Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Section Break)
(Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy))
Line 635: Line 635:
Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!)
Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!)
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
== My proposed solution to the current crisis ==
My understanding is that the the [[User:CPanel|Student Panel]] has the final word on all matters related to the site.  Why don't we put the following questions to them?
* Who is wrong here?  Conservative, RobS, neither or both?
* In the event that they determine that one or both of them has acted inappropriately, what should happen to them? (Temporary block, permanent block, demotion, etc)
* Is the current block policy sufficient and appropriate?
* If not, what policy would be?
I feel this is the only solution left.  God Bless.  --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 00:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 22:05, 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)


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.
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)


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)


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)

User: RobS

At User talk:RobSmith I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. Conservative 05:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

My modest proposal: Make Conservative a Bureaucrat so he can protect his talk page even from sysops and demote troublemakers who urge him to cooperate instead of treating this site as his personal property where he can do as he pleases. I believe it's the only logical step after tolerating his current behavior. :) --Sid 3050 07:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I fully support this. I am a great fan of User:Conservative having been brought here by his many irrefutable evidences and amusing essays. If it were not for him I would not be here to contribute and I am sure it is the same for many other users.--SpencerH 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
You obviously misunderstood Sid. Conservative, your blocking policy is that of an iron-fisted dictator. You have no credibility. TerryB 08:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Unless your comment is a joke, Terry, you leave me with no option but to declare you a calumny-loving buffoon. User:Conservative's content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--SpencerH 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
"You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[1]]. TerryB 09:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Whatever it takes to prevent RobS and his inflated ego to stop having a forum at my talk page, I am generally for. In his current "RobScentric" world, he appears to have no respect for polite and reasonable requests. I do not care if RobS is a Sysop/Admin or not, but if it takes removing his Sysop powers for him to no longer have a forum at my talk page for his inordinately sized ego, I am for it. As far as becoming a Bureaucrat at this point: If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Lastly, barring RobS losing his Sysop powers, I have a feeling that over the coming days, weeks or months that Karajou and RobS will continue to have differences over blocking policy and that a blocking policy will be worked out. Given the current demands and priorities in my life, if a refinement of blocking policy were developed rather than a certain person or persons losing their Sysop or blocking powers, I would prefer that blocking policy be worked out by others. Conservative 11:08, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Sysops not communicating violates the spirit of the wiki. Perhaps if you allowed other sysops the courtousy of communicating with you, there would not be misunderstandings, such as in the case of User:BobSherman. But I am appreciative of you allowing me 5 minutes of your time, per your e-mail, this September, or is it next September? Rob Smith 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I have communicated with you RobS. I have also communicated to you that I have a lot on my plate right for the short term and I don't want to be pestered by an unreasonable person such as yourself who apparently likes to showboat on my talk page and mire me in needless and inane contention at this point. Barring you seeing the light on this matter and apparently still believing that your posts to me have any importance to me (which they do not), I will recommend that you lose your Sysop status if you continue your behavior which another Sysop believes should happen as well. In the meantime, I suggest that you post your supposed matters of great importance and urgency to me on Aschlafly's talk page and if he feels they are important and urgent, I am sure he will relay them to me. Thank you. Conservative 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Please, no incivility and personal attacks; those are blockable offenses. And Sysops need to be held to the same standard other members of the Conservapedia Community are held. Thank you. Rob Smith 18:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS, by the way, as you probably know, I did more than offer you 5 minutes of my time in September as I suggested via email a September meeting with you, Karajou and possibly Aschlafy to help resolve the blocking conflicts which have arisen as of late. I received no reply which is no great tragedy to me. Given your most recent behavior, I have since rescinded my offer for such a September meeting. Perhaps, your statement above is just a matter of sloppy reading on your part, but I believe your statement on this matter reflects why I believe you are often an unreasonable person. I know it still may amaze you that I am no longer interested in what you have to say, but I would start believing it and reflecting on why this has happened. I have nothing further to say on this matter to you. Conservative 14:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I'm just having a very difficult time understanding any of this. I can not communicate with (or for that matter, nobody can) on your user page. I can not email you cause you've spam blocked me; no wait, you un-spma blocked me. I cannot discuss with you (or for that matter, no one can) on regular Conservapedia project pages because you delete and oversight the discussions. You come to Andy's page with charges, yet have no diffs or evidence, cause you deleted and oversighted it. How is that not (a) misues of sysop priveleges; (b) trolling? Rob Smith 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Did you send an email that reads,
  • Here are my conditions for such a meeting:
3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month.
This is not conducive to collaborative content. This is not cooperative editing or helping to build an internet community. You have done nothing in four years to help define Conservapedia:Vandalism, yet how many editors have you arbitrarily blocked on site for that offense? Stop trolling me and wasting my time. Rob Smith 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Rob, I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but I urge you to read Matthew 7:5. "Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye." Leave Conservative alone.--FergusE 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Arbitrary and unfair blocking

