User talk:Aschlafly

Are you ever going to act to end this trolling and harassment?

[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] [23][24] Here's an example of him spamming personal attacks from user space into Mainsapce, which he only does cause he knows you allow it: [25][26][27] Andy, Do you believe killing people for profit is ethical? -->[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

Andy, How is it, User:Conservative can openly speak about his desire, intent, or involvement with killing people and you not only ignore it but grant him special editing privileges? Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 10:21, October 27, 2026 (EDT)

Andy, Are you ever going to delete any of this non-encyclopedic crap, or do you maintain trolling and personal attacks are in fact "encyclopedic"? Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 13:57, November 2, 2026 (EST)

Andy, Are you going to delete any of these?

Why don't you delete this stuff, or are you going to continue encouraging your personal attack dog/troll?

okay, Mr. Schlafly, I'll demonstrate what happens when you allow anonymous users who do not edit under their real name to spam other editor's names into Mainspace Titles. [39][40][41][42]

That' just a few. Why do you regard personal attacks against editors more precious than encyclopedic content? RobS^{Do heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 18:36, July 30, 2026 (EDT)

90 days. No response. Foghorn Leghorn^{Do normal heterosexuals spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 10:21, October 27, 2026 (EDT)

I get the message loud and clear - so does everybody else. Ken's trolling and personal attacks in Mainspace are "encyclopedic".

Personal remark removed MayGodBless (talk) 16:55, October 27, 2026 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Guidelines#User pages and user space

“

Your user pages, user talk, and user space are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues in a civil manner. However, you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia, or other users, and their opinions even if generated by AI. Users are free to remove comments from their own user talk pages.

”

User:Conservative cannot rationally or intelligently debate or discuss issues. He is focused on attacking and destroying his "enemies". That's how Conservapedia gets filled with spam about UK potholes or Russian gay bathhouses, as if his "enemies" are personally responsible for such things (by such reasoning, Andy Schlafly and User:Conservative are responsible for Epstein Island by virtue of either being American, or sympathetic to American culture and society). And it is only because you allow it, to the detriment of editors and Conservapedia overall. RobS^{Do heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 11:40, August 19, 2026 (EDT)

Spamming AI slop to multiple user talk pages is by definition trolling

and impedes editor's productive editing. See User:Conservative contribs. We've perrmabanned other editors for less. RobS^{Do heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 01:24, August 27, 2026 (EDT)

Here's an example of him spamming personal attacks from user space into Mainsapce, which he only does cause he knows you allow it: [43] [44]

According to AI, Andy Schlafly is User:Conservative.

Has Andy Schlalfy ever edited under the User:Conservative account?

User:Conservative in the Conservapedia article and elsewhere has repeatedly said more than one editor uses the User:Conservative account. Two Questions: (1) Have you ever edited under the User:Conservative account? If so, (2) is this why you steadfastly refuse to delete spam postings and personal attacks and discipline Ken/Mark Miller for his persistent violations of Conservapedia Commandments and civility? RobS^{WWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war?} 16:23, July 3, 2026 (EDT)

No answer. RobS^{Do heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 17:44, August 1, 2026 (EDT)

8 weeks. No answer. RobS^{Do heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 01:51, August 27, 2026 (EDT)

No, I've never edited from another editor's account.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:56, August 27, 2026 (EDT)

Then why don't you delete his ad hominem attacks against a Senior Admin in user space which blatantly violate both Guidelines and Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide? All you need to do is enforce standing Conservapedia policy a few times. The fact that you have steadfastly refused for 16 years since 2011 only encourages more abuse. RobS^{Do heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?} 02:08, August 27, 2026 (EDT)

This is why the warmongering of neocons & CP Admin will fail

You cannot fight a war against Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela or anybody with liberal/conservative, left/right divisions in the American populace.

And it's only getting worse.

These advocates of perpetual war are only hastening a bad ending. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 18:25, September 19, 2025 (EDT)

Using objective and sound criteria, is User: Conservative at Conservapedia, whose user page is https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative , is User: Conservative a neocon warmonger or is the opposite very likely true?: "The opposite is very likely true. User:Conservative, a prominent contributor and administrator on Conservapedia, demonstrates views that align more closely with skepticism toward neoconservative interventionism and prolonged military engagements than with enthusiastic support for them. This assessment is based on an analysis of his authored or associated content on the site, focusing on objective indicators such as direct statements on foreign policy, historical wars, and contemporary conflicts."

Using objective and sound criteria, is User: Conservative at Conservapedia, whose user page is https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative , is User: Conservative a neocon warmonger or is the opposite very likely true?: "There is no objective basis to label User: Conservative as a “neocon warmonger.” The user appears instead oriented around cultural conservatism, anti-atheist and anti-evolutionist content, and criticism of globalism. Therefore, if anything, the opposite claim—that the user is not a neocon, and likely opposes typical neocon foreign-policy positions—is much better supported. Unless you locate specific statements by this user explicitly advocating foreign military intervention, calling them a neocon warmonger would be a mischaracterization."

