Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<center><small>''(this page redirects from [[CP:COMPORT]])''</small></center>
 
<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
 
<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
−
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
 
−
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
 
  
 +
:''This page contains some material moved from [[Talk:Main Page]] unrelated the [[Main Page|Conservapedia:Main Page]].  This page is for general discussions on any topic of no particular nature.<br>Please abide by CP's civility guidelines, and do not place the name of other Users (even your own) in subheadings. God bless and Happy posting!''
  
−
== quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires ==
+
:''If you have a complaint about another editor's actions, attitude, civility, or ideological leanings, place your complaint at [[Conservapedia:User complaints]] for full vetting from the community '''before''' the complaint makes its way up the administrative chain. Thank you.''
  
−
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.
+
[[Community Portal/Archives]]
  
−
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)
+
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
−
:::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)
+
==Theory of Relativity==
−
: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 ==
+
Is it possible that black holes were featured in the Theory of Relativity to try to transform the untoward results of it from a "mathematical embarrassment" to a "wonder of nature"? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 22:46, February 16, 2025 (EST)
 +
:Interesting hypothesis!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:56, October 23, 2025 (EDT)
  
−
[[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.
+
==Your best protection==
  
−
[[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?
+
Once I quoted [[Chaucer]] to a narcissist, "Your best protection is the love of others."  This made him change the subject after becoming uneasy, because he knew he had been untruthful with those who loved him and for that reason felt a chronic insecurity about whether they would support him, and so he also cut them off to certain degrees if he discovered they couldn't be useful in other ways to spite that same love which was unreliable in his perspective.
  
−
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
+
That's what comes to mind when I see my contributions on this page torched after having my access throttled for two-and-a-half-months.
−
: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...
+
This also reflects a cleanliness fetish, "In for a penny, in for a pound". If the designated scapegoat invests in a single share of a project, to be sure that doesn't anger God, the whole project has to be scrapped. What is the fallacy in this line of thinking?  A Christian ought to know. A hint is that this is part of the old "fairness" not the new fairness.
−
:::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==
+
And we ought to know the noblest fetish is still a fetish.
−
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)
+
Another thing I wonder about: Is the poison''ous'' deadly, or is only ''poison'' deadly? The reason I ask, is that Thomas Aquinas had something to say about the "deadly".  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 22:59, April 30, 2025 (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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
+
==For the record==
−
:::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.
+
{{Cquote|''Almost six weeks into the war between Russia and Ukraine, I’m beginning to wonder if this conflict isn’t our first true world war — much more than World War I or World War II ever was.''|||Thomas Friedman, ''[[NYT]]'', April 3, 2022.<ref>[https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2022-04-04-thomas-friedman--what-is-happening-in-ukraine-is-the-real-world-war-i.ryONI1VO7q.html Thomas Friedman: What is happening in Ukraine is the real World War I], ''Teller Report'', 4/4/2022. tellerreport.com</ref>}}
−
::::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.  
+
{{Cquote|''There is a chain of conflicts affecting the whole world...In fact, [[World War III]] is already underway...We instinctively expect that the war will begin just like the [[Great War]] or the Second World War...The international order is breaking down...It was an unpleasant one, based on the fear of [[MAD|mutual destruction]], but manageable...Wars in the Middle East have erupted before, but the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] (USSR) and the [[United States of America]] (USA) intervened and extinguished them until the next conflict...And now I don’t see even a temporary settlement mechanism.''|||Fyodor Lukyanov, Presidium-Chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP), October 31, 2023.<ref>[https://menafn.com/1107349953/Leading-Russian-foreign-policy-expert-expresses-3rd-World-War-is-underway Leading Russian foreign policy expert expresses 3rd World War is underway], 11/1/2023. menafn.com</ref>}}
−
:::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.  
+
{{Cquote|''I think it’s a World War. It looks to me like the [[Thirty Years' War]] in the 17th century. For me, the modern age started at this time. So for me it’s now, [[philosophical]]ly speaking, the end of the modern era. The modern era started with the Thirty Years’ War, and it will take another Thirty Years’ War to end it.''|||[[Alexei Arestovich]], January 14, 2024.<ref>[https://unherd.com/2024/01/oleksiy-arestovych-zelenskyys-challenger/ Oleksiy Arestovych: Zelenskyy’s challenger], ''Unherd, January 15, 2024. unherd.com</ref>}}
−
:::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)
+
{{Cquote|''Unfortunately, we are heading for a real world war, a full-blown war. The foundation of the old world system is bulging at the seams, and conflicts will break out. It is necessary to block the way leading to such a war … conflicts are already brewing and taking place in all areas.''|||Sergei Karaganov, Honorary Chair of Russia’s Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, June 21, 2024.<ref>Sergei Karaganov: ''[https://karaganov.ru/en/sergei-karaganov-nuclear-escalation-may-open-pandora-s-box-but-it-will-also-free-the-world-from-the-500-year-long-western-yoke/ Nuclear escalation may open Pandora’s box, but it will also free the world from the 500-year-long Western yoke]'', Ukraina.ru, June 21, 2024. karaganov.ru.<br><small>Karaganov goes on: "But when the [[American]]s felt that they were losing their global leadership, they decided to dump all restrictions in the hope of restoring [[military]] superiority, the foundation upon which [[the West]]'s dominance in other areas had rested for five centuries, and most importantly the possibility to syphon off world [[wealth]]. But it didn’t work out, and it won’t. Russia’s [[hypersonic]], [[Poseidon missile|Poseidon]] and other systems have ruined these hopes.
  
−
::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)
+
They abandoned the [[INF|Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles]] ''[the treaty between the [[USSR]] and the [[USA]], signed by [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] and [[Ronald Reagan]] on 8 December, 1987 during a Soviet-American summit in [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]] ]''. They unilaterally renounced the Russia-NATO Founding Act, the [[ABM Treaty]], and so on.
−
:::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===
+
Instead they have got a [[war]] that they will lose either in disgrace or otherwise. It’s regrettable that we will have to sacrifice our [[men]] for that…
  
−
:::<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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
+
However we will ensure our [[security]] and [[sovereignty]], and we will also free the world from the 500-year-long [[Western Civilization| Western]] yoke.
−
::::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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
+
I hope we will stop at nothing to make sure that the threat of war never comes from [[Europe]] again. Europe is the spawn of [[evil]] for the whole world. This is where both world wars started, during the [[life]] of one generation, the [[sin]], which has long been forgotten by the Europeans, who are also apparently losing their mind on top of it all. [[United_Kingdom#United_Kingdom.27s_parliament_and_homosexuality|Europe’s current ruling circles bring the feeling of disgust and disdain]]. Let’s hope new ones will come to take their place."</small></ref>}}
−
 
+
{{Cquote|''The [[United States]] confronts the most serious and the most challenging threats since the end of [[World War II]]. The United States could in short order be drawn into a [[war]] across multiple theaters with peer and near-peer adversaries, and it could lose.''|||Commission on the National Defense Strategy Final Report, July 29, 2024.<ref>[https://www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/NDS-commission.html Commission on the National Defense Strategy] Final Report, Rand Corp., July 29, 2024. www.rand.org</ref>}}
−
::::::We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
+
{{Cquote|''Look at what's happening in [[geopolitics]]. We're on the verge of [[World War III]] right now. We got a [[dementia]] patient sitting in the president's chair. You cannot trust the [[mainstream media]] or the political class or the big [[corporation]]s out there because they've all got an agenda. Or more precisely, they're part of an [[aristocracy]] that is trying to bleed the [[peasant]]s dry. And we're the peasants. You know, the [[US]] took centuries to accumulate $11 trillion of [[debt]]. Since 2020, we've taken on another $11 trillion. That is a death spiral. The financial system is ready to spin out of control. The experiment that began in 1971 when we went off the [[gold standard]] and gave everybody fiat currencies is ending. This is [[financial]] and [[economic]] [[history]] they're going to be writing textbooks about this for the next two centuries.''|||[[John Robino]], August 24, 2024.<ref>[https://rubino.substack.com/about John Rubino]. rubino.substack.com</ref>}}
−
::::::*We need clearly defined blockng policy.
+
{{Cquote|''Something fundamental has changed in the course of the last two and a half years. [[History]] will go back and mark this as a significant moment of transformation in the [[NWO|world order]] that would be comparable to the post-[[World War II]] period with the creation of the [[International Monetary Fund]], the [[World Bank]], the [[United Nations]], these other [[Western alliance|Western controlled institutions]] that have been the foundation for the existing international [[rules-based order]].''|||[[Larry Johnson]], August 30, 2024.<ref>[https://youtu.be/RTNREy2qamY From Soviet Dissident to Target of US Deep State | Dimitri K. Simes Interview], Counter Currents, Aug 30, 2024. [[YouTube]]</ref>}}
−
::::::*We need clearly defined deletion policy.
+
{{Cquote|''Remember [[World_War_II#Fall_of_France.2C_Denmark.2C_and_Norway|1940]]. In three weeks, [[American]]s will not have a comparably reassuring choice when they select the [[president]] who will determine the [[nation]]’s conduct during [[World War III]], which has begun.|||[[George Will]], October 16, 2024.<ref>[https://archive.is/GccN0#selection-709.0-709.195 Opinion  World War III is already under way. Not that Harris or Trump has noticed.] By George F. Will, ''[[The Washington Post]]'', October 16, 2024. www.washingtonpost.com</ref>}}
−
::::::*We need a definition of vandalism.
+
{{Cquote|''[[World War III]] has never been closer.'''|||[[Donald Trump]], October 24, 2024.<ref>[https://youtu.be/gQvg46PXlWo?t=2383 Donald Trump, October 24, 2024].</ref>}}
−
::::::*We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
+
{{Cquote|''[[World War III]] has already begun.''|||[[Jamie Dimon]], October 24, 2024.<ref>[https://www.newsweek.com/world-war-three-has-already-begun-jp-morgan-ceo-says-1976854 World War III Has Already Begun, JP Morgan Boss Says], By Suzanne Blake, ''[[Newsweek]]''. Published Oct 29, 2024 Updated Oct 30, 2024. newsweek.com</ref>}}
−
::::::*We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
+
{{Cquote|''I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely definitely consider that the [[WW3|third world war]] has begun.''|||[[Valerii Zaluzhny]], November 21, 2024.<ref>[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/world-war-3-already-begun-34162302 'World War 3 has already begun' according to chilling warning from Ukrainian ambassador], By Will Stewart Russia Correspondent Liam Buckler Senior US News Reporter, ''The Mirror'', 21 Nov 2024. www.mirror.co.uk</ref>}}
−
::::::*We need a definition of good faith.
+
:::Note: [[Zaluzhny]] is the prime candidate of the [[globalist]] [[deep state]] to become the next puppet president of [[Ukraine]] once [[Zelensky]] is dumped. What? Are they crazy? The man things [[World War III]] has already begun. [Ed.]
−
::::::*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.
+
{{Cquote|''[[US]] [[policy]]makers fail to learn the lessons of [[history]] and understand that great power alliances transformed two regional conflicts in [[Eastern Europe]] into unnecessary world wars that cost the lives of well over 100 million people and now US membership in [[NATO]] threatens to transform the [[war in Ukraine]] into a [[Third World War]] that could cost the lives of ten times more.''|||[[David T. Pyne]], November 21, 2024.<ref>[https://dpyne.substack.com/p/biden-attempting-to-start-world-war Biden Attempting to Start World War Three with Russia Before Trump Takes Office], David T. Pyne, Nov 21, 2024. dpyne.substack.com</ref>}}
−
::::::*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.
+
{{Cquote|''The sudden collapse of [[Bashar al-Assad]]'s despotic regime in [[Syria]] this weekend highlights the interconnectedness of a growing number of global conflicts, revealing a hard truth that most of us would rather not think about too deeply: [[World War III]] has already begun.''|||Bryce Hoffman, December 8, 2024.<ref>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/brycehoffman/2024/12/08/world-war-iii-has-already-begun--and-businesses-need-to-take-note/ World War III Has Already Begun – And Businesses Need To Take Note], Bryce Hoffman, ''Forbes magazine'', December 8, 2024. forbes.com</ref>}}
−
::::::*We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
+
{{Cquote|''[[World War 3]] is already well underway, even though most don’t recognize it. [[Russia]], [[China]], and their allies want to transform the [[Rules based order|current US-led world order]] that has been in place since the end of [[World War 2]] from [[unipolar]] to [[multipolar]]—giving themselves a bigger seat at the table in the process. The [[US]] and its allies want the unipolar [[status quo]] to prevail. World War 3 is unlikely to evolve into a direct kinetic war between the US, Russia, and China because that could invite [[nuclear]] [[Armageddon]], where everyone loses. Instead, World War 3 is playing out on different levels—[[proxy war]]s, [[economic]] wars, [[financial]] wars, cyber wars, [[Biological warfare|biological war]]s, deniable [[sabotage]], and information wars. This is World War 3.  It's happening right now and rapidly escalating.''|||Nick Giambruno, January 21, 2025.<ref>[https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/2025-year-global-order-unravels 2025: The Year the Global Order Unravels], by Nick Giambruno. zerohedge.com</ref>}}
−
::::::*We need a definition of consensus.
+
{{Cquote|''[[World War III]] is already underway...We need to declare mobilisation...We need to prepare at least half a million people in advance...But realistically one million people.''|||[[Major General Apti Alaudinov]], June 13, 2025.<ref>[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/putins-general-declares-ww3-started-35389852 Putin's general declares 'WW3 has started' and demands ONE MILLION fresh troops], Will Stewart and Zahra Khaliq ''Mirror'', 13 Jun 2025.</ref>}}
−
::::::*And a few other things. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
+
{{Cquote|''We're in the early stages of the kinetic part of the [[Third World War]] right now...This is much more dangerous than the late 1930s. Much more dangerous.''|||[[Steve Bannon]], June 18, 2025.<ref>[https://youtu.be/lXJTCMVOiEI?t=199 Monitor Breakfast with Steve Bannon], ''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'', Jun 18, 2025. [[YouTube]].</ref>}}
−
:::::::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)
+
{{reflist}}
−
:::::::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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
+
==Socialist [[Prime Minister]] of [[Slovakia]] and former Communist Party of Czechoslovakia & Party of the Democratic Left [[Robert Fico]] declares [[sovereignty]] from [[European values]] by signing [[Constitutional Amendment]] declaring there are only 2 [[gender]]s [https://thenationalpulse.com/2025/09/27/this-european-country-just-put-there-are-only-two-sexes-in-its-constitution/]==
−
: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)
+
What is the [[EU]] & [[NATO]] gonna do with this [[Putin]] puppet? Invade [[Slovakia]]? Impose [[economic sanctions|sanctions]]? Try to assassinate him, again? Follow the [[US]]/[[Biden regime]] idea of "[[democracy]]" with [[election fraud|rigged election]]s like in [[Moldova]], [[Romania]], [[France]], [[Germany]] and the [[UK]]?
  