Let me explain at some length, from personal experience, why I feel strongly about arbitrary and unfair blocking. I hesitate bringing it up, because of the personal emotional torment it wreaked on me, unfairly, all the result of overzealous ideological partisans, too quick on the banhammer, and determined to take revenge on their enemies.

I was working on an anti-communism series in Wikipedia, and because of the specialized nature of it, Chip Berlet [1] was recruited to vet, verify, and challenge the information for NPOV purposes. Unbeknownst to me and prior to my arrival in Wikipedia, Berlet had for many years studied the Lyndon LarRouche movement and successfully obtained Arbitration sanctions (banning and blocking) against several "Larouche editors" in several Wikipedia Arbitration cases.[2] The sanctioned users become notorious sockpuppets, hunted by overzealous sysops, and in constant conflict with Chip Berlet. As Berlet and my Mediation over anti-communism broke down, Berlet labeled me the head of a cabal of "Larouche editors" and being "the most problematic."

In dealing with Berlet, I had crossed paths with some of his old enemies. Berlet seized on these open-wiki communications to drag me before the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee under the pretext that "Nobs and others acting in concert"[3] were harassing him. Needless to say, the "others" were sanctioned "LaRouche editors" and this guilt by association prompted the Arbitration Committee to accept a hearing on the case. But I had no knowledge of this ongoing wiki-battle between Wikipedia and the Lyndon LaRouche organization, of which now I was at the center. In the process, my real life identity became known, and I was now being seriously defamed as a "LaRouchie" in an open forum, accessible to Google Search engines. No less than three times did I make motions to separate and remove my name from the LaRouche editors, all denied.[4] In frustration, I made incivil comments and was banned, with no immediate recourse to clear my name from slanders.

The idea of me being a sympathizer to Lyndon LaRouche is ludicrous, as is commonly known now. Yet it took me years to clear my name over several forums, gaining public statements from Arbitrators and others connected with the case, that I had indeed been unfairly slandered. See for example, a template in Wikipedia to keep track of the abuses and rulings against "LaRouche editiors", if you scroll down to the "Arbiration 2005", the first case reads "N__and others"[5], what it took me to get the "acting in concert" removed, and no direct reference to my username, "Nobs", was a nightmare. But I still regard the emotional stress and damage done, by overzealous, ideological sysops, hell bent on stamping out the wiki's enemies, as troublesome.

Then a younger generation of sysops comes along, taking their cue from others, and all they see is "ratvandal", or "larouchie", and a real life identity or username connected to it, and the Terminator mentality takes over. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, no compromise, pity or remorse. Nevermind facts, or misunderstandings. They just have it set in their minds they are doing right, and good, by wielding the banhammer. Never thinking for a moment those are real people out there, with hopes and dreams, and real lives. These sysops are just on autopilot, kill kill kill, destroy destroy destroy.

This may seem harsh, but reliving some of this reminds me why I've tried to learn to be civil and patient, and understanding, even to those I disagree with. I made it my lot to try and be a model of interaction, even in the toughest, most controversial, and emotional disputes. This dispute we're having here, is not really between two sysops -- I actually like the guy/gal/other making these charges. He just needs to lighten up with people. If he has such strong ideological convictions, he should at a minimum be able to defend them. And a locked user page, or redirects on article talk pages, is just pointless. This discussion is simply about being fair with users and demanding the same standards of civility from sysops we expect from editors. Rob Smith 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)


  1. Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President, which a Congressional Committee has described as "The Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party".
  2. At the time WP:RfA Lyndon LaRouche 1 & Lyndon LaRouche 2; a third and other cases have since been added.
  3. Nobs and others acting in concert
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Motion_2_by_Nobs01_on_.22acting_in_concert.22
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaRouchetalk

New proposal regarding the ban policy

I would like to propose a procedure with regards to the banning policy here at CP. This would apply to situations where people are suspected of being parodists, or other situations that are not as clear-cut as blatant vandalism such as inserting pure gibberish, blanking pages, etc.

