Conservapedia talk:Administrators

Questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would love to see you pointing out what sentences need citations, Sysop-TerryK!

My point is, this is a wiki. People sign up and post. They invest their free time into it and build a community project. Simply telling them that there are no clear rules about acceptable content and that they should just edit until they get slapped by a sysop is a bit... unprofessional. But I just LOOOOOOOOOVE how you instantly swap into extremes again to make me look like some sort of ultra-democracy guy who completely rejects any sort of leadership. You seem to be quite good at it!

Look. Seriously now. Take a look at how the real world works. The real world has a set of clear, basic rules, and people act according to those rules. When you come to a red traffic light, walk over it and almost get run over, there will be conflict. What do you do? Do you call President Bush to resolve the conflict? Or a senator? Or the cops? You usually won't. There are clear and well-known rules that say "DON'T DO THAT, DUDE!". You and the guy who almost ran you over are fully capable of resolving the conflict without the need for authority. And even if the conflict goes on, other people around you could join the discussion before anybody has to call the police.

The same practice has been established on Wikipedia. Specific rules are continuously discussed and occasionally refined to adapt to developments on the wiki in general. Rules like "Reliable Sources" or "NPOV" cover what is acceptable in terms of content and citations. People can (and should) read these rules and act according to them.

Your approach basically is to have as very few rules that are also very fuzzy and not terribly clear. Then you come up with the "If in doubt, turn to authority" rule. This might work on a small forum, but not on an open wiki. There are 30 or so sysops in total to monitor a few THOUSAND articles for violations of rules only you "know" (read: make up and enforce on a case-by-case basis). Do you see the flaw in your approach? Given a few more active editors, your entire construct will immediately collapse under an accidental Denial-Of-Service attack - everybody will poke the sysops over effectively the same x questions.

And even if all admins suddenly turn into super-humans, results will depend on which sysop gets consulted. Without clear rules, you will most likely make different decisions than Hoji, for example. Andy will make different decisions than Ed. There will be no consistency.

Another difficulty of the lack of rules is a sort of Chilling Effect. If I make a major contribution to an article that cost me HOURS to write and research, I have no way of properly predicting whether or not it will be vaped for some reason (or simply because a sysop has personal interest in not letting that sort of edit through). With such a 50/50 chance on edits, few will bother to actually do the work. --Sid 3050 21:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, Sid, I don't presume to speak for Andy or the kids, however logic would dictate that 100 users working diligently together, toward a common goal and purpose, is superior to 1000 workers constantly arguing and disrupting the work, debating forever the basic ideals of this site. You should do what your Heart tells you, do what your conscience dictates, in deciding if this is the place your ample talents can best be used. --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 21:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

You... didn't read anything of what I wrote, right?

Yes, 100 workers working towards a common goal is better than 1000 workers arguing. What you're suggesting, however, is to have those 1000 workers take their arguments to the 100 workers, and in the end NOBODY is working.

My suggestion is to gather all 1100 workers, work out what the common goal actually is, make sure that everybody got it and then have EVERYBODY working together.

To pack it into an even harsher example: You are basically taking those 1000 workers and telling them "Build a house." You and your 99 buddies each have a mental image of said house, and so do the 1000 workers. In total, there will be nearly 1100 different mental images, and then people go to work, with the 100 people running and shouting whenever they see something going TOTALLY wrong according to their personal vision. Will this end well?

To make matters worse: Quite a few of the 1000 people realize that this will NOT end well and don't even start to build anything (or only when somebody prods them). This is wasted potential.

This site needs more than a "case-by-case" basis. Ever since this site attracted more visitors after the blogs and papers reported about it, people have complained about the lack of an openly stated goal (or, as others have phrased it: "Conservapedia doesn't admit its own bias."). Now this lack of a goal has effectively been turned into a policy. --Sid 3050 22:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, fortunately, only a few of you see it that way. And unless things change, and people heed the warnings they have been given, only their socks and sockpuppets will still be around. Each day the number of supporters grows smaller as the outlandish statements, insults and demands grow ever more shrill......--~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 22:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*rubs temples* I give up... --Sid 3050 22:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

how do u apply to be an admin??