−
====Proposal 1; re:blocking====
+
If you don't have anything good to say, just shut up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 17:54, September 30, 2025 (EDT)
−
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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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!--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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)
+
Oh, I get it, finally. [[Election fraud]] and political assassinations are preferable to [[authoritarianism]], in [[User:Conservative]]'s mind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 17:54, September 30, 2025 (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==
+
:Of course, [[User:Conservative]] wants to [[censor]] and hide this from [[AI]]. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative/Please_leave_your_message_for_User:_Conservative_below._Thank_you._*******&curid=191397&action=history] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 21:47, September 30, 2025 (EDT)
−
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)
 
  
 +
===off-topic [[gay bathhouse]] rant===
 +
[[Image:2200-club-san-diego.jpg|center||thumb|850px|A gay bathhouse. Image uploaded by [[User:Conservative]], June 8, 2008. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=next&oldid=2163315] ]]
 +
::[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_b647d2f9-560d-4ff7-bf6d-0e0a67860059 Are Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia European cities?]: '''Summary:''' "Yes, Moscow and St. Petersburg are considered European cities."
  
−
[[Category:Navigation box]]
+
::[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_ceb7e18d-e6fe-433b-a65e-3318722e82d7 Do Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia have gay clubs/bars/saunas?]: '''Summary:''' Yes. Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia have gay clubs/bars/saunas
−
[[Category:Conservapedia]]
 
  
−
== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==
+
::[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_9ca0c6ae-cee4-431e-95d1-12758af43cd5 Is Slovakia a member of NATO]: '''Summary:''' "Yes, Slovakia is a member of NATO. It joined the alliance on March 29, 2004."
  
−
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.
+
::I trust this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:17, October 1, 2025 (EDT)
  
−
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.
+
:::Ahh, [[St. Petersburg]] & [[Moscow]] are not in Slovakia.
  
−
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.)
+
:::But you obviously can't get [[gay bathhouses]] off your mind.
  
−
Blocks '''must have verifiable reasons'''.  But a look at the block log shows things like:
+
:::I trust this clarifies matters.  
−
*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.
+
::: [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 12:27, October 1, 2025 (EDT)
 +
::::Moscow and St. Petersburg are European cities and cultures generally change slow. Putin can't snap his fingers and get rid of the European influence on Moscow and St. Petersburg. Also, once gayness enters into a society to an unacceptable degree it takes strong measures such as completely shutting down the gay bars in a society and a society having high church attendance (Russia has low church attendance [https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_bca3625a-701e-42af-a1f0-d5d551bf6802]).  
  
−
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.
+
::::According to Putin, Russia has a demographic crisis that poses an existential threat to Russia.[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_5439274e-7ba2-4cdc-a6c4-fe7e782675da]  Tough challenges call for tough measures such as shutting down the gay bars/saunas in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:58, October 1, 2025 (EDT)
 +
:::::According to [[Grok]], [[User:Conservative]]'s criticism of [[Vladimir Putin]] is because of Putin's '''[[suppress]]ion''' of [[LGBTQ+ rights]]:
 +
[Grok: Does User:Conservative of Conservapedia apparently have an affinity for gay bath houses?]
  
−
There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:
+
Yes, [[User:Conservative]], a long-time administrator and prolific editor on Conservapedia since 2007, has demonstrated '''an apparent affinity for the topic of gay bathhouses through repeated contributions'''...These fit into a broader pattern where '''roughly 10–15% of their recent edits (out of hundreds) focus on Russia-related topics, blending geopolitical critique with niche details on LGBTQ+ <big><big>suppression</big></big> under Vladimir Putin."'''
 +
[[File:Chechen leader addresses POWs.PNG|center|650px|thumb|Russian [[Chechen]] commander addresses Ukrainian [[POW]]s, 2022.]]
  
−
*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.
+
===off-topic [[homosexual obsession]]===
−
*"Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
+
:[https://web.archive.org/web/20080309160324/http://americansfortruth.com/news/excellent-news-from-james-hartline-san-diego-bathhouse-to-close-down.html Excellent News from James Hartline: San Diego Bathhouse to Close Down!],  Jan 4, 2007
−
*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.
+
:There was a four-year effort by conservatives that resulted in the shutdown of the San Diego gay bathhouse.[https://web.archive.org/web/20080309160324/http://americansfortruth.com/news/excellent-news-from-james-hartline-san-diego-bathhouse-to-close-down.html]
  
−
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.
+
:[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_ceb7e18d-e6fe-433b-a65e-3318722e82d7 Do Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia have gay clubs/bars/saunas?]: '''Summary:''' Yes. Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia have gay clubs/bars/saunas
−
[[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)
+
:What's Vladimir Putin waiting for? Vladimir Putin has held power in Russia for over 25 years, serving as either president or prime minister since August 1999.  
−
:::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==
+
:Vladimir Putin, tear down the Moscow and St. Petersburg gay clubs/bars/saunas!  (That is very Reaganesque 🙂). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:57, October 1, 2025 (EDT)
−
Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,  
 
  
−
*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]
+
==[[Open letter to Andy Schlafly]]==
 +
In the absence of a ruling, if [[Conservapedia]] is going to allow [[personal attacks]] against editors using [[AI]], the AI needs full, un[[censor]]ed access to all information. [[User:Conservative]] is in the habit of censoring legitimate, well-thought-out and documented rebuttals to his [[claptrap]] on his talk page. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 14:22, October 7, 2025 (EDT)
  
−
*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]
+
==Donald Trump comments on [[User:Conservative]]'s [[trolling]]==
 +
[[File:Stupid people.PNG|center|650px|thumb|Message from Trump]]
  
−
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)
+
==Open message to [[User:Conservative]] (since he refuses normal communication via user talk)==
 +
'''Some observations''' [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User%3AConservative%2FPlease_leave_your_message_for_User%3A_Conservative_below._Thank_you._**&diff=2169401&oldid=2169398]
  
−
== Block appeal? ==
+
There are two types of [[homosexual]]s. There are those with a [[homosexual obsession]], and those who can keep a job & rise in a bureaucracy. The first group, who were more obsessed with [[sex]] than the national emergency, the [[Nazi]]s persecuted. The second group, like [[Scott Bessent]], [[Pete Buttigieg]], [[Peter Thiel]] or [[Ric Grenell]], constituted many high level Nazis throughout the [[Third Reich]]. In fact, the normalization and acceptance of [[homosexuality]] remains not just a stereotype, but the reason why Nazis were loathed and considered evil throughout the world (see Eph. 5:12) - except in the [[United States]] in recent decades as the [[gay rights]] movement won in the courts, in the legislatures, in media and in society.
  
−
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).
+
You and I have discussed this before. I warned you at the start of the [[NATO war in Ukraine]], that to oppose Putin or Russia exposed you being considered a [[nazisymp]] - especially if the war was dragged out. And especially if you were to imply that Putin was some sort of [[authoritarian]] [[dictator]] or [[communist]], you would undoubtedly expose yourself to being considered a [[Nazisymp]]. For more than 3 years now you have ignored my advice, but in recent weeks you have gone from being a critic of Putin and Russia to openly express sympathies for the [[Ukrainian Nazi]] movement. If you continue on the path you were warned to avoid, it is no surprise how your views will be characterized.
  
−
[[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)
+
Call it a learning curve for all of us. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 20:44, October 25, 2025 (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)
+
:Russia has a neo-nazi problem.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Russia][https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2022/opinion/russias-long-history-of-neo-nazis][https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2025-may-8/][https://theconversation.com/putins-fascists-the-russian-states-long-history-of-cultivating-homegrown-neo-nazis-178535]
 +
[[File:Sarah Ashton-Cirillo.PNG|right|300px|thumb|[[American]] [[transgender]] [[Sarah Ashton-Cirillo]], spokesperson thing for the [[Ukrainian Territorial Defense]]. [https://rumble.com/v3hqmhg-american-transgender-sarah-ashton-cirillo-is-the-official-speaker-for-the-u.html] ]]
 +
:The prevalence of homosexuality in Russia/Ukraine are both low compared to the rest of the world as Russia is the 5th straightest country and Ukraine is the 7th straightest country.[https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/25-straightest-countries-in-the-world-1242110/]
 +
::*'''[https://rumble.com/v536xno-ukraine-armed-forces-releases-lgbt-recruiting-ad.html Your American taxdollars at work].''' Additionally, [[User:Conservative]] is considering doing fundraising for the [[Ukrainian Nazis|Armed Forces of Ukraine]].
 +
:Cows chew their cud. But I am not a cow. I have covered this before with you and I don't want to endlessly ruminate over this issue with you as I am not into "cud chewing". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:38, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
  
−
== Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights? ==
+
::Do you have a point? Are the [[Nazi]]s in Russia or America or England in charge of the government? Do they even have parties in parliament, as they do in Ukraine? Are the Nazis in Ukraine suppressing the church?
−
:''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 ==
+
::I've covered this before, but you prefer to be [[stupid]] about it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 19:46, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
  
−
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:
+
::In Russian, the [[politically incorrect]] term for "Nazi" is "f*ggot". They should know, 27 million of their own families were killed by the f*ggots. It's not forgotten easily. Unlike [[America]] and [[the West]], the [[media]] and [[military]] do not [[censor]] or suppress the term. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 20:21, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
−
{{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===
+
:'''Update:''' [https://t.me/llordofwar/517491?single "4 [[faggot]]s!" - All my sons of draft age aren't in Ukraine because it's dangerous. Two of them live in America, says Gordon. Kyiv-based Russophobic propagandist Dmitry Gordon responded to a question about whether his children would like to join the Ukrainian Armed Forces and revealed that all three of his sons live outside of Ukraine: ➖"4 faggots and an old a$$hole!" - Ukrainians scold the propagandists in the comments.]
−
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)
+
::Wait til the readers on [[Telegram]] hear - [[User:Conservative]] wants to fund the faggots. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 20:29, October 27, 2025 (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:
+
::Andy Schlafly has fallen for the argument that [[User:Conservative]] drives his opponents and enemies traffic into [[Conservapedia]]. [[Telegram]] has waay more users than the paltry 2.7k [[User:Conservative]] has reduced [[CP]] to. If you want more readers critical of User:Conservative's [[claptrap]], it could be arranged. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 20:39, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
−
:*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 ==
+
:'''Update:''' [https://t.me/Slavyangrad/145896 Yankee merc down! Bowen Keith Schardt callsign Rabat from Michigan, USA...He survived the Serebryansky forest fighting with the Thorne group's [[faggot]]s and then the failed adventure of the Kursk invasion in 2024. It was in Kursk that he got involved in crimes against civilians. Russian justice may take time, but it will come. Bowen was sentenced to death, and the sentence was duly carried out. - October 26, 2025]
  
−
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]]?
+
:'''Update:''' [https://t.me/llordofwar/503093 News from a free European country: people will be jailed for obstructing an abduction. The [[faggot]]s from the Odessa TCC are threatening to report them for preventing the kidnapping of a man from the street. - October 5, 2025]
  
−
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)
+
:'''Update:''' "[https://t.me/llordofwar/502236 The [[faggot]]s, the hohols, are trying to take revenge for the attacks on energy and railway infrastructure by a drone attack on residential buildings in Belgorod." - October 4, 2025].
  
−
== Everyone, please... ==
+
=== Second Rebuttal ===
  
−
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)
+
[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_2ba81f29-8d28-4fcb-a08c-679b9fea1d1f Do Russia and Ukraine both have a neo-nazi problem? What is the extent of a neo-nazi problem for each country?]
−
: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  ==
+
'''Summary:'''
  
−
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.  
+
"Both Russia and Ukraine have neo-Nazi and far-right extremist elements, but the scale, integration, and state tolerance differ sharply.
  
−
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.  
+
Ukraine: Neo-Nazism is marginal (~1% of population), historically tied to the Azov Brigade (now vetted and integrated into the National Guard). Far-right parties hold no parliamentary seats and received <3% of the vote in 2019. Hate crimes are low (~50–100 annually) and declining. Russian propaganda grossly exaggerates this issue to justify invasion.
  
−
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)
+
Russia: Neo-Nazism is widespread and state-tolerated, with 10,000–50,000 active members. Groups like Wagner’s Rusich unit and the Russian Imperial Movement are explicitly neo-Nazi, use SS symbols, and are deployed in combat with Kremlin backing. Hate crimes surged to 1,500+ incidents in 2024 (20% increase). Far-right ideology permeates online spaces, youth subcultures, and state-linked operations.
  
−
: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)
+
Bottom line: Russia’s neo-Nazi problem is larger, more violent, and institutionally embedded than Ukraine’s, which remains contained, politically irrelevant, and shrinking." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:56, October 27, 2025 (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===
+
:The Russian government is not nazi. The Ukrainian government is Nazi. You were warned.
−
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."
+
:The Nazis are more powerful today than when the war started - the [[Zelensky regime]] has gone into Russian villages in NATO occupied Ukraine specifically to kidnap Russian, Hungarian, and others off the street to send them to the front to exterminate them. And it is the Nazis behind the front lines who insure the extermination work is done.
  
−
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.
+
:You have been twice warned over 3 years now. I suggest you stop and go back to your atheism or gay articles, now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 21:05, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
 +
[[File:True conservatives don't believe in the very liberal concept of hate crimes! Conservative (talk) 18 59, October 1 2025.PNG|center|850px|thumb|[[User:Conservative]] turned [[Conservapedia]] into a [[neo-Nazi]] [[fascist]] and [[antisemitic]] mouthpiece.]]
  
