what is now [[Germany]] and traveled to [[San Francisco]] in 1850 at the same time as the [[Gold Rush]]. He originally wanted to sell tents and wagon covers to those who had come looking for gold, but upon finding that there was insufficient demand for these items, he converted his canvas material into a new type of pants - blue jeans.

==External Links==
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/s_z/strauss.htm

[[category:Inventors]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Strauss, Levi}}

Dignity of a Person

2011-08-01T13:46:24Z

KarenWu:

'''''Dignity of a Person''''' is the title of a [[Vatican]] statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which reaffirmed the [[Catholic Church|Catholic Church's]] opposition to [[cloning]], embryonic [[stem cell]] research, and [[in vitro fertilization]].<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28197514/</ref> Although the [[liberal media]] remains skeptical of the Church for its position, [[conservative]] thinkers welcomed the decision.<ref>http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/12/dignitas-personae-dignity-of-person.html, citing major media reactions</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Religion]]
[[category:Science]]

Malcolm X

2011-08-01T13:45:31Z

KarenWu:

[[Image:Malcolm_x.jpg|right||thumb|Malcolm X]]

'''Malcolm X''' or '''Malcolm Little''' was born in [[Omaha]], [[Nebraska]] on the 19th of May in 1925. Malcolm was the son of a minister who was a strong supporter of the universal improvement of the black person and a supporter of [[Marcus Garvey]]. Malcolm himself was a prominent member of the [[Nation of Islam]] before breaking with the group, and was a victim of assassination.

In 1929 the family moved to [[Lansing]], [[Michigan]]. While in Michigan, Malcolm's father was killed; his body was divided in two from a [[tram|streetcar]] and his head was broken. In his autobiography, written with Alex Haley, Malcolm has alleged that his father was killed by members of the [[Ku Klux Klan]]. His mother was engaged in a mental institution. Leaving the school after the eighth grade, Malcolm made his way to [[New York City]], working for a short time as a waiter in [[Harlem]].

Malcolm did not fight in [[World War II]] because he was found to be mentally incompetent to serve. Malcolm began to sell and use [[drugs]], turned to [[burglary]] and, in 1946, was sentenced to a term of ten years of prison on charges of burglary. While in [[prison]] he was converted to the [[Nation of Islam]], as directed by [[Elijah Muhammad]], and quickly learned the [[Koran]].

To continue his life in 1952, soon he became a frank protector of the Nation of Islam doctrines, accepting their foundational argument that malevolence was one characteristic inherent of the [[Christian]] world "of the white man."

In 1960 Malcolm visited with Castro. When, in 1963, he characterized the assassination of [[John F. Kennedy]] as a case "of the chicken that came home to roost," he was suspended from the black Muslim movement. Disillusioned with the instructions of Elijah Muhammad, as well as Muhammad's personal adulteries, Malcolm formed his own organization, the organization of Afro-Americans and the Muslim Mosque. In 1964 he made a pilgrimage to the holy city of [[Islam]], [[Mecca]] and adopted the name ''El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz'' as he converted to regular Islam.

Moreover he adopted views that were not popular with some black nationalists, comprised of the idea that not all white men were diabolic and that the black men could make their gains working through established avenues.

In February of 1965, his center was firebombed. A week afterwards, Malcolm's life was threatened and he was told that he would be killed in the ballroom of the Audubon in Harlem. He was assassinated while giving a speech on February 21, 1965; he was shot 16 times by a number of men who rushed the stage. Three of the men subsequently arrested have been identified as being members of the [[Nation of Islam]].

The memory and the image of Malcolm X have changed since his death, just as much of his own philosophies changed during his life. First thought to be a fanatic violent man, time has helped us understand he was also a supporter of self-help, self-defense and formation; like a philosopher and pedagogue, he is a major figure in black history, with both religion and mythology integrated in order to establish one structure for his fight against human injustice in the world.

Malcolm's faith, from a point of view, was a prelude to his action; the ideas were feckless without politics. At least three books have published since his death, effectively introducing the world to his thoughts. In 1992, a controversial film from [[Spike Lee]] based on his autobiography renewed interest and understanding in the life and death of Malcolm X.

{{DEFAULTSORT:X, Malcolm}}

[[Category:Nation of Islam]]
[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Children of Clergy]]

Earthworm

2011-08-01T07:23:44Z

KarenWu:

An '''earthworm''', also known as an annelid, is an [[invertebrate]] which lives in soil and consumes [[detritivore|detritus]].

Anatomically, earthworms are divided into many segments, and have multiple hearts. Earthworms reproduce hermaphroditically, which is to say that each worm contains both male and female sexual organs, and each worm fertilizes the other. Worms feed by ingesting dead plant and animal matter and their excretions are highly valued by farmers and gardeners as a nitrogen-rich soil additive. Their underground tunnels improve drainage and allow air to plant roots.

[[Category:Invertebrates]]

Detritivore

2011-08-01T06:00:54Z

KarenWu:

A '''detritivore''' is an [[organism]] that consumes [[detritus]].<ref>http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/fringe/glossary.html</ref> On land, examples include, [[earthworm]]s, [[wood lice]], [[slug]]s and [[dung fly|dung flies]] while marine creatures include [[sea star]]s, [[lobster]]s, [[fiddler crab]]s, [[sea cucumber]]s and [[marine worm]]s. In the Bible these creatures are considered unclean and forbidden.
{{cquote|And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.|||Leviticus 11:10}}

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Ecology]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Detritivore

2011-08-01T05:44:40Z

KarenWu:

Pus

2011-08-01T05:33:43Z

KarenWu:

'''Pus''' is a thick, yellowish white fluid substance, like that found in a boil or [[abscess]]. It is formed at a place of [[inflammation]] and [[infection]], and it's full of [[germs]], [[blood cell]]s, and [[tissue]] debris.

[[St. Catherine of Siena]] famously drank a cup of pus to prove her faith in our Lord.

== Source ==

Webster's New American Dictionary

[[Category:Medicine]]

Abscess

2011-08-01T05:22:10Z

KarenWu:

An '''abscess''' is a pocket of [[pus]] that forms under the skin and can form almost anywhere in the body. When an area becomes [[infection|infected]], the body's immune system tries to fight it by sending [[white blood cell]]s to the infected area, collecting within the damaged tissue and cause [[inflammation]]. During this process, pus forms. Pus is the buildup of fluid, living and dead white blood cells, dead tissue and bacteria or other foreign substances.

[[Bacteria]], [[virus]]es, [[parasite]]s and swallowed objects can all lead to abscesses. Skin abscesses are easy to detect; they are red, raised and painful. The afflicted would know by constant pain or tension around the abscess. Abscesses inside the body may not be obvious and can damage organs, including the [[brain]], [[lungs]] and others while dental abscesses can eat into the bone of the [[jaw]].

Treatment includes drainage and [[antibiotics]], though drainage is usually performed on abnormally large abscesses that may prevent full functionality of the being. Drainage should only be performed by a medical professional in a sterile environment, as the odor and amount of liquid drained can be overwhelming to the inexperienced.

[[Category:Medical Terms]]

1790 Copyright Act

2011-08-01T05:18:44Z

KarenWu:

The '''1790 Copyright Act''' was the first copyright statute in the [[United States]]. It provided a [[federal]] [[copyright]] term of 14 years from the date of publication, renewable for an additional 14 years if the author survived the first term.<ref>Act of May 31, 1790, ch. 15, § 1, 1 Stat. 124 (1790 Act).</ref>

The 1790 Act's renewable 14-year term applied to existing works (i.e., works already published and works created but not yet published) and future works alike.<ref>''Id.''</ref> [[Congress]] expanded the federal copyright term to 42 years in 1831 (28 years from publication, renewable for an additional 14 years), and then to 56 years in 1909 (28 years from publication, renewable for an additional 28 years).<ref>Act of Feb. 3, 1831, ch. 16, §§ 1, 16, 4 Stat. 436, 439 (1831 Act); Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 320, §§ 23-24, 35 Stat. 1080-1081 (1909 Act).</ref> Both times, [[Congress]] applied the new copyright term to existing and future works;<ref>1831 Act §§ 1, 16; 1909 Act §§ 23-24</ref> to qualify for the 1831 extension, an existing work had to be in its initial copyright term at the time the Act became effective.<ref>1831 Act §§ 1, 16.</ref>

In 1976, [[Congress]] altered the method for computing federal copyright terms.<ref>1976 Act §§ 302-304.</ref> For works created by identified natural persons, the 1976 Act provided that federal copyright protection would run from the work's creation, not -- as in the 1790, 1831, and 1909 Acts -- its publication; protection would last until 50 years after the author's death.<ref>§ 302(a).</ref> In these respects, the 1976 Act aligned [[United States]] copyright terms with the then-dominant international standard adopted under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. <ref>See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 135 (1976).</ref> For anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire, the 1976 Act provided a term of 75 years from publication or 100 years from creation, whichever expired first.<ref>''See'' § 302(c).</ref>

These new copyright terms, the 1976 Act instructed, governed all works not published by its effective date of January 1, 1978, regardless of when the works were created.<ref>§§ 302-303.</ref> For published works with existing copyrights as of that date, the 1976 Act granted a copyright term of 75 years from the date of publication, § 304(a) and (b), a 19-year increase over the 56-year term applicable under the 1909 Act.

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:Copyright Clause]]

John Lennon

2011-08-01T05:15:37Z

KarenWu:

[[Image:John lennon.jpg|thumb|John Lennon]]

'''John Lennon''', born '''John Winston Lennon''' (October 9, 1940 – December 8, 1980), was a former member of the [[Beatles]].

Though none of the [[Beatles]] were as successful on their own as they were as a group, John Lennon was considered by many to have the most raw talent. He struggled with drug addiction, however, and several of his songs related to his habit, such as "Cold Turkey."

Lennon was the most outspoken among the [[Beatles]] on political issues, advocating pacifism during the [[Vietnam War]]. At one point the [[United States]] security services investigated him.

After a self-imposed five-year break from music to focus on his family and raising his young son Sean, Lennon produced a new album with his [[Japan]]ese wife [[Yoko Ono]] in 1980, entitled ''Double Fantasy''. Less than a month after its release Lennon was shot dead outside his apartment building by a crazed fan named [[Mark David Chapman]].

Lennon's most famous individual work is "[[Imagine]]", a song that beseeches the listener to imagine a world without greed, religion, war, and hatred, but one governed by love, where all people are "living life in peace." At the end of the song Lennon encourages the listener to join him in dreaming of this Godless world.

He remains a hero in [[Britain]], where he was ranked in the top 10 of the 2002 "100 Greatest Britons" poll sponsored by the BBC.

In June of 2007, ''Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur'' was released. The album, whose proceeds went to [[Amnesty International]]'s campaign on behalf of Sudan's war-torn province of Darfur, featured artists of yesterday and today, such as U2, REM, Green Day, and Corinne Bailey Raye covering Lennon's work.

== Poor family life ==

There are several reports of John Lennon treating his family cruelly.<ref>http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_CiGDOKXUtPlMvbNoopX1lN</ref><ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/sean-lennon-opens-up-abou_n_128028.html</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_CiGDOKXUtPlMvbNoopX1lN;jsessionid=7A5FA32FA32BEDF9593D1ECEF1DE7AE4</ref> For example, Sean Lennon reported that his father screamed so loud in his ear that he damaged his ear and he had to go to the hospital.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/sean-lennon-opens-up-abou_n_128028.html</ref>

== Religious views ==
Lennon's most famous quote in criticism of [[Christianity]] was in 1966:

* Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. '''We're more popular than Jesus now'''; I don't know which will go first — rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me.