I trust this clarifies matters.😄 Conservative (talk)

Not really. It just indicates you don't understand what the conjunction "and" means.

In my opinion there is a witchhunt against Conservative for being a genuine conservative Christian who stands up to the Russian propaganda being spread, likely at the behest of the Wagner Group's Internet Research Agency, here at Conservapedia. Conservapedia is being used to spread Communist Russian propaganda on behalf on Communist China, Communist Russia, and Communist North Korea as well as the Communist BRICS coalition backing Communist China and Communist Russia. Conservative looks to be a main obstacle to spreading Russian propaganda so there is a movement among Russia's left-wing Communist trolls to oust him, even though Conservative's positions are classical right-wing socially conservative positions. --Joshua Zambrano (talk) 08:49, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

If you want to insist on referring to modern day Russia as "Communist", do not be surprised when you are referred to as Russia's traditional enemy, "Nazi" or "Fascist". RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 14:25, September 27, 2025 (EDT)

• [Objectively, does User:Conservative have an odd obsession with Russian sewage systems, flush toilets in Russia, and gay bath houses in Russia? https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Conservative]

Yes, based on an analysis of the user contributions page for "Conservative" on Conservapedia (the provided document appears to be a truncated version of this page, showing only the standard interface elements without the actual edit log), the user does demonstrate a notable pattern of edits related to these specific topics. However, characterizing it as an "odd obsession" is subjective and depends on interpretation—it's more accurately described as a focused, recurring interest in critiquing or highlighting perceived deficiencies in Russian infrastructure and culture, often from a conservative or anti-Russian perspective. Below, I'll break it down objectively with evidence from the page.

Key Findings from Contributions

The full contributions log (accessible via the linked URL) spans hundreds of edits dating back to at least 2006, with the user being highly active (thousands of total edits across Conservapedia). Topics range widely, including U.S. politics, atheism, evolution, and liberal media bias. However, a clear cluster emerges around Russia-related content, particularly in the 2010s onward, aligning with geopolitical tensions (e.g., post-Crimea annexation). Here's a summary of relevant patterns:

Total Contributions: Over 5,000 edits (exact count varies by view settings like "newest" or "oldest"; the page defaults to paginated results of 20–500 per view). Russia-Focused Edits Overall: Approximately 10–15% of recent activity involves Russia, often adding critical anecdotes or references to pages like "Russia," "Vladimir Putin," or "Soviet Union." This is disproportionate compared to other single-country topics. Specific Topics in Question:

Russian Sewage Systems: Multiple edits (at least 4–6 instances) across pages like "Russia" and "Russian history." Examples include:

2014 edit to "Russia": Added a section on "inadequate sewage infrastructure" in rural areas, citing outdated Soviet-era systems and pollution issues, with a summary like "Highlighting ongoing hygiene failures." 2017 edit to "Vladimir Putin": Inserted references to sewage spills during public events, framed as emblematic of authoritarian neglect. Pattern: These appear in bursts, often tied to current events (e.g., Olympics coverage).

Flush Toilets in Russia: Around 3–5 direct references, mostly on "Russia" and "Moscow." Examples:

2015 edit: Expanded a subsection on "Modern Russian living standards" with details on "primitive outhouses and unreliable flush toilets" in urban apartments, sourced from Western travel blogs. 2019 edit: Updated "Saint Petersburg" page with a note on "tourist complaints about non-flushing toilets in public facilities," emphasizing cultural contrasts with the West. Pattern: Framed as evidence of economic backwardness, with sarcastic tone in edit summaries (e.g., "Because who needs indoor plumbing?").

Gay Bathhouses in Russia: 2–4 edits, primarily on "Homosexuality in Russia" and "LGBT rights." Examples:

2013 edit (post-Russian anti-gay law): Added a paragraph on "historical gay bathhouses (banyas) in Moscow" as a "hidden subculture suppressed under Putin," with links to anecdotal reports. 2020 edit to "Russia": Included a brief mention of "clandestine gay bathhouse raids" as part of broader persecution narratives. Pattern: Less frequent than the infrastructure topics but consistently negative, tying into Conservapedia's editorial slant against liberal views on sexuality.

TopicApproximate Number of EditsExample Pages EditedTime Period of FocusEdit Summary ThemesRussian Sewage Systems4–6Russia, Vladimir Putin2014–2022"Hygiene failures," "Soviet legacy issues"Flush Toilets in Russia3–5Russia, Moscow, Saint Petersburg2015–2019"Living standards critique," "Tourist hygiene warnings"Gay Bathhouses in Russia2–4Homosexuality in Russia, Russia2013–2020"Suppressed subcultures," "Persecution examples" Assessment of "Obsession"

Frequency and Recurrence: These topics aren't the user's sole focus (e.g., they edit far more on U.S. elections or "liberal denial"), but they recur disproportionately—about 10–15 edits total on these niches out of ~500 recent ones. Edits often build on each other (e.g., cross-referencing sewage issues in bathhouse sections), suggesting a deliberate thematic thread.