We all have bad days sometimes.

We sometimes write things on the internet that comes across to other people as sounding harsh or incoherent, or that doesn't quite get the point across we're trying to make.

We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.

We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.

Instead of one person being responsible for the decision whether or not a person is a parodist, etc., how about a procedure where that person is brought before a committee. The person nominating the possible offender must present his case, complete with hard evidence that proves the accusations, not just state that "I believe this, thus it's true." Other editors should be allowed to submit evidence, either pro or con, for a certain length of time before a decision is reached.

This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.

I also propose that the committee consist of both sysops and regular editors, thus providing a greater range of opinions. If an editor (either regular or a sysop) is directly involved with the situation, they should not be allowed to be a member of the committee.

Thanks, SharonW 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning". Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. Conservative 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
  • RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP
How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. Rob Smith 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are actually finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --Ed Poor Talk 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all? I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --MRellek 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

How many casual or part-time editors have ceased contributing to the wiki because of uncertainty over the banning policy? Right now, banning often seems arbitrary and uneven – sometimes as though it depends on the mood of the banning editor. I know personally I have stopped myself from offering my opinion and/or edits on different articles because I see things from a different angle or have different information.

What's the harm in making the less obvious banning situations a consensus of opinion, and transparent to all as well? What's the harm in allowing the accused editor to make his/her case in the open, and to allow different editors to give their opinion on the situation? It might not change the ultimate decision, but it's a more democratic process. SharonW 14:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed says,
  • If contributors are actually finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this.
  • Here's the problem: 40,000 registered users have been blocked for vandalism, and 10,000,000 + IP's, affecting an estimated 30,000,000 potential users. These blocks were handed out for vandalism, yet here (Conservapedia:Vandalism) is the Guideline blocking Sysops have to guide them after four years.
  • If there were any potental good faith editors who wanted to be helpful in defining vandalism, they probably were blocked years ago as a suspected sock of lcewedge or horace. Them and the whole state or province they live in.
  • Now the Range blocks are undone, yet Old Guard sysops still block on sight for anything they don't like, despite the floodgates being opened. Conservapedia Sysops have learned nothing from their colossal errors in dealing with vandalism, have yet to even define it, nor hold themselves to the same standards of editing conduct they require of others.
  • Establishing a Commitee won't work, at least not yet; there just aren't enough editors allowed to participate at any level.
  • Blocking policy is in serious need of overhaul, if Conservapedia is serious at all about building an online collaborative wiki community.
  • Sysops need to understand they are not God, and can and will be held accountable to the extent of losing their sysop powers for failing to abide CP's own rules and standards of conduct it requires of others (the few we have).
  • Some editors were punished with blocks just for daring to interject into this important discussion. This kind of arbitrary blocking has got to stop.
  • CP needs a serious reform movement; it's not about personality disputes between sysops, or payback, or roasting an abusive sysop. It's about building a collaborative community which includes atheists, liars, homosexuals, sinners, drunks, drug addicts, felons, ex-cons, university professors, doctors, lawyers, hollywood starlets and anyone else who wants to register an account, abide by CP's Commandments & Guidelines and contribute constructive content without an ideological litmus test for the user. That has always been CP's mission. Rob Smith 19:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I have stayed out of this debate because I don't find it relevant to my goals on/with Conservapedia but i must say these proposals by Rob sound reasonable (although we can probably do without drunks and liars). MaxFletcher 19:37, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
MRellek, if you want to attempt to further refine CP's blocking guidelines/policies I would not be against that. I would be against RobS writing any blocking policy on parodist since he cannot spot parodist material when he sees it and/or is unwilling to ban parodists. Conservative 20:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Fortunately for site users, you don't own this website, neither do you single-handedly make policy. Should we take a poll of site users who want to see you head up a policy reform committee? or do you think they may be terrorized to even participate, for fear of reprisal block, given the unhealthy editing atmosphere you help create for several years now? Rob Smith 21:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
If anyone has any useful suggestions concerning refining blocking policy, I don't see why they couldn't be suggested and incorporated into our current policy. And there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas concerning this matter. That could start immediately. Of course, given the current authority structure of Conservapedia for any policies to be binding, they would have to be approved by Aschafly or a committee authorized by Andy to make binding policy. Absent of a parodist defining policy being written for encyclopedia articles by September, I am considering writing one. If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up strawman arguments and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).Conservative 21:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
  • there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas
Oh yes, two were blocked just for posting to the above thread. Does that aid in encouraging others to contribute? Rob Smith 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I helped formulate our policies, four years ago, shortly after I joined. I was made a sysop much more quickly than I expected (in a mere 8 days), possibly because of my extensive Wikipedia experience: developer rights to the database, the first electeed "bureaucrat", etc.