(Emphasis added)

After Christians worldwide criticized his attitude, misquoting him as saying "We are greater than Jesus," Lennon held a press conference on August 11, 1966, in Chicago at which he elaborated:

* I suppose if I had said television was more popular than Jesus, I would have gotten away with it. I'm sorry I opened my mouth. I'm not anti-God, anti-Christ, or anti-religion. I wasn't knocking it or putting it down. I was just saying it as a fact and it's true more for England than here. I'm not saying that we're better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it's all this.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lennon, John}}

[[Category:Musicians]]
[[Category:Beatles]]

USS Hopper

2011-08-01T05:09:13Z

KarenWu:

The '''USS Hopper''' is guided missile [[destroyer]] that was involved in an encounter with [[Iran]]. On January 6, 2008 five [[Iranian Revolutionary Guard]] gunboats harassed the Hopper and threatened it over the radio saying ""I am coming to you. After a few minutes, you will explode" before turning away seconds before the Hopper would have opened fire.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4108480&page=1</ref> The Iranians claimed that the incident was an "ordinary occurrence”.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3157055.ece</ref> Subsequent reports suggested that the radio message may have been from a local known as "Filipino Monkey" who had harassed Americans via radio in the past.<ref>http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/</ref>

The Hopper is named after Rear Admiral Dr. [[Grace Murray Hopper]] and is one of only a small set of navy ships named after women who served in the US Military.<ref>http://www.hopper.navy.mil/USS_HOPPER_HOMEPAGE/Our_Namesake.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hopper, USS}}
[[Category:Ships]] [[Category:Warships]]

Quartz

2011-08-01T05:06:22Z

KarenWu:

{{Mineral
| name=Quartz
| image=Quartz.jpg
| cdesc=Silicon dioxide
| formula=SiO2
| colors=Clear (with no impurities)
| streak=White
| hardness=7
| cleavage=None
| fracture=Conchoidal
| sgravity=2.65
| csystem=rhombohedral
| chabit=6-sided prism ending in 6-sided pyramid
| enviro=
| occur=Hydrothermal veins, common constituent of granite and other igneous and metamorphic rocks
| nameorigin=[[Germany|German]] "Quarz".
}}
'''Quartz''' is the second most common [[mineral]] found on [[Earth]] being the primary component of [[sand]]. More accurately, silicon dioxide, quartz has a chemical composition of SiO2 arranged in a repeating lattice forming [[hexagon]]al [[crystal]]s. Pure quartz is clear, but colored variations are created because of impurities in the crystal. Quartz is number 7 on the [[Mohs Hardness Scale]].
 Quartz is used in a number of applications; most commonly in [[glass]] making but also abrasives, electrical components or decorative gemstones especially if colored by impurities.
[[Category:Minerals]]

Batter's Box

2011-08-01T05:00:39Z

KarenWu:

[[Image:The 1882 Cincinnati Red Stockings.jpg|thumb|right|Cincinnatti Red Stockings, 1882]]
'''Batter's Box''': Either of the areas next to [[home plate]] where the [[batter]] stands during his time at bat.
{{clear}}
== References ==
*[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/beginners/glossary.html Baseball Glossary] WETA.
*[http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/glossary/glossary.html Baseball Glossary OF TERMS]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/pitch_glossary.shtml Pitching Glossary]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml Batting Glossary]
*[http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/index.jsp Hall of Fame] National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.
== See also ==
*[[Baseball]]
*[[Major League Baseball]]

== External links ==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp The Official Site of Major League Baseball]
*[http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/index.jsp Minor League Baseball]
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/article.jsp?article=history BASEBALL HISTORY] Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association.
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/stats.jsp Stats]
{{baseball}}

User talk:KarenWu

2011-08-01T01:04:53Z

KarenWu:

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 19:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Well, thank you kindly. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T23:40:35Z

KarenWu: /* Nay */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

User:KarenWu

2011-07-31T07:29:14Z

KarenWu:

[[File:Singapur.jpg|left|My home]][[File:Singaporeflag.gif|right]]

User:KarenWu

2011-07-31T07:28:09Z

KarenWu: Created page with "My home"

[[File:Singapur.jpg|My home]]

James Russell Lowell

2011-07-31T07:23:48Z

KarenWu:

'''James Russell Lowell''' was a 19th century poet born in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]. He and his wife opposed [[slavery]]. <ref>[http://www.famousamericans.net/jamesrusselllowell/ Famous Americans: James Russell Lowell]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lowell, James Russell}}
[[Category:Poets]]

James Russell Lowell

2011-07-31T07:22:34Z

KarenWu:

'''James Russell Lowell''' was a 19th century poet born in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]. He and his wife opposed [[slavery]]. <ref>[http://www.famousamericans.net/jamesrusselllowell/]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lowell, James Russell}}
[[Category:Poets]]

James Russell Lowell

2011-07-31T07:21:50Z

KarenWu:

'''James Russell Lowell''' was a 19th century poet born in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]. He and his wife opposed [[slavery]]. [http://www.famousamericans.net/jamesrusselllowell/]

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lowell, James Russell}}
[[Category:Poets]]

Date of creation

2011-07-31T07:19:25Z

KarenWu:

The '''date of Creation''' has been debated for many years. Separate calculations have given different answers although most are fairly close to each other.

== Notation ==
Any year that purports to date from Creation as an [[epoch]] is labeled '''AM''', for '''Anno Mundi''', which is [[Latin]] for "In the Year of the World."

== Basis of calculation ==

The Bible contains [[chronogenealogies]] from [[Adam]] to [[Abraham]], listing the age at which each person in the genealogy gave birth to the next person in the list, thus allowing by simple addition a determination of how many years passed between [[creation story|Creation]] and Abraham. There are other chronological indications also, allowing that calculation to be extended into the times of the kings, when the dates can be correlated with other events in history for which the absolute date is known. By this means, in theory, one can calculate the date of Creation.

There are, however, some uncertainties in this. For example, Genesis lists the age of Terah when the first of his sons was born, but was Abraham this son, or the second or third son?
Different researchers have proposed different approaches to this and similar problems, but none of these problems change the result by a very significant amount.

An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>

Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>

== Calculated dates ==

The best known date of Creation is the one calculated by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in the 17th century - namely 6:00 p.m. Saturday, [[October 23]], [[4004 BC]].<ref name=Ussher>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pgh. 1ff.</ref> Ussher calculated the year of Creation by the following means:
*He accepted the date of the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] of Babylon at 562 BC.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 891</ref>
*He then assumed that Evil-Merodach began to reign in that year.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 892</ref>
*King [[Jehoiachin]] received a pension from Evil-Merodach beginning in this year, and that he was taken captive 37 years before then, or in 599 BC.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=II_Kings|chap=25|verses=27-30}}</ref> (The final [[Fall of Jerusalem]] occurred eleven years later; hence Ussher places the Fall of Jerusalem in 588 BC, not 586 BC as most secular archaeologists assume.)
*From that anchor point, Ussher worked backward through the king lists of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|Southern]]. See I and II Kings.
*He worked backward further to set the dates-of-reign of King [[Solomon]], and calculated the [[Exodus of Israel]] at 480 years earlier than the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]], which was in Solomon's fourth year.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}}</ref> This fell in 1012 BC, and so Ussher fixed the Exodus at 1491 BC.
*Based on his interpretation of {{Bible ref|book=Galatians|chap=3|verses=17}}, Ussher then fixed the date of the entry of [[Abraham]] into [[Canaan]]. This was in 1921 BC.
*Ussher here made a key assumption that is in great dispute. We read that Abraham was 75 years old when he embarked into Canaan.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=12|verses=4}}</ref> We also read that [[Terah]] was 70 years old when he "begat" Abraham, [[Nahor]] (the younger), and [[Haran]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=26}}</ref> Ussher's assumption, which added another sixty years to the reckoning of Creation, was this: that Abraham did not embark on his own ''until after Terah had died'' at the age of 205.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=32}}</ref> This would mean that Terah was actually 130 years old, not 70, when Abraham was born--and presumably that Nahor the Younger or Haran was born when Terah was 70. Ussher's sole warrant for this assumption is that the Bible describes Abraham's departure after it describes Terah's "death." But Terah's "death" might be spiritual rather than physical, in that Terah had originally intended to take all his family out of [[Ur]] of the [[Chaldees]] and into Canaan, ''but forgot his purpose'' and grew too accustomed to worldly enticements in the country of Haran. If that is the case, then Abraham might have departed when Terah was still alive--which is what the inventors of the present Hebrew calendar assumed.

*Ussher then backtracked the pedigree of Abraham to [[Arphaxad]], born to [[Shem]] two years after the [[Great Flood]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11}}</ref> He therefore concluded that the Great Flood happened in 2349 BC.
*Finally, Ussher backtracked the genealogy of Shem to Adam.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5}}</ref>

To arrive at the month and approximate date, Ussher concluded that Creation must have occurred during the Autumnal [[Equinox]], which in fact is the favorite start of many of the world's [[Calendar|calendars]], ancient and modern. He ''also'' assumed that the ancient Hebrews ''did not'' attempt to synchronize their [[month]]s with the [[moon]] until ''after'' their exile into [[Babylonia]]. He thus calculated the date of Creation at October 23, 4004 BC according to the [[Julian calendar]].

Because the seven days of Creation (including one day of rest) set the pattern for our [[week]], Ussher decided that the Creation began on the first day of the week, i.e. Sunday.
However, because the day was defined as being an "evening and morning", and some calendars to this day still have the days beginning at sunset, Ussher concluded Creation actually began at what on modern western calendars would be 6 p.m. (sunset at the equinox) on Saturday.

James Ussher's calculation was the best-sourced calculation in all of Christendom at the time. Ussher also spoke with authority, and from a position of authority. For those reasons, his dates for various Biblical events appeared in the margins of [[King James Version|King James]] and other Bibles for centuries, until the last quarter of the twentieth century, when publishers abandoned this practice. Sir [[Isaac Newton]] defended Ussher's date.<ref>Cited in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/141 Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?], ''Creation'' 25(3):36–40, June 2003.</ref>

[[Johannes Kepler]] also attempted to calculate the date using his own methods (sadly lost to time); he worked it out to be 3992 B.C.

Such calculations in fact date from at least the Middle Ages, and offer a range of dates from around 5000 to 4000 BC. The date used by Eastern Orthodox Christianity is often 1 September, 5509 BC. This was the date used as the beginning point for their calendars. Traditionalist Catholics often use 5199 BC. Judaic tradition reckons the date of Creation at 3760 BC. Another calculation, beginning with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem known from secular history and working backwards, arrives at 4163 BC. <ref> http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html Biblical age of the Earth</ref>

== Geological dating ==

If [[logical fallacy|fallacious reasoning]] is allowed—specifically, making a central (and implausible) assumption about the past to prove timing in the past—then it is possible to claim an older Creation as follows:

* assume that radiometric decay rates have remained constant and are unaffected by environmental changes.<ref>This assumption is known to be false. Tests of [[radiometric dating]] methods have often shown that they do not agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of [[radiometric dating]] methods not agreeing with each other.</ref>
* use [[radiometric dating]] to estimate an age for the crust of the [[Earth]].<ref>Mostly [[atheistic]] scientists arrive at an estimated age of the [[Earth]] of 4.5 [[billion]] (4.5 * 109) years using the above approach. See [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html USGS, ''Geologic Time: Age of the Earth.''] Accessed April 18, 2007. According to the [[Big Bang theory]], the [[universe]] began even earlier, about 13.7 billion years ago. [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html, ''Age of the Universe'']</ref>

==Old Earth Creationism==
[[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] don't attempt to calculate a date of Creation as they reject the biblical account being literal in favour of the age of the earth calculated by [[naturalism|naturalistic]] scientists.

== See also ==
* [[Creation week]]
* [[Young Earth Creationism]]
* [[Old Earth Creationism]]
* [[Biblical creation account]]

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Creationism]]

California State Assembly

2011-07-31T07:12:49Z

KarenWu:

The '''California State Assembly''' serves as the lower house of the [[California State Legislature]], meeting at the State Capitol in [[Sacramento]]. The Assembly has twice as many members as the Senate, which makes it harder for individual members to affect legislation. Democrats have controlled the body for 39 years, rendering the minority impotent on some issues.

==Leadership==
Article IV, Section 7 of the [[California Constitution]] allows each legislative house to select its own officers. The Assembly has chosen to elect a Speaker as its leader, with each party allowed to select a floor leader.

The current and 67th Speaker is [[Karen Bass]], the first female to hold that office. Alberto Torrico and Sam Blakeslee serve as Majority and Minority Leaders, respectively.

[[category:government]]

Declaration of the Rights of Women

2011-07-31T07:11:57Z

KarenWu:

The '''Declaration of the Rights of Women''' was an attempt to give women rights during the [[French Revolution]] in 1791. The proposal was rejected and the leader of this group, [[Olympe de Gouges]], was beheaded.

[[Category:French Revolution]]
[[Category:Human Rights]]
[[Category:Feminism]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-30T23:44:25Z

KarenWu: /* Policies that need to die: Editorial Authority */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires ==

I thought about RobS wanting to make it a more open wiki and so I decided to remove the talk page protection for the comedy/satire pages on atheism and evolution

I put the redirects and page protection to add to the humor of the comedy/satire pages. Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see: [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]] ). The thought of quarrelsome militant atheists hitting the talk page buttons of those comedy/satire pieces and getting redirected to another page had a element of humor to me. Like getting the last laugh to often humorless persons in humorous way. Plus, I just don't see the point of it. I don't foresee me participating in the talk pages of these comedy/satire pages in the future. The idea of debating comedy/satire/humor does not hold any interest to me. If any liberals want to debate humor, I suggest they contact their locale papers about their political satires or send any angry letter to some stand up comics. In addition, I don't see the point of bothering with the posts of whiny atheists with thin skins who want to make picayune and inane comments.

With the above said, obviously there are cost and benefits to decisions and I wanted to assist RobS in his aforementioned effort.