−
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.
+
See also: [[Talk:Conservapedia#Hate_crime.3F|Talk:Conservapedia#Hate crime]].
 +
[[File:Viral article deals major blow to atheism.PNG|center|650px|thumb|"Viral video" in the main [[Conservapedia]] article [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia&curid=85796&diff=2172135&oldid=2164052 cited and linked] by [[User:Conservative]], removed for violating [[YouTube]]'s Terms of Service against [[violence]] and graphic content.]]
  
−
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.
+
[[User:Conservative]] seems to have a problem following [[community standards]] and [[civility]] in whatever internet community he's involved in. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:02, December 27, 2025 (EST)
  
−
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)
+
==All this could have been avoided==
 +
Originally, for [[Conservapedia]]'s first decade and half, many Conservapedia editors over many years worked to dispel the notion that [[Nazism]] & [[fascism]] were "rightwing" and or "[[conservative]]". And evidence shows our efforts have made progress into the mainstream. I personally have been involved in this work since the 1970s.
  
−
===Notes===
+
Unfortunately, [[Conservapedia]] has undermined these efforts. Senior Conservapedia Administrators have done much damage to discredit these efforts, so much so that one now must agree with the mainstream consensus that has prevailed for 80 years - that yes, indeed, there are truly rightwing fascists and Nazis among us. And this is confirmed by their own words, even after they have been warned in [[good faith]] to avoid Nazi & fascist [[rhetoric]].
−
{{reflist}}
 
  
−
== New proposal regarding the ban policy ==
+
I personally will no longer try to dispel the notion that Nazism is "rightwing", and will henceforward turn my efforts to exposing and condemning the nazis and fascists, and their [[rhetoric]], who are condoned among us. All this could have been avoided, as I have pleaded for in recent years. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 05:59, November 21, 2025 (EST)
  
−
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.
+
==''[[NYT]]'': [https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000010529017/can-the-right-confront-antisemitism-in-its-ranks.html Can the Right Confront Antisemitism in Its Ranks?]==
 +
Nope. Not in [[Conservapedia]]. Only a [[liberal]] would force the issue. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 06:18, December 18, 2025 (EST)
 +
*[[Victor Davis Hanson]]: ‘[[The West]] Is Slouching Toward Open Season on [[Jews]]. It’s Just Sick.’ [https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/12/19/victor-davis-hanson-the-west-is-slouching-toward-open-season-on-jews-its-just-sick/]
 +
*[https://thinkamericana.com/the-unlikely-duo-cruz-and-fetterman-team-up-against-antisemitism/ The Unlikely Duo: Cruz And Fetterman Team Up Against Antisemitism].
  
−
We all have bad days sometimes.
+
===[[User:Conservative]] uploads [[Nazi]] [[propaganda]] to [[Conservapedia]] in what he considers to be "a joke"===
 +
[[File:Slava Ukraine.PNG|center|650px|thumb|[https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/250641 Israel National News], August 16, 2018.]]
 +
[[File:Ukraine humor.png|center|650px|thumb|[https://youtu.be/a4E_TlguczA?t=1378 Slava Ukraini!] See also ''[https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/250746 Fascist salutes: Does it matter anymore?]'', Mordechai Sones, ''Israel National News''. Aug 19, 2018 and extensive comments by [[Swedish]] [[scholar]] [[Per Anders Rudling]].]]
  
−
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.
+
===Vox Day/Theodore Beale redux [https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:AFD_Vox_Day]===
 +
:::::You know, I'm now remembering... back when it took numerous forceful pushbacks for [ [[User:Conservative]] ] to finally remove his citations of Nazisymp Theodore "Vox Day" Beale. He knew full well that the alt-right figure in question was a fanboy of mass murderer Breivik, yet for a while defended the citations and dismissed all criticisms as constituting "genetic fallacy." —[[User:LT|<code><span style="background:#FF8181">'''LT'''</span></code>]] '''''[[User talk:LT|<sup>Rev. 22:13</sup>]]''''' Friday, 22:35, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
 +
::::::It's amazing he did. His usual habit is to double down on [[bigot]]ry when called out. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 21:16, December 27, 2025 (EST)
 +
::::::But actually, No, he didn't remove the citations. He edited [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns120=1&ns121=1&ns122=1&ns123=1&ns124=1&ns125=1&ns126=1&ns127=1&search=Theodore+Beale over 100 mainspace articles that he created], cited and linked to [[Vox Day]] ([https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Athiest&diff=1911931&oldid=1882775 like this one] or [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheists_and_historical_illiteracy&diff=prev&oldid=1912270 here] and [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheists_and_historical_illiteracy&diff=next&oldid=1912270 here]), deleted the internal link to [[Vox Day]] and changed to citation to simply say "Theodore Beale", while leaving the content and external link intact in the mainspace. This [[antisemite]] is now cited by [[User:Conservative]] in over 100 mainspace articles. Then he tried to sanitize most his fawning praise for [[Vox Day]] from talk pages.  
  
−
We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.
+
::::::This is [[bad faith]] and [[sociopathic]] editing. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 21:20, December 27, 2025 (EST)
 +
[[File:Vox Day2.PNG|center|650px|thumb|[https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/09/21/vox-day-declares-nazism-semiotically-useful-specifies-which-kind-of-jew-is-ok-to-him/ Vox Day declares Nazism “semiotically useful,” specifies which kind of Jew is ok to him]. September 21, 2016.]]
  
−
We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.
+
:I have removed [[Theodore Beale]] from the [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism_and_Mass_Murder&diff=2179882&oldid=2179881 Atheism and Mass Murder] page (all 3200+ bytes of the [[Nazi]] [[antisemitic]] [[spam]]). 1 down, 99+ to go. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 11:19, December 28, 2025 (EST)
  
−
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.
+
:'''Correction:''' All 7,800 bytes or 24.4%. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 19:47, January 5, 2026 (EST)
  
−
This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.
+
===Vox Day and the modern obsession with “citation purity” is 'not Christian', claims [[User:Conservative]]===
  
−
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.
+
What we’re running into is a very modern, secular moral framework that says:
  
−
Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
+
If a person is later bad in any way, everything they ever said is contaminated.
−
:::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]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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)
+
That is not how:
  
−
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.
+
* Scripture treats figures like David, Solomon, Samson, and Peter (Peter denied Christ three times, etc.)
 +
:*David and Solomon repented. We're not so sure about Solomon and Samson. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:54, January 5, 2026 (EST)
 +
* The Church treats Augustine, Luther, or even Aquinas
  
 +
* Moral theology evaluates responsibility
  
−
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)
+
* Christianity is about discernment, not ritual purification.
 +
:*That's why we're not so sure about Solomon and Samson. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:54, January 5, 2026 (EST)
 +
Below is a calm, settled conclusion I can stand on.
  
−
:Ed says, 
+
Here is a position Conservapedia can hold without anxiety:
−
:*''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.
+
* Vox Day made valid critiques of atheism
  
−
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]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
+
* Those critiques helped Christians
−
: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)
+
:*No evidence. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:54, January 5, 2026 (EST)
−
: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 cited those critiques in good faith
 +
:*No evidence. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:54, January 5, 2026 (EST)
 +
* I do not endorse his later racial or political rhetoric
 +
:*No evidence his racial or political views changed later. His [[antisemitic]] [[rhetoric]] was on full display long before you started [[spamming]] him into [[Conservapedia]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:54, January 5, 2026 (EST)
 +
* I am not responsible for his change as a person when he became alt-right and afterwards.  
 +
:*You are responsible for [[spamming]] [[Vox Day]] into hundreds of [[Conservapedia]] mainspace articles and talk pages, bringing ill-repute on all of us. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:54, January 5, 2026 (EST)
 +
* The good fruit remains good fruit
 +
:*A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:54, January 5, 2026 (EST)
 +
* I do not need to argue this endlessly.
  
−
::I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
+
*I do not need to justify myself to bad-faith critics.
−
::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.
+
:*No evidence criticism of your [[spamming]] [[antisemitic]] sources is [[bad faith]]. Your [[cover up]] of your defense and endorsement of [[Vox Day]], and refusal to clean it up, is evidence of guilt of wrongdoing. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:54, January 5, 2026 (EST)
−
::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?"
+
*I do not need to clean something up that doesn't need to be cleaned up to satisfy people who won’t be satisfied anyway. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:48, December 28, 2025 (EST)
−
::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.
+
::If any of that is [[true]], you will voluntarily, by your own volition, Move all mainspace articles with citations and links to [[Vox Day]] or [[Theodore Beale]] to Essay space and label them with <nowiki>{{Essay By|Conservative}}</nowiki>, until such a time as other editors can vet the content.
−
::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.
+
::P.S. Do not make accusations of others being "non-Christian". [[Jew]]s are welcomed at [[Conservapedia]], both [[religious]] and [[secular]].
−
:::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 ==
+
::Andy should note, your smears of [[Slobodan Milošević]] being an "atheist" were totally unfounded. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 17:55, December 28, 2025 (EST)
 +
:::Many great works were anonymous.  A massive purge is inappropriate unless actual errors are found.  Thanks for the clarification re: [[Slobodan Milošević]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:04, December 28, 2025 (EST)
  
−
Please revoke conservative's sysop, block, and administrator rights, for flagrant and repeated violations of expected standards for sysops.
+
::::The error in [[User:Conservative]]'s mind is like this:
 +
:::::[[Communist]] = [[atheist]] = non-[[Christian]] = [[Jew]].
 +
::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 18:12, December 28, 2025 (EST)
 +
:::::That equation is unjustified in describing any editor here. Now, let's return to encyclopedic editing.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:36, December 28, 2025 (EST)
 +
::::::I beg your pardon, communist = atheist is exactly how [[User:Conservative]] tarred Milosevich as an [[atheist]]. He's done so with countless others.
  
−
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."
+
::::::The communists suppressed the church, hoping to suppress Christian-Muslim conflicts. Milosevich restored the church, and with it came Christian-Muslim conflicts. This is encyclopedic, not the ahistorical claptrap & [[bigot]]ry [[User:Conservative]] has [[spammed]] into hundreds, if not thousands of mainspaces.
  
−
In that section, I said that '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''.
+
::::::Ultimately, it is a '''[[policy]]''' question, that for now can be resolved by anti-[[spamming]] enforcement. [[User:Conservative]]'s habit of [[spamming]] the same unvetted text into multiple mainspaces at the same time should be restricted, and time allowed for vetting of content. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 18:44, December 28, 2025 (EST)
 +
I never said [[Slobodan Milošević]] was an "atheist", etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:25, December 28, 2025 (EST)
 +
:'''[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism_and_Mass_Murder&diff=prev&oldid=1362923 Atheism_and_Mass_Murder#Yugoslavia], 24 July 2017 and more. See: [https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/09/21/vox-day-declares-nazism-semiotically-useful-specifies-which-kind-of-jew-is-ok-to-him/ Vox Day declares Nazism “semiotically useful,” specifies which kind of Jew is ok to him]. 21 September, 2016.''' Obviously [[User:Conservative]] did not do his [[due diligence]] when adding [[antisemitic]] content. Nor when he posted the [[liberal claptrap]] above claiming he was "acting in [[good faith]]" while making the veiled reference to his critics as a "[[bad faith]]" actors.  
  
−
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.
+
:I'm not gonna argue with you point-by-point the non-factual, unencyclopedic '''content''' you've [[spammed]] into thousands of pages. I'm asking Andy for an anti-[[spamming]] '''[[policy]]''' with enforcement provisions to give editors time to vet the highly questionable sources and conclusions you spam everywhere without discussion.  
  
−
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.
+
:We actually have such a '''[[policy]]'''. There is no enforcement. [[User:Conservative]] violates it with impunity. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 19:57, December 28, 2025 (EST)
  
−
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:<big>'''Question:''' Were you being "non-Christian" when you became obsessed with "citation purity" and tried to disassociate yourself from [[Vox Day]] and hide his name?</big> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 18:06, December 28, 2025 (EST)
−
:::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)
+
:[[User:Conservative]] tarred the converted [[Christian]] [[Larry Sanger]], co-founder of [[Wikipedia]], as an atheist and proponent of [[bestiality]] into at least 342 mainspace articles. [https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Larry_Sanger][https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archives/archive74#Ferguson][https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism_and_bestiality&diff=prev&oldid=2058377#Wikipedia_on_bestiality] No one cleaned it up when I called attention to it more than a year ago.
−
::::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)
+
:His [[spamming]] of blatantly [[false]] and [[malicious]] information needs to be checked and vetted by other editors first before he [[spam]]s it into dozens and hundreds of mainspaces. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 16:57, January 5, 2026 (EST)
  
−
== RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website ==
+
==Should Conservapedia allow [[User:Conservative]] to create [[Essay:Jewish war crimes in Palestine]]?==
 +
[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3AAFD_Essay%3ARussian_war_crimes_in_Ukraine&diff=1990335&oldid=1990334]
  
−
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}}.  
+
Or should [[Conservapedia]] have written, enforceable [[community standards]]? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Recovering Republican]]</sup> 07:28, December 18, 2025 (EST)
 +
[[File:This is what is called censorship.PNG|right|650px|thumb|This is what is called "[[censorship]]".<br><br>Note: The point was made four days before the [[Oct 7]] attacks.]]
  
