Conservapedia:User complaints

This is the place for Conservapedia users to make complaints about other Conservapedia editor's actions, attitude, civility, or ideological leanings Please re-read Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility and Conservapedia:Editing etiquette before posting here. In this mainspace, and only this mainspace, is the basic civility rule of not posting Editor usernames in subheadings waived for the purpose of soliciting other members of the Community to comment or gang up on an Editor. All other civility rules and etiquette guidelines, however, are not waived. Please act accordingly.

Conservapedia:User complaints/Archives

Taking a page from the boss's book

Well, now we have another list of lies with no evidence to back it up, such as the site's viewership going down since I returned; Robbybaby wants to blame it on me, but I'm counting all the remaining editors - and there are just a handful of them - and I can rightly blame Robbybaby for driving them all away. Nobody wants to work with a jerk.

So, since he is a jerk, as well as an arrogant, narcissistic little bully, the best way to deal with such an individual is right out of Andy's playbook, which is to ignore him. Don't even talk to him, don't respond to him, don't even give him the time of day. Just let him whine, scream, pout, whatever, because there's absolutely nothing he can do about it. And he cannot block you for not talking to him, can he? Karajou (talk) 18:53, October 7, 2023 (EDT)

Yeah, man. If no-one acknowledges the bonkers guff he regularly inserts into articles and MPR, then that ... means it isn't there and the rest of the world can't see it either! This will definitely work. No notes. ConwayIII (talk) 21:03, October 7, 2023 (EDT)

Hope you're proud of yourself now

Oct 1, 2023

Oct. 2, 2023 Karajou reactivated.

Oct 6, 2023.

RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:12, October 7, 2023 (EDT)

In order to successfully blame myself for this drop in numbers, people would need to look and see that I have returned, which would mean the viewing numbers would go up. Nice try, moron. Karajou (talk) 08:12, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

Motion of no confidence

I am initiating a vote of no confidence in User:RobSmith. Over the past few months, I have grown increasingly distressed with the state of Conservapedia. I would like to contribute good-quality conservative content, but I have not because of the shadow RobSmith casts over the encyclopedia. A by no means exhaustive list of grievances:

• He is the king of "rules for thee, but not for me". He often complains about people "peeing all over the carpet" by joining in discussions they were not a part of. And yet he finds the need to respond to every thread over at User talk:Aschlafly, adding his "two cents".
• He claims that anything critical of Russia or Putin is Russophobic
• He believes that he is responsible for the decrease in vandalism over the past few months, when anyone with a functioning brain would realize it is because creating new accounts is disabled
• He believes that page protection is the first tool against vandalism. No. Blocks are used when the problem is the user, page protection is used when the problem is the page. Protecting pages because of one user just prevents good faith contributions to the page by other users.
• His views on content are wildly off-base with those of the general readership of CP. See: Conservapedia:AFD Essay:Russian war crimes in Ukraine
• He views any popular challenge to his authority as a mobocracy, when it is simply an exercise in the taking the views of the best of the public
• He needs to collaborate with everyone, not just members of Team CP. There was no elitist gang of editors until RobSmith started one.

The undersigned users endorse this statement and believe RobSmith needs to be de-sysoped for the good of Conservapedia, and humbly request Andy remove his admin rights:

Endorsements

1. The problem is RobSmith, not the supposedly "Russophobic" contributors he keeps attacking. MayGodBless (talk) 20:34, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   You're lucky this isn't the good old days; Karajou and User:Conservative would have just blocked you and deleted everything by now. Don't I get credit for stopping that? RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:08, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   How did *you* stop that? MayGodBless (talk) 21:11, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   Have you been blocked and this page deleted for initiating this vote? You know darn well Karajou and Cons would have booted your butt in 5 mins. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:18, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   I actually don't, given that I am a fairly new editor. And If I had initiated something like this without good cause, I would deserve to be blocked.

   But you have not answered my main point: how did the actions of RobSmith change the dynamic at CP? MayGodBless (talk) 22:52, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   Read some of the items you enumerated above. You're just lucky you're still here, cause Karajou and User:Cons would have deleted any trace you ever existed if you tried anything like this with them. Heck, I'm the guy who created this place for people to come and air their grievances without fear of getting blocked. 23:07, October 9, 2023 (EDT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobSmith (talk)

   Gorbachev opened up the USSR and it led to criticism of the system. And again, you have not addressed my point: what action(s) taken by you are preventing Karajou and/or Conservative from blocking me for criticising you? And know this: I am not trying to attack you. Your heart is in the right place. I am merely expressing the viewpoint that you need to be a regular editor while you learn how to be a net-positive to this wiki. MayGodBless (talk) 23:27, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   I'm not getting into our internal politics. Why haven't you taken the pledge to edit in good faith? All you've done here is cite a bunch of second and third hand hearsay, and don't have a personnel grievance yourself. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 23:39, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   What do you find objectional about this language, and what would you propose to improve it: "We the undersigned editors at Team CP pledge to work cooperatively with other signees as a cooperative editor to produce content for Conservapedia under the Conservapedia:Commandments and Conservapedia:Guidelines. We pledge to treat other editors with dignity and respect, and not engage in ceaseless acts of incivility, edit warring, and trolling, etc. We pledge to make, good, well researched content for Conservapedia readers. We pledge to work together as cooperative editors, and not engage in unnecessary, senseless trivial disputes, personality clashes, carry grudges, and to work for a spirit of cooperation among editors."

   RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 23:42, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   My personal grievance is it is destroying this website. And I ask that you withdraw your comment "Don't I get credit for stopping that?" if you are unwilling or unable to back it up with sources. And I strongly object to the line "We the undersigned editors at Team CP pledge to work cooperatively with other signees" (bold in original, italics mine). At a wiki, you work cooperatively with everyone, even if they don't particularly want to work cooperatively with you. That is a basic tenant of editing that anyone with SkipCaptcha should know, let alone an admin. I would also consider asking Andy why he has not signed your pledge if you want to know why people have not signed it. MayGodBless (talk) 23:53, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   I don't need to, cause I did. I don't block on sight editors such as yourself who engage in the type of conduct you are engaging in right now - that's one of my reforms. You have no personnel grievance, yet are soliciting a conspiracy against another editor. That's bad faith editing. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 23:59, October 9, 2023 (EDT)

   So upholding a basic sense of decency to allow constructive criticism is a "reform" you want credit for? Inflation is coming down, but that doesn't mean we should re-elect Joe Biden. And I absolutely have a personal grievance: I want CP to thrive. You are acting as an impediment to that. And if you understood what the phrase "good faith" means, you would know it is a belief that you are doing good regardless of if you are successful or not. I believe I am being successful, but even if I am not, it is still good faith editing because I believe I am. Something any editor should know. MayGodBless (talk) 00:04, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   The fact you just redirected bad faith editing to an entry of inappropriate behaviour says a lot. Bad faith editing is about faith. You might be trying to accuse me of disruptive editing? MayGodBless (talk) 00:07, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   No, the Etiquette section still needs rounding out, but it has the link to the specific section you are in violation of right now. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 00:12, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   See, we've had problems at this website in the past that too often were met with the sledgehammer by Karajou and User:Conservative. You have no discernible complaint, as far as I can tell. Specifically mentioned in the Guidelines: Flaming or flame wars; posting user disputes over multiple pages. And you don't even have a personnel dispute or grievance. As an Admin, I make a judgement call to call that "trolling". Now I can issue a warning, or a suggestion. I'll begin with a suggestion: My suggestion is you stop trolling, me, other users, and this website. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 00:19, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Let's go over this again. I believe I am helping CP => I am acting in good faith. By definition. MayGodBless (talk) 00:22, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Ok. You may believe that in your mind, and I'm not challenging that. As a 16-year senior veteran Administrator on this site, I see things quite differently; I see someone who is not familiar with our rules and guidelines, a wayward child as it were, who needs to be guided back to the right path. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 00:32, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Good. We can agree that I "believe that in [my] mind". Which means that your assertion that I am partaking in "bad faith editing" is patently false and a personal attack. MayGodBless (talk) 00:50, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   No it doesn't it. It means I, in good faith, respect your assessment of your own conduct in violation of our Guidelines as being in good faith. And it also means by my Adminship, I believe you are in error, and my job is to steer you back to a proper course. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 00:55, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   (outdenting) RobSmith, I thought we had an agreement. I am acting in good faith, yes? Which means that I am not partaking in bad faith editing. Pretty simple logic. What part of that do you need me to explain again? MayGodBless (talk) 00:58, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   I would love it if you could persuade one (1) other person that your view is correct. I have already convinced two (2) people that you are in the wrong, which is more than have signed up for your Team CP. MayGodBless (talk) 00:59, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   I said, I believe and respected your belief that you were acting in good faith. I now believe, since you've been showed chapter and verse the type of editing that you engaged in - which there is no way to undo short of issuing several public retractions and apologies - can be considered trolling activity. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 01:02, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Do you believe trolling is the same thing as bad faith editing? Hint: they are not. MayGodBless (talk) 01:05, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   That's a very good question. I'd be interested to sit back and hear you expound on the matter. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 01:08, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   I asked the question, oh wise administrator. Guide me; show me the light. Explain the difference between trolling and bad faith editing, please. I am, after all, a newbie and need to be guided by a powerful administrator who is respected such as yourself. MayGodBless (talk) 01:12, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Oh, ok. Nevermind. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 01:21, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Are you incapable of answering that basic question? You don't get to hand-wave this away. What is the difference between bad faith editing and trolling? MayGodBless (talk) 07:40, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Another complaint: RobSmith has reverted me with no comment when I remove unattributed quotes. See: [1]. MayGodBless (talk) 11:00, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   He has now re-added the material, this time with a source. Just one problem: the source does not support the given assertion. That is an egregious violation of academic integrity. MayGodBless (talk) 11:06, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

