Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center> __NEWSECTIONLINK__ Archive 1 ==...")
 
(Deletion: This appears to have been accidentally left out upon recreation of the page.)
Line 75: Line 75:
 
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
 
::::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)
 
:::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)
 
: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)
 
:::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)

Revision as of 21:30, 28 July 2011

This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

Archive 1


quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires

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.

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. conservative 06:53, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

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. :) 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? Nate 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to? 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? Nate 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is this part of what you're talking about? 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? 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. 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?! 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. 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. 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? 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 HERE Have a nice day! 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. Nate 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
I see that you can safely be ignored. How is your request for Andy's input going? :) 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. 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. Rob Smith 13:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Resolution of matters

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.

User:Conservative stated that he won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has he said something about them?

AugustO 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

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. 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. :) 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...
BTW: I linked each occurence of he to the article on 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 here?
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. Conservative 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

Deletion

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 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. TracyS 10:54, 11 July 2011 (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. 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. 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. 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. 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.--IDuan 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

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.
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. 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. 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? 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! 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.
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.
So you can cease right here and now with personal attacks about others ego, etc. Rob Smith 13:40, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
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. Conservative 02:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
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. 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. Conservative 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Reform movement

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". (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, presumably, 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.--IDuan 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
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. 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. 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.--IDuan 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
  • We need clearly defined blockng policy.
  • We need clearly defined deletion policy.
  • We need a definition of vandalism.
  • We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
  • We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
  • We need a definition of good faith.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
  • We need a definition of consensus.
  • And a few other things. Rob Smith 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
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. Conservative 00:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
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. 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.--IDuan 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

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. Conservative 01:36, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Proposal 1; re:blocking

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.--IDuan 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. :) 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!--IDuan 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? 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. 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.--IDuan 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. 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)--IDuan 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes please do. 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)--IDuan 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)--IDuan 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. 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. 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. 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. NickP 20:59, 14 July 2011 (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. Rob Smith 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Archiving

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. Rob Smith 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

Enforceable rules for sysop conduct

This is a follow-up to some points I made on Andy's talk page, which he said he agreed with completely.

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.

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.)

Blocks must have verifiable reasons. But a look at the block log shows things like:

  • 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.

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.

There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:

  • 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.
  • "Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
  • 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.

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. 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. MeganH 11:05, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
MeganH, you are a good guesser. It was Hindi. With that being said, SamHB's post has some merit as well. Conservative 11:41, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

Community input requested

Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,

Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you. Rob Smith 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Block appeal?

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).

MediaWiki:Blockedtext probably needs to be amended with a link to whatever appeal/contact policy is up to date, too. --Sid 3050 18:05, 19 July 2011 (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. Rob Smith 22:00, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights?

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. --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. --Sid 3050 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --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. --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. --Blackstar24 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--SeanS 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Higher, higher :) --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--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. --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.--MrLCharms 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution

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:

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. --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? --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. 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. 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". --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 Conservative 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --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. 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. 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. 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. Nate 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
It is certainly against the spirit that drives wiki projects. 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. --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... --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. 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. --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。 Conservative 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --Sid 3050 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Both Please type in Englisch.--SeanS 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Section break

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. Rob Smith 21:33, 24 July 2011 (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:
  • 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 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. --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. Rob Smith 19:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

CAPTCHA Whitelist

I finally remembered to make this request while I was busy making a minor point: Could we add a few entries to the CAPTCHA whitelist?

Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the 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. --Sid 3050 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Everyone, please...

Come on 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). MaxFletcher 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

RobS has turned on Conservative in particular and Conservapedia in general. I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --FergusE 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Edit to add: And may I suggest you read Matthew 7:5. --FergusE 23:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)