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

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

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

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

Must be a "very well-monitored" page, then. "I've seen it... but I forgot where it is..." ;)

Love how you go "Sid is wrong, but I can't prove it... and my inability to point at the page sort of shows it's not terribly active..."

In the meantime, let me elaborate: TerryH was made a sysop today. TerryH was surprised and asked Andy. Andy was also surprised, but approved of the decision. It had been a decision by one bureaucrat. Which is pretty much what I said above. I think at least one sysop was made sysop because of the ominous Panel. But please show me that page and a few people who were made sysop after discussion on said page! I have never seen it, but it sounds like something that should be on our watch lists! --Sid 3050 21:29, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• Once again, Sid, you state as fact things that are not. Ominous? Goodness you must be afraid all day! It does not matter who decides, it is enough that someone, several people, do. Andy usually lists the reasons why. And since this is a private site, what right do you, or me, have to demand to know? --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 21:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Is that your new shield du jour? "This is a private site, so you don't have any right to criticize anything!" Do you run out of arguments that fast now? We've got a panel consisting of an unknown number of unknown users who make decisions without transparency. Anybody on this site could be a member. I could be one. I could push you over the edge and then drag this into my home base - the Panel and then use my power there to make a decision in my favor. You would never know, you would have no insight, you would just be told "The Panel has decided that you suck."

Sure, I'm fine with that. No problem there. --Sid 3050 21:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, I am happy you have so decided, Sid! I do look forward to your continued contributions to the Community! Thanks for taking the "high road" and understanding that things cannot always be about what you want. :-) --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 21:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• Apply to be an Admin here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Admin --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 22:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Identification?

"Sysop's [sic] and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed." This seems like the underlying prime directive of this file. Maybe it should be the seventh Commandment. But anyway, I have a question - how can one tell if someone is a Sysop (or Bcrat)? Shall they henceforth attach a little badge to their signature so we proles know who we are dealing with? I know that sounds sarcastic, but I mean it in good faith. If I'm editing away, and user:JoeSchmoe tells me to do or not do something, I want to know if he signed up yesterday and is a troll from WP, or if he is a valued member of the management of this site. Hoping for a simple answer... Human 02:56, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Andy approved the guideline, and it was moved here, as policy after being in a talk/comment page. I think Andy's thinking was not be getting so many "Commandments" since God only had 10 for all of humanity. So, community guidelines became the name, and no too strict as to create lots of reviews, panels, another whole bureaucracy to deal with. I suggested on the Sysop page that we include the designation on your sigs, as well as our user page, but a couple of Sysop's claimed it was self-aggrandizement, never seeing that it would be useful as you suggested here. Well, Rome wasn't built in a day, little by little we will make this work, and it will get better, I promise you! --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed reformatting of Duties & Authority section

I find the Duties & Authority section pretty hard to read (why is it a bullet list with just one bullet for the whole paragraph?). I'm reluctant to change the formatting without prior approval, so instead I'm posting the proposed formatting here. I do not believe I've made any semantic changes (if I haven't captured the intended meaning, it could be seen as evidence that the current paragraph is hard to understand). --Jtl 03:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysops and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.

Non-blockable:

• Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the group of Sysops to make changes on a manual basis based upon suggestions on the Talk page.
• Silliness and other problems should be warned for.

Blockable:

• Obscenity is a blockable offense with no warnings required.
• A pattern of continued use of vulgar or sexually based words is a blockable offense.
• Unceasing reverts of articles is a blockable offense.
• "tit for tat" editing is a blockable offense.
• Argument without end, on points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy, is a blockable offense.
• Repeated name calling and insults are blockable offenses.

Jtl, the Administrators section is just that, although viewable by all, no one but Administrator's can access or edit it, as it was something that Andy worked on with other Administrators, and approved and instructed be put where it is. --~ TK ^MyTalk 04:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

So...that's a no, it can't be reformatted? It'll always be a bullet list with just one bullet? --Jtl 04:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)