If there have been 40,000 blocks that is because our project has suffered an unprecedented onslaught of vandals, particularly of the "stealth" kind who plant ridiculous errors so that they can undermine the project by blaming us for those errors.

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --Ed Poor Talk 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS. I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits. SamHB 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Ed, Did this warrant a one day block in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the intemperate vindictive attitude of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed. Rob Smith 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned. Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact? I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree. There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal. Why give him a chance to do more damage?"
That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions. The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.
Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably. I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung. What's the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy?" Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this. Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
Respectfully, --Benp 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Ben, you make some very good points, some discussion-worthy points, and one time, you utterly missed the point.
The bad news first: Sharon's proposal isn't about vandals, but rather about parodists. Nobody is suggesting to hold a meeting when some idiot is running across the wiki, replacing articles with "BOUNCING TITS!!!" or something like that. This is only about parodists.
Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written policy-definition of "parody" on this isn't really hitting the nail on the head. It's a definition of "parody", but not the definition we're implicitly using here. We're talking about people whose edits are over-the-top by normal standards, but well within the accepted limits of Conservapedia. If you go pretty much anywhere and argue that the Bible needs to be retranslated because it's too liberal, or that Jesus disproved General Relativity and proved Quantum Mechanics, you will be thrown out for being an obvious parodist (as per the definition we currently got written down). On this site, however, all of these things have been established as insights by the site founder. If I suddenly started agreeing with Andy that the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution, would I be a parodist?
An effective approach to parody is difficult because Conservapedia's baseline for "normal and acceptable" is not quite where even most other conservatives would place it - both for content and conduct. This is why parodists like Bugler managed to become so successful: They imitated the worst traits of certain sysops, thus blending in perfectly from the POV of most sysops. Just to remind people of an uncomfortable truth: Bugler was one of the nastiest people imaginable and drove out several people who might have helped the site and pretty much got away with it to the point of almost becoming a sysop. (He was only "caught" because of technicalities, not because of his behavior.)
The solution lies less in worrying about whether somebody genuinely believes what he's writing and more in reforming this wiki from the top so abusive idiots who make absurd edits stand out properly again. As long as parody is indistinguishable from normal behavior of our supposed role models, it's hard to really justify a ban.
The point I kinda disagree with, but which I still find a valid question: Should we do all this bickering here in public? I agree that especially the huge discussions on this page are not CP's finest hour. But that doesn't mean that we should drag mindless bickering behind the stage, and it also doesn't mean that we should simply stop. It means that we should do better. Not just in discussions, but also as a whole. We need to make CP as a community a better and more inviting place. I agree with Rob that we need to rework consistent policies (that aren't scattered all over the place) and that we need to actually enforce them, no matter what rank the offender has.
Your very good points are about the current tension (eggshells, landmines, etc.) and that it's hard at times to be fair and just. Because yes, it is. Of course it is. Having the banhammer is great power. And to echo a terribly overused Spider-Man quote: With great power comes great responsibility. The people wielding it need to be able to handle it. If sysops start using it to retaliate against people they don't like, or if they get twitchy and start banning people who haven't done anything simply because they happened to register around the same time as a vandal, they should either take a voluntary time-out to cool off or give the hammer back. Bringing back something from my tangent: Sysops are supposed to be the role models, and they will lead by example. They need to have a cooler head than the regular users, and they mustn't let their raw emotions guide their actions. That is one of the keys to building a healthy community: Be a good leader, and people will start following you. --Sid 3050 16:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Please revoke Conservative's Sysop, Block, and Administrator Rights

Please revoke conservative's sysop, block, and administrator rights, for flagrant and repeated violations of expected standards for sysops.

You may recall that I wrote this, which was a logical consequence of things that you said you agreed with fully. Now I am not a sysop, and therefore don't have much voice in such matters, but the fact is that what I wrote is still present on the Community Portal page. Furthermore, user Conservative said that "[my] post has some merit."

In that section, I said that there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations. That means suspension of sysop/admin rights.

