SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
SamHB
Joined April 28, 2008
→March, 2015, On the Curious Matter of Putting Ferris Bueller's Day Off in italics: The "ConsMovies" incident
At 15:04, 28 March, [[User:ConsMovies]] made an edit to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=prev&oldid=1142798 the "Greatest Conservative Movies" page] correcting the italicization of the title of ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'', along with 3 other movies (''The Goonies'', ''God's Not Dead'', and ''Man of Steel''.) Cons blocked him 1 minute later. ConsMovies' edits in general were of a somewhat provocative and snarky nature, but movie titles are generally in italics on that page, and his edit was correct. Cons reverted the edit 3 minutes after that, so that those movie titles are no longer in italics.
At 15:04, 28 March, [[User:ConsMovies]] made an edit to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=prev&oldid=1142798 the "Greatest Conservative Movies" page] correcting the italicization of the title of ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'', along with 3 other movies (''The Goonies'', ''God's Not Dead'', and ''Man of Steel''.) Cons blocked him 1 minute later. ConsMovies' edits in general were of a somewhat provocative and snarky nature, but movie titles are generally in italics on that page, and his edit was correct. Cons reverted the edit 3 minutes after that, so that those movie titles are no longer in italics.
I complained about this on Andy's talk page on March 12. There was a long discussion on this topic, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive59#ConsMovies here].
I complained about this on Andy's talk page on March 12. There was a long discussion on this topic, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive59#ConsMovies here]. (The discussion is reproduced below.)
An interesting (to me, at least, as a "Cons-watcher") thing to note about that discussion is that, from looking at the history log, Cons twice '''burned down (completely deleted) Andy Schlafly's talk page, and recreated it''', once at 23:21, 12 March, and once at 14:21, 13 March! He had apparently made some edits that he realized were inappropriate, and needed to cover his tracks. He has since then learned to use more sophisticated techniques to "vape" embarrassing material.
An interesting (to me, at least, as a "Cons-watcher") thing to note about that discussion is that, from looking at the history log, Cons twice '''burned down (completely deleted) Andy Schlafly's talk page, and recreated it''', once at 23:21, 12 March, and once at 14:21, 13 March! He had apparently made some edits that he realized were inappropriate, and needed to cover his tracks. He has since then learned to use more sophisticated techniques to "vape" embarrassing material.
:Breaking news: At 22:03, 7 February 2016, the page finally got fixed. Congratulations to [[User:Northwest]].
:Breaking news: At 22:03, 7 February 2016, the page finally got fixed. Congratulations to [[User:Northwest]].
== More about the ConsMovies incident ==
::::''This section, and the one below, were recovered from [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive59#ConsMovies|an archive]] of Aschlafly's talk page. It is being brought out of the archive because it illustrates a few things about Conservapedia as of 4 years ago.''
Hello. I have made this account for communicating with admins about my ban. I will not use the account for any other purpose.
The account that was banned was ConsMovies with a block id of #193504. It was banned by one of the users of the User:Conservative account, and I think I know which one. I think it was whichever one I politely disagreed with about halal meat on a talk page, and I think the ban is personal. The reason given for the ban was "desperate parodist" and seemed to immediately follow the addition of the movie ''Evolution'' to [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]].
I can see that a case could be made for the movie actually having no message, and me reading too much into it. In that case it could have been reverted and the reason why posted to the Essay Talk page. It doesn't seem like a reason to block a contributor with a history of constructive edits and revert almost everything they did.
Many edits were then reverted by this particular user of the User:Conservative account simply because they had my name attached to them.
Robocop for example. Anyone who doesn't think that my description of what is wrong with that film is accurate has obviously only seen the poster and not the actual movie. From the title and tagline it looks like harmless silly action but it is silly in a far less harmless way than that.
The user who reverted my edits even reverted my italicization of movie titles in [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]] in line with the convention adopted by the rest of the article's table entries. What could he or she have against italics except for the presence of my name in the edit log?
Additionally, my addition to [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]] was reverted. I can't see what problem anyone is supposed to have with the addition, other than my name on the edit log.