However, I don't want anyone unlocking the comedy/satire pages themselves. Some have a lot of viewership and if they are not broke, I don't want them "fixed" - especially by atheists/evolutionists. Within reason, I personally think essay pages should be like a person's talk page and be their castles. The thought of someone altering essays seems odd to me except for minor proofreading. Of course, I would be against the essays promoting immorality such as engaging in bank robberies, etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:53, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I returned to tie up a loose end with editor Nate. With that being said, I just wanted to say that if atheists in the future wish to fill those talk pages with whiny comments, it will of course confirm atheists are often proud people who have thin skins so I welcome them to squeal like stuck pigs on the comedy/satire talk pages. :) I won't be reading their whiny comments, but I am guessing that others might enjoy seeing them whelp on the talk pages of the comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

My conversation with "Conservative" was removed after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review it. What is the meaning of this outrageous behavior? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::It was in the section above this one. The posts are from yesterday. "Conservative" deleted the whole section after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review "Conservative's" insulting behavior and state whether the editorial policy here is YEC as to articles like evolution. I don't know how to find the posts. Can administrators look at the history? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=887044&oldid=887012 this] part of what you're talking about? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes, thank you. That's the last post in the section "Conservative" deleted. How do you find pages like that? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:21, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There's a little tab at the top of the page labeled 'history'; click on that and you get a list of changes starting with the most recent. Hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:23, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Very much, thank you. I knew abut my contributions button but didn't know about history. I now see that entire discussions that took place in December between "Conservative" and various users challenging the absolute lack of evidence of any correlation between atheism and obesity have completely disappeared. What is going on on this site?! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:38, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Now that's something one does need to be an administrator to answer. I try to stay out of these things. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Nate, the comment was never deleted, or reverted. It was Archived. I would be supportive of a guideline on Archiving that gives a 7 day waiting period since the last posting before Archiving. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I didn't know what an archive is. Thank you for showing me, RobS. All I saw was that the conversation was suddenly missing. It was archived around 11:30 Central time and I had to get to bed so I never had a chance to see "Conservative's" last post ending the conversation by "stating the obvious" and further denigrating the Catholic Church as "not the most Bible loving institution" and saying "I really think it is hard to deny that much of the Catholic leadership and a significant amount of RCC scholars fail to take a high view of Scripture." I deny it. I deny it up and down and am getting and more offended as "Conservative" continues slandering the Catholic Church. It may surprise "Conservative" to know that people just like me read the Bible (there are a LOT of us) literally where the context indicates it should be read literally. People can obviously come to different conclusions based on ''how'' they decide what is to be read literally. Young Earth Creationists like "Conservative" treat the first chapters of Genesis as history. I was taught and accept the "Framework View". Our disagreement should not entitle "Conservative" to slander an entire Church and an enormous group of people who walk the walk everyday. Will someone please help get this person under control and stop the sneering anti-Catholic jabs and clarify whether YEC is the editorial policy here? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:32, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Nate, you never addressed information like this that I provided from the online version of Roman Catholic New American Bible: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm which gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture. The website http://www.usccb.org is maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I suggest you cease your denialism. You can cry slander day and night, but unless you demonstrate it, you are not particularly convincing. By the way, it appears things are not looking good for evolutionism in the key biology textbook state of Texas as can be seen [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html HERE] Have a nice day! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::What's to address? You're laughably wrong. You gave a link to the introduction to Second Peter in an edition of the Bible but haven't even bothered to justify your offensive claim that it "gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture." These men are bishops of the Catholics Church. What do you think they're doing if they're not devoting their lives in service of a "high view of scripture"? You also haven't demonstrated why scholarship questioning the provenance of Second Peter is wrong. So you've failed altogether to do anything more than argue by assertion based on an absurdly erroneous misreading of the source. And I'm in denial? You can't even accurately cite sources in order to prop up your vendetta against "liberals", atheists, "evolutionists" now Catholics. I looked at this shockofgod stuff you keep spamming. The guy looks like a Youtube crank running his mouth about an ambitious campaign that's having little or no effect. Good luck with that. I'll ignore him like everyone else seems to be doing. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I see that you can safely be ignored. How is your request for Andy's input going? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy's refusal to intervene to stop your abuses is disappointing. The smiley face and your insulting non response just prove my point that you're an awful debater who refuses to address things on the level or cooperate. I'm very sorry for this site that no other admin except this sneering creature chose to intervene. Please close my account if no other admin is willing to assist with controlling this person. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 02:44, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Well geez, what are you asking? Pardon me, but your complaints seem to be all over the map. First you complain about a possible anti-Catholic bias because the assertion is made the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as arbiter of God's Word and not scripture; then you make complaints about the user your in dispute with; then you complain about the sites owner; then you complain nobody's willing to help; then you complain about the site. Now you wanna take your ball and go home cause others can't debate whatever you are driving at.
:Let's address the complaint of anti-Catholic bias: other sites, devoted to athiesm and rational science, I'm sure are much less sympathetic to Catholicism than the devotion and respect it recieves here. Have you tried defending the Catholic faith at those sites? If so, gimme a link so we can see your bona fidas. Maybe then your complaints would be taken more seriously. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Resolution of matters ==

[[User:Conservative]] wrote: ''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved, CP not becoming a pro-evolution website''. My proposal: when a matter is resolved, a short (but highlighted) statement should be added under the respective discussion, summarizing the achieved consensus. After this, the discussion can be archived.

[[User:Conservative]] stated that [[Gender-neutral|he]] won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has [[Gender-neutral|he]] said something about them?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative said so above, "''''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved''". I'm not certain restoring all, or certain, talk page deletions are possible. And mainspace, such as the link you provided, are simple reversions or edit wars. Am I understanding your question properly? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:28, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will use more discretion as far as the delete button so as not to remove credit to other contributions. Including this time, I have said this three times now. I suggest you stop beating this dead horse and let it rest in peace. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

:::@RobSmith: I thought that Conservative's comment indicated that some issues had been resolved. And that's my point: After having a problem resolved, there should be an easily readable short resolution, perhaps a template which states in which way the matter was solved. After this, the topic could be archived. This would help to avoid repeating the same discussions over and over again - one could link to the already resolved project. Just an idea for the future...
:::BTW: I linked each occurence of ''he'' to the article on [[gender-neutral|gender-neutrality]], as I wanted to explain why I won't address [[User:Conservative]] as ''(s)he''.
:::@Conservative: it's nice that you'll ''"use more discretion as far as the delete button"'' is concerned. What's about using the ''preview-button'' - as taken into consideration by you [[User talk:AugustO# You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration|here]]?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::AugustO, thanks for the input. A person I invited to this wiki who created a very popular article at Conservapedia told me he created his material on a word processor first and then transferred that material to Conservapedia. I can use this same approach. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Perhaps user:conservative would like to tell us why he has taken to summarily deleting other users' user and talk pages. This would appear to be in contravention of the spirit of free speech that Mr Schlafly [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=887947&oldid=887941 encourages] on this wiki.

Sadly, this is yet another indication of user:conservative's complete lack of interest in the protocols of this wiki, nor is he interested in anything but himself and his own agenda, even if it means insulting Catholics like NKeaton and Mr. Schlafly. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:54, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::TracyS, I don't think you are a sincere person and your most recent instance of trying to pick a fight with me over a complete trivial non-issue. Please find something productive to do rather than making baseless charges and trying to waste other peoples time. Also, if you truly felt I have insulted Mr. Schlafly I would think you would have contacted him about this matter. Unsurprisingly, I have no indication you did. My guess is that if you did try to make this allegation with Mr. Schlafly you would get the same non-response as NKeaton. I have nothing further to say about deleting a person's page who indicated they no longer wanted to edit. I also have nothing further to say about recently deleting another profile with nonsensical and contradictory material created by an inane provocateur. If you think I am going to waste a lot of my time dealing with your melodramatic and phony posts to me, guess again. I am not. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::User:Conservative has in the past several hours reverted talk page comment from Aschlafly's page. Stop. Please stop. You are not Aschlafly. This is a violation of another's user space. You are not free to remove comments from other users space. If Mr. Schlafly wanted those comments removed he would do it himself or ask someone to do it. Mr. Schlafly removed personal information from that same thread; if Mr. Schalfly wanted that thread removed he would have done it there and then. User:Conservativis action is disrespectful to another users talk page, and all CP editors.
:::User:Conservative has gained quite the reputation for information destruction. This wiki has survived some battles, and now is the time to demand accountability from Sysop. Sysops are to be models of interaction for junior editors, but they are not whenthey feel they can violate and ignore CP's core principles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside your allegation about my reputation information destruction (A claim which I find odd given my 63 page article on [[atheism]] which I largely wrote, 46 written page article on [[evolution]] which I largely wrote and a 62 written page article [[homosexuality]] which I largely wrote. Perhaps, I have a reputation for information dissemination? ), I will briefly say that you raise a good point in this instance. A person's talk page is their castle. Although I decided to remove my own post, I do think it would have been better if I had asked Mr. Schlafly first. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and changing the way I do things. RobS, can the same be said of you? I have yet to receive an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page. You may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle. Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter? You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that. But I would at ask you to be consistent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is not your talk page. It is Mr. Schalfly's. Your talk page is your castle, do what you want with it. But other's talk pages must be respected. If the comment was innapropriate, it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. And users who troll other's talk pages generally get blocked. Both are blockable offenses, and edit warring over it is another. You need to be an example for sysop wannabe's, both (a) how to interact with other editors, and (b) how ''not'' to misuse sysop powers. There is entirely too much shoot-from-the-hip with you in all of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:31, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm concerned that the focus here isn't necessarily in the right spot, and I apologize for not having contributed to the community portal earlier - I'd been on a series of summer vacations visiting family up and down the East Coast. Frankly, I think it's acceptable if some leeway is given to comments written by the user, even if on another user's talk page. Do I think it's ideal to post a comment and then remove it? No, but the wiki doesn't break down if it happens. In the same sense that it's acceptable to fix typos in your posts, I think it's acceptable - though again, not ideal - for a user to determine that his post might no longer be relevant, or perhaps was redundant, and take it upon himself to delete said post (assuming no other users have contributed to the discussion).

I must admit I was previously more concerned with the wholesale deletion and recreation of pages, but I think that a lot of progress has been made on that issue thanks in large part to Rob, so my commenting would serve no real purpose.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, if you want to lead in this area, you need to lead by example. I still not have received an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page.
::::And you're not gonna get one.
:::Again, you may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle.
::::Then leave other people's castle alone.
:::Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter?
::::Am I gonna recieve an apology from you for your rudeness? Stop reverting, deleting, and oversighting discussions I am involved in.
:::You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that.
::::Thanks, I didn't know I needed your approval.
:::But I would at ask you to be consistent.
::::Here's consistancy: STOP ABUSING YOUR SYSOP POWERS!
:::I have a feeling that no apology will be forthcoming.
::::It ain't.
:::Regrettably, I have to say that I have downgraded my expectations for your success with your project in instituting new rules and getting their requisite enforcement.
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
:::I feel it will be impeded by you wanting to throw your weight around and not showing a willingness to admit your own mistakes and to abide by existing rules. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Don’t lecture me on the rules, pal. You’ve never shown an interest in policy development or writing sysop rules. All you’ve done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilities of people trying to contribute, and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] 23:30, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:If "a person's talk page is their castle," why do you keep deleting and recreating other peoples' talk pages/castles? [[User:RodneyA|RodneyA]] 23:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have already address this matter. I will further add that unlike Aschafly I did have JPatt's and Karajou agreement to mess around with their castles. :) In addition, Aschlafly is not particularly upset with me and has not poured oil down upon me from his castle walls. :) Lastly, I standby my action with NKeaton and the person I blocked and have no further commentary! Adios! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::RobS, I just saw your post. I suggest if you have a good case as far as some of your allegations that you take it up with Mr. Schlafly and with all due haste. I suggest you do that right now. I don't think that is gong to happen and even if you tried, I don't think it would go anywhere. We both know this. I don't mind altering my behavior due to reasonable requests. I think you should take a good hard look at how Iduan and August is approaching matters as I think you will have far more success. I do find it sad that your oversized ego and hot temper are getting in the way of admitting you erred concerning violating policy on my talk page.
:::Admit you erred in reverting, deleting, archiving, and oversighting active discussions I was involved in, blocking some participants without cause, and deleting their user pages. And let's understand this straight out -- this discussion is not about roasting User:Conservative, it is about developing guidleines and policies for editor and sysop conduct. You my good man, are simply the posterboy for abuse because of your unresponsiveness to other editors.
:::So you can cease right here and now with personal attacks about others ego, etc. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:40, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::Good luck with pushing your reforms with your present attitude and inconsistency. Next, I will certainly admit that with TK around I wasn't exactly an eager beaver as far as developing policies. I have from day one had my primary focus be content creation and related matters. I don't regret my decision. I think at this point, we should just avoid needlessly butting heads and get along as much as possible. I think I have clarified my position sufficiently and responded to other comments sufficiently. Despite your personal shortcomings and your recent behavior towards me, I have no ill will towards you and I hope your initiative bears fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. Let's work together to improve the wiki. I too, was always focused on content, but now we have the opportunity to overcome earlier mistakes the CP project made in ''not'' providing adequate guidelines and development support for sysops and editors. Registered users should be ''encouraged'' to contribute, and worked with to help develop their talents, not suspected as trolls from the minute they register, hounded, stalked, and blocked before they perform their first edit. The sysops that remain in this project must seriously review our shortcomings and recognize much of what we've tried has failed. I propose we overhaul our existing written policies and guidelines, and present them to the site's owner for input and ratification. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Thanks for the cordial response. A pointless wiki battle doesn't serve anyone. I am working on making some changes as well which I believe could make a big change if they were implemented. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