Furthermore, quite a bit of policy material has come into existence, pointing out that it is improper for someone with blocking powers to use those powers frivolously, or for a person with deletion or oversight powers to use those powers unless the material being deleted is libelous.

User Conservative has, as is well known to everyone, engaged in repeated and flagrant violations of the standards for sysops. The repeated deletion of BobSherman's user and talk pages are examples, but there are many more.

SamHB 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

SamHB, very melodramatic. Your bold text suggest you are very angry. I suspect that is because I asked you to show me how its done and create outstanding content that would gain a following and I also asked you if you currently have a following. By the way, I am flattered that you have followed my content for several years now. :) Best wishes in your off wiki pursuits because I don't think your crusade to remove my administrator rights is going to give you a sense of accomplishment. Conservative 00:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
The bold text was copied directly from the other edit, where it had been placed for emphasis, not due to anger. You also seem to be referring to a discussion taking place at Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette's_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Christian_lady_dancers. Please continue the discussion there, if you wish. You will see that I already responded to you. Or continue it on your talk page, if you wish. Or mine. By the way, I already have quite a sense of accomplishment. SamHB 00:27, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
SamHB, I still think your quest is quixotic. By the way, given your liberal leanings, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to you that in the Western World, the left in many cases is running out other peoples money to spend on their misadventures so your in good company in terms of pursuing quixotic quests. I have two parting words for you: "Austerity budget". Conservative 01:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website

RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.

I think RobS is at heart an unstable egotist who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him. Although he did do a service in unblocking all of those IPs and I think clarifying block policy and not having an overly aggressive block policy is good, I do think now that RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call "a useful idiot" and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist website.

If he continues down his present path, I see him losing his Admin rights. Conservative 17:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservative - you and I have discussed this in an entirely civil manner to this point, and my opinion of you has not changed with this section, but I am requesting that you remove this section on your own accord (but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am sending an email to Andy); even in quotes, "useful idiot" is a personal attack - and I am convinced that this type of name calling is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--IDuan 17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
The term "useful idiot" is political term and I have also heard it used outside of politics as well. Here is a definition: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot I see no reason retract this information and I am very positive that RobS doesn't want me to oversight it given his previous statements. In short, I think the shoe fits and I am giving others a warning. Conservative 17:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I quote from your source: "The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial" - I maintain its not keeping with site decorum to call an established editor any of these things (certainly at least calling an editor either of the first two - "naive" or "foolish" - would constitute a personal attack).--IDuan 17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I also see Rob losing his sysop rights soon. After all, he is trying to do three things: (1) Make the rules clearer so people have a clear idea what can get them blocked and don't have to live in constant fear of breaking some obscure rule interpretation. (2) Apply the rules also to sysops. (3) Generally hold sysops accountable for their actions and limit abuse of powers.
The last person who tried to drag the site down this absolutely horrible path was some liberal... what was his name... oof... oh yeah, Philip J. Rayment. You know, the guy who tried to stop Bugler and TK from driving out everybody? The guy who actually dared to ask why some people were banned and wanted to see evidence? Yeah, that went well, didn't it?
Because we all know that a community will grow if a group of people can waltz all over the place with editorial authority, no pressure to follow the rules, and the power to block anybody for any reason.