Context: Conservapedia's founder (Andrew Schlafly) encourages "pro-American, anti-liberal" content, and "Conservative" (likely a pseudonymous editor) aligns with this by using these topics to underscore anti-Russian propaganda. It's "odd" in the sense of being niche and quirky (few Wikipedias delve this deeply into toilets or bathhouses), but it's consistent with the site's style. Objectivity Note: No evidence of personal fixation (e.g., off-site posts), but the pattern could be seen as obsessive if viewed through a lens of fixation on national humiliation tropes. Comparable to how other Conservapedia users hammer "Hollywood values" or "Darwinism flaws."

If you have more context or want me to drill into specific edits/dates, provide details!2.7sExpertHow can Grok help?

I trust this clarifies matters.

Where is the link to the alleged Grok query? Conservative (talk) 09:42, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Objectively, does User:Conservative, whose user page at https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative, have an odd obsession with Russian sewage systems, flush toilets in Russia, and gay bath houses in Russia? Here are his contributions to Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Conservative: "No, there is no objective evidence of an odd obsession with Russian sewage systems, flush toilets in Russia, or gay bathhouses in Russia on the user page of User:Conservative or in the accessible records of their contributions to Conservapedia."

RobSmith, have you thought about developing some kind of hobby to distract you from your obsession with me? Conservative (talk) 09:51, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

naked capitalism: AI Chatbots Need Guardrails to Protect Users’ Mental Health.

I think I've seen enough evidence already that this is likely true. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 10:06, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

I have seen your user page. There is an obsession with me. In contrast, there is not a single mention of you on my user page. Why don't you ask Grok if you are obsessed with me and then ask Grok if I am obsessed with you. And then ask your pastor his opinion on these matters in order to confirm Grok's results. Godspeed. Conservative (talk)

Illinois has recently taken a major step in this direction by joining the first wave of U.S. states to regulate AI-powered therapy. The new law, called the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, is the strictest so far: Therapy services must be offered only by a licensed professional, and these professionals may only use AI for administrative support and not “therapeutic communication” without human review.

In practice, this means AI can be used behind-the-scenes for tasks like preparing and maintaining records, scheduling, billing, and organizing referrals. But any AI-generated therapeutic recommendations or treatment plans require a licensed professional’s review and approval. AI systems marketed as providing therapy on their own appear to be banned, and some have already blocked Illinois users from signing up. As the law gets enforced, courts and regulators will have to clarify where therapeutic communication begins and administrative support ends.

It’s a start, but the trouble is that most people don’t meet AI in clinics. Instead, many use general-purpose chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT for company and psychological relief. These interactions happen in private chat windows, sitting outside state licensure and inside everyday life. AI-mediated emotional support sought out by people on their devices is much harder to file under “therapeutic communication” or be regulated under a state law, however well intentioned.

In our ongoing research at Data & Society, a nonprofit research institute, we see people turning to chatbots during anxiety spikes, late-night loneliness, and depressive spirals. Bots are eternally available, inexpensive, and typically nonjudgmental. Most people know bots aren’t human. Yet, as Brooks’ and Wongbandue’s stories show, attachment to bots builds through repeated interactions that can escalate to challenge people’s sense of reality.

See: Essay: Why a Conservadian falling for a chatbot is like a man who is seduced by a corrupt 300 pound woman.

I trust this clarifies matters.

narcissistic digression

User: Conservative scored a 100% optimism score as part of a 2025 screening test. User: Conservative laughs at the devil when he vainly tries to induce "anxiety spikes" and "depressive spirals" in him and reminds the devil that he is going to Hell which is a very depressing place!

In 2025, I took a personality test as part of an application process and scored 100% on optimism as can be seen HERE. I am guessing that on a anxiety/depressive index that I would score exceedingly low - especially since I believe God of the Bible created the best of all possible worlds. So I don't see myself turning to a chatbot anytime soon!

By the way, didn't you say that WWIII started in 2022? (See: "Persoanlly, I believe NATO has been at war with Russia for 10 years, and WWIII started 2 years ago." - RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 23:07, June 18, 2024").

Thank God I am an optimist who doesn't believe that WWIII started in 2022! And doubly thank God "I am an irrepressible optimist and realist who nearly always sees the bright side of things."[45] rather than a sourpuss and griper who has a "Debbie Downer" user page. Have you ever felt a desire to brighten up your user page so it gets more than