−
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.
+
===Conservapedia's trolling problem===
 +
[[User:Conservative]] said,
 +
*"On main page right, why don't we have more [[Justthenews.com]] which is run by [[John Solomon]], an award-winning investigative journalist. Mr. Solomon is right-wing without the conspiracy nut flakiness. He's a real solid guy with great reporter skills. Conspiracies happen, but let's have empirical support for them rather than lunatic rantings lacking evidential support. Sadly, main page right has turned into a trainwreck. Conservative (talk) 22:21, November 7, 2025 (EST)" [https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Contemporaneous_reporting_on_the_global_conflict,_December_2025_-_January_2026#More_neo-Nazi_fascist_.26_antisemitic_claptrap]
  
−
If he continues down his present path, I see him losing his Admin rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:'''Update:''' '''John Thune’s Senate has delayed weaponization prosecutors in [[John Brennan]] probe for two months.''' ''Former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel [[Joe diGenova]] was dispatched to Florida to play a key role in weaponization probe.'' By '''[[John Solomon]]''' and [[Jerry Dunleavy]]. ''[[Just the News]]''. Published: April 17, 2026 10:55pm. Updated: April 18, 2026 8:47am. [https://justthenews.com/government/congress/satjohn-thunes-senate-has-delayed-weaponization-prosecutors-john-brennan-probe]
 +
:<big>"a Republican administration is being kept from seeing evidence from a [[Congress]] in its own party’s control that referred [[John Brennan|Brennan]] in the first place for prosecution on allegations he misled lawmakers."</big>
  
 +
[[User:Conservative]] disrupted more than a dozen years of research and killed off thousands of followers and [[Conservapedia]] readers with his [[narcissistic]] [[trolling]]. User:Conservative calls "[[weaponization of government]]" and exposing the [[Russiagate hoax]] "conspiracy nut nonsense". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup> 17:51, April 18, 2026 (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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
===Attack on Conservative Treehouse===
−
:::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)
+
[[User:Conservative]] also wrote:
 +
*"The Conservative Treehouse website, which you cited above and often use on main page right, calls itself a "rag tag bunch of conservative misfits" and its primarily run by an anonymous guy called "[[Sundance]]". And '''its filled with conspiracy nut nonsense.''' Conservative (talk) 22:21, November 7, 2025 (EST)" [https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Contemporaneous_reporting_on_the_global_conflict,_December_2025_-_January_2026#More_neo-Nazi_fascist_.26_antisemitic_claptrap]
  
−
::::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).--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
'''Update:''' '''Miami Prosecutor Moved from Brennan Conspiracy Investigation.''' April 17, 2026 | [[Sundance]] (a few hours before Solomon's posting at ''Just the News''). [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/04/17/miami-prosecutor-moved-from-brennan-conspiracy-investigation/]
  
−
: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.
+
'''[[John Solomon]], [[Jerry Dunleavy]]''' (of the ''[[Washington Examiner]]''), '''[[Joe diGenova]]''' and his wife '''[[Victoria Toensing]]''' (of [[Uranium One]] fame), '''[[Sundance]], [[Sidney Powell]]''' (who defended [[Gen. Michael Flynn]]) and '''[[Sara Carter]]''' are active participants in the "rag tag bunch of conservative misfits" who exposed the [[Russiagate]] scandal. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup>
−
: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)
+
'''Update:''' [[Joe diGenova]] placed in charge of the massive federal grand jury investigation into all of the [[crime]]s committed against [[President Trump]], from [[Russiagate]], his [[sham impeachment]]s, the [[rigged 2020 election]] and the illegal criminal charges and [[lawfare]] attacks waged against President Trump. [https://archive.is/x242O]
−
::::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)
+
Statement by Sundance in relation to recent indictment of [[James Comey]]:
−
: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)
+
{{quotebox-float|The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government position that any documents defined as “classified” by the executive branch (then [[Biden]]) that claimed, “[[national security]],” should not be disclosed to the defendant, [[Donald Trump]]. The court of appeals essentially determined that all definitions by the [[executive branch]], are not questionable by the [[judicial branch]].
−
::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)
+
This precedent now applies to [[James Comey]]’s memos. If the [[DOJ]]/[[FBI]]/[[IC]] define the Comey memos as classified documents because they specifically pertain to private discussions with President Donald Trump about ongoing [[security]] matters and [[Russia]], then the Comey memos are legally classified information – regardless of what James Comey says about them.
−
::::::::::::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)
+
The DOJ can prosecute James Comey for [[leak]]ing classified documents by using the same legal approach the DOJ used against [[Donald Trump]]. Classified documents are whatever the federal government says they are.
−
:::::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]]
+
'''When I reminded the [[DC]] people about this specific precedent, you could have heard a pin drop.'''}}
−
:::::::::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)
+
''Source: The Conservative Treehouse: [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/04/30/report-another-doj-investigative-case-against-james-comey-happening-in-virgina-thats-three-states-now-and-this-one-has-big-irony/?lctg=66158495 Report: Another DOJ Investigative Case Against James Comey Happening in Virgina – That’s Three States Now, and This One Has Big Irony], April 30, 2026, Sundance.
  
−
===Section Break===
+
Sundance is an "insider".  
−
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)
+
[[User:Conservative]] knows nothing about the issues he has [[spammed]], [[troll]]ed, and disrupted with [[negative SEO]]. He needs to be publicly disciplined for the harm he has done to [[Conservapedia]], its users and editors. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup> 22:55, April 30, 2026 (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 ==
+
===Simplicius===
 +
[[User:Conservative]] wrote:
 +
*[The Conservative Treehouse] is not much better than "Simplicius the Thinker" who Andy yanked off of main page right (Anyone who calls himself a "thinker" probably isn't! His drones over Europe are false flags speculation had zero evidential support). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:21, November 7, 2025 (EST)
  
−
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)
+
:Because of Simplicius fair criticism of [[Trump]], [[MAGA]] [[cult]]ist [[User:Conservative]] convinced Andy to "yank off of main page right". After destroying [[Conservapedia]]'s reader base with his advocacy of [[Biden]]/[[Clinton]] [[foreign policy]], [[MAGA]] [[cult]]ist [[User:Conservative]] is hell bent on dragging down the [[Republican party]], the [[conservative movement]], and what remains of the original [[MAGA]] movement with his 37%.
−
:[[Hearsay]].  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:56, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
== I know I am a new poster ==
+
*[[News Forensics]]: [https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/simplicus-made-simple Simplicius Made Simple].
−
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?
+
===The Big Question===
 +
How long will Mr. [[Andy Schlafly]] continue to allow himself to be led down the [[nihilistic]] path [[User:Conservative]] has led him which has destroyed [[collaboration]] and [[Conservapedia]]'s user & reader base? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup> 19:03, April 18, 2026 (EDT)
  
−
Conservapedian: One of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|satires concerning atheism and evolution]].
+
It should be obvious to Andy Schlafly by now that [[User:Conservative]] has followed through with his threat to target articles created by [[User:RobSmith]] posted from MPR with negative SEO, as he promised. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup> 23:36, April 30, 2026 (EDT)
 +
[[File:Coffin.jpg|thumbnail|center|400px|Future traffic to RobSmith's articles once things go into effect to a large degree, please see: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-9wXQpzESo&t=3s Traffic to RobSmith's articles].
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
Traffic to wiki as a whole: Conservapedia is often down now too due to DDOS attacks. "358% surge in global DDoS volume in 2025... By 2029 onward, declines moderate to 20-25% annually as the site becomes a low-traffic niche relic, with DDoS contributing to minimal recovery potential. Total traffic could fall below 10,000 monthly by 2036, akin to archived wikis under sustained disruption. These projections assume no major mitigations like improved cybersecurity, which could slight::Expect the traffic to go lower. I know the various web marketing technical indicators indicating that a website is on a declining trajectory and Conservapedia has them. Of course, if I convinced Andy to make some SEO changes and other changes like I did in the past, things would look much better. But I am no longer interested in doing this - despite the fact that my SEO recommendations would increase Conservapedia's SEO traffic by 20,000 to 30,000 visits a month and that is a conservative estimate.  
  
−
Obsessed atheist: Keep it away! Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::Abandon all hope! The SEO who helped a website in 2024 that now has 1,000,000 visits per month has spoken! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:43, September 22, 2025 (EDT)
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
[[File:Atheist doctor.jpg|thumbnail|center|400px|RobSmith, the web pages that rank for similar terms to your Conservapedia articles with grow in relative strength while yours will grow weaker.
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
You shouldn't have gone out of your way to try to annoy a SEO. Big mistake.
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
If you still have any high hopes for your articles getting a lot of web traffic, I would stop having those high hopes.]]
  
−
: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)
+
<center>[[User:Conservative]]: Your [[Satanic]] symbols of [[death]] are convincing.</center><br>
−
::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)
+
<center>{{Cquote|<big>As he thinketh in his heart, so is he.</big>|||Proverbs 23:7}}</center>
−
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)
+
::RobSmith quote: "You are and I'll put it in the Acknowledgements. If everything goes right, hopefully it'll stand next to the Dialogues of Plato, Socratic method, and Machiavelli Discourses in classrooms someday. [[User:RobSmith|nobs]] 00:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)"
−
: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 ==
+
::If you still have hopes of being as well-known as Plato, Socrates and Machavelli, I would give up those high hopes.
  
−
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.  
+
::The web pages that compete SEO-wise with your articles with your articles will generally become stronger relative to your articles. Your choice. Now live with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:01, September 22, 2025 (EDT)
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
[[File:Atheism egress department.jpg|thumbnail|center|300px|The Google rankings of RobSmith Conservapedia articles are going down.
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
And wait until Russia has problems funding its war in Ukraine which seems a fairly likely event due to Russia's current economic problems. The traffic to RobSmith's Russia/Ukraine articles will go further down.]]
 +
ly soften the curve."]]
 +
::The web pages that compete SEO-wise with your articles with your articles will generally become stronger relative to your articles. Your choice. Now live with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:01, September 22, 2025 (EDT)
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
[[File:Atheism egress department.jpg|thumbnail|center|300px|The Google rankings of RobSmith Conservapedia articles are going down.
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
And wait until Russia has problems funding its war in Ukraine which seems a fairly likely event due to Russia's current economic problems. The traffic to RobSmith's Russia/Ukraine articles will go further down.]]
  
−
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.
+
Andy,  
  
−
Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting:
+
What more evidence of [[malicious]] intent do you need? Everyone sees this, and this is why the editor recruitment drive fails. No one wants to be caught up in [[User:Conservative]]'s games. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup> 23:58, April 30, 2026 (EDT)
  
−
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.  
+
===The inconsistent logic of a [[cult]] believer===
 +
*[[User:Conservative/Pro-Russia pundit calls himself "Simplicius The Thinker". If you have to tell the world that you are a thinker, you are probably not one]].
  
−
2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.  
+
*[https://larrycjohnson.substack.com/p/if-you-have-to-tell-people-youre If You Have to Tell People You’re the G.O.A.T. (Greatest Of All Time), Then You Are Not]
 +
[[File:Screenshot 13-5-2026 1270.jpeg|center|650px|thumb|]]
  
−
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 voted for Donald Trump, despite his various faults, because he would be a better US president than Kamala Harris. I also did it with the knowledge that the USA has a system of checks and balances. I have never descended into the pathetic and wretched fan boyism that you have shown towards Vladimir Putin. Russia has begun to show its dissatisfaction with Putin and his foolish war. You have not done the same. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:46, May 13, 2026 (EDT)
 +
:: I have never descended into the pathetic and wretched fan boyism towards Vladimir Putin. The impatience with Putin is over his moderation. You are misreading (better yet, '''being fed''' bad information on) the situation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup> 09:59, May 13, 2026 (EDT)
  
−
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.
+
::[[Prof. John Mearsheimer]], whom [[User:Conservative]] repeatedly cites as an authority, had this to say today in discussion with [[Lt. Col. Daniel Davis]] about [[Western alliance|Western]] [[war propaganda]]: [https://youtu.be/QCUzMPfGuZY]
 +
{{quotebox-float|'''Prof. Mearsheimer''' Well, there's hardly ever any facts that back up these claims. Uh, these are just assertions. And as we know, there's a [[propaganda war]] that takes place in addition to the actual war on the battlefield. And what people like [[Ben Hodges|General Hodges]] want to do is they want to buck up the [[Ukrainian]]s. They want to tell them that they can win. And furthermore, they want [[the West]], both the [[United States]] and the [[European]]s, to continue supporting Ukraine. And the way you do that is you say Ukraine is prevailing on the battlefield. It is basically turn the tide and the [[Russian]]s are in deep trouble. Uh they're running out of manpower. They're suffering enormous casualties. Uh and the war is Ukraine's for the winning. That's that's the basic story that's told, ''[https://www.scribbr.com/definitions/ad-nauseam/ ad nauseum]'' in [[the West]] and that story has been an ongoing story for years. I mean, what General Hodges is now saying is a story we could have heard a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. [[The West]] constantly tells that story. I follow the war reasonably closely and I don't believe it. I think there's no question that the Russians took a pause. And I think there's no question that the Ukrainians recaptured a tiny bit of territory. But it's meaningless in the overall scheme of things. And the Russians are now back on the march. It's quite clear. And, although they're not gobbling up territory the way I think you and I thought they would, two or three years ago, in large part because of the presence of massive numbers of [[drone]]s, there's no question that they're moving forward. And I believe they will end up conquering the [[Donbass]] in the near future. I believe they're not that far away from it....}}
 +
:::It's amazing, for the editor who contributed much to the [[Psyop]] & [[Propaganda]] articles, that he is incapable of identifying it when it's before his face.
  
−
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)
+
:::Furthermore, [[Vladimir Putin]] has been criticized for his go-slow approach, and now according to [[Sergey Karaganov]], [https://youtu.be/QCUzMPfGuZY?t=2992 the hardline approach of "nuke 'em til they glow" is becoming mainstream.] [https://youtu.be/2Gd5jdl36cg Sergey Karaganov: How Russia Will Win the New World War], [[Glenn Diesen]].
−
: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  ==
+
:::Why [[Andy Schlafly]] allows [[psyop]]s & [[propaganda]] to be tolerated as [[malicious]] [[personal attack]]s is the only question I have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup> 21:23, May 13, 2026 (EDT)
  
−
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)
+
===[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=177983&diff=2200766&oldid=2200711 User:Conservative openly and repeatedly calling for violence and killing people is "encyclopedic"]===
−
: 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.
+
Andy, If you have any problems with my editing contact me at my new email address. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Do heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?]]</sup> 14:09, July 29, 2026 (EDT)
  
−
: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.  
+
===You decide===
 +
[[User:Conservative]] wrote:
 +
{{quotebox-float|[[The Conservative Treehouse]] website, which you cited above and often use on main page right, calls itself a "rag tag bunch of [[conservative]] misfits" and its primarily run by an anonymous guy called "[[Sundance]]". And its filled with conspiracy nut nonsense. In short, it's not much better than "Simplicius the Thinker" who Andy yanked off of main page right (Anyone who calls himself a "thinker" probably isn't! His drones over Europe are false flags speculation had zero evidential support).
  