===Reform movement===

:::<s>User:Conservative ... firstly I can't find what you accuse RobS of doing in your page log - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AConservative - there's no record of an "unprotection".</s> ('''update''': I was mistaken - an unprotection did occur; I stand by my second point. Apologies for the mistake.) Secondly, I think the notion that, without an apology for a, <s>presumably</s>, one-time mistake, Rob's efforts have no legitimacy, is an absurd one - and so is the notion that this is only Rob's crusade. Rob started an attempt at reform, and I think we'd all say he deserves many kudos for doing so, but it's on all of us to build a better encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Iduan, I had asked RobS for clarification and received no response. Regardless, RobS's recent behavior towards me still has caused me to downgrade my expectations. Frankly, my expectations were not that high to begin with, but I had hoped for the best. Personally, I think the first order of business is to enforce existing core rules such as citing your sources which is given in the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia commandments]]. The people I requested to create content Conservapedia cited their sources and those articles are among the most popular articles at Conservapedia. However, most if not all wikis, are under sourced. I do think Conservapedia could do better in this area and I think the Admin group could do better in this department and lead by example. I may have ignored the preview button for various reasons and I am not against altering my behavior at this stage, but giving my sources has been a strong point of my content. Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time. Higher quality content, on the other hand, often gets ranked at the search engines and is more apt to bring in new readers and new editors. Non-quality content serves as a deterrent to gaining new editors. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:56, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I absolutely agree that citing sources is important - I think that's something that I've certainly been very careful to do in almost all my articles, but of course every user, including myself, could always do better. As to the preview button: I'm not especially concerned with the preview button and its usage. I think the question here, though, is what must sysops be subservient to? Obviously, Andy is the final authority, but regulating every sysops behavior would be a waste of time on his part. So I think what we all are trying to accomplish is some sort of explicit guidelines that will allow users to know what to expect from sysops, as well as allow sysops to police each-other and point out if one has erred.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
::::::*We need clearly defined blockng policy.
::::::*We need clearly defined deletion policy.
::::::*We need a definition of vandalism.
::::::*We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
::::::*We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
::::::*We need a definition of good faith.
::::::*We need to end this hideous "member of a vandal site" cause for blocking, which I can find no precedent anywhere how it came into existence, other than TK invented it out of whole cloth.
::::::*We need to end blocking on sight. Some sysops must run traceroute before a user makes thier first edit. This is not showing good faith and a terrible example to set.
::::::*We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
::::::*We need a definition of consensus.
::::::*And a few other things. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Iduan, some of Conservapedia's biggest missteps have been the result of poor sourcing and poor research which inevitably lead to poor content in those instances and this has happened to all wikis and not just Conservapedia. Second, I had told RobS that I had wanted to attend to this matter at another time and frankly RobS knows it could have waited as I told him privately that I had wanted to tackle other non-wiki matters and would not be creating much content and be far less active at Conservapedia in the short term. Plus, I think some of his charges towards me are ill conceived and ill supported. This is what convinces me that RobS has a problem with throwing his weight around and showboating. Furthermore, his refusal to apologize for removing the protection of my talk page further adds to this assessment. Did I want to say this about RobS? Was I trying to undermine his efforts? No. I said I wished him the best and until today I had chosen to remain silent about my reservations in terms of the success of his initiative. Does this mean that I think the project is doomed and RobS cannot change his behavior. No and I hope he does. I would suggest he start showing more good faith towards me and stop pestering me. I have no problems with being cordial towards RobS and cooperating with his initiatives, but it has to be a two way street in terms of respecting each other and our efforts. If RobS chooses to repair things I think that would be great and I could be among his biggest supporters. If he continues to show bad faith that would be most unfortunate. The balls is in his court now. I am certainly not going to support someone who is pestering me though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, I would add that it would not surprise me if the content/allegations/tone of this portal has caused Mr. Schlafly not to participate in this portal. I would think that RobS would want Aschlafly as a big supporter and for him to participate in this community portal. That certainly would be a big boost to his efforts. Have I told Mr. Schlafly how wonderful this community portal is? No, I have not. I said that although some good points were raised, I certainly had some reservations on how things were being conducted. Again, I would suggest that RobS cease and desist his pesterfest as I would far prefer being a wholesale supporter of this initiative than being a skeptical detractor who hopes for the best, but has some open reservations as far its potential for success. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

I think the biggest concern about delaying the conversation is that it will be delayed indefinitely; obviously any contributions that you can add despite your schedule are extra-appreciated. Its certainly reasonable to have a small delay, but without a timeline that's hard to do. I can't serve as a medium between you/Rob, but I do think no user is purposely pestering another; I think any bluntness can be attributed to the supposed urgency of the moment that all wikis are subject to, and not to hostility.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:Iduan, I do thank you for your cordiality and reasonableness. Despite some inappropriate conduct, I do think some positive benefits have resulted from this portal. As far as RobS pestering me, I think it was the result of impatience and ego and not being particularly concerned about another editor. I don't think his main focus is to pester me at an importune time, but nonetheless that has been the result. I am usually fairly successful at getting key participants cooperation for things that are important to me as I can be pleasantly persistent. RobS has chosen to be unpleasant and pushy. I would prefer to be a supporter of RobS though and time will tell if this happens. I think it is fair to say that things are fairly frosty in terms of us having a working relationship at the present time and that is unfortunate. I do have a feeling though that I may have accomplished my objective of not having RobS pester me and he may finally see the light concerning this matter. It shouldn't have taken this long though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

====Proposal 1; re:blocking====
Perhaps we should create a block review panel? Users with blocking rights who are willing to be contacted in the case that a user feels a block was unfairly handed out. I feel as though having a specific block policy and this theoretical panel could circumvent the need to define "vandalism" - which in my experience can be amorphous. Obviously specifics could be drawn up later, but as I see it a panel member could, should the scenario call for it, reverse a block without any hard feelings, and perhaps as a general guideline (though not a rule) the unblocked user should - barring clear vandalism - under no circumstances be reblocked by the original blocking user. This is very similar to current policy, except users inexperienced with wikis might not know how to find users with blocking privileges to contact if they have a concern, and this would conveniently list willing, active users. This would at least partly address bullets 1, 3, 5 re: blocking, 6 and 9.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That may not be feasible. Every blocked person could ask for review as a result. It may have unintended consequences. I think a better solution in the meantime is to be choosier about who is given block rights. I should have been more vocal about Bugler and RodWeathers being phonies but at least I got RodWeathers to create content. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:14, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well presumably with a large enough pool of willing "admins" (I'm using that to mean people with blocking rights, but I do understand the difference) it shouldn't be hard to accommodate those requests. I think it's relatively easy to determine whether a user is completely bad faith or whether perhaps a second chance should be granted. Certainly well done on Rod!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:18, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need serious blocking policy reform; I tried to log in minutes ago from my local public library and the account was blocked because of "possible misuse of U.S. or other government computer system." Can anyone help me right now in locating these blocks so they can be undone? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need full articulation when and under what circumstances a Range block is applicable. We've probably blocked every Starbucks and McDonald's on the planet, infinitely, as well as every public library and college. Undoing 4 years of inappropriate blocking is a real chore. [[Conservapedia:New sysop training page]] needs updating. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:36, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can absolutely get behind that. I would offer to help with range blocks, but I'm not familiar at all with that area - I've never even issued a range block. I also agree the language should be toned down on the blocking section of the sysop training page. While it is important to "err on the side of caution", as the page suggests, block are a serious punishment, and should be handed out with careful consideration.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:07, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the page[[ Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]; it should be written primarily for sysops. Editors can get the idea from there what is expected from them if they aspire to be sysops. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Conservapedia:New_sysop_training_page#Blocking]] - which you already linked to - seems to be a much more detailed (longer, certainly) approach. I would almost go so far as to suggest that the content from that section literally be flipped with content from that guideline page, after the language is toned down. (I could work on doing that, if you'd like, although perhaps it'd be best coming from you)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:Yes please do. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is what I've come up with: [[User:Iduan/guidelinedraft#Blocking]]. I would suggest that the first point - which is applicable to all users with block rights - be moved to [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]], but the second two points - which involve using administrator tools like "checkuser" or "delete" - be kept on the sysop page. If you could check over what I did it'd be greatly appreciated! (And obviously feel free to edit - I'm just using my userspace as a sandbox)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:43, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::(Just so you know - and you don't think I'm just being lazy - I'm actually unable to edit the new sysop guide page as its protected, hence the fork)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::Personally, I think that we should try working with ISPs before issuing rangeblocks. For ISPs that will not work with us, we should block those ISPs altogether, with a note that users should complain to their ISP or switch to another one to contribute to Conservapedia. This is what email administrators have been doing for quite some time, and although it isn't without flaw, it seems to have been somewhat effective for them. Since I have five years of experience dealing with ISPs, I'd be more than happy to help Conservapedia in doing this, and both Jpatt and Karajou can attest to my effectiveness.
::As for people desiring to appeal their block, Wikipedia and some other wikis allows blocked users to edit their own talk page and insert a template to challenge their block. They have an option to revoke this privilege if it is abused. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:44, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. I may have some questions on ISP and want to know more. Appealing a block presents some problems, namely manpower (or personpower to be politically correct) to handle it. This of course can be another source of efforts to just waste sysops time. If we had dozens of sysops with time on their hands to respond, and handle it responsibly, it wouldn't matter. Let's not put nthe cart before the horse. Let's hammer out a definition of "good faith user" and "vandalism", then if there's any misunderstanding in what that means, we could add an appeals process. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Hold on here. My thoughts are this. Disputing an administrator's block (unless you are an admin yourself) is disputing their judgement, which is uncalled for. I, for one, trust Andy's judgement in appointing his admins, and by extent trust the admins he appoints. I think, as editors, we should not question an sysop's decision. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:We need to identify and define grounds for blocking. Then we can review a sysop's actions. This means ''both'' sysops and editors can be held accountable. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Only discussions which are inactive for 7 days should be archived. Any discussion thread with a comment within the past 7 days should still be considered an active, ongoing discussion. This will give all users and interested parties an opportunity to review and participate. See [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Talk_pages_and_Archiving]] for more details. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Navigation box]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==

This is a follow-up to some [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884164&oldid=884024 points I made on Andy's talk page], which he said he agreed with completely.

First, I have to recognize and congratulate RobS for his work on bringing the rule of law to Conservapedia, and for lending his sysop influence to this.

The point I want to make is that "tweaking" the 90/10 rule (80/20, 70/30, whatever) requires that rules, and violations thereof, be logically connected with account blocks. This is simple logic. '''It does no good to lay out criteria for blockable misbehavior if sysops block people for whatever reason they please, with no regard for actual infractions''' (90/10, combative arguing, trolling, vandalism, lying, etc.)

Blocks '''must have verifiable reasons'''. But a look at the block log shows things like:
*By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki
*provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true
*Negative personal comments: The pigstie you require is down at Uncle Billy's farm.
*नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार (what???????)
*Multiple accounts; same IP(s) as existing/previous user(s): Need to change your socks, pardner...try washing them as well.
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: fake professors need not apply
*lack of machismo
*no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: I'm all for improvement too, stupid, which is why you're outta here.
*Broken arrow! (with a youtube page about the movie "We Were Soldiers") (what???????)
*I suggest going to Africa and searching for Mokele-mbembe. You have 5 years to do it now
*If only you were as nice as a pony, maybe women would love you
*probably an obese atheist with a thin skin!
*conservapedia obssessive compulsive disorder
*obesity

Blocking is serious business! It reflects upon the seriousness of Conservapedia. If you can't put in a cogent block reason, find some other sysop who can.

Now some of the cases above were probably well-founded, like the one with the comment with "try washing them as well", but sysops should be models of probity and levelheadedness, and should not have made that comment. Even if personally annoyed by someone's behavior, sysops should not let it get to them.

There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:

*Wanton deletion of pages, without VERY good reason. For example, deleting another user's user page or talk page. Even if it is swiftly recreated, and even if this is done without loss of information, there is simply no excuse for it.
*"Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
*Deletion of material from talk pages, unless it is truly libellous. Talk pages are a journal of discussions. There is almost never a reason to delete anything. Merely being peeved by something is not an excuse. If you are insulted by something, there should be a way to mark it with "personal attack removed" or something. I don't know the details.

Now I'm going to step on some toes. Take a deep breath, everybody.

The sysop guidelines / rules need to be '''enforceable'''. The Conservapedia community needs to know that they will be followed. Therefore, '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''. I see plenty of well-intentioned "junior" sysops who are doing an excellent job of keeping the site running smoothly. The removal of one or two sysops for flagraqnt violations will not harm Conservapedia. In fact, it may help immensely, by setting an example of expected behavior.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:17, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see why you're so upset over the block comments. Conservative is simply trying to add some humor. However regarding the Hindi/Thai/whatever block summary, this is an English wiki so everything should be in English. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 11:05, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::MeganH, you are a good guesser. It was Hindi. With that being said, SamHB's post has some merit as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:41, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Community input requested==
Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,

*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]

*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]

Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Block appeal? ==

A thought that just hit me: I'm genuinely not sure if this has been considered so far, but with internal e-mail now being disabled and the Zoho account not being listed on the Main Page, what is the current appeal process when you're blocked? I didn't check how many sysops list their e-mail address on their user page, but I'd be somewhat surprised if many do (since it attracts spam bots).

