Conservapedia talk:Locks and Blocks

Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks Discussion

we do not block for ideological reasons ... but for silliness what happens when someone decides that someone else's ideology is silliness? WhatIsG0ing0n 07:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't "...it comes right at the end of the Bible where you can't miss it" in the article Fornication [1] be considered silliness or is that ideology?

WhatIsG0ing0n 07:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Your comment is in the wrong place, but that's okay: it got my attention.

You are free to delete anything I write which looks silly to you. --Ed Poor 08:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I kinda noticed when you start stuff you return to see what's happened to it;-)

WhatIsG0ing0n 08:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

My watchlist has 765 pages watched not counting talk pages. --Ed Poor 09:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

And I thought I was bad off... ("142 pages watched not counting talk pages") --Sid 3050 12:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Issues...

I don't know, but something about this proposed policy rubs me the wrong way... I think it's two things...

1. "our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the group of Sysops to make changes on a manual basis based on comments on the Talk page"
   • Is this an attempt to create a policy against the current trend of article owning? Or is it just a nice way of justifying said trend? It's most definitely NOT a description of what's actually happening at the moment.
   • Suggestion: In the case of ideological conflict, lock the page, stop all editing and use the Talk page until this conflict is resolved. Simply limiting editing to a few sysops acting under Andy's protection shield is a trivial solution to the conflict - one side marches through, the other side is silenced.
2. "argument without end, on points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy"
   • This term makes no sense. There is no "Conservapedia philosophy" other than "We are different than Wikipedia", which isn't really saying anything.
   • This point has been argued about a lot: Conservapedia does not admit its obvious bias in favor YEC, Christianity, Bible-Literanism (is that the word?), Republicans, and "conservative values" (as per Andy's view of what that means). There simply is no site philosophy or stated goal.
   • If you claim that there is one, point to an official page saying so - I'm not the only one who missed it then. It's not in the rules, the differences page or the main page.
   • Suggestion: Admit the bias on the front page. Don't pack it into lawyer speak, euphemisms or terms that will be misunderstood (like "conservative values" - it has been often shown that Andy's view of that term is NOT a widely accepted standard, and many self-described conservatives here were quite surprised at who Andy called "not conservative"). Just flat out state that this site openly supports YEC and such. Then you'd have some sort of rough site philosophy. --Sid 3050 12:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Cursing

You should put on there cursing is a blockable offense only if your not a sysop or admin. Because I have seen sysops say the word Bastard and they were never blocked. Isn't this contrary to what you are saying? Shouldn't sysops set an example on how to behave on conservapedia? --FredK 23:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

• Bastard is not a curse word, but properly a descriptive noun. FredK, your objection was noted about Ed Poor, and answered. You now have my full attention. Trust me, ask around, you don't want it. Be productive. Contribute. Let your personal vendettas go! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

# Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block only for ideological reasons.

Isn't this rather badly phrased? If conservapedia does not block only for ideological reasons, then presumably it blocks for other ideas in addition to ideological reasons. I'm sure that this is not the intent of the instruction- but it's what it says.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)