As you can see my ban was personal and nothing to do with proper running of the encyclopedia. I waited to see if the other users of the [[User:Conservative]] account would have a word with the errant one but they remain silent! Clearly they are a tight-knit group, and while that is not a bad thing in itself it should not take precedence over the correct running of Conservapedia.
(signed) [[User:ConsMoviesAppeal|ConsMoviesAppeal]] 11:04, 3 March 2015 (EST) (ConsMovies)
:ConsMoviesAppeal, create 10 solid new articles that are at least 2,400 words in length to show good faith. The articles must be articles that need to be written for the [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia atheism project]].
:Given your British IP address (a British atheist from London is obsessed with me) and your parodist type edits, I doubt you will take me up on this offer. (signed) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:12, 4 March 2015 (EST)
::I have reconsidered. If he does an article on [[Lee Rigby]] and creates 2 new articles for the [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia atheism project]] of at least 2,400 words in length and are of good quality, he can edit Conservapedia for the foreseeable future barring any subsequent ill-behavior. This is my final offer and no counter offers will be accepted. (signed) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:04, 4 March 2015 (EST)
:::Conservative, I came here not to appease you, but to warn the other admins and other users of your account about you. I assume I am speaking to the same user who blocked me, who did so for personal reasons, and who can apparently do whatever he or she wants with the User:Conservative account while the other users of that account turn a blind eye.
:::I have made no "parodist type edits." As I said, you reverted the edit where I fixed the italics in an article. Why? I can see no reason other than my name being on the edit.
:::Also, you have failed to explain why you reverted my edits to the article [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]].
:::Additionally, have you actually seen Robocop?
:::Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the true conservative members of the group that uses the User:Conservative account are in fact no longer here, and that you are the parodist/parodists.
:::(signed) [[User:ConsMoviesAppeal|ConsMoviesAppeal]] 14:47, 7 March 2015 (EST)
::::Conservative, rather than answer my questions, which you can not do, you blocked me again. You can't explain the reverts that you did. You reverted good edits only because you have a personal grudge. And you call yourself a conservative! (signed) [[User:ConsMoviesAppeal2|ConsMoviesAppeal2]] 13:01, 10 March 2015 (EDT)
===From SamHB===
Andy: A serious case of abuse has unfolded just above on this talk page. It refers to the block, by Cons, of the user "ConsMovies", apparently relating to some edits made to the [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]] page.
I'm not going to support or oppose those edits, as I don't watch many movies, and have probably not seen any of the movies involved. But, whatever the merits of the actual edits, Cons's actions are utterly inexcusable. They appear to be some kind of emotional outburst, the reason for which I don't understand (and I know Cons well.) He also seems to have reverted all of ConsMovies' edits, based entirely on the fact that they were made by ConsMovies and without regard to the actual substance. He even reverted some italicization of a few movie titles. The convention appears to be that movie titles are supposed to be in italics. A few were not, and ConsMovies fixed that. Cons reverted even that change. That can't be simply an accident; ConsMovies brought up that very issue in the section above, and Cons still took no action. I would have fixed it myself, but the page is locked.
Cons's actions constitute a blatant abuse of his administrative powers. He is carrying out a brutish personal vendetta against someone for reasons that I don't understand. ConsMovies' edits may be worthy of a revert—I can't judge—but this is simply an abuse of power.
A rather disturbing aspect of this has been the discussion that you can see in the section above. ConsMovies created a new account to appeal the block (against the rules, but there is no other way to do it, so it's a good thing that that rule is not enforced), and Cons issued some demands that are nothing but an abusive power trip. He demanded that ConsMovies write 10 articles, meeting certain demands on size, and '''demanding that they must be on a specified topic!''' In all my time here I have never seen a demand of that type. Furthermore, the demand was couched in particularly abusive terms—"This is my final offer and no counter offers will be accepted" that are reminiscent of the Postsdam Declaration of World War 2.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this is Cons's demands that the articles (which of course ConsMovies couldn't create in any case since he is blocked) be in a topic category that is of particular interest to Cons. (The "Atheism Project", which is essentially owned by Cons.) Cons is effectively demanding that ConsMovies do his bidding, as a condition for being allowed to edit at Conservapedia.