[[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] probably needs to be amended with a link to whatever appeal/contact policy is up to date, too. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:That link's hilarious. But seriously, we're looking into this. We'd like to get a good blocking policy everyone can get behind in place. I'm arguing CP should stop trying to re-invent the wheel, and look at how WP has learned to deal with sockpuppetry and vandalism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights? ==
:''Discussion moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]
Coming here to complete a registration and start writing about my topics of interest, I got deeply disappointed when I saw the message '''Only alphanumerical usernames are accepted'''. So how come that one isn't entitled to contribute here for the sole reason that they have an underscore or a gap in the desired username? I'm sure these restrictions have a strongly negative effect on the development of the Conservapedia, deterring a significant portion of contributors. Just look how many people work on Wikipedia, write popular pages on subject they now without bothering about admins imposing their views. Can you take a moment to imagine how many users, well, not only have been pressed to the wall next to the "open gate", but even compressed to death by the following crowd? It's way too surprising that the amount of users and articles is still important to you, as you state on the main page. If it's the case, I urge you to reconsider your policies and give more freedom to newcomers. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Just wait until you get to the part where you can't move pages, upload images or even edit at certain times. Assuming you won't be blocked to force you into registering again with a user name that follows the "first name, last initial" convention. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You talk about giving freedom to newcomers, but then dismiss me pointing out that newcomers indeed lack many freedoms they would expect to have? Well, have fun then. For what it's worth, I agree with the point about underscores in names. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Because instead of letting competent users respond to my claim you digress from the topic in an unconstructive manner, giving an outlet for your butthurt in a wrong place. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg Higher, higher :)] --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 15:30, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I could care less about the problems this section raises, I was pointing out that if your going to go around insulting people you aren't going to go anywhere here or anywhere--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservapedia is run strictly at the pleasure of [[Andy Schlafly]] as the founder, and to a lesser extent at that of the administrators. If you don't like their policies, then you have no business here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 17:17, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I always thought that this site was run in the interest of presenting items without the liberal bias that is prevalent through out the internet and the MSM. The opinions and whims of [[Andy Schlafly]] should have little to no bearing on the content of the site so long as the information set forth is well argued and is able to be backed up.
:::::::::If this site is run at the pleasure of Mr. Schlafly, than I'm afraid it is no better than wikipedia. For Conservapedia and the conservative movement to succeed, we must hold ourselves to higher standards than those of wikipedia and the MSM.--[[User:MrLCharms|MrLCharms]] 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Talk:Evolution ==

On Monday, I made an edit to [[Talk:Evolution]] that removed the Student Panel Decision box. My reasoning (given in the same edit) was this:
{{quotebox|I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)}}
Today, Conservative bluntly reverted my edit without discussion, making my last line there extra hilarious. Can we maybe have some actual discussion about this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sid, if you truly wanted discussion, you didn't need to remove the panel's notice to do that. Nor did you need your friend Horace in Australia who is obsessed with evolution/atheism/Conservapedia/myself to try to revert my reversion of you. What you wanted was an atheist revision of Conservapedia history. Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism. More anti-evolution content is not a major change. Evolutionists adding pseudoscience which is what you are ultimately seeking to do is a major change. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Sure we can have a discussion. But as I understand it, the decision of the CP Panel still stands. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Please restore the edit history of the article to show that the article hasn't "changed in any major way". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:43, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sid wants to gut an article showing the folly of evolution because it gets a lot of web traffic. He would rather have a gutted article that gets little traffic. That is what this is about. If he really cared what the panel said, he would not have removed their notice. If Sid wants the panel or Andy to pare down the evolution article or do major revisions, then the frontal attack of removing the panel's notice while bold is very foolish from a human relations point of view. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
"Sid wants to gut an article..." He never asked for it to be unlocked, only for its full edit history to be restored. [[User:Lewis|Lewis]] 15:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Sid, your removing of the panel's notice betrayed you. You showed your true colors. Plus, there is the issue of {{personal remark removed}}. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I'm with Conservative here. Here it is our job to discuss, not censor. There seems to be no consensus at all to remove the student panel decision, and all the admins seem to disagree. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:06, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism." That's an interesting claim considering it's directly contradicted by the notice you put back on the talk page. In fact, there's no evidence Mr. Schlafly or the student panel ever gave "Conservative" permission to do whatever he wanted to that article, nor is it an appropriate purpose for an encyclopedia article to communicate one's editorial position that "evolutionism" is "folly". So let's discuss whether "Conservative" taking the article over to the exclusion of every single other editor and in open defiance of the student panel's instructions not to change it in any "major way" and to submit proposed changes on the article talk page is going to be permitted. Some of the irrelevant nonsense "Conservative" has been stacking up in this article wouldn't be so bad if the article adequately explained the subject matter before attacking it, but it doesn't. I've asked Mr. Schlafly to clarify the editorial policy here regarding YEC vs. evolution, which he will not comment on, but I would eat my hat if the version of the article the student panel locked in 2007 was the same pro-YEC hit piece it is today. So sure, have a discussion about the student panel's notice but don't pretend it means anything anymore. Talk about revisionist history. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::It is certainly against the spirit that drives wiki projects. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:56, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, I'm not an atheist; and try to keep your little personal attacks to yourself. Please restore the history of the article so we can see what the April 2007 version looked like. Without the history, the Student Panel decision is pointless since it has no reference point to base itself on. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:(Side note: I see that Lewis just got a 2-year block by Conservative. Posting to the Community Portal is really a danger for one's wiki-health... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT))
::::Sid, I see you are fond of the exclusionary fallacy. Did Lewis have other edits as well? Second, if you think I am going to help a militant evolutionist, you are fooling yourself. By the way, your aforementioned frontal attack and your persistence in this matter remind me of Pickett's charge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your refusal to let us see the April 2007 version is quite telling. Just as telling as blocking a guy for two years right after he pointed out your error while claiming that the block was for comments the user made yesterday. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sid, I have decided to retire from this battle that you cannot win. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Both Please type in Englisch.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section break===
I've had a problem being able to review 2700+ deleted edits and am not familiar with the earlier wiki-battles over that entry. Perhaps you can encapsulate. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:33, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

:I have taken the liberty of moving this post to its own section because it may go on for a bit. The very rough overview is basically this:
:*Between February and March 2007, this article had been central to lots of editing back and forth.
:*Conservative was made sysop (on February 25, 2007) to make his changes to the article, and his intention to have this article locked forever became apparent. Note that I'm not exaggerating here. From [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1#Conservative_Please_Stop|Archive 1]], a post from the day he was sysop'd:
:*:Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. Conservative 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:*Since that had been the magical time before locking anything forever became the norm, Andy promised to ask the anonymous Student Panel for their ruling, and the article was frozen in a fairly anti-evolution version.
:*Some time later (weeks later, I think?), the panel announced the decision that is still visible on [[Talk:Evolution]]. Aside from infinite protection, the central part of the ruling was "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way."
:*There was a fair share of complaining about this (since having a mostly static article violates the wiki spirit), but the sysops (Conservative especially) held up the ruling as a shield against any further (pro-evolution) suggestions, so everybody kinda gave up and sighed.
:*However, Conservative kept editing the article as he pleased: Conservative's patrol log (which was only introduced on June 16, 2008 - more than a year after the ruling!) shows... 200+ edits for "Theory of evolution" and 950+ edits to "Evolution" (the article was moved in December 2008).
:*Between February 9, 2011 (first visible edit after Conservative erased the article history) and last week alone, the article gained roughly ten thousand characters. That's roughly the length of articles like [[Radiometric dating]] or [[Date of the Exodus]]. And this is just what happened during the last five to six months.
:*I am arguing that the Student Panel decision is utterly outdated and pointless: Locking forever is the norm for many articles anyway, nobody doubts that Conservative completely owns the article, and the "no major changes" clause is doubly absurd because the article has been constantly edited since then, and the point of reference (a version from March/April 2007) is unavailable.
:*That is why I removed the Student Panel decision and gave my reasoning in the form of the post I quoted up there.
:So the problem is not one of the many deleted edits, but rather the fact that there are so many edits and that they were deleted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:06, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. Now I see the point more clearly. I do recall peripherally being aware of those happenings back then, but never was involved. The 2700+ edits maybe unrecoverable-I don't know. The overriding question is similar to the question of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (WP:OWN); also, it may be fair to assume much of the Student Panel of 2007 has graduated, and a new Student Panel may have to be asked to look at this version, if that overall policy remains in place. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== CAPTCHA Whitelist ==

I finally remembered to make this request while I was busy making a minor point: Could we add a few entries to [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|the CAPTCHA whitelist]]?

Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the [[Essay:Best News Sources|best news sources]], [[conservative blogs]], and the various [[conservative links]] (especially sections such as "Conservative Organizations" or "Creation Study"). Adding those sites to the whitelist would allow us to insert such links without hassle. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Everyone, please... ==

Come on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=894414 terms like treacherous backstabber] ARE personal remarks themselves. Are we not supposed to kind and considered? Please pay heed: ''Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.'' (Epehsians 4:32). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS has turned on [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in particular and Conservapedia in general. I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Edit to add: And may I suggest you read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== User: RobS ==

At [[User talk:RobSmith]] I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:My modest proposal: Make Conservative a Bureaucrat so he can protect his talk page even from sysops and demote troublemakers who urge him to cooperate instead of treating this site as his personal property where he can do as he pleases. I believe it's the only logical step after tolerating his current behavior. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I fully support this. I am a great fan of [[User:Conservative]] having been brought here by his many irrefutable evidences and amusing essays. If it were not for him I would not be here to contribute and I am sure it is the same for many other users.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You obviously misunderstood Sid. Conservative, your blocking policy is that of {{personal remark removed}} [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Unless your comment is a joke, Terry, you leave me with no option but to declare you a calumny-loving {{personal remark removed} [[User:Conservative]]'s content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::: "You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&curid=11675&diff=893483&oldid=893477]]. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 09:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Whatever it takes to prevent RobS and his inflated ego to stop having a forum at my talk page, I am generally for. In his current "RobScentric" world, he appears to have no respect for polite and reasonable requests. I do not care if RobS is a Sysop/Admin or not, but if it takes removing his Sysop powers for him to no longer have a forum at my talk page for his {{personal remark removed}}, I am for it. As far as becoming a Bureaucrat at this point: If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Lastly, barring RobS losing his Sysop powers, I have a feeling that over the coming days, weeks or months that Karajou and RobS will continue to have differences over blocking policy and that a blocking policy will be worked out. Given the current demands and priorities in my life, if a refinement of blocking policy were developed rather than a certain person or persons losing their Sysop or blocking powers, I would prefer that blocking policy be worked out by others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sysops not communicating violates the spirit of the wiki. Perhaps if you allowed other sysops the courtousy of communicating with you, there would not be misunderstandings, such as in the case of User:BobSherman. But I am appreciative of you allowing me 5 minutes of your time, per your e-mail, this September, or is it next September? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have communicated with you RobS. I have also communicated to you that I have a lot on my plate right for the short term and I don't want to be pestered by an {{removed personal remark}} who apparently likes to showboat on my talk page and mire me in needless and inane contention at this point. Barring you seeing the light on this matter and apparently still believing that your posts to me have any importance to me (which they do not), I will recommend that you lose your Sysop status if you continue your behavior which another Sysop believes should happen as well. In the meantime, I suggest that you post your supposed matters of great importance and urgency to me on Aschlafly's talk page and if he feels they are important and urgent, I am sure he will relay them to me. Thank you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please, no incivility and personal attacks; those are blockable offenses. And Sysops need to be held to the same standard other members of the Conservapedia Community are held. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, by the way, as you probably know, I did more than offer you 5 minutes of my time in September as I suggested via email a September meeting with you, Karajou and possibly Aschlafy to help resolve the blocking conflicts which have arisen as of late. I received no reply which is no great tragedy to me. Given your most recent behavior, I have since rescinded my offer for such a September meeting. Perhaps, your statement above is just a matter of sloppy reading on your part, but I believe your statement on this matter reflects why I believe you are often an unreasonable person. I know it still may amaze you that I am no longer interested in what you have to say, but I would start believing it and reflecting on why this has happened. I have nothing further to say on this matter to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, I'm just having a very difficult time understanding any of this. I can not communicate with (or for that matter, nobody can) on your user page. I can not email you cause you've spam blocked me; no wait, you un-spma blocked me. I cannot discuss with you (or for that matter, no one can) on regular Conservapedia project pages because you delete and oversight the discussions. You come to Andy's page with charges, yet have no diffs or evidence, cause you deleted and oversighted it. How is that not (a) misues of sysop priveleges; (b) trolling? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Did you send an email that reads,
::::*''Here are my conditions for such a meeting:
:::::''3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, '''RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month. ''' ''
::::This is not conducive to collaborative content. This is not cooperative editing or helping to build an internet community. You have done nothing in four years to help define [[Conservapedia:Vandalism]], yet how many editors have you arbitrarily blocked on site for that offense? Stop trolling me and wasting my time. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Rob, I don't know if you {{remove personal remark}}, but I urge you to read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. "Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye." Leave [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] alone.--[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Arbitrary and unfair blocking===
Let me explain at some length, from personal experience, why I feel strongly about arbitrary and unfair blocking. I hesitate bringing it up, because of the personal emotional torment it wreaked on me, unfairly, all the result of overzealous ideological partisans, too quick on the banhammer, and determined to take revenge on their enemies.