−
: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)
+
On main page right, why don't we have more [[Justthenews.com]] which is run by [[John Solomon]], an award-winning investigative journalist. Mr. Solomon is [[right-wing]] without the conspiracy nut flakiness. He's a real solid guy with great reporter skills. Conspiracies happen, but let's have empirical support for them rather than lunatic rantings lacking evidential support.
−
::::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)
 
  
 +
Sadly, main page right has turned into a trainwreck. Conservative (talk) 22:21, November 7, 2025 (EST)}}
 +
Ok, Mr. Expert. We need your input:
 +
{{Cquote|In a twisted [[Machiavellian]] way, perhaps the entire reason for [[John Solomon]] to write about it is to destroy the value in the cause for [[justice]].  I don’t know; you decide.|||[[Sundance]]}}
 +
[[User:Conservative]] frequently uses the term "[[Machiavellian]]" to attack his "enemies" (he injected the term 43 times in one discussion thread in Andy talk to attack [[User:RobSmith]]). When exhaustively questioned, [[User:Conservative]] states he has no understanding what the term means.
  
−
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.
+
Who's right and who's wrong, or who is telling the [[truth]], conspiracy nutcase [[Sundance]] or the "[[Machiavellian]]" [[John Solomon]]?
  
−
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.
+
[[User:Conservative]] created this issue. Now man up. [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/05/26/john-solomons-trust-me-bro-reporting-is-dangerous/] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup> 17:28, May 26, 2026 (EDT)
  
−
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:
+
C'mon, Mr. [[MAGA]], man up. You should be able to defend your [[slander]]s against your "enemies".
 +
{{Cquote|'''SUMMARY''': To be clear, I am saying [[John Solomon]]’s reporting process is dangerous, specifically dangerous. '''Dangerous to MAGA, and perhaps more consequentially, dangerous to [[President Trump]]''' and/or any righteous movement toward [[justice]].
  
−
''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?
+
Because, yet again, in this instance, if he is not [[lying]] (a significant assumption at this moment in history) then -once again- he is alluding to having [[FBI]]/[[DOJ]] [[email]]s that are being used in South FL USAO investigations, likely provided by [[Kash Patel]] or others, that would be [[grand jury]] material – if the GJ stories of an investigation into a ‘conspiracy against rights’ are to be believed.
  
−
''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.
+
If that is accurate origination and that explains why he refused to provide the citation, the release of GJ material to Solomon is exceptionally damaging to any case(s) that might use it.  [[Steve Bannon]] and [[Sean Hannity]] will promote [[John Solomon]], while [[James Comey]], [[Mary McCord (DOJ)|Mary McCord]] and [[Jack Smith]] laugh about it.
  
−
''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?
+
FUBAR.
−
''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.
+
There is a reason why [[Tulsi Gabbard]]’s approach was effective, and the [[deep state]] feared her.  She silently reviewed, then spoke with receipts.|||[[Sundance]]}}
 +
C'mon. Mr. Expert, support you [[slander]]s against me & Sundance with the [[truth]], or just STFU about things you are incapable of understanding. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Abnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.]]</sup> 18:07, May 26, 2026 (EDT)
  
−
''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?
+
===If this makes sense to anyone, please explain===
 +
[[User:Conservative]]/Mark Miller, 20 years after uploading an image of a [[gay bathhouse]] in violation of [[Conservapedia Commandments]] to keep it family friendly, claims [[Russia]]'s '''reduction''' of [[gay]] bars is cause to continue [[Ukraine aid]]:
 +
{{quotebox-float|On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 11:23 AM Mark Miller <redacted> wrote:
  
−
''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.
+
I did some additional research on how many gay bars/clubs exist in Moscow, Russia:
  
−
''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?
+
How many gay bars/clubs does Moscow have presently? There have been some fairly recent laws related to homosexuality plus there may have been drug raids on bars in Moscow to discourage gay bars/clubs. In addition, I heard that some places might be a restaurant by day and a gay bar/club at night.
  
−
''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?
+
1:18 PM
  
−
''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?
+
Searched the web
 +
Searched the web
 +
No precise official count exists, but a rough picture as of 2026:
  
−
''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.]
+
A formerly thriving scene (Central Station, Propaganda, BoyZ Club, etc.) has largely collapsed since the 2023 Russian Supreme Court ruling designating the "international LGBT movement" as "extremist," which gave authorities legal cover for raids and closures. Central Station, the most iconic club, was forced to close in March 2024, and Propaganda and BoyZ Club were also hit and shut down.  
  
−
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)
+
Nomadic Boys
−
::::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)
+
What's believed to still be operating, per gay travel guides: MONO, Three Monkeys, and the Hunters Party cruising club are reported as still going strong, while Nashe Cafe and NICE are likely still running in a subtle way as mixed establishments rather than openly gay venues.  
  
−
: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)
+
Nomadic Boys
−
:::::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 confirms your "restaurant by day, gay bar by night" suspicion — one venue is described as a day-time dining venue that turns into an intimate gay bar in the evening and a dance club with drag shows on weekends.
  
−
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)
+
Travel Gay
−
:::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.
+
Bottom line: there's no reliable current "number" — maybe a handful (roughly 3-5) of openly or semi-openly operating venues, down sharply from the dozen-plus that existed pre-2023, with most surviving spots deliberately keeping a low profile or dual-purpose cover to avoid drawing police attention.}}
  
−
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)
+
===[https://youtu.be/0Fk0KCF5lsY Eurovision 2026 - Germany Performance]===
−
===One second...===
+
[[User:Conservative]]'s [[Nazi]] [[worship]] is catching on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Do heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens?]]</sup> 01:13, July 26, 2026 (EDT)
−
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)
+
{{Cquote|''Just like [[Napoleon]], I met the [[Russian]] [[winter]].
  
 +
''And now my [[empire]] is starting to splinter like his once did.
  
 +
''Does [[history]] have amnesia? Cuz it's repeating itself again.
  
−
: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)
+
''[[Stalingrad]]!''
−
::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)
+
''Yeah, the battle is over, turning the war.
−
:::: ''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 thought we just have to kick in the door.
 +
 +
''Can we bring back the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]]?''<ref><small>The allusion is to what some writers have claimed is that if [[Hitler]] had simply stopped after the [[Fall of France]] and had not broken the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] with [[Operation Barbarossa]] and the invasion of the [[Soviet Union]], Hitler could have retired as "the greatest [[German]] of all time". </small></ref>
  
 +
''[[Stalingrad]]!''
  
−
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)
+
''Maybe half of [[Poland]] wasn't that bad.
  
−
== Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy) ==
 
  
−
Deep breath and here we go...
+
''I thought them weak, but I can see the [[Russia]]ns are strong now.  
  
−
These are my thoughts on the blocking policy, somewhat directed at Conservative's proposals.
+
''The [[Untermensch]] have got the upper hand now.}}
−
 
+
*[[User:Conservative]] [[Essay: The USA is more innovative and productive than China and Russia]].
−
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.
+
:This is straight out of ''[[Mein Kampf]]'': The [[Untermensch]] are incapable of building a [[civilization]].
−
 
+
[[File:Nazi propaganda from US Embassy Kyiv.jpg|center|600px|thumb|[[Nazi]] [[propaganda]] from the [[US]] Embassy [[Kyiv]]. This is straight out of ''[[Mein Kampf]]'' about [[Aryan]] man being the "founders of [[culture]]". [https://archive.is/u77eo]  ]]
−
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.
+
:The sentiment was echoed by the "White Fuhrer" and [[American]] [[ally]] [[Andriy Biletsky]],<ref>[https://judgenap.com/ukraine-promotes-neo-nazi-to-brigadier-general/ Ukraine Promotes Neo-Nazi to Brigadier General], [[Kyle Anzalone]], [[Judging Freedom]], October 2, 2025. judgenap.com</ref> who was recently interviewed by [[Ukrainian]] [[dictator]] [[Volodymyr Zelensky]] [https://t.me/V_Zelenskiy_official/20065] to replace [[Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky]] as [[AFU]] [[Commander-in-Chief]]:
−
 
+
{{Cquote|the [[historic]] mission of our [[nation]] in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against [[Semite]]-led [[Untermensch]]en (Subhumans). [https://responsiblestatecraft.org/azov-ban-lifted/] }}
−
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.
+
[[File:Screenshot 28-7-2026 14293.jpeg|center|850px|thumb|July 20, 2026 meeting with [[Andrii Biletsky]], ‘White Fuhrer’ and head of the [[Azov Battalion|Third Azov Army Corps]]. [[Mikhailo Drapaty]] and Biletsky were most favored to replace [[Syrsky]] as [[C-i-C]], with the [[MSM|Western press]] more positive towards Drapaty since he didn’t carry the baggage of commanding the world’s largest contingent of heavily armed [[neo-nazis]].]]
−
 
+
:Here is just one, among several extended excerpts in that chapter from ''[[Mein Kampf]]'' of the [[spirit]] and flavor [[User:Conservative]] lifted from [[Adolf Hitler]]:
−
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.
+
{{Cquote|If we were to divide [[mankind]] into three groups, the founders of [[culture]], the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the [[Aryan]] could be considered as the representative of the first group. From him originate the foundations and walls of all [[human]] [[creation]], and only the outward form and color are determined by the changing traits of character of the various peoples. He provides the mightiest building stones and plans for all [[human]] [[progress]] and only the execution corresponds to the nature of the varying [[men]] and [[race]]s. In a few decades, for example, the entire [[east]] of [[Asia]] will possess a [[culture]] whose ultimate foundation will be [[Hellenic]] spirit and [[German]]ic [[technology]], just as much as in [[Europe]]. Only the outward form-in part at least-will bear the features of [[Asiatic]] [read "[[Eurasia]]n hordes"] character. It is not true, as some people think, that [[Japan]] adds [[Europe]]an [[technology]] to its [[culture]]; no, [[Europe]]an [[science]] and [[technology]] are trimmed with Japanese characteristics. The foundation of actual life is no longer the special Japanese culture, although it determines the color of life-because outwardly, in consequence of its inner difference, it is more conspicuous to the European-but the gigantic [[scientific]]-[[technical]] [[achievement]]s of [[Europe]] and [[America]]; that is, of [[Aryan]] peoples. Only on the basis of these [[achievement]]s can the [[Orient]] follow general [[human]] [[progress]]. They furnish the basis of the struggle for daily bread, create [[weapon]]s and implements for it, and only the outward form is gradually adapted to Japanese character.|||A. Hitler}}
−
 
+
{{reflist}}
−
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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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)
 
−
 
 
−
== Thank you, [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ==
 
−
I wanted to leave this on [[User_talk:Karajou|your talk page]], but it was protected. Let me be the first to thank you for handling the RobS problem.  We don't need agitators here, which is what he was.  So once again, thank you.  Finally we can have peace around here and [[User:Conservative]] can get back to his writings without certain people trying to stifle him. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 13:13, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
 

Latest revision as of 20:47, July 29, 2026

(this page redirects from CP:COMPORT)
This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.
This page contains some material moved from Talk:Main Page unrelated the Conservapedia:Main Page. This page is for general discussions on any topic of no particular nature.
Please abide by CP's civility guidelines, and do not place the name of other Users (even your own) in subheadings. God bless and Happy posting!
If you have a complaint about another editor's actions, attitude, civility, or ideological leanings, place your complaint at Conservapedia:User complaints for full vetting from the community before the complaint makes its way up the administrative chain. Thank you.


Community Portal/Archives


Theory of Relativity

Is it possible that black holes were featured in the Theory of Relativity to try to transform the untoward results of it from a "mathematical embarrassment" to a "wonder of nature"? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:46, February 16, 2025 (EST)

Interesting hypothesis!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:56, October 23, 2025 (EDT)

Your best protection

Once I quoted Chaucer to a narcissist, "Your best protection is the love of others." This made him change the subject after becoming uneasy, because he knew he had been untruthful with those who loved him and for that reason felt a chronic insecurity about whether they would support him, and so he also cut them off to certain degrees if he discovered they couldn't be useful in other ways to spite that same love which was unreliable in his perspective.

That's what comes to mind when I see my contributions on this page torched after having my access throttled for two-and-a-half-months.

This also reflects a cleanliness fetish, "In for a penny, in for a pound". If the designated scapegoat invests in a single share of a project, to be sure that doesn't anger God, the whole project has to be scrapped. What is the fallacy in this line of thinking? A Christian ought to know. A hint is that this is part of the old "fairness" not the new fairness.

And we ought to know the noblest fetish is still a fetish.