There are some very crude contemporary slang terms that are sometimes used to describe the relationship that Cons is demanding that ConsMovies enter into. I don't endorse the language at all, but one of the terms I can think of relates to a female canine, and the others relate to an extremely old profession.
I have been trying to work with Cons both on his writing style and on his efforts to interact with others in a straightforward and sensible manner (see my talk page), but have made only slight headway. You need to intervene. Please unblock ConsMovies, and admonish Cons on acceptable standards of behavior for an administrator.
Sincerely, (signed) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:52, 12 March 2015 (EDT)
:Hi, I'm a new editor here. I just wanted to let you know that I think [[User:Conservative]] is completely innocent. Thanks. (signed) [[User:ZDean|ZDean]] 19:24, 12 March 2015 (EDT)
::You seem awfully new to be jumping into such a complicated issue. I assume you are familiar with the many dozens of controversies that Cons has been involved in over the years, many of which I am very familiar with. I also assume that, in what you wrote just above, that you were specifically referring just to the "ConsMovies" incident. And that you are aware that it is a more isolated and simple issue than many of the others. Why don't you, off the top of your head, render your opinions on some of the others?
::Or perhaps you would like us to believe that you are another member of Cons's fictional "collective". You must know that that is not his ''modus operandi''.
::Andy: Please don't delete ZDean's comment (or mine) above. People need to see this kind of stuff.
::(signed) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:36, 12 March 2015 (EDT)
:::Whenever a liberal cannot pin anything on a conservative (or conservative organization), often they resort to calling the person/organization "controversial" (see: [[Liberal Style]]).
:::Given SamHB's/Conservmoviesappeal's high words/substance ratio, I doubt Mr. Schlafly read their long screeds. At most, he skimmed them. (signed) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:18, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
::::Before I had even posted on Conservapedia I had contacted Andy by email to get his advice on anti-abortion and pro-life topics for setting up a pro-life project of my own. Andy invited me to post here and advised me, and I paraphrase "Do not take much notice about what is said on talk pages". Since then I have been blocked twice by Conservative simply for disagreeing with him, despite being told I would not be blocked. As I had misplaced Andy's email address I had no way of contacting him for advice I really did need. I have come to the conclusion that Conservative is always right, never bullies or intimidates people and never uses a high word to substance ratio despite publishing dozens of atheism articles, many of which are close facsimiles of each other based on one Barna Group report many years ago. Conservative holds the axe here and there is no point in opposing him if you do not want it to be bought down on your neck.--(signed) [[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 10:22, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
:::::To illustrate my point look at the deletion of my talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Tomqua]. You will see that despite my posts being accepted and me showing some contrition I was still blocked. It does not show it here but after I had written "Ok, but so far my posts have been accepted" the next line was , again I paraphrase "You were warned". followed by the block. I can only conclude the real reason for the block was spite.--(signed) [[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 10:50, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
Tomqua, are you an atheist? Your past complaints at this wiki would indicate you are an atheist.
Conservapedia is never going to whitewash atheism. (signed) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:13, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
:My religious views are not your concern.--(signed) [[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 15:58, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
::Given the [[Atheist population and immorality|folly and shamefulness]] of the [[atheist worldview]], I can understand your reluctance to admit you are an atheist. Many atheists are closet atheists and find it difficult to support their [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]).
::Jesus set the highest moral standards (Sermon on the mount, etc.) and there is an abundance of [[Christian apologetics websites|evidence supporting Christianity]], so there no reason for a Christian to be ashamed of being a Christian. (signed) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:17, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
:::It has nothing to do with cowardice. Think along the lines of your past record of bullying and belittling not just atheism but any form Christianity you find too liberal, see [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]].--(signed) [[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:35, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
::::I find that a strange remark, for a number of reasons. Only one of which being that the article doesn't strike me as a particularly vivid example of the point you were professing to demonstrate. (signed) [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:01, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
==A note on the second law of thermodynamics==
==A note on the second law of thermodynamics==