I was working on an anti-communism series in Wikipedia, and because of the specialized nature of it, [[Chip Berlet]] <ref>Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President, which a Congressional Committee has described as "The Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party".</ref> was recruited to vet, verify, and challenge the information for NPOV purposes. Unbeknownst to me and prior to my arrival in Wikipedia, Berlet had for many years studied the Lyndon LarRouche movement and successfully obtained Arbitration sanctions (banning and blocking) against several "Larouche editors" in several Wikipedia Arbitration cases.<ref>At the time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA/HK WP:RfA Lyndon LaRouche 1 & Lyndon LaRouche 2]; a third and other cases have since been added.</ref> The sanctioned users become notorious sockpuppets, hunted by overzealous sysops, and in constant conflict with Chip Berlet. As Berlet and my Mediation over anti-communism broke down, Berlet labeled me the head of a cabal of "Larouche editors" and being "the most problematic."

In dealing with Berlet, I had crossed paths with some of his old enemies. Berlet seized on these open-wiki communications to drag me before the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee under the pretext that "Nobs and others acting in concert"<ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Arbitration_filed_naming_you Nobs and others acting in concert]</ref> were harassing him. Needless to say, the "others" were sanctioned "LaRouche editors" and this guilt by association prompted the Arbitration Committee to accept a hearing on the case. But I had no knowledge of this ongoing wiki-battle between Wikipedia and the Lyndon LaRouche organization, of which now I was at the center. In the process, my real life identity became known, and I was now being seriously defamed as a "LaRouchie" in an open forum, accessible to Google Search engines. No less than three times did I make motions to separate and remove my name from the LaRouche editors, all denied.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Motion_2_by_Nobs01_on_.22acting_in_concert.22</ref> In frustration, I made incivil comments and was banned, with no immediate recourse to clear my name from slanders.

The idea of me being a sympathizer to Lyndon LaRouche is ludicrous, as is commonly known now. Yet it took me years to clear my name over several forums, gaining public statements from Arbitrators and others connected with the case, that I had indeed been unfairly slandered. See for example, a template in Wikipedia to keep track of the abuses and rulings against "LaRouche editiors", if you scroll down to the "Arbiration 2005", the first case reads "N__and others"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaRouchetalk</ref>, what it took me to get the "acting in concert" removed, and no direct reference to my username, "Nobs", was a nightmare. But I still regard the emotional stress and damage done, by overzealous, ideological sysops, hell bent on stamping out the wiki's enemies, as troublesome.

Then a younger generation of sysops comes along, taking their cue from others, and all they see is "ratvandal", or "larouchie", and a real life identity or username connected to it, and the Terminator mentality takes over. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, no compromise, pity or remorse. Nevermind facts, or misunderstandings. They just have it set in their minds they are doing right, and good, by wielding the banhammer. Never thinking for a moment those are real people out there, with hopes and dreams, and real lives. These sysops are just on autopilot, kill kill kill, destroy destroy destroy.

This may seem harsh, but reliving some of this reminds me why I've tried to learn to be civil and patient, and understanding, even to those I disagree with. I made it my lot to try and be a model of interaction, even in the toughest, most controversial, and emotional disputes. This dispute we're having here, is not really between two sysops -- I actually like the guy/gal/other making these charges. He just needs to lighten up with people. If he has such strong ideological convictions, he should at a minimum be able to defend them. And a locked user page, or redirects on article talk pages, is just pointless. This discussion is simply about being fair with users and demanding the same standards of civility from sysops we expect from editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

== New proposal regarding the ban policy ==

I would like to propose a procedure with regards to the banning policy here at CP. This would apply to situations where people are suspected of being parodists, or other situations that are not as clear-cut as blatant vandalism such as inserting pure gibberish, blanking pages, etc.

We all have bad days sometimes.

We sometimes write things on the internet that comes across to other people as sounding harsh or incoherent, or that doesn't quite get the point across we're trying to make.

We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.

We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.

Instead of one person being responsible for the decision whether or not a person is a parodist, etc., how about a procedure where that person is brought before a committee. The person nominating the possible offender must present his case, complete with '''hard evidence''' that proves the accusations, not just state that "I believe this, thus it's true." Other editors should be allowed to submit evidence, either pro or con, for a certain length of time before a decision is reached.

This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.

I also propose that the committee consist of both sysops and regular editors, thus providing a greater range of opinions. If an editor (either regular or a sysop) is directly involved with the situation, they should not be allowed to be a member of the committee.

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning". Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::*'' RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP''
:::::How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
:::::The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all? I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

How many casual or part-time editors have ceased contributing to the wiki because of uncertainty over the banning policy? Right now, banning often seems arbitrary and uneven – sometimes as though it depends on the mood of the banning editor. I know personally I have stopped myself from offering my opinion and/or edits on different articles because I see things from a different angle or have different information.

What's the harm in making the less obvious banning situations a consensus of opinion, and transparent to all as well? What's the harm in allowing the accused editor to make his/her case in the open, and to allow different editors to give their opinion on the situation? It might not change the ultimate decision, but it's a more democratic process. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ed says,
:*''If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this.''
:*Here's the problem: 40,000 registered users have been blocked for vandalism, and 10,000,000 + IP's, affecting an estimated 30,000,000 potential users. These blocks were handed out for vandalism, yet here ([[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]) is the Guideline blocking Sysops have to guide them after four years.
:*If there were any potental good faith editors who wanted to be helpful in defining vandalism, they probably were blocked years ago as a suspected sock of lcewedge or horace. Them and the whole state or province they live in.
:*Now the Range blocks are undone, yet Old Guard sysops ''still'' block on sight for anything they don't like, despite the floodgates being opened. Conservapedia Sysops have learned nothing from their colossal errors in dealing with vandalism, have yet to even define it, nor hold themselves to the same standards of editing conduct they require of others.
:*Establishing a Commitee won't work, at least not yet; there just aren't enough editors allowed to participate at any level.
:*Blocking policy is in serious need of overhaul, if Conservapedia is serious at all about building an online collaborative wiki community.
:*Sysops need to understand they are not God, and can and will be held accountable to the extent of losing their sysop powers for failing to abide CP's own rules and standards of conduct it requires of others (the few we have).
:*Some editors were punished with blocks just for daring to interject into this important discussion. This kind of arbitrary blocking has got to stop.
:*CP needs a serious reform movement; it's not about personality disputes between sysops, or payback, or roasting an abusive sysop. It's about building a collaborative community which includes atheists, liars, homosexuals, sinners, drunks, drug addicts, felons, ex-cons, university professors, doctors, lawyers, hollywood starlets and anyone else who wants to register an account, abide by CP's Commandments & Guidelines and contribute constructive content without an ideological litmus test for the user. That has always been CP's mission. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I have stayed out of this debate because I don't find it relevant to my goals on/with Conservapedia but i must say these proposals by Rob sound reasonable (although we can probably do without drunks and liars). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:37, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::MRellek, if you want to attempt to further refine CP's blocking guidelines/policies I would not be against that. I would be against RobS writing any blocking policy on parodist since he cannot spot parodist material when he sees it and/or is unwilling to ban parodists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fortunately for site users, you don't own this website, neither do you single-handedly make policy. Should we take a poll of site users who want to see you head up a policy reform committee? or do you think they may be terrorized to even participate, for fear of reprisal block, given the unhealthy editing atmosphere you help create for several years now? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::If anyone has any useful suggestions concerning refining blocking policy, I don't see why they couldn't be suggested and incorporated into our current policy. And there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas concerning this matter. That could start immediately. Of course, given the current authority structure of Conservapedia for any policies to be binding, they would have to be approved by Aschafly or a committee authorized by Andy to make binding policy. Absent of a parodist defining policy being written for encyclopedia articles by September, I am considering writing one. If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up [[Straw man fallacy|strawman arguments]] and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::*''there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas ''
::::::Oh yes, two were blocked just for posting to the above thread. Does that aid in encouraging others to contribute? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I helped formulate our policies, four years ago, shortly after I joined. I was made a sysop much more quickly than I expected (in a mere 8 days), possibly because of my extensive Wikipedia experience: developer rights to the database, the first electeed "bureaucrat", etc.

If there have been 40,000 blocks that is because our project has suffered an unprecedented onslaught of vandals, particularly of the "stealth" kind who plant ridiculous errors so that they can undermine the project by blaming us for those errors.

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS. I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 this warrant a one day block] in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 intemperate vindictive attitude] of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

::I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
::First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned. Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
::Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact? I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree. There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal. Why give him a chance to do more damage?"
::That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions. The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.
::Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably. I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung. What's the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy?" Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
::I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this. Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
::Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
::Respectfully, --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Ben, you make some ''very'' good points, some discussion-worthy points, and one time, you utterly missed the point.
:::The bad news first: Sharon's proposal isn't about ''vandals'', but rather about ''parodists''. Nobody is suggesting to hold a meeting when some idiot is running across the wiki, replacing articles with [http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tits.gif "BOUNCING TITS!!!"] or something like that. This is only about parodists.
::::[tangent]
::::Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written [[Conservapedia:Parody|policy-definition of "parody"]] on this isn't really hitting the nail on the head. It's ''a'' definition of "parody", but not ''the'' definition we're implicitly using here. We're talking about people whose edits are over-the-top by normal standards, but well within the accepted limits of Conservapedia. If you go pretty much anywhere and argue that the Bible needs to be retranslated because it's too liberal, or that Jesus disproved General Relativity and proved Quantum Mechanics, you will be thrown out for being an obvious parodist (as per the definition we currently got written down). On this site, however, all of these things have been established as insights by the site founder. If I suddenly started agreeing with Andy that the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution, would I be a parodist?
::::An effective approach to parody is difficult because Conservapedia's baseline for "normal and acceptable" is not quite where even most other conservatives would place it - both for content and conduct. This is why parodists like Bugler managed to become so successful: They imitated the worst traits of certain sysops, thus blending in perfectly from the POV of most sysops. Just to remind people of an uncomfortable truth: Bugler was one of the nastiest people imaginable and drove out several people who might have helped the site and pretty much got away with it to the point of ''almost becoming a sysop''. (He was only "caught" because of technicalities, not because of his behavior.)
::::The solution lies less in worrying about whether somebody genuinely believes what he's writing and more in reforming this wiki from the top so abusive idiots who make absurd edits stand out properly again. As long as parody is indistinguishable from normal behavior of our supposed role models, it's hard to really justify a ban.
::::[/tangent]
:::The point I kinda disagree with, but which I still find a valid question: Should we do all this bickering here in public? I agree that especially the huge discussions on this page are not CP's finest hour. But that doesn't mean that we should drag mindless bickering behind the stage, and it also doesn't mean that we should simply stop. It means that we should ''do better''. Not just in discussions, but also as a whole. We need to make CP as a community a better and more inviting place. I agree with Rob that we need to rework consistent policies (that aren't scattered all over the place) and that we need to actually enforce them, no matter what rank the offender has.
:::Your very good points are about the current tension (eggshells, landmines, etc.) and that it's ''hard'' at times to be fair and just. Because yes, it is. Of course it is. Having the banhammer is great power. And to echo a terribly overused Spider-Man quote: With great power comes great responsibility. The people wielding it need to be able to handle it. If sysops start using it to retaliate against people they don't like, or if they get twitchy and start banning people who haven't done anything simply because they happened to register around the same time as a vandal, they should either take a voluntary time-out to cool off or give the hammer back. Bringing back something from my tangent: Sysops are supposed to be the ''role models'', and they ''will'' lead by example. They ''need'' to have a cooler head than the regular users, and they ''mustn't'' let their raw emotions guide their actions. That is one of the keys to building a healthy community: Be a good leader, and people will start following you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Please revoke Conservative's Sysop, Block, and Administrator Rights ==

Please revoke conservative's sysop, block, and administrator rights, for flagrant and repeated violations of expected standards for sysops.

You may recall that I wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Enforceable_rules_for_sysop_conduct this], which was a logical consequence of things that you said you agreed with fully. Now I am not a sysop, and therefore don't have much voice in such matters, but the fact is that what I wrote is still present on the Community Portal page. Furthermore, user Conservative said that "[my] post has some merit."

In that section, I said that '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''.

Furthermore, quite a bit of policy material has come into existence, pointing out that it is improper for someone with blocking powers to use those powers frivolously, or for a person with deletion or oversight powers to use those powers unless the material being deleted is libelous.

User Conservative has, as is well known to everyone, engaged in repeated and flagrant violations of the standards for sysops. The repeated deletion of BobSherman's user and talk pages are examples, but there are many more.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SamHB, very melodramatic. Your bold text suggest you are very angry. I suspect that is because I asked you to show me how its done and create outstanding content that would gain a following and I also asked you if you currently have a following. By the way, I am flattered that you have followed my content for several years now. :) Best wishes in your off wiki pursuits because I don't think your crusade to remove my administrator rights is going to give you a sense of accomplishment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:The bold text was copied directly from the other edit, where it had been placed for emphasis, not due to anger. You also seem to be referring to a discussion taking place at [[Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Christian_lady_dancers]]. Please continue the discussion there, if you wish. You will see that I already responded to you. Or continue it on your talk page, if you wish. Or mine. By the way, I already have quite a sense of accomplishment. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:27, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::SamHB, I still think your quest is quixotic. By the way, given your liberal leanings, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to you that in the [[Western World]], the left in many cases is running out other peoples money to spend on their misadventures so your in good company in terms of pursuing quixotic quests. I have two parting words for you: "Austerity budget". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== 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 {{removed personal remark}} 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 {{removed personal remark}}.