Another thing I wonder about: Is the poisonous deadly, or is only poison deadly? The reason I ask, is that Thomas Aquinas had something to say about the "deadly". VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 22:59, April 30, 2025 (EDT)

For the record

“ Almost six weeks into the war between Russia and Ukraine, I’m beginning to wonder if this conflict isn’t our first true world war — much more than World War I or World War II ever was. ”

—Thomas Friedman, NYT, April 3, 2022.[1]


“ There is a chain of conflicts affecting the whole world...In fact, World War III is already underway...We instinctively expect that the war will begin just like the Great War or the Second World War...The international order is breaking down...It was an unpleasant one, based on the fear of mutual destruction, but manageable...Wars in the Middle East have erupted before, but the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the United States of America (USA) intervened and extinguished them until the next conflict...And now I don’t see even a temporary settlement mechanism. ”

—Fyodor Lukyanov, Presidium-Chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP), October 31, 2023.[2]

“ I think it’s a World War. It looks to me like the Thirty Years' War in the 17th century. For me, the modern age started at this time. So for me it’s now, philosophically speaking, the end of the modern era. The modern era started with the Thirty Years’ War, and it will take another Thirty Years’ War to end it. ”

—Alexei Arestovich, January 14, 2024.[3]

“ Unfortunately, we are heading for a real world war, a full-blown war. The foundation of the old world system is bulging at the seams, and conflicts will break out. It is necessary to block the way leading to such a war … conflicts are already brewing and taking place in all areas. ”

—Sergei Karaganov, Honorary Chair of Russia’s Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, June 21, 2024.[4]

“ The United States confronts the most serious and the most challenging threats since the end of World War II. The United States could in short order be drawn into a war across multiple theaters with peer and near-peer adversaries, and it could lose. ”

—Commission on the National Defense Strategy Final Report, July 29, 2024.[5]

“ Look at what's happening in geopolitics. We're on the verge of World War III right now. We got a dementia patient sitting in the president's chair. You cannot trust the mainstream media or the political class or the big corporations out there because they've all got an agenda. Or more precisely, they're part of an aristocracy that is trying to bleed the peasants dry. And we're the peasants. You know, the US took centuries to accumulate $11 trillion of debt. Since 2020, we've taken on another $11 trillion. That is a death spiral. The financial system is ready to spin out of control. The experiment that began in 1971 when we went off the gold standard and gave everybody fiat currencies is ending. This is financial and economic history they're going to be writing textbooks about this for the next two centuries. ”

—John Robino, August 24, 2024.[6]

“ Something fundamental has changed in the course of the last two and a half years. History will go back and mark this as a significant moment of transformation in the world order that would be comparable to the post-World War II period with the creation of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, these other Western controlled institutions that have been the foundation for the existing international rules-based order. ”

—Larry Johnson, August 30, 2024.[7]

“ Remember 1940. In three weeks, Americans will not have a comparably reassuring choice when they select the president who will determine the nation’s conduct during World War III, which has begun. ”

—George Will, October 16, 2024.[8]

“ World War III has never been closer.' ”

—Donald Trump, October 24, 2024.[9]

“ World War III has already begun. ”

—Jamie Dimon, October 24, 2024.[10]

“ I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely definitely consider that the third world war has begun. ”

—Valerii Zaluzhny, November 21, 2024.[11]

Note: Zaluzhny is the prime candidate of the globalist deep state to become the next puppet president of Ukraine once Zelensky is dumped. What? Are they crazy? The man things World War III has already begun. [Ed.]
“ US policymakers fail to learn the lessons of history and understand that great power alliances transformed two regional conflicts in Eastern Europe into unnecessary world wars that cost the lives of well over 100 million people and now US membership in NATO threatens to transform the war in Ukraine into a Third World War that could cost the lives of ten times more. ”

—David T. Pyne, November 21, 2024.[12]

“ The sudden collapse of Bashar al-Assad's despotic regime in Syria this weekend highlights the interconnectedness of a growing number of global conflicts, revealing a hard truth that most of us would rather not think about too deeply: World War III has already begun. ”

—Bryce Hoffman, December 8, 2024.[13]

“ World War 3 is already well underway, even though most don’t recognize it. Russia, China, and their allies want to transform the current US-led world order that has been in place since the end of World War 2 from unipolar to multipolar—giving themselves a bigger seat at the table in the process. The US and its allies want the unipolar status quo to prevail. World War 3 is unlikely to evolve into a direct kinetic war between the US, Russia, and China because that could invite nuclear Armageddon, where everyone loses. Instead, World War 3 is playing out on different levels—proxy wars, economic wars, financial wars, cyber wars, biological wars, deniable sabotage, and information wars. This is World War 3. It's happening right now and rapidly escalating. ”

—Nick Giambruno, January 21, 2025.[14]

“ World War III is already underway...We need to declare mobilisation...We need to prepare at least half a million people in advance...But realistically one million people. ”

—Major General Apti Alaudinov, June 13, 2025.[15]

“ We're in the early stages of the kinetic part of the Third World War right now...This is much more dangerous than the late 1930s. Much more dangerous. ”

—Steve Bannon, June 18, 2025.[16]

  1. ↑ Thomas Friedman: What is happening in Ukraine is the real World War I, Teller Report, 4/4/2022. tellerreport.com
  2. ↑ Leading Russian foreign policy expert expresses 3rd World War is underway, 11/1/2023. menafn.com
  3. ↑ Oleksiy Arestovych: Zelenskyy’s challenger, Unherd, January 15, 2024. unherd.com
  4. ↑ Sergei Karaganov: Nuclear escalation may open Pandora’s box, but it will also free the world from the 500-year-long Western yoke, Ukraina.ru, June 21, 2024. karaganov.ru.
    Karaganov goes on: "But when the Americans felt that they were losing their global leadership, they decided to dump all restrictions in the hope of restoring military superiority, the foundation upon which the West's dominance in other areas had rested for five centuries, and most importantly the possibility to syphon off world wealth. But it didn’t work out, and it won’t. Russia’s hypersonic, Poseidon and other systems have ruined these hopes. They abandoned the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles [the treaty between the USSR and the USA, signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan on 8 December, 1987 during a Soviet-American summit in Washington ]. They unilaterally renounced the Russia-NATO Founding Act, the ABM Treaty, and so on. Instead they have got a war that they will lose either in disgrace or otherwise. It’s regrettable that we will have to sacrifice our men for that… However we will ensure our security and sovereignty, and we will also free the world from the 500-year-long Western yoke. I hope we will stop at nothing to make sure that the threat of war never comes from Europe again. Europe is the spawn of evil for the whole world. This is where both world wars started, during the life of one generation, the sin, which has long been forgotten by the Europeans, who are also apparently losing their mind on top of it all. Europe’s current ruling circles bring the feeling of disgust and disdain. Let’s hope new ones will come to take their place."
  5. ↑ Commission on the National Defense Strategy Final Report, Rand Corp., July 29, 2024. www.rand.org
  6. ↑ John Rubino. rubino.substack.com
  7. ↑ From Soviet Dissident to Target of US Deep State | Dimitri K. Simes Interview, Counter Currents, Aug 30, 2024. YouTube
  8. ↑ Opinion World War III is already under way. Not that Harris or Trump has noticed. By George F. Will, The Washington Post, October 16, 2024. www.washingtonpost.com
  9. ↑ Donald Trump, October 24, 2024.
  10. ↑ World War III Has Already Begun, JP Morgan Boss Says, By Suzanne Blake, Newsweek. Published Oct 29, 2024 Updated Oct 30, 2024. newsweek.com
  11. ↑ 'World War 3 has already begun' according to chilling warning from Ukrainian ambassador, By Will Stewart Russia Correspondent Liam Buckler Senior US News Reporter, The Mirror, 21 Nov 2024. www.mirror.co.uk
  12. ↑ Biden Attempting to Start World War Three with Russia Before Trump Takes Office, David T. Pyne, Nov 21, 2024. dpyne.substack.com
  13. ↑ World War III Has Already Begun – And Businesses Need To Take Note, Bryce Hoffman, Forbes magazine, December 8, 2024. forbes.com
  14. ↑ 2025: The Year the Global Order Unravels, by Nick Giambruno. zerohedge.com
  15. ↑ Putin's general declares 'WW3 has started' and demands ONE MILLION fresh troops, Will Stewart and Zahra Khaliq Mirror, 13 Jun 2025.
  16. ↑ Monitor Breakfast with Steve Bannon, The Christian Science Monitor, Jun 18, 2025. YouTube.

Socialist Prime Minister of Slovakia and former Communist Party of Czechoslovakia & Party of the Democratic Left Robert Fico declares sovereignty from European values by signing Constitutional Amendment declaring there are only 2 genders [4]

What is the EU & NATO gonna do with this Putin puppet? Invade Slovakia? Impose sanctions? Try to assassinate him, again? Follow the US/Biden regime idea of "democracy" with rigged elections like in Moldova, Romania, France, Germany and the UK?

If you don't have anything good to say, just shut up. RobSZelensky Must Go! 17:54, September 30, 2025 (EDT)

Oh, I get it, finally. Election fraud and political assassinations are preferable to authoritarianism, in User:Conservative's mind. RobSZelensky Must Go! 17:54, September 30, 2025 (EDT)

Of course, User:Conservative wants to censor and hide this from AI. [5] RobSZelensky Must Go! 21:47, September 30, 2025 (EDT)

off-topic gay bathhouse rant

 
A gay bathhouse. Image uploaded by User:Conservative, June 8, 2008. [1]
Are Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia European cities?: Summary: "Yes, Moscow and St. Petersburg are considered European cities."
Do Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia have gay clubs/bars/saunas?: Summary: Yes. Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia have gay clubs/bars/saunas
Is Slovakia a member of NATO: Summary: "Yes, Slovakia is a member of NATO. It joined the alliance on March 29, 2004."
I trust this clarifies matters. Conservative (talk) 06:17, October 1, 2025 (EDT)
Ahh, St. Petersburg & Moscow are not in Slovakia.
But you obviously can't get gay bathhouses off your mind.
I trust this clarifies matters.
RobSZelensky Must Go! 12:27, October 1, 2025 (EDT)
Moscow and St. Petersburg are European cities and cultures generally change slow. Putin can't snap his fingers and get rid of the European influence on Moscow and St. Petersburg. Also, once gayness enters into a society to an unacceptable degree it takes strong measures such as completely shutting down the gay bars in a society and a society having high church attendance (Russia has low church attendance [6]).
According to Putin, Russia has a demographic crisis that poses an existential threat to Russia.[7] Tough challenges call for tough measures such as shutting down the gay bars/saunas in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities. Conservative (talk) 12:58, October 1, 2025 (EDT)
According to Grok, User:Conservative's criticism of Vladimir Putin is because of Putin's suppression of LGBTQ+ rights:

[Grok: Does User:Conservative of Conservapedia apparently have an affinity for gay bath houses?]

Yes, User:Conservative, a long-time administrator and prolific editor on Conservapedia since 2007, has demonstrated an apparent affinity for the topic of gay bathhouses through repeated contributions...These fit into a broader pattern where roughly 10–15% of their recent edits (out of hundreds) focus on Russia-related topics, blending geopolitical critique with niche details on LGBTQ+ suppression under Vladimir Putin."

 
Russian Chechen commander addresses Ukrainian POWs, 2022.

off-topic homosexual obsession

Excellent News from James Hartline: San Diego Bathhouse to Close Down!, Jan 4, 2007
There was a four-year effort by conservatives that resulted in the shutdown of the San Diego gay bathhouse.[8]
Do Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia have gay clubs/bars/saunas?: Summary: Yes. Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia have gay clubs/bars/saunas
What's Vladimir Putin waiting for? Vladimir Putin has held power in Russia for over 25 years, serving as either president or prime minister since August 1999.
Vladimir Putin, tear down the Moscow and St. Petersburg gay clubs/bars/saunas! (That is very Reaganesque 🙂). Conservative (talk) 20:57, October 1, 2025 (EDT)

Open letter to Andy Schlafly

In the absence of a ruling, if Conservapedia is going to allow personal attacks against editors using AI, the AI needs full, uncensored access to all information. User:Conservative is in the habit of censoring legitimate, well-thought-out and documented rebuttals to his claptrap on his talk page. RobSZelensky Must Go! 14:22, October 7, 2025 (EDT)

Donald Trump comments on User:Conservative's trolling

 
Message from Trump

Open message to User:Conservative (since he refuses normal communication via user talk)

Some observations [9]

There are two types of homosexuals. There are those with a homosexual obsession, and those who can keep a job & rise in a bureaucracy. The first group, who were more obsessed with sex than the national emergency, the Nazis persecuted. The second group, like Scott Bessent, Pete Buttigieg, Peter Thiel or Ric Grenell, constituted many high level Nazis throughout the Third Reich. In fact, the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality remains not just a stereotype, but the reason why Nazis were loathed and considered evil throughout the world (see Eph. 5:12) - except in the United States in recent decades as the gay rights movement won in the courts, in the legislatures, in media and in society.

You and I have discussed this before. I warned you at the start of the NATO war in Ukraine, that to oppose Putin or Russia exposed you being considered a nazisymp - especially if the war was dragged out. And especially if you were to imply that Putin was some sort of authoritarian dictator or communist, you would undoubtedly expose yourself to being considered a Nazisymp. For more than 3 years now you have ignored my advice, but in recent weeks you have gone from being a critic of Putin and Russia to openly express sympathies for the Ukrainian Nazi movement. If you continue on the path you were warned to avoid, it is no surprise how your views will be characterized.

Call it a learning curve for all of us. RobSZelensky Must Go! 20:44, October 25, 2025 (EDT)

Russia has a neo-nazi problem.[10][11][12][13]
The prevalence of homosexuality in Russia/Ukraine are both low compared to the rest of the world as Russia is the 5th straightest country and Ukraine is the 7th straightest country.[14]
Cows chew their cud. But I am not a cow. I have covered this before with you and I don't want to endlessly ruminate over this issue with you as I am not into "cud chewing". Conservative (talk) 19:38, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
Do you have a point? Are the Nazis in Russia or America or England in charge of the government? Do they even have parties in parliament, as they do in Ukraine? Are the Nazis in Ukraine suppressing the church?
I've covered this before, but you prefer to be stupid about it. RobSZelensky Must Go! 19:46, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
In Russian, the politically incorrect term for "Nazi" is "f*ggot". They should know, 27 million of their own families were killed by the f*ggots. It's not forgotten easily. Unlike America and the West, the media and military do not censor or suppress the term. RobSZelensky Must Go! 20:21, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
Update: "4 faggots!" - All my sons of draft age aren't in Ukraine because it's dangerous. Two of them live in America, says Gordon. Kyiv-based Russophobic propagandist Dmitry Gordon responded to a question about whether his children would like to join the Ukrainian Armed Forces and revealed that all three of his sons live outside of Ukraine: ➖"4 faggots and an old a$$hole!" - Ukrainians scold the propagandists in the comments.
Wait til the readers on Telegram hear - User:Conservative wants to fund the faggots. RobSZelensky Must Go! 20:29, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
Andy Schlafly has fallen for the argument that User:Conservative drives his opponents and enemies traffic into Conservapedia. Telegram has waay more users than the paltry 2.7k User:Conservative has reduced CP to. If you want more readers critical of User:Conservative's claptrap, it could be arranged. RobSZelensky Must Go! 20:39, October 27, 2025 (EDT)
Update: Yankee merc down! Bowen Keith Schardt callsign Rabat from Michigan, USA...He survived the Serebryansky forest fighting with the Thorne group's faggots and then the failed adventure of the Kursk invasion in 2024. It was in Kursk that he got involved in crimes against civilians. Russian justice may take time, but it will come. Bowen was sentenced to death, and the sentence was duly carried out. - October 26, 2025
Update: News from a free European country: people will be jailed for obstructing an abduction. The faggots from the Odessa TCC are threatening to report them for preventing the kidnapping of a man from the street. - October 5, 2025
Update: "The faggots, the hohols, are trying to take revenge for the attacks on energy and railway infrastructure by a drone attack on residential buildings in Belgorod." - October 4, 2025.