2. Agree with motion of no confidence. Conservative (talk) 20:45, October 9, 2023 (EDT)
3. Absolutely agreed without a doubt. Remove RobSmith's “Administrator” tag ASAP. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Tuesday, 21:38, October 9, 2023 (EDT)
4. Agree: Rob's coverage of the war in Ukraine is flat-out bonkers, pro-Putin fan fiction. It's brimming with deceit and, as it regularly splashes over on to MPR, you've got actual plague signs on your front door for any minimally informed, new conservative readers / editors. Many socks died over the years trying for a similar effect. ConwayIII (talk) 17:10, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Yep. We take a hardline stance against Nazism and the real Nazis cry ouch and come crawling out of the woodwork. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:53, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Is it possible to be anti-Putin and anti-Nazi at the same time? Hint: does 2+2=4? MayGodBless (talk) 18:46, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   In the context of the Ukraine war, no. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 18:49, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   It's Nazis all the way down, man. The swines probably bio-engineered your brain worms, too. Like, on their moonbase or something. ConwayIII (talk) 18:53, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Although I was recently delighted to obtain the book Alice in Wonderland in both text and audio, I generally prefer nonfiction over fiction. So I don't go down the rabbit holes of RobSmith's fictional encyclopedia entries or talk page posts. Conservative (talk) 19:04, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Absolutely, unequivocally false. Stalin fought Hitler, but that does not mean we must support Stalin or else be Nazis. MayGodBless (talk) 19:06, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Even after the Communazi era ended, Stalin wasn't as anti-Nazi as Comsymps like to fantasize. He gave no aid to the Warsaw Uprising, instead allowing the actual anti-Nazi fighters to be crushed by the mass-murderous National Socialists. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 09:58, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

   To say "Stalin fought against the Nazis because he had moral backbone" is akin to "Andrew Johnson opposed the slave-owning Southern planter class because he was pro–civil rights." Yeah, no. It was about destroying one socialist regime to prop up another. Sure, Nazi ideology is a magnitude worse than Communism due to its abhorrently naked racism, though this fact does not give Conservapedia any excuse to glorify Communists as "anti-Nazi." They weren't. From the top-down perspective (when the lower classes attack each other, that's because those ranks are the "disposables" in socialist ideology), they just about never were. If it weren't for Communist help in the Berlin transport strike that depleted SPD votes, thus leading to the parliamentary chaos, Hitler may never have seized power in 1933. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 10:20, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

   Here's the Catch-22 many anti-Putin and anti-Russian bigots painted themselves into: Putin says: "We're going to war against Nazism". Critics says, "Oh, that's just Putin propaganda for the stupid Russian masses", which of course then makes you a Russophobic Nazi bigot. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 19:15, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Putin can go to war against Nazism, and still be responsible for the murder of Litvinenko and countless others. Your simplistic view of the war is that there must be a good side and a bad side. Guess what? In real life (something you, a realist, should care an awful lot about), both sides can be bad. MayGodBless (talk) 21:24, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   No, I think that's the charge that could made against critics - being simplistic. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:17, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

5. Agree: Sometimes Rob sounds like he means well, but then he deletes good content, acts abusively towards other good-faith editors, and pushes pro-communism views. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 22:19, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Being anti-Nazi is not pro-communist - unless you somehow got Nazi = conservative confused. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:31, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Yeah, RobSmith has become a full Communist shill for the past year. He has admitted that aligning with Communists is a supposedly necessary effort to fight off the Ukrainian Nazis, and thus stifles any meaningful anti-Communist exposé because he believes in the neo-Marxist and neo-Nazi narrative that "Nazism = anti-Communism," while conservatives by contrast acknowledge that both National Socialism and Marxist Socialism are very similar far-left ideologies. He rollbacked my well-substantiated, highly sourced edits here and then slandered me on Andy's talk page as a "Nazisymp." I in no way excused Nazism; I simply pointed out that Communists let Nazis into power. The sooner he is defrocked, the better, so Conservapedia finally purges this cancerous stain. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 22:45, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   The problem basically is editors falling for Western propaganda alleging that Vladimir Putin is a communist, or that the Russian Federation is attempting to re-create the Soviet Union. If you bit off on that line of garbage (which you were warned against), don't be surprised if you were labeled a nazisymp. Just as you unfairly labeled Putin and Russia as "communist", now it boomerangs back at you - especially since NATO and the West has lost the war. It would have been easier to listen and pay attention earlier. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 23:06, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