I think RobS is at heart an {{removed personal remark}} 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 [http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot "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. [[User:Conservative|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.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 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. [[User:Conservative|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).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 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. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. [[User:MaxFletcher|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:MaxFletcher|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. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. [[User:Conservative|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. --[[User:JarradD|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.) --[[User:Sid 3050|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. [[User:Conservative|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. --[[User:JarradD|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. --[[User:SeanS|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. --[[User:JarradD|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. --[[User:SeanS|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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. --[[User:SeanS|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. [[User:MaxFletcher|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. --[[User:JarradD|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--[[User:SeanS|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. [[User:RobSmith|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? --[[User:JarradD|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. --[[User:JarradD|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? --[[User:BradleyS|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. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=105805] The blocking of editors for alleged "membership in a website supporting vandalism" ''has always been illegitimate'', and if anything, an apology is due. [[User:RobSmith|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. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --[[User:JarradD|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! --[[User:Sid 3050|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. --[[User:JarradD|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. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, it would. --[[User:JarradD|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? --[[User:Benp|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]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Let me explain Conservapedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology 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;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 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;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=894017&oldid=892763 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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism_and_obesity&action=historysubmit&diff=893866&oldid=893394 User:Conservative's incivility here] and hang the {{[[Template:personal remark removed|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. [[User:RobSmith|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. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|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. --[[User:Benp|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Then where is he? [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:Conservative|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? --[[User:JarradD|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. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have {{removed personal remark}} 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. [[User:Conservative|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? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. [[User:NickP|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. [[User:NickP|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.''' [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:NickP|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --[[User:BradleyS|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, <s>censored</s>, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/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. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=894161&oldid=894159 this user did it.] ive since reverted it.--[[User:SeanS|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. [[User:LowKey|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? --[[User:SeanS|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. [[User:NickP|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. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his Administrator rights ==

I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his administrator rights. I regret to say that RobS is engaging in inexcusable behavior which was previously described on this talk page, but has now been whitewashed from this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am considering lobbying harder for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:[[Hearsay]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:56, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== I know I am a new poster ==
But I have been registered for some time and I have to say one of the main reasons I have not tried to contribute here is because of the behaviour of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. His childish 'satire' articles have done more to make me re-consider than anything else on here, and I have already spoted several parody entries in articles such as the article on Motorcycles. About the only thing that would make me become a regular contributor would be if [[User:RobS|RobS]] were able to succeed in his attempts to reign in the more idiotic 'contributions' of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. But no doubt I will now be blocked for daring to voice this opinion, despite Aschlafly having said previously that dissenting opinions are not censored on Conservapedia. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Davidspemcer, If you do choose to contribute in the future, I would suggest using the Firefox browser as it would enable you find your spelling mistakes (behavior and spotted). Second, if you want to show you are a good faith editor and not merely a member of a vandal website, I would suggest further expanding the article [[Soviet atheism]] and please cite reputable sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Oh the irony. Myusername is DavidspeNcer and not M. And I do use the firefox browser, 3.6.3 to be precise with greasemonkey, no script and IE View installed.
:::::And I am British so the word is spelt behaviour as far as I am concerned and seeing as we created the English language I will use that version if that is ok with you. And this is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that I mean. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Sid and David, the [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] and the reactions of atheists with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] reminds me of the movies when "holy water" is sprinkled on the demon possessed.

Obsessed atheist: What's that?

Conservapedian: One of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|satires concerning atheism and evolution]].

Obsessed atheist: Keep it away! Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Concerning the article [[Soviet atheism]], how can I improve on what is evidently perfection. Concerning your articles such as [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] most of them can not be improved on can they, hence them being locked. However I will see what I can do to improve the already good article concerning [[Soviet atheism]]. Now I will refrain from commenting again for a while as I do not wish to violate the 90/10 rule which, as Aschlafly said, is only a guidleine anyway. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Without wanting to pronounce on the rights and wrongs of the situation under discussion, is it quite seemly for a user to weigh in and reply to complaints made to a third party about his own conduct? Monkeys and organ grinders spring to mind.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
CPalmer, because you are an atheist and an evolutionists, I humbly defer to your superior atheist intellect and your superior knowledge of monkeys. "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, why do you think that I am an atheist and an evolutionist(s)? I am just questioning whether your hasty butting in on people's overtures to Mr Schlafly can be considered polite. From a practical point of view, I would think it would also tend to prolong or inflame disputes (wasting more of your time and others'), rather than speeding their resolution. We know what your position is, so you do not need to restate it here until the discussion is furthered by a response from Aschlafly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::CPalmer, my apologies. The was a former user with a similar username as you who had a habit of being unreasonable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Proposed blocking reform framework ==

Setting aside the current disputes about blocking and whether CP's current blockers/Sysops do or have ever done an unwarranted block or whether Sysops should undo another Sysops block, I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks. I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking.

Absent of such a policy being developed using the framework I am about to suggest, I would be willing to assist in the creation of such a policy sometime in the fall of 2011.

Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting:

1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable.

2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.

3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board that could meet either bi-monthly or monthly or every two months (or perhaps quarterly). The CP community can offer up suggestions on whose blocks should be reviewed, but each CP editor can only offer so many candidates lest a cumbersome list be created of past blocks (CP has been around for 3 plus years. Perhaps, the blocking review board will only look at blocks for a given period). The blocking review panel could be made up of Sysops and non-Sysops and a certain amount of blocks per blocking period (which will be decided by this proposed framework} will be reviewed. For example, say the blocking review board meets one a month. It could be decided that 5 blocks per month could be reviewed by the board. Perhaps, Andy could choose to review the boards decision for any given period that the board meets. Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board.

I am not saying my framework couldn't be adjusted as time goes by (how often they meet, how many candidates are reviewed, etc.), but I do think that my proposed blocking reform provides adequate protection, but is not overly complex or burdensome given any blocking periods blocking volume. I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board. I would suggest that RobS not be a part of such a blocking review board because including myself 3 Sysops that I am aware of now think he should lose his Admin rights.

I was told by a pessimist that a workable blocking reform couldn't possibly be developed in 30 minutes or less. However, I believe I just created one. :) I welcome other editors comments on my blocking reform framework lest I am being overly optimistic about the viability of my suggested reform. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:I like it. Although I would say, if Rob doesn't lose admin rights he should be allowed on the review board. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::If such a board is created, I will suggest to Andy and my fellow Admins (including the two who think he should no longer have Admin rights) that RobS not be allowed to serve on the board. Perhaps, after a considerable amount of time and evidence that RobS has changed, I would no longer oppose him being on such a board. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:02, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== 3 Sysops now agree that RobS should lose his Admin rights ==

Including myself, 3 Sysops now think RobS should lose his Admin rights. Sysop TerryH said I could list his name. I have not yet strongly lobbied for RobS to lose his Admin rights among my fellow Sysops and editors. I am giving RobS a chance to apologize for his recent behavior including among other things, the behavior I mentioned on this talk page but was whitewashed off this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
: There are more users that have come forth believing you should lose your Admin rights. RobS has pushed for accountability for sysops and clear banning rules. It speaks volumes about you three. The one person calling for user friendly changes should lose his rights, while the man/woman/man-child/eunuch who bans the dissenters, burns evidence of dissent, and writes asinine articles on casual relationships present in any demographic, should continue unabated? No, you are a large factor in the farce that is Conservapedia.

:Conservapedia has yet to gain any large-scale positive attention. No high-profile conservatives have endorsed Conservapedia. This project can't even attract many good faith editors. Many who come in get banned at the door. Those who make it through are immediately suspected parodists. Those who toe the CP line too hard are branded as parodists and banned. Those who deviate from the CP line are vandals and banned. When a user disagrees with a sysop they are banned. If they disagree with you in particular, they are banned and the relevant talk page is burned. CP bans for ideological differences and censors dissent. As long as this behavior continues CP will never be a respectful source. RobS is pushing to change this. His proposed changes won't end the problem, but it is certainly a large step forward from the current system.

:User:Conservative, you are the one who needs to lose admin rights for your obvious abuse of power, not RobS. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::While I do not agree with all of CP's material, Concerned women of America (CWA), Human Events, Patriot Update (PU) and other conservative websites have linked to CP in a positive way (CWA and PU linked to material I had a substantial hand in if memory serves). Please try to have an informed opinion rather than merely an opinion. Second, I am not of the opinion that the number of people advocating a position is paramount. Neither did America's Founding Fathers who set up a republic and not a democracy. While I do not agree with all of Ann Coulter's political positions (the military, etc.), I am considering reading my first Ann Coulter book which focuses on how liberals love mob rule. Third, you certainly did prove your claim that anyone or anyone who disagrees with me, I ban or that I oversight all those disagree with me. I would also point out that RobS banned me and I never never banned him. It could be argued that in many ways I have shown more tolerance of him than he has afforded me. And all of this could have been avoided. All RobS had to do was stop pestering concerning inane and non-urgent matters. I wonder if RobS likes to poke sleeping dogs over and over and then complain when they bite him. And lately, RobS's poor behavior has gone significantly beyond merely pestering me which I mentioned on this talk page before it was whitewashed away (RobS recommended doing the whitewashing). As a result, I said enough is enough and sided with those who think he should lose his Admin rights. I do think he should be able to earn back his Admin if he admits his wrongdoing and behaves in a more positive manner for a period of time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::You have twice now made the very serious charge that I reverted other Admin's comments on my own talk page, with no diffs as evidence, which I pointedly deny. I do not have Oversight privileges, either. If comments you made to my talk page were reverted, deleted, or oversighted, it could not have possibly be done by me. Now, please desist from your personal attacks impugning my reputation, character, and integrity as Conservapedia Sysop. I edit under my real life identity, and I suggest you immediately desist from these unfounded personal attacks. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:46, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

I specified high profile conservatives, I said nothing of websites. Either way, [http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1350/comparisonv.png this link compares Conservapedia, the three websites you mentioned, and a comic strip.] As you can see, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is bigger than all of them. So I feel safe saying CP has no large scale positive support. Furthermore, there are no Congressmen or Senators that have endorsed CP. To my knowledge there are no candidates that have endorsed CP either.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of open discussion of problems. They did not stifle discussion by suddenly becoming busy when challenged, or by doing whatever the 18th century equivalent of locking their talk pages was. The Founding Fathers also had a large problem with men abusing their power.

That's where you come in. Let's look at your block reasons. Of course, I can only provide the diff logs for a few of these, you've burned most of the pages:

''15:45, 6 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Soxwon04 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (having a sentence with an unsupported clause followed by a question. waste someone else's time)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''04:10, 7 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked XavierC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki)'' [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/XavierC Here] is his contribs. He called you out for locking your talk page and stifling debate, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=886852 here.] Yes, he called you a coward, but this is extremely common for you to do other people.

''16:49, 29 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Haggger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo)'' Burned diff logs. How can we evaluate his actions?
''02:00, 2 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked SNg (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार [Masculinity is not behaving])'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''21:55, 25 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Sasayaki (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize )'' Contribs is blank, I remember this one. User answered the Question Evolution Campaign and asked own questions to you. Oh, boo-hoo he linked to RW. He disagreed with you, took up your debate, and you deleted the evidence.

''02:41, 24 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Atheistlogic1995 (Talk | contribs) wit''h an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (oxymoron)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''18:25, 1 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked PapaBear (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (too much talk, talk not enough serious enditing)'' User made three posts, two of them talk pages, one of which was remember to add his sig. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=873210 Offending post here.] Criticizes gossip in the BHO article.

''00:34, 28 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Jclough (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''22:54, 15 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aleksyevt (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Yeah, he talked a lot. You know what else he did? Ask for more sources, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Agnosticism&diff=prev&oldid=869530 here.]