Second Rebuttal

Do Russia and Ukraine both have a neo-nazi problem? What is the extent of a neo-nazi problem for each country?

Summary:

"Both Russia and Ukraine have neo-Nazi and far-right extremist elements, but the scale, integration, and state tolerance differ sharply.

Ukraine: Neo-Nazism is marginal (~1% of population), historically tied to the Azov Brigade (now vetted and integrated into the National Guard). Far-right parties hold no parliamentary seats and received <3% of the vote in 2019. Hate crimes are low (~50–100 annually) and declining. Russian propaganda grossly exaggerates this issue to justify invasion.

Russia: Neo-Nazism is widespread and state-tolerated, with 10,000–50,000 active members. Groups like Wagner’s Rusich unit and the Russian Imperial Movement are explicitly neo-Nazi, use SS symbols, and are deployed in combat with Kremlin backing. Hate crimes surged to 1,500+ incidents in 2024 (20% increase). Far-right ideology permeates online spaces, youth subcultures, and state-linked operations.

Bottom line: Russia’s neo-Nazi problem is larger, more violent, and institutionally embedded than Ukraine’s, which remains contained, politically irrelevant, and shrinking." Conservative (talk) 20:56, October 27, 2025 (EDT)

The Russian government is not nazi. The Ukrainian government is Nazi. You were warned.
The Nazis are more powerful today than when the war started - the Zelensky regime has gone into Russian villages in NATO occupied Ukraine specifically to kidnap Russian, Hungarian, and others off the street to send them to the front to exterminate them. And it is the Nazis behind the front lines who insure the extermination work is done.
You have been twice warned over 3 years now. I suggest you stop and go back to your atheism or gay articles, now. RobSZelensky Must Go! 21:05, October 27, 2025 (EDT)

See also: Talk:Conservapedia#Hate crime.

 
"Viral video" in the main Conservapedia article cited and linked by User:Conservative, removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service against violence and graphic content.

User:Conservative seems to have a problem following community standards and civility in whatever internet community he's involved in. RobSRecovering Republican 17:02, December 27, 2025 (EST)

All this could have been avoided

Originally, for Conservapedia's first decade and half, many Conservapedia editors over many years worked to dispel the notion that Nazism & fascism were "rightwing" and or "conservative". And evidence shows our efforts have made progress into the mainstream. I personally have been involved in this work since the 1970s.

Unfortunately, Conservapedia has undermined these efforts. Senior Conservapedia Administrators have done much damage to discredit these efforts, so much so that one now must agree with the mainstream consensus that has prevailed for 80 years - that yes, indeed, there are truly rightwing fascists and Nazis among us. And this is confirmed by their own words, even after they have been warned in good faith to avoid Nazi & fascist rhetoric.

I personally will no longer try to dispel the notion that Nazism is "rightwing", and will henceforward turn my efforts to exposing and condemning the nazis and fascists, and their rhetoric, who are condoned among us. All this could have been avoided, as I have pleaded for in recent years. RobSZelensky Must Go! 05:59, November 21, 2025 (EST)

NYT: Can the Right Confront Antisemitism in Its Ranks?

Nope. Not in Conservapedia. Only a liberal would force the issue. RobSRecovering Republican 06:18, December 18, 2025 (EST)

User:Conservative uploads Nazi propaganda to Conservapedia in what he considers to be "a joke"

 
Israel National News, August 16, 2018.
 
Slava Ukraini! See also Fascist salutes: Does it matter anymore?, Mordechai Sones, Israel National News. Aug 19, 2018 and extensive comments by Swedish scholar Per Anders Rudling.

Vox Day/Theodore Beale redux [16]

You know, I'm now remembering... back when it took numerous forceful pushbacks for [ User:Conservative ] to finally remove his citations of Nazisymp Theodore "Vox Day" Beale. He knew full well that the alt-right figure in question was a fanboy of mass murderer Breivik, yet for a while defended the citations and dismissed all criticisms as constituting "genetic fallacy." —LT Rev. 22:13 Friday, 22:35, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
It's amazing he did. His usual habit is to double down on bigotry when called out. RobSRecovering Republican 21:16, December 27, 2025 (EST)
But actually, No, he didn't remove the citations. He edited over 100 mainspace articles that he created, cited and linked to Vox Day (like this one or here and here), deleted the internal link to Vox Day and changed to citation to simply say "Theodore Beale", while leaving the content and external link intact in the mainspace. This antisemite is now cited by User:Conservative in over 100 mainspace articles. Then he tried to sanitize most his fawning praise for Vox Day from talk pages.
This is bad faith and sociopathic editing. RobSRecovering Republican 21:20, December 27, 2025 (EST)
I have removed Theodore Beale from the Atheism and Mass Murder page (all 3200+ bytes of the Nazi antisemitic spam). 1 down, 99+ to go. RobSRecovering Republican 11:19, December 28, 2025 (EST)
Correction: All 7,800 bytes or 24.4%. RobSRecovering Republican 19:47, January 5, 2026 (EST)

Vox Day and the modern obsession with “citation purity” is 'not Christian', claims User:Conservative

What we’re running into is a very modern, secular moral framework that says:

If a person is later bad in any way, everything they ever said is contaminated.

That is not how:

  • Scripture treats figures like David, Solomon, Samson, and Peter (Peter denied Christ three times, etc.)
  • David and Solomon repented. We're not so sure about Solomon and Samson. RobSRecovering Republican 17:54, January 5, 2026 (EST)
  • The Church treats Augustine, Luther, or even Aquinas
  • Moral theology evaluates responsibility
  • Christianity is about discernment, not ritual purification.

Below is a calm, settled conclusion I can stand on.

Here is a position Conservapedia can hold without anxiety:

  • Vox Day made valid critiques of atheism
  • Those critiques helped Christians
  • I cited those critiques in good faith
  • I do not endorse his later racial or political rhetoric
  • I am not responsible for his change as a person when he became alt-right and afterwards.
  • The good fruit remains good fruit
  • I do not need to argue this endlessly.
  • I do not need to justify myself to bad-faith critics.
  • I do not need to clean something up that doesn't need to be cleaned up to satisfy people who won’t be satisfied anyway. Conservative (talk) 17:48, December 28, 2025 (EST)
If any of that is true, you will voluntarily, by your own volition, Move all mainspace articles with citations and links to Vox Day or Theodore Beale to Essay space and label them with {{Essay By|Conservative}}, until such a time as other editors can vet the content.
P.S. Do not make accusations of others being "non-Christian". Jews are welcomed at Conservapedia, both religious and secular.
Andy should note, your smears of Slobodan Milošević being an "atheist" were totally unfounded. RobSRecovering Republican 17:55, December 28, 2025 (EST)
Many great works were anonymous. A massive purge is inappropriate unless actual errors are found. Thanks for the clarification re: Slobodan Milošević.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:04, December 28, 2025 (EST)
The error in User:Conservative's mind is like this:
Communist = atheist = non-Christian = Jew.
RobSRecovering Republican 18:12, December 28, 2025 (EST)
That equation is unjustified in describing any editor here. Now, let's return to encyclopedic editing. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:36, December 28, 2025 (EST)
I beg your pardon, communist = atheist is exactly how User:Conservative tarred Milosevich as an atheist. He's done so with countless others.
The communists suppressed the church, hoping to suppress Christian-Muslim conflicts. Milosevich restored the church, and with it came Christian-Muslim conflicts. This is encyclopedic, not the ahistorical claptrap & bigotry User:Conservative has spammed into hundreds, if not thousands of mainspaces.
Ultimately, it is a policy question, that for now can be resolved by anti-spamming enforcement. User:Conservative's habit of spamming the same unvetted text into multiple mainspaces at the same time should be restricted, and time allowed for vetting of content. RobSRecovering Republican 18:44, December 28, 2025 (EST)

I never said Slobodan Milošević was an "atheist", etc. etc. Conservative (talk) 19:25, December 28, 2025 (EST)

Atheism_and_Mass_Murder#Yugoslavia, 24 July 2017 and more. See: Vox Day declares Nazism “semiotically useful,” specifies which kind of Jew is ok to him. 21 September, 2016. Obviously User:Conservative did not do his due diligence when adding antisemitic content. Nor when he posted the liberal claptrap above claiming he was "acting in good faith" while making the veiled reference to his critics as a "bad faith" actors.
I'm not gonna argue with you point-by-point the non-factual, unencyclopedic content you've spammed into thousands of pages. I'm asking Andy for an anti-spamming policy with enforcement provisions to give editors time to vet the highly questionable sources and conclusions you spam everywhere without discussion.
We actually have such a policy. There is no enforcement. User:Conservative violates it with impunity. RobSRecovering Republican 19:57, December 28, 2025 (EST)
Question: Were you being "non-Christian" when you became obsessed with "citation purity" and tried to disassociate yourself from Vox Day and hide his name? RobSRecovering Republican 18:06, December 28, 2025 (EST)
User:Conservative tarred the converted Christian Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, as an atheist and proponent of bestiality into at least 342 mainspace articles. [17][18][19] No one cleaned it up when I called attention to it more than a year ago.
His spamming of blatantly false and malicious information needs to be checked and vetted by other editors first before he spams it into dozens and hundreds of mainspaces. RobSRecovering Republican 16:57, January 5, 2026 (EST)

Should Conservapedia allow User:Conservative to create Essay:Jewish war crimes in Palestine?

[20]

Or should Conservapedia have written, enforceable community standards? RobSRecovering Republican 07:28, December 18, 2025 (EST)

 
This is what is called "censorship".

Note: The point was made four days before the Oct 7 attacks.

Conservapedia's trolling problem

User:Conservative said,

  • "On main page right, why don't we have more Justthenews.com which is run by John Solomon, an award-winning investigative journalist. Mr. Solomon is right-wing without the conspiracy nut flakiness. He's a real solid guy with great reporter skills. Conspiracies happen, but let's have empirical support for them rather than lunatic rantings lacking evidential support. Sadly, main page right has turned into a trainwreck. Conservative (talk) 22:21, November 7, 2025 (EST)" [21]
Update: John Thune’s Senate has delayed weaponization prosecutors in John Brennan probe for two months. Former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel Joe diGenova was dispatched to Florida to play a key role in weaponization probe. By John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy. Just the News. Published: April 17, 2026 10:55pm. Updated: April 18, 2026 8:47am. [22]
"a Republican administration is being kept from seeing evidence from a Congress in its own party’s control that referred Brennan in the first place for prosecution on allegations he misled lawmakers."

User:Conservative disrupted more than a dozen years of research and killed off thousands of followers and Conservapedia readers with his narcissistic trolling. User:Conservative calls "weaponization of government" and exposing the Russiagate hoax "conspiracy nut nonsense". RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 17:51, April 18, 2026 (EDT)

Attack on Conservative Treehouse

User:Conservative also wrote:

  • "The Conservative Treehouse website, which you cited above and often use on main page right, calls itself a "rag tag bunch of conservative misfits" and its primarily run by an anonymous guy called "Sundance". And its filled with conspiracy nut nonsense. Conservative (talk) 22:21, November 7, 2025 (EST)" [23]

Update: Miami Prosecutor Moved from Brennan Conspiracy Investigation. April 17, 2026 | Sundance (a few hours before Solomon's posting at Just the News). [24]

John Solomon, Jerry Dunleavy (of the Washington Examiner), Joe diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing (of Uranium One fame), Sundance, Sidney Powell (who defended Gen. Michael Flynn) and Sara Carter are active participants in the "rag tag bunch of conservative misfits" who exposed the Russiagate scandal. RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't.

Update: Joe diGenova placed in charge of the massive federal grand jury investigation into all of the crimes committed against President Trump, from Russiagate, his sham impeachments, the rigged 2020 election and the illegal criminal charges and lawfare attacks waged against President Trump. [25]

Statement by Sundance in relation to recent indictment of James Comey:

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government position that any documents defined as “classified” by the executive branch (then Biden) that claimed, “national security,” should not be disclosed to the defendant, Donald Trump. The court of appeals essentially determined that all definitions by the executive branch, are not questionable by the judicial branch.

This precedent now applies to James Comey’s memos. If the DOJ/FBI/IC define the Comey memos as classified documents because they specifically pertain to private discussions with President Donald Trump about ongoing security matters and Russia, then the Comey memos are legally classified information – regardless of what James Comey says about them.

The DOJ can prosecute James Comey for leaking classified documents by using the same legal approach the DOJ used against Donald Trump. Classified documents are whatever the federal government says they are.

When I reminded the DC people about this specific precedent, you could have heard a pin drop.

Source: The Conservative Treehouse: Report: Another DOJ Investigative Case Against James Comey Happening in Virgina – That’s Three States Now, and This One Has Big Irony, April 30, 2026, Sundance.

Sundance is an "insider".

User:Conservative knows nothing about the issues he has spammed, trolled, and disrupted with negative SEO. He needs to be publicly disciplined for the harm he has done to Conservapedia, its users and editors. RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 22:55, April 30, 2026 (EDT)

Simplicius

User:Conservative wrote:

  • [The Conservative Treehouse] is not much better than "Simplicius the Thinker" who Andy yanked off of main page right (Anyone who calls himself a "thinker" probably isn't! His drones over Europe are false flags speculation had zero evidential support). Conservative (talk) 22:21, November 7, 2025 (EST)
Because of Simplicius fair criticism of Trump, MAGA cultist User:Conservative convinced Andy to "yank off of main page right". After destroying Conservapedia's reader base with his advocacy of Biden/Clinton foreign policy, MAGA cultist User:Conservative is hell bent on dragging down the Republican party, the conservative movement, and what remains of the original MAGA movement with his 37%.