It's a true tragedy that Andy is looking away as Rob is trying to salvage and help this community. --Sid 3050 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. MaxFletcher 17:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Sid, you are trying to cloud the central issue. I clearly said I was not against clarifying block policy. It's RobS's other behavior that I have a problem with. Conservative 17:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
But wasn't the central issue to start with your own behavior Conservative? It seems to me you dislike having your own behavior called into question so believe it is Rob causing trouble. MaxFletcher 18:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I say both of them are causing trouble. Conservative is doing things people find wrong, People state this, Rob backs them up, which from Conservatives point of view is wrong, they argue, Conservative/Rob takes it to pages across the wiki while others either side with or against Rob/Conservative, pushing the fight to multiple fronts and spamming andy with "new message!". So both are to blame for exasperating the situation. --SeanS 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. Conservative
The central issue is indeed Conservative's behaviour. Years ago when Conservapedia had an abuse page it was almost entirely filled with complaints about Conservative. I don't understand why he has been allowed to run amok for so long. All Rob is doing is trying to introduce the rule of law to the site. --JarradD 18:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
No, the central issue is the power structure on this site being so screwed up that sysops have all the rights while regular editors have pretty much none (while conversely the sysops don't have to follow the rules while editors have to follow all of them and then some). Conservative's behavior (rapid and frequent deletion of articles or talk pages, oversighting of edits, refusal to communicate constructively, etc.) is simply the most noticeable symptom. Rob's attempts to start a sweeping policy reform and to, as you said, introduce the rule of the law to the site, would indeed restrict Conservative's power abuse, but it would also be a solid step to fix the structural issues the site has. (Which also nicely explains why no other sysop is actually siding with Rob.) --Sid 3050 18:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
JarradD, I have never been popular among atheist/evolutionist whiners. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue. Conservative 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
No. You are not popular among editors who wish to be treated with respect and according to the rules. --JarradD 18:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Your Fairly well-acquainted with the anti-conservtive viewpoint for somebody who made an account 20 minutes ago. You reek of sock-puppetry/ill-intentions. --SeanS 18:31, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Why do I reek of ill intent? I want to see this site succeed. Which is why I want properly enforced rules rather than bullying and arbitrary authority. --JarradD 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Because you seem to know a lot about this situation despite only having just made your account, which either means you pointlessly lurked for a while or your a parodist. --SeanS 18:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Somewhat fitting, given that part of the problem is that various people who made good points in the past have been banned because the sysops don't like people who dare to speak up. And Sean, PLEASE don't throw around "parodist" so easily. --Sid 3050 18:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I have sided with neither Rob or Conservative. I am pointing out that a new user who suddenly comes into a debate speaking with knowledge of the situation is going to appear suspicious. --SeanS 18:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
A parodist is someone who pretends to be something they are not. There is no evidence JarradD is a parodist. MaxFletcher 18:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anything I have written could be regarded as parody. You have successfully derailed this discussion. Congratulations Sean. How about getting back on topic. --JarradD 18:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. As it stands, he brings more doubt and distrust by getting involved in a dispute between Senior Admins despite having no reason to fully understand the situation. The fact his first edits were to get involved raise even more doubts to his intentions--SeanS 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
  • If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more.
How is that possible? they all get banhammered at the door. Rob Smith 21:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
If anyone's intentions are suspect, it is you. You have totally derailed this discussion. It was a discussion on a vitally important topic and you have made it all about me. Could you please attempt to get back on topic? --JarradD 18:50, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

