Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 31:
Line 31: − − == Rebuttal Rebuttal == − − Ed, let me see if I've got this right. You '''DROVE AWAY''' a user who could have made useful contributions to chemistry and math? I'm sure you know, as well as anybody here, how rare good contributors in math, science, and engineering are. (Quick quiz: Name an active math contributor. Chemistry? Physics?) − − User MRellek appeared on July 5. He said "Hopefully I'll be able to do some work relating to the field and some other areas such as Math and Chemistry in which I am well versed." He didn't promise anything; he expressed hope. − − He then made 4 contributions to Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 2 to physics, and 1 to "Women in Science and Mathematics". − − He welcomed another user. − − He requested block of an obvious vandal (who was blocked), and reverted damage. − − That doesn't sound all that subversive. − − He entered into many discussions on a wide variety of topics, including the currently very hot topic of the recent attempts to improve sysop accountability etc. etc. etc. I assume you have been following recent events, and know all about that. And know that a great number of people, including fairly new users, have been actively participating in those discussions. His behavior was not unusual or unreasonable in the least. − − At 12:47 on August 5, you complained about his non-contributions in math and engineering, notwithstanding what I have listed above. (I assume you accept chemistry and physics as being acceptable in this area.) − − And you complained that he "demanded" sysop accountability. He didn't demand anything. He advocated it, as your own cited "diff" shows. You were deceptively putting words in his mouth. You also requested a "writing plan". You have requested/demanded such things many times before, but '''not once''' did you ever respond to a request from a user about where to file such a plan. Your edit comment also mentioned "probation". What is that? You have ''never explained''. Is it just a phrase you use to make people feel unwelcome? (By the way, you put me on probation in August 2008, and never explained.) − − Do any other sysops complain to users about not contributing enough? Do any other sysops demand a "writing plan"? Don't we pretty much allow people to contribute wherever they have the talent and inclination, with the usual concerns about vandalism, parody, or other inappropriate material? Is your treatment of MRellek the way Conservapedia should be treating people? Can you name any other user that was required to make and keep ''promises'' about what they would contribute? Is this the way you attract math and science writers? − − His reply explained that he was busy with a lot of things, but hoped to make contributions in the indicated fields. He denied, quite rightly, having "demanded" sysop accountability, or having "promised" contributions in any particular field. He claimed your message was rude, which it was. − − Then, at 12:07 on August 6, you '''blocked''' this person. Giving as a reason "failure to follow sysop direction", referring to the demand for a "writing plan". As I'm sure you know, that is not a valid block reason, and that sysops are expected to follow the rules. − − Then he posted a note saying that he was leaving, at least for a while. You issued the "rebuttal" above. Let's go through it point by point. − − *You did demand sysop accountablity (no one said "screamed") − :It's true that no one said "screamed". But he '''did not demand'''. − − *I had not seen any of the promised math or engineering contribs; your parting shot muddies the waters by protesting that you didn't promise '''only'' to write on these; my request for a writing plan comes because you '''didn't''' write on these at all. − :He didn't "promise" anything at all. And if you didn't see his contributions on technical topics, it's because '''you didn't look'''. Your request/demand for a writing plan was based on a completely false premise. − − *Liberals like to pretend ..... the guy in Oslo ...... − :'''WHAT?''' Liberalism, and perceptions of liberals, has nothing to do with any of this! Nor does Anders Breivik. Connecting him with MRellek's situation is just preposterous and outlandish. − − *Well, peddle it somewhere else, you're not fooling anyone here. − :Peddle what? And whom does he think he is fooling? And about what? − − *If you really want to make contributions you (or the RW "neighbors") are always free to do so. − :No, not if you've blocked him. And the innuendo that he has RW "neighbors" is the oldest trick in the CP book. I'm sure that you know that you have a number of RW "neighbors", including past and present trusted sysops. I'm sure you know that "being a member of a vandal site" doesn't convey nearly the opprobrium that it used to, and has been explicitly de-listed as a block reason. And has always been implicitly not an offense due to the clause about people not being held responsible for actions elsewhere on the internet. − − *You need not bother to keep up the pretense of persecuted rationality any more. Rational people do what is requested and keep their promises. − :"pretense of persecuted rationality"? Huh? What is that? Are you putting more words in his mouth? Keep their promises? What promises? − − [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:45, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Reverted edits by SamHB (talk) to last revision by RobSmith
::And how about CP's awesome reputation that makes editors want to contribute? Liberals think that CP is a ''troll site'' (literally - ask Conservative, he's the one to thank for that), conservatives just look at the "The Bible needs to be retranslated into Conservative English!" project and shake their heads, and when Dawkins mentioned Andy's little Lenski episode in his book, a Creationist site accused him of attacking a ''straw man''.
::And how about CP's awesome reputation that makes editors want to contribute? Liberals think that CP is a ''troll site'' (literally - ask Conservative, he's the one to thank for that), conservatives just look at the "The Bible needs to be retranslated into Conservative English!" project and shake their heads, and when Dawkins mentioned Andy's little Lenski episode in his book, a Creationist site accused him of attacking a ''straw man''.
::Conservapedia was founded more than four years ago. Look at the site in its current state, look at its history, and then ask yourself whether you can afford to drive away people who did no harm just because they didn't do exactly what you expected them to do. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Conservapedia was founded more than four years ago. Look at the site in its current state, look at its history, and then ask yourself whether you can afford to drive away people who did no harm just because they didn't do exactly what you expected them to do. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)