Ten examples within you're last 120 blocks: 8.3% Seven of these had blank contribs pages. How can we even analyze this? You are showing no accountability in your position of power on this wiki. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 16:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::JonS, you are still wrong. [[Matt Barber]] and [[William Dembski]] linked to Conservapedia in a positive light as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia|HERE]]. I personally know that a leader in a extremely well known Christian organization linked to CP's atheism and evolution articles which I largely wrote (Please do not forget the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don't know about various links does not mean they do not exist. :) ). Second, please feel free to have your liberal/evolutionists/atheists bean counter friends scour through my blocks and tabulate and examine them. I would hope they have bigger fish to fry in their lives, but I am not particularly concerned if they do. The truth is that those who whine and kvetch about me in the vast majority of cases do so because of the atheism/evolution articles I largely created at CP. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Please provide a link to this "extremely well known Christian organization." You should also acknowledge your wanton abuse of power. You can spin a quick look into your block log however you like, but that does not change you ban people for disagreeing with you, and that you burn the evidence of it. You are complained about for two reasons: 1) you abuse your sysop powers. 2) Your atheist/evolution articles are non-encyclopedic. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ha! Demski links to Conservapedia in a "positive light"? The best that he says is that a part of the Conservapedia [[Climategate]] article "...does not sound entirely far fetched". A ringing endorsement! As for Matt Barber, no link is provided and a search of the CWA website (that you refer to in reference to him) for "Conservapedia" comes up with no results. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would like to note something here. Just because a user's contributions are blank does not mean that they didn't make contributions. I assume that they made inappropriate articles, or in some cases, did not follow the proper username policies. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::This has been a serious problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:02, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
The userpages are left blank because Conservative has oversighted the pages they contributed to. There are two people who have names technically in violation of the rules on the list. Neither of them are said to be blocked for that reason. Given the people who have been blocked for 90/10 violations, I assume they disagreed with Conservative, he seems to block for that (Aleksyevt, PapaBear, and Sasayaki all criticized him). Even if they made inappropriate articles, Conservative should only delete them, rather than burn them, then we can be aware of these blocks, and he can be accountable, a concept he seems unfamiliar with. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 19:20, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== In an effort to end this continued and protracted debate ==

This has gone one for long enough. Both editors, RobS and Conservative, have used personal comments against each other and both have argued from opposite corners but to no avail. Why don't they '''both''' lose their sysop rights for a time - then they can prove themselves once more. I know I am just a new user but still, this is going on and on without resolution. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, in the absence of RobS pestering me again or engaging in additional very egregious behavior, I have spoken my piece on this matter. I have a feeling that RobS will either lose his Admin rights in the next 1-5 days or keep shooting himself in the foot through his poor behavior and cause his own demise or he will alter his course. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I feel, and I am sure that many other observers would agree, that you are both guilty of poor behaviour, personal attacks and actions unbecoming of someone in a position of power. I am a mere observer and carry no weight of course but it is people like me who come to conservapedia to contribute and who'll be turned off by protracted arguments, reverting and disappearing of editors comments, accusations and poorly thought out essays and ongoing in fighting. Which you are both guilty of (one in more areas than the other). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, if your words carry no weight, then why offer them? Frankly, given the substance of your recent post to me I have to agree with you on this point. Now that we both agree that your words carry no weight, I won't feel bad ignoring you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::carry no weight as in no authority not because of lack of substance. All I was trying to do was be even handed, rational and end the pointed bickering. But since you have insulted me, and not for the first time, I leave you to ignore me. Frankly for someone that calls atheist quarrelsome and socially challenged you certainly seem to be showing similar traits yourself. As a Christian I avoid insults and try to be polite and fair and as I don't feel I can continue to be so I'll have to end my response here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You end your comments by calling him a hypocrite, then claim to avoid insults?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:19, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I think that Max is selling himself short. He has shown himself to be a calm and considered editor. His input should be valued and I would ask that he continue to participate in this discussion. SeanS, on the other hand, has shown himself incapable of staying on topic. In the section [[User_talk:Aschlafly#RobS_becoming_a_pawn_and_a_.22useful_idiot.22_of_an_atheist_website|above]] he totally derailed the discussion in an attempt to attack me. However, his input is also welcome if he can stay on topic and avoid irrelevant personal attacks.

I would like to voice my view of Max's original post in this section. I do not see why Rob should lose any rights. So far as I can see he has worked hard to improve this site and introduce reform that would only benefit the site. He has been met by a series of largely unreferenced slurs by Conservative who clearly regards his own position as under threat. If Rob were to lose rights it would send out the message that anyone who seeks to improve the site is putting their own position at risk. I do not regard that as a positive message. On the other hand I have no difficulty with Conservative losing admin rights. His history is one of abuse and failure to co-operate as has been demonstrated above and elsewhere again and again. I have no personal animosity towards him/her but he/she stands in the way of this site ever becoming a serious educational tool. That is regrettable but it is also an unavoidable conclusion. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:59, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
===One second...===
This is Andy Schlafly's talk page, so shouldn't he be the one to decide on this? He has not posted anything yet, so I assume he is busy. Perhaps we should wait until his decision? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 19:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Amen. Can we please show the man a little respect by giving him a chance to respond? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::If andy wanted to reply, he could have by now. If he is going to, he will when he considers it best. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:18, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:::It's no secret that Andy has quite a number of projects on his plate, Sean. He's a busy man with a lot of demands on his time. It's entirely possible that he hasn't had a chance to look at any of this yet. Whether he has or not, though, the point remains: this is his talk page. It is a place to communicate with him, not to carry on general debates with all and sundry. In the interest of putting my money where my mouth is, I will be refraining from further posts here. I urge others to do the same. Both Conservative and RobS have said their piece; Andy will respond as he chooses and in his own time, as is his perogative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::: ''If he is going to, he will when he considers it best.''--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

==My two cents for Mr Schlafly==

I have been reading conservapedia for several months now, and I am pleased to say that my kids (11 and 14) also use it as their first point of call when needing encyclopedic information for homework assignments etc). I have not signed up an account as I do not feel knowledgeable (or tech-savvy) enough to contribute anything meaningful. However I fell compelled to chime in here regarding the ongoing discussion regarding the direction of this website. Cards on the table now: I am a conservative Christian and I read and encourage my kids to read this website because it promotes true American values. The main page is my "go to point" for the latest news, as the administrators here seem to have an uncanny knack of highlighting exactly the kind of stories I am interested in, I am also pleased to say that the article evolution has given my kids plenty of knowledge that is censored from them in school (and the satires have brought us all many hearty chuckles! :) ). From what little I know of this website, User:Conservative has contributed a huge amount of first-rate material and wishes to maintain the integrity of this site as a reliable conservative Christian resource, whilst User:Rob Smith (maybe with a view to enlarging the target audience?) wishes to make the site more liberal and cater to atheistic views. There are plenty of liberal atheistic sites out there, I choose not to read them. I choose to read conservapedia. Please don't change that Mr Schlafly. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 20:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy) ==

Deep breath and here we go...

These are my thoughts on the blocking policy, somewhat directed at Conservative's proposals.

1) Blocking for obvious vandals is, well, obvious. Blanking pages, filling pages with gibberish, vulgar or stupid names, etc. is just childish and such children should have a time out - a long time out. I don't believe a lot of time or effort needs to be spent establishing rules for those cases.

2) Parody, as noted elsewhere on this page, is much harder to discern. I have noticed recent blocks (and no, I'm not going to go search for them - I'm not here to point fingers) that have been questionable, in my opinion. There needs to be a set and fairly easy procedure where a blocked editor who feels their block was unfair can present his/her/its case. Chances are that most blocks are good, but in cases where there was a misunderstanding, or a personality clash, a ''disinterested'' admin needs to step in.

3) I've already suggested a board of some type, consisting of both admins and regular editors. Given the number of appeals can't be known ahead of time, setting a regular schedule might not be warranted. The board could meet when a certain number (4 or 5?) appeals have been presented and make their decision, with Andy possibly reviewing it and putting his seal of approval on it. Notifications of the board meeting should be posted prominently on the front page. A talk page could be provided with a list of editors who are appealing their block. This would allow others who are not on the board but who might have a direct interest could express their opinion. There might also be a rule with regards to a blocked editor who has been restored and their subsequent behavior.

4) As for the makeup of the board – right now I feel that should be decided later, when tempers have cooled a bit. One possible idea is to make it a rotating membership, with say, a six-month tenure. This would prevent the board duties from becoming too onerous a task for the individual members.

On a personal note, I would like to request that the editors here at CP remember that debates and discussions about articles, essays and even questionable editors should be about the actual ''edits'' that have been made, not about the editors' personalities. I realize it can be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!)
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, if you eventually gain Sysop status, I would work on getting a blocking review board going. Putting notices of the board meeting on the front page will never realistically happen though. I would also suggest having the meetings occur according to a specified time period for predictability (bi-monthly, monthly, every two months, etc. ) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:29, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== My proposed solution to the current crisis ==
My understanding is that the the [[User:CPanel|Student Panel]] has the final word on all matters related to the site. Why don't we put the following questions to them?

* Who is wrong here? Conservative, RobS, neither or both?
* In the event that they determine that one or both of them has acted inappropriately, what should happen to them? (Temporary block, permanent block, demotion, etc)
* Is the current block policy sufficient and appropriate?
* If not, what policy would be?

I feel this is the only solution left. God Bless. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 00:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

::'''''We''''' shouldn't present it to them - it should be either Conservative or Rob who bring the case before the panel, since it involves them. Andy could, if he prefers to remain neutral in this case, have the panel look over the situation. If there are any other editors who are ''directly'' involved, then they too might have a reason to take it before the panel. The rest of us are onlookers and we should all cease involving ourselves into the matter. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I appreciate the concern SharonW. I should have asked Aschlafly intervene earlier as far as RobS as it would have been a better use of time. He would have been glad to do it. As far as a blocking policy, I put together what I thought was a workable block review policy framework and maybe someone will pick up that ball and run with it. I said I may help develop a blocking review policy in the fall, but the more I think about it that was wishful thinking. I have decided to pursue other matters. 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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:37, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Does the Panel still exist?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 01:18, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::[[User:SharonW|SharonW]], I respectfully disagree. RobS and Conservative are creating a problem for the whole community and it is therefore the responsibility of the whole community to see that it gets solved. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 02:21, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The point is moot, anyway; the Student Panel's [[User Talk:CPanel|talk page]] is locked. If they're watching, or if someone has the ability to bring this issue to them, I urge that person to do so. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:55, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Sorry Fergus, but the student panel may as well not exist. "Conservative" completely coopted the Evolution article for his own YEC purposes, which is expressly contrary to the student panel's instructions, yet nobody's heard a peep from the student panel in 4+ years. If it was watching don't you think it would have intervened in that situation years ago? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 19:17, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have checked into the record and it appear the CP Student Panels' ruling only applies to the evolution article, as I cannot find any record anywhere it extends beyond that. It may have at one time, but there is no record now of it. I may be wrong in this interpretation. Also, a recent question has arisen whether to ruling still stands or is valid, as the current version is not the one the Student Panel endorsed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:08, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Moving on..... ==

What about both parties calling it quits and letting the encyclpedia move forward. In the mean time, user:conservative can perhaps,

1. Tone down his abuse of people with other belief patterns.

2. Consider getting his articles reworded by a native English speaker as the prose style of "Indian English" appears quite different to what people of United States of America or most of the western world is used to. --[[User:PHilton|PHilton]] 08:54, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:They should move on but conservative must make changeS?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking review ==

I strongly believe the only true way to have a fair blocking policy is to have users who are willing to review blocks. I've been worried about the implications of what amounts to block-reverting, but I'm confident enough in the sysop community that I don't think any user would object to having a second pair of eyes look at a block; I also think it's important that users who really think they've been unfairly blocked be able to make their case and in some cases be given a second chance. It's been said we don't have the manpower for such reviews, but I think we're overestimating the number of users who would take the time to ask for review on a block. I've publicly listed my email on my [[User:Iduan|userpage]] for users who do wish to do so.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:58, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:I've raised the idea of a [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&diff=prev&oldid=894420 Blocking Foreman] to review and councel blocking editors as a way to gain a uniform standard to interpret CP blocking policy. But the position would require some muscle. I haven't worked out a formal proposal on it yet. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::I like the idea of this, but I think your mistaken as to the number of active bureaucrats the site has. The number is one, maybe two. You can see all of them [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=bureaucrat here]. "Admin"'s last edit was four years ago, CPWebmaster's was 8 months ago, and SharonS's was 2 years ago.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:27, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Policies that need to die: Editorial Authority ==

*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=893605&oldid=893603 DouglasA removes a list of games from a game franchise article]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=894046&oldid=893605 SeanS reverts this (IMHO senseless) deletion]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASeanS&year=&month=-1 DouglasA blocks SeanS for two weeks: "Reverting admin"]
Anybody see what is wrong in this picture? Anybody? You, the man in the top hat! What was that? "It's sysop abuse to block somebody for a simple revert?" BZZZZZZZZZZZT! WRONG! DouglasA is absolutely in the right here.

''It's the rules that are messed up.''

I feel it's time we take a closer look at one of the more silent policies of Conservapedia: Editorial authority!

So what is Editorial Authority? Let's take a look at [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]]:
*'''Do not revert an Administrator's changes without first discussing it with them, and gaining their permission. Administrators are in charge of deciding the editorial policy of Conservapedia. Their instruction(s) on such matters are always to be followed.'''

In other words: If an administrator edits a mainspace article to read "General Relativity causes breast cancer", then normal editors are not allowed to remove that without asking for permission. If said permission doesn't come, then tough luck, go edit something else, liberal.

This is why this block is perfectly within the rules. And even a five-year block would have been fine - after all, we don't have any guidelines about block durations.

It's also an ''excellent'' illustration that something is deeply wrong here.

Can we ''please'' get rid of this obscure rule? It's one of the worst policies ever introduced and completely kills off the wiki spirit through the most literal form of "Might makes right". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:I absolutely and completely agree with you, Sid 3050. This rule needs a '''''lot''''' of clarification. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:15, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think that the 2 week block was too harsh, but I disagree with the idea that the rule should be revoked. Administrators are supposed to be chosen for their judgement, and there's nothing wrong with requiring some discussion beforehand--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:02, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I agree completely, and I firmly believe that this is CP's biggest flaw. Admins should not be considered as having a greater say editorially than other editors. A wiki is a collaborative endeavour and this rule completely inverts this process and turns editors right off. I know it turns people off because I remember once hammering out a compromise on some (minor) articles talkpage with various people about how an article should begin, only to have an admin come in and tell us that our input was not required. My editing slowed right down after that. If you want to run a blog, then run a blog, if you want a wiki then lets have a wiki. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 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)