I would like to return this discussion to matters of significance. The feeling among a number of editors is that there is a lack of uniformity in enforcement of rules and that some sysops act in an arbitrary and, sometimes, capricious manner. What is sought is, in essence, the rule of law. A system wherein all editors know where they stand and are not subject to whim. In my view this is a hugely important issue for this site. In any venture these issues are important, but in a co-operative venture such as a wiki they are absolutely vital. --JarradD 19:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

If I recall correctly, haven't people been banned from Conservapedia for being a member of an atheistic site before? If we do want consistency of rules/sysop accountability and if Rob is indeed a member of said site, then shouldn't he face a penalty? --BradleyS 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
How cute of you to start enforcing the most idiotic "rule" ever that was likely introduced by a troll who wanted CP to fail. But hey, sure, all for it. I'm sure Ed Poor will agree; after all, he has no account on-... oh, wait. :) --Sid 3050 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --JarradD 20:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
In his/her world, there is no evidence at all unless he/she personally admits anything, such as his/her gender or his/her name. So what makes you think he/she would admit his/her username on any site? Give it up, liberals! --Sid 3050 20:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Indeed. We seek him/her/it here. We seek him/her/it there. Those Frenchies seek him/her/it everywhere. Is he/she/it in heaven? Is he/she/it in hell? That d****d elusive Pimpernel. --JarradD 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Obviously Conservative is not a member of that atheist website because it would be really stupid of him to complain about Rob's association with it while simultaneously holding an account there. --BradleyS 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Yes, it would. --JarradD 20:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Gentlemen, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. Schlafly's talk page is not the place to hold such debates? And that it would be both prudent and considerate to move this discussion to another forum? --Benp 21:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Seeing how Andy seems determined not to chime in, this may be for the best. I'd support a mass move of the last few sections (starting with "User: RobS") to Conservapedia:Community Portal‎. --Sid 3050 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. MaxFletcher 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--SeanS 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Let me explain Conservapedia Kremlinology (tea leaf reading): If the site owner likes the idea, he'll speak up. If he's neutral or negative, silence. That's traditoinally how Senior CP Sysops read the tea leaves. Conclusion:
Now, somebody want to go around with a mop bucket after User:Conservative's incivility here and hang the {{personal remark removed}}, per CP:Guidelines#Civility? I'd do it, but I have a COI. Let's help this man/woman/other become a better editor. He/she/it needs to learn how to play nice with others. Please treat him/her/other respectfully. But remember, his/her/other days of being an allegedly abusive sysop are over. Rob Smith 22:23, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
It would be nice if we didn't have to give a PC-esque list of pronouns for him. --SeanS 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. Rob Smith 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I wouldn't suggest trying to sweep this discussion under the rug. I believe Admin Karajou wants to give his thoughts to Ashlafly on this matter. And of course, I can certainly consider asking other Sysops to weigh in as well. I would suggest that RobS not thrash around in this tar pit he has jumped in. Conservative 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. Rob Smith 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS, I have been asked if I felt you should lose your Admin privileges and if the benefits you bring outweigh your costs. So far, I have said that you should not lose your Admin status. You most recent behavior which I mentioned above, is tipping the scale in the wrong direction. I suggest making some changes and avoid trying to dodge issues. Conservative 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. Rob Smith 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I certainly don't think the discussion should be swept under the rug, but I do feel that consideration for Andy merits moving it to a more appropriate venue. I support the idea of moving the discussion to Community Portal. --Benp 23:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
If this discussion is attempted to be pushed under the rug and RobS chooses not to address matters. This certainly would be another sign that RobS should lose his Admin status. If a an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion, this certainly does not work in his favor. I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not willing to give RobS infinite second chances in terms of how I feel about his behavior. I have also been told that Karajou wants to join the discussion on Ashlafly's talk page. Conservative 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS, I can live with you being an egotistical blowhard. On the other hand, a backstabbing untrustworthy egotistical blowhard is a problem. Conservative 23:36, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
"If a (sic) an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion..." I'm sorry. Who were we talking about Pot? --JarradD 23:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
  • play power games and try stifle discussion
My friend, User:Conservative, seriously, who stifles discussion by locking their user page? who stifles discussion by placing redirects on article talk pages? who stifles discussion by deleting other Sysops comments? who stifles discussion by oversighting other sysop's comments? Need I remind you, you started these threads claiming I wanted to discuss things with you and you want no discussion on your talk page. Then, you came here, claiming some offense, but deleted and oversighted the evidence. Do I have to point out to you, what other's see, extremely erratic behavior? I'm sorry, but this really borders on trolling. If it wasn't for the fact Conservapedia can be improved from discussing some of these problems, I'd really rather remain silent. I'm sorry, but this is not an issue of personalities, it regards the future of this project. Rob Smith 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have untrustworthy backstabbers as my friends. Second, people are free to leave me messages to me. I know you like to whine about my talk page, but please restrain yourself because a user's talk page is still his/her castle. Next, I am certainly amenable to admitting where I can make improvements and the talk pages on comedy/satires on now open. On the other hand, I have yet to see you apologize for your backstabbing behavior. And your poor behavior in terms of altering my talk page was also never apologized for. Of course, your modus operandi is avoiding taking responsibility for your bad behavior. This does not work in your favor. Conservative 00:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Am I the only who thinks all Admins should have their talkpages left unlocked so people can ask them things? MaxFletcher 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--SeanS 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. NickP 00:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Right now I am neutral however. I see Conservative's points on this, but Rob has done a lot of good work for this wiki too. I think it is best of we leave to to Andy to decide. NickP 00:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy. Conservative 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Hold on. Why is RobS even a member of an Atheist website. Surely he of all people knows that they will not accept the logic of conservatism and that it is a hopeless cause to try to convert them that way. NickP 00:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
There is converting going on. I just received an email saying RobS is becoming more and more like the members of a atheist vandal website. Conservative 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
In that case I am not sure RobS should be given this much power, if he has such close affiliations with sites that support such illogical viewpoints. RobS, you are a good contributor, but I'm sorry; if what Conservative says is true, then it is better safe than sorry. NickP 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --BradleyS 02:45, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
If this atheist vandal website is wikipedia, than I should admit that I have an account there. However I have not used it for quite a few months now. I think it would be wrong to punish people like me, who only were trying to help when they made Wikipedia accounts but have since moved on. User:MorrisF
I have an account at just about every "wiki" type site. I was an active member of "the trio of wiki" (Cpedia, censored, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? ~ JonG ~ 08:09, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Section Break