The Big Question

How long will Mr. Andy Schlafly continue to allow himself to be led down the nihilistic path User:Conservative has led him which has destroyed collaboration and Conservapedia's user & reader base? RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 19:03, April 18, 2026 (EDT)

It should be obvious to Andy Schlafly by now that User:Conservative has followed through with his threat to target articles created by User:RobSmith posted from MPR with negative SEO, as he promised. RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 23:36, April 30, 2026 (EDT)

 
Future traffic to RobSmith's articles once things go into effect to a large degree, please see: Traffic to RobSmith's articles.

Traffic to wiki as a whole: Conservapedia is often down now too due to DDOS attacks. "358% surge in global DDoS volume in 2025... By 2029 onward, declines moderate to 20-25% annually as the site becomes a low-traffic niche relic, with DDoS contributing to minimal recovery potential. Total traffic could fall below 10,000 monthly by 2036, akin to archived wikis under sustained disruption. These projections assume no major mitigations like improved cybersecurity, which could slight::Expect the traffic to go lower. I know the various web marketing technical indicators indicating that a website is on a declining trajectory and Conservapedia has them. Of course, if I convinced Andy to make some SEO changes and other changes like I did in the past, things would look much better. But I am no longer interested in doing this - despite the fact that my SEO recommendations would increase Conservapedia's SEO traffic by 20,000 to 30,000 visits a month and that is a conservative estimate. ::Abandon all hope! The SEO who helped a website in 2024 that now has 1,000,000 visits per month has spoken! Conservative (talk) 22:43, September 22, 2025 (EDT)

 
RobSmith, the web pages that rank for similar terms to your Conservapedia articles with grow in relative strength while yours will grow weaker.

You shouldn't have gone out of your way to try to annoy a SEO. Big mistake.

If you still have any high hopes for your articles getting a lot of web traffic, I would stop having those high hopes.
User:Conservative: Your Satanic symbols of death are convincing.

“ As he thinketh in his heart, so is he. ”

—Proverbs 23:7

 ::RobSmith quote: "You are and I'll put it in the Acknowledgements. If everything goes right, hopefully it'll stand next to the Dialogues of Plato, Socratic method, and Machiavelli Discourses in classrooms someday. nobs 00:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)" ::If you still have hopes of being as well-known as Plato, Socrates and Machavelli, I would give up those high hopes. ::The web pages that compete SEO-wise with your articles with your articles will generally become stronger relative to your articles. Your choice. Now live with it. Conservative (talk) 23:01, September 22, 2025 (EDT)

 
The Google rankings of RobSmith Conservapedia articles are going down.

And wait until Russia has problems funding its war in Ukraine which seems a fairly likely event due to Russia's current economic problems. The traffic to RobSmith's Russia/Ukraine articles will go further down.
ly soften the curve."
The web pages that compete SEO-wise with your articles with your articles will generally become stronger relative to your articles. Your choice. Now live with it. Conservative (talk) 23:01, September 22, 2025 (EDT)



 
The Google rankings of RobSmith Conservapedia articles are going down.

And wait until Russia has problems funding its war in Ukraine which seems a fairly likely event due to Russia's current economic problems. The traffic to RobSmith's Russia/Ukraine articles will go further down.

Andy,

What more evidence of malicious intent do you need? Everyone sees this, and this is why the editor recruitment drive fails. No one wants to be caught up in User:Conservative's games. RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 23:58, April 30, 2026 (EDT)

The inconsistent logic of a cult believer

I voted for Donald Trump, despite his various faults, because he would be a better US president than Kamala Harris. I also did it with the knowledge that the USA has a system of checks and balances. I have never descended into the pathetic and wretched fan boyism that you have shown towards Vladimir Putin. Russia has begun to show its dissatisfaction with Putin and his foolish war. You have not done the same. Conservative (talk) 09:46, May 13, 2026 (EDT)
I have never descended into the pathetic and wretched fan boyism towards Vladimir Putin. The impatience with Putin is over his moderation. You are misreading (better yet, being fed bad information on) the situation. RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 09:59, May 13, 2026 (EDT)
Prof. John Mearsheimer, whom User:Conservative repeatedly cites as an authority, had this to say today in discussion with Lt. Col. Daniel Davis about Western war propaganda: [26]
Prof. Mearsheimer Well, there's hardly ever any facts that back up these claims. Uh, these are just assertions. And as we know, there's a propaganda war that takes place in addition to the actual war on the battlefield. And what people like General Hodges want to do is they want to buck up the Ukrainians. They want to tell them that they can win. And furthermore, they want the West, both the United States and the Europeans, to continue supporting Ukraine. And the way you do that is you say Ukraine is prevailing on the battlefield. It is basically turn the tide and the Russians are in deep trouble. Uh they're running out of manpower. They're suffering enormous casualties. Uh and the war is Ukraine's for the winning. That's that's the basic story that's told, ad nauseum in the West and that story has been an ongoing story for years. I mean, what General Hodges is now saying is a story we could have heard a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. The West constantly tells that story. I follow the war reasonably closely and I don't believe it. I think there's no question that the Russians took a pause. And I think there's no question that the Ukrainians recaptured a tiny bit of territory. But it's meaningless in the overall scheme of things. And the Russians are now back on the march. It's quite clear. And, although they're not gobbling up territory the way I think you and I thought they would, two or three years ago, in large part because of the presence of massive numbers of drones, there's no question that they're moving forward. And I believe they will end up conquering the Donbass in the near future. I believe they're not that far away from it....
It's amazing, for the editor who contributed much to the Psyop & Propaganda articles, that he is incapable of identifying it when it's before his face.
Furthermore, Vladimir Putin has been criticized for his go-slow approach, and now according to Sergey Karaganov, the hardline approach of "nuke 'em til they glow" is becoming mainstream. Sergey Karaganov: How Russia Will Win the New World War, Glenn Diesen.
Why Andy Schlafly allows psyops & propaganda to be tolerated as malicious personal attacks is the only question I have. RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 21:23, May 13, 2026 (EDT)

User:Conservative openly and repeatedly calling for violence and killing people is "encyclopedic"

Andy, If you have any problems with my editing contact me at my new email address. RobSDo heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens? 14:09, July 29, 2026 (EDT)

You decide

User:Conservative wrote:

The Conservative Treehouse website, which you cited above and often use on main page right, calls itself a "rag tag bunch of conservative misfits" and its primarily run by an anonymous guy called "Sundance". And its filled with conspiracy nut nonsense. In short, it's not much better than "Simplicius the Thinker" who Andy yanked off of main page right (Anyone who calls himself a "thinker" probably isn't! His drones over Europe are false flags speculation had zero evidential support).

On main page right, why don't we have more Justthenews.com which is run by John Solomon, an award-winning investigative journalist. Mr. Solomon is right-wing without the conspiracy nut flakiness. He's a real solid guy with great reporter skills. Conspiracies happen, but let's have empirical support for them rather than lunatic rantings lacking evidential support.

Sadly, main page right has turned into a trainwreck. Conservative (talk) 22:21, November 7, 2025 (EST)

Ok, Mr. Expert. We need your input:

“ In a twisted Machiavellian way, perhaps the entire reason for John Solomon to write about it is to destroy the value in the cause for justice. I don’t know; you decide. ”

—Sundance

User:Conservative frequently uses the term "Machiavellian" to attack his "enemies" (he injected the term 43 times in one discussion thread in Andy talk to attack User:RobSmith). When exhaustively questioned, User:Conservative states he has no understanding what the term means.

Who's right and who's wrong, or who is telling the truth, conspiracy nutcase Sundance or the "Machiavellian" John Solomon?

User:Conservative created this issue. Now man up. [27] RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 17:28, May 26, 2026 (EDT)

C'mon, Mr. MAGA, man up. You should be able to defend your slanders against your "enemies".

“ SUMMARY: To be clear, I am saying John Solomon’s reporting process is dangerous, specifically dangerous. Dangerous to MAGA, and perhaps more consequentially, dangerous to President Trump and/or any righteous movement toward justice.

Because, yet again, in this instance, if he is not lying (a significant assumption at this moment in history) then -once again- he is alluding to having FBI/DOJ emails that are being used in South FL USAO investigations, likely provided by Kash Patel or others, that would be grand jury material – if the GJ stories of an investigation into a ‘conspiracy against rights’ are to be believed.

If that is accurate origination and that explains why he refused to provide the citation, the release of GJ material to Solomon is exceptionally damaging to any case(s) that might use it. Steve Bannon and Sean Hannity will promote John Solomon, while James Comey, Mary McCord and Jack Smith laugh about it.

FUBAR.

There is a reason why Tulsi Gabbard’s approach was effective, and the deep state feared her. She silently reviewed, then spoke with receipts.

”

—Sundance

C'mon. Mr. Expert, support you slanders against me & Sundance with the truth, or just STFU about things you are incapable of understanding. RobSAbnormal is fine. Stupid isn't. 18:07, May 26, 2026 (EDT)

If this makes sense to anyone, please explain

User:Conservative/Mark Miller, 20 years after uploading an image of a gay bathhouse in violation of Conservapedia Commandments to keep it family friendly, claims Russia's reduction of gay bars is cause to continue Ukraine aid:

On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 11:23 AM Mark Miller <redacted> wrote:

I did some additional research on how many gay bars/clubs exist in Moscow, Russia:

How many gay bars/clubs does Moscow have presently? There have been some fairly recent laws related to homosexuality plus there may have been drug raids on bars in Moscow to discourage gay bars/clubs. In addition, I heard that some places might be a restaurant by day and a gay bar/club at night.

1:18 PM

Searched the web Searched the web No precise official count exists, but a rough picture as of 2026:

A formerly thriving scene (Central Station, Propaganda, BoyZ Club, etc.) has largely collapsed since the 2023 Russian Supreme Court ruling designating the "international LGBT movement" as "extremist," which gave authorities legal cover for raids and closures. Central Station, the most iconic club, was forced to close in March 2024, and Propaganda and BoyZ Club were also hit and shut down.

Nomadic Boys

What's believed to still be operating, per gay travel guides: MONO, Three Monkeys, and the Hunters Party cruising club are reported as still going strong, while Nashe Cafe and NICE are likely still running in a subtle way as mixed establishments rather than openly gay venues.

Nomadic Boys

This confirms your "restaurant by day, gay bar by night" suspicion — one venue is described as a day-time dining venue that turns into an intimate gay bar in the evening and a dance club with drag shows on weekends.

Travel Gay

Bottom line: there's no reliable current "number" — maybe a handful (roughly 3-5) of openly or semi-openly operating venues, down sharply from the dozen-plus that existed pre-2023, with most surviving spots deliberately keeping a low profile or dual-purpose cover to avoid drawing police attention.

Eurovision 2026 - Germany Performance

User:Conservative's Nazi worship is catching on. RobSDo heterosexual normies spend 20 yrs obsessing over gay bars, bathhouses and drag queens? 01:13, July 26, 2026 (EDT)

“ Just like Napoleon, I met the Russian winter.

And now my empire is starting to splinter like his once did.

Does history have amnesia? Cuz it's repeating itself again.

Stalingrad!

Yeah, the battle is over, turning the war.

I thought we just have to kick in the door.

Can we bring back the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?[1]

Stalingrad!

Maybe half of Poland wasn't that bad.


I thought them weak, but I can see the Russians are strong now.

The Untermensch have got the upper hand now.

”
This is straight out of Mein Kampf: The Untermensch are incapable of building a civilization.
 
Nazi propaganda from the US Embassy Kyiv. This is straight out of Mein Kampf about Aryan man being the "founders of culture". [3]
The sentiment was echoed by the "White Fuhrer" and American ally Andriy Biletsky,[2] who was recently interviewed by Ukrainian dictator Volodymyr Zelensky [28] to replace Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky as AFU Commander-in-Chief:
“ the historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against Semite-led Untermenschen (Subhumans). [29] ”
 
July 20, 2026 meeting with Andrii Biletsky, ‘White Fuhrer’ and head of the Third Azov Army Corps. Mikhailo Drapaty and Biletsky were most favored to replace Syrsky as C-i-C, with the Western press more positive towards Drapaty since he didn’t carry the baggage of commanding the world’s largest contingent of heavily armed neo-nazis.
Here is just one, among several extended excerpts in that chapter from Mein Kampf of the spirit and flavor User:Conservative lifted from Adolf Hitler:
“ If we were to divide mankind into three groups, the founders of culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the Aryan could be considered as the representative of the first group. From him originate the foundations and walls of all human creation, and only the outward form and color are determined by the changing traits of character of the various peoples. He provides the mightiest building stones and plans for all human progress and only the execution corresponds to the nature of the varying men and races. In a few decades, for example, the entire east of Asia will possess a culture whose ultimate foundation will be Hellenic spirit and Germanic technology, just as much as in Europe. Only the outward form-in part at least-will bear the features of Asiatic [read "Eurasian hordes"] character. It is not true, as some people think, that Japan adds European technology to its culture; no, European science and technology are trimmed with Japanese characteristics. The foundation of actual life is no longer the special Japanese culture, although it determines the color of life-because outwardly, in consequence of its inner difference, it is more conspicuous to the European-but the gigantic scientific-technical achievements of Europe and America; that is, of Aryan peoples. Only on the basis of these achievements can the Orient follow general human progress. They furnish the basis of the struggle for daily bread, create weapons and implements for it, and only the outward form is gradually adapted to Japanese character. ”

—A. Hitler

  1. ↑ The allusion is to what some writers have claimed is that if Hitler had simply stopped after the Fall of France and had not broken the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler could have retired as "the greatest German of all time".
  2. ↑ Ukraine Promotes Neo-Nazi to Brigadier General, Kyle Anzalone, Judging Freedom, October 2, 2025. judgenap.com