   Ah yes, I referred to the wrong brand of communism, and made the unforgivable sin of calling it just that. To an outside observer they are nearly identical, but in this perverse "king of the communist mountain" game, it apparently makes all the difference. That's why Germany and Russia were enemies in WWII. Each was under an authoritarian system which crushed the populace under the boot of the corrupt regime in power. I wondered if you would jump to the defense of today's rebranded Leninism when I wrote that. Sadly, I'm not surprised that you did. --DavidB4 ^(TALK) 02:58, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

   What RobSmith refuses to admit nowadays is that Nazism is to Communism as Stalinism is to Trotskyism: two rival cults in socialism. He incredulously claimed, just as leftists do, that Hitler was "anti-socialist," essentially pushing the neo-Marxist narrative that Fascism and Nazism are "far-right." Not once in his mention of the Azov Battalion has he ever referred to Ukrainian Nazism as a form of socialism, instead approvingly citing left-wing outlets referring to them as "right-wing"/"far-right." I remember him once on Talk:Main Page saying like "if you aren't a far-right fascist Nazi..." which indicates that he believes the left-wing propaganda narrative Conservapedia has for years debunked.

   Ironically, despite his claims that I'm a "Nazisymp," he himself is pushing Nazi propaganda by attempting to ideologically separate Nazism from Communism, claiming that Communists are "anti-Nazi" and Nazis are "anti-Communist." That narrative is constantly peddled by liars on both the Communist and Nazi side, and refuted by conservatives who acknowledge that they are essentially the same. Furthermore, Nazism is basically a form of Communism, since Hitler was a Communist in early 1919, and much of the Sturmabteilung (SA) were Communist recruits. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 09:54, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

   As the old saying went, "the goal of Socialism is Communism." Well then, since Nazism is short for National Socialism, that means in the case of Hitler and neo-Nazis, the goal of National Socialism is National Communism. Need I say more? —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 10:03, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

6. Agree. Continually lying; blatantly hostile towards others. Acts like he owns this website. Karajou (talk) 08:10, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

"Toxic leaders work to promote themselves at the expense of their subordinates...". - Lieutenant Colonel Darrell W. Aubrey, United States Army, The Effect of Toxic Leadership. Conservative (talk) 09:05, October 11, 2023 (EDT)

Conservative content keeps getting removed

Hi Andy, to let you know, I'm more than happy to pour in hours more time to add conservative content to this wiki and do what I can to flourish page view growth. However, I cannot do that if my additions are reverted. For example, more recently here, my edits were point-blank rollbacked with no reason given, with the page locked, because the rollbacker, a bitter opponent of reality he cannot face, decided I was too anti-Communist (I provided quality citations, but those were ignored).

I very much hope you would like to retain my presence on the site so I can gain extra page views for you, as much as I myself would like to. But I cannot do that any longer if my good-faith edits for the cause of advancing conservative values are removed. Please make the right decision here; thank you. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Sunday, 17:24, October 8, 2023 (EDT)

No, Conservapedia is not going to allow nazi apologists to blame the Holocaust on Communists. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:28, October 8, 2023 (EDT)

And it's insulting to sit here and listen to your attempts to deny the Holocaust was solely the responsibility of Nazis, and shift the blame to Communists, and call that "conservative content".

If you had used talk pages properly as what they were intended for, rather than trolling, your edits would not have been reverted on sight without discussion. Just as you had spent much time in researching those edits, and I know you did, it also takes much to engage in the type of trolling you have engaged in over the past week and a little longer. Yes, I know, your edits do have a place in Conservapedia, only not on the Holocaust entry. There was one other series of edits, I also felt did not belong on another page but perhaps elsewhere. You are the one who has refused discussion of content, hence you were reverted. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 17:54, October 8, 2023 (EDT)

Oh, I'm a Nazi apologist because I point out that Communists helped Nazis get into power? I'd call your lying hide a turd, but you're such an abominable stink to humanity and abhorrent to the point of being unfit for composting. As the old saying goes, ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. Thus also saith the scriptures, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. When you scream and howl as you burn in hellfire, about to face eternal destruction, no sympathy will be found from me as you look up and find the saints disgusted that a piece of garbage like you ever came out of a womb. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 22:52, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

You can do that, but you can't do it on the Holocaust page. The Communists were not responsible for the Holocaust. The same article lists Communists in the paragraphs before your insertion as the next target for Nazi extermination in the Holocaust.

You need to learn how to use Talk pages properly; and Conservapedia is not going to be a platform for nazi apologetics, which is exactly what you tried to insert, knowingly or unknowingly, into the Holocaust page. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:58, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

1. REDIRECT Template:Hide collapse