Conservapedia talk:Administrators

Questions?

Yeah, Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons...Unceasing reverts of articles, "tit for tat" editing and argument without end, on points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy, all are cause for blocking a user.

I'm unsure what the first sentence actually means given the words in red.-- Cracker_talk 18:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• Look-see, Conservapedia Commandments and Guidelines, Rob. Bottom line is, just like every other site on the Net, there are those entrusted to implement and speak to policy issues, and those who are not. There are those appointed to resolve disputes, settle matters among members, and take disciplinary action. Per the continued complaints of some, about just what Sysop's and Bureaucrats are, and what their duties are, and what authority they have, Andy decided to make it more transparent for all, by adding the additional language to what was already there. Our "philosophy" is loosely grounded on Conservative and Christain principles, and specifically on, but not exclusively, the Commandments. The "Guidelines" also govern the site as well. --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 19:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

The question, as I understand it, is "we do not block for ideological reasons" and "we do block for ... points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy." Are these two things clear and distinct? Will a person get blocked for adding material that paints a more favorable image of something that is currently one sided? Is that ideological? or philosophical? --Mtur 19:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• Sorry Mtur, not all of life can be defined by specific guidelines, and the more precise and exacting they are, the harder and more cumbersome comes the administration of them. A person wouldn't be blocked for doing what your scenario suggests, unless and until the user kept reverting it back to their version after being warned that it was unacceptable by a Sysop or Bureaucrat. That is exactly the same as all sites any of us might use. That is the whole reason for Sysops and Bureaucrats, to communicate what is and is not acceptable, on a case-by-case basis, if need be, if there is confusion as to what the Commandments and Guidelines mean. With all functions of authority, just like with religion, comes a leap of faith. Our charge is to implement the rules and guidelines, maintain civility and order. Users must trust the Administrators to be fair, and the Bureaucrats, and ultimately Andy, watch over the Sysop's to make sure they are. If one cannot make that leap of faith, they are perhaps at the wrong site. But I think it would be difficult, if not impossible to find one without rules, guidelines and authority. --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 20:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, we right now have a bunch of unwritten pseudo-rules and a bunch of "policies" that became policies without discussion. I posted my concerns on that page and never got a reply. Now that it's suddenly an official policy, the very same questions come up again. Funny how that goes...

I begin to see why you keep repeating the line "This is not Wikipedia". It really isn't. All the fuzzy and non-specific "rules" are simply and arbitrarily dictated from the top without the need to answer questions. And now, a blanket rule basically says "A sysop will decide it on a case-by-case basis".

Instead of letting users settle arguments among themselves with the help of clear rules, you instead make everybody depend on a select group you happen to be a member of. How convenient.

This micromanagement, top-down approach may work on some sites, but it's doomed to fail on a free-for-all wiki system, I think. The only reason why it's not completely imploding yet is the fact that its active userbase is not growing at a noticeable rate.

Additionally, this "policy" effectively does what many people had fought against - it merges editor and sysop roles into one. The edit of a sysop weighs more than the edit of an editor, no matter what the facts say. And without any fixed rules to judge what is "contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy", sysops effectively cannot be held responsible for bad decisions since there are none by definition. Convenient! --Sid 3050 20:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• I would love to see your citations, Sid! Your whole argument is, that this place isn't a private site, and somehow belongs, ultimately, to the Users, and all decisions are ultimately made by them. Interesting concept. I understood the place to be private, and started upon the idea of the HomeSchoolers. As I said above: "If one cannot make that leap of faith, they are perhaps at the wrong site." I would amend that to say, probably at the wrong site. --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 20:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

how do u apply to be an admin??

Is there an RfA process on Conservapedia??--Certified.Gangsta 20:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

No. You get promoted whenever a bureaucrat feels like it. Sometimes, the ominous "Panel" appoints somebody to be a sysop, but often enough, it's seemingly random. Just today, somebody was made sysop without any discussion. The new sysop and even Andy, the site's founder, were caught by surprise. --Sid 3050 20:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• I believe, contrary to what Sid erroneously said, there is indeed a page made for asking. I know I have seen it. Maybe Ed Poor knows where it is, or another Sysop. --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 20:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure there is a page, but it doesn't always seem to be the mechanism used. Murray 21:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)