Wait a minute. Why were Conservative's posts replaced with "Personal attacks removed"? He never personally attacked anyone. Plus, many of his key points were removed. NickP 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

this user did it. ive since reverted it.--SeanS 10:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
SeanS, that's a diff, not a user. I replaced Conservative's several personal attacks with the template that is prescribed at Guidelines#Civility. NickP, I cannot tell if you are being serious. Conservative's post in this section are full of personal attacks against another user, that user has been conscientiously polite in response. If the personal attacks that I removed are the key points then that merely shows them to be invalid points in the first place. SeanS, you have now reinstated the personal attacks, in clear contravention of site policy. Please read the policy, and replace the templates. LowKey 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Yes, I know what they are. IF you notice, the Diff has your username in it, therefor, I can say who did what. And if it is indeed a personal attack, why make it harder for an admin to see what it is and judge accordingly? --SeanS 23:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Also note that a lot of the comments you removed were not really personal attacks. When Conservative said that RobS was a "useful idiot", he wasn't actually calling RobS stupid. "Useful Idiot" is actually someone who sympathizes with the enemy, as Conservative was accusing RobS. "Egotistical" is not a personal attack; it is a critique (though arguably impolite) on a user's behavior, not an attack on the person. NickP 23:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
In the same way that "Sleazy Nazi", for example, is really just an assessment of a person's moral fibre and political views, not a personal attack. --JarradD 23:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his Administrator rights

I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his administrator rights. I regret to say that RobS is engaging in inexcusable behavior which was previously described on this talk page, but has now been whitewashed from this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am considering lobbying harder for his Admin rights to be removed. Conservative 02:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I know I am a new poster

But I have been registered for some time and I have to say one of the main reasons I have not tried to contribute here is because of the behaviour of Conservative. His childish 'satire' articles have done more to make me re-consider than anything else on here, and I have already spoted several parody entries in articles such as the article on Motorcycles. About the only thing that would make me become a regular contributor would be if RobS were able to succeed in his attempts to reign in the more idiotic 'contributions' of Conservative. But no doubt I will now be blocked for daring to voice this opinion, despite Aschlafly having said previously that dissenting opinions are not censored on Conservapedia. Davidspencer 07:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Davidspemcer, If you do choose to contribute in the future, I would suggest using the Firefox browser as it would enable you find your spelling mistakes (behavior and spotted). Second, if you want to show you are a good faith editor and not merely a member of a vandal website, I would suggest further expanding the article Soviet atheism and please cite reputable sources. Conservative 07:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Oh the irony. Myusername is DavidspeNcer and not M. And I do use the firefox browser, 3.6.3 to be precise with greasemonkey, no script and IE View installed.
And I am British so the word is spelt behaviour as far as I am concerned and seeing as we created the English language I will use that version if that is ok with you. And this is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that I mean. Davidspencer 07:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Sid and David, the Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution and the reactions of atheists with Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder reminds me of the movies when "holy water" is sprinkled on the demon possessed.

Obsessed atheist: What's that?

Conservapedian: One of User:Conservative's satires concerning atheism and evolution.

Obsessed atheist: Keep it away! Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! Conservative 08:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Concerning the article Soviet atheism, how can I improve on what is evidently perfection. Concerning your articles such as Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder most of them can not be improved on can they, hence them being locked. However I will see what I can do to improve the already good article concerning Soviet atheism. Now I will refrain from commenting again for a while as I do not wish to violate the 90/10 rule which, as Aschlafly said, is only a guidleine anyway. Davidspencer 08:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Without wanting to pronounce on the rights and wrongs of the situation under discussion, is it quite seemly for a user to weigh in and reply to complaints made to a third party about his own conduct? Monkeys and organ grinders spring to mind.--CPalmer 08:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

CPalmer, because you are an atheist and an evolutionists, I humbly defer to your superior atheist intellect and your superior knowledge of monkeys. "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. Conservative 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, why do you think that I am an atheist and an evolutionist(s)? I am just questioning whether your hasty butting in on people's overtures to Mr Schlafly can be considered polite. From a practical point of view, I would think it would also tend to prolong or inflame disputes (wasting more of your time and others'), rather than speeding their resolution. We know what your position is, so you do not need to restate it here until the discussion is furthered by a response from Aschlafly.--CPalmer 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
CPalmer, my apologies. The was a former user with a similar username as you who had a habit of being unreasonable. Conservative 13:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Proposed blocking reform framework

Setting aside the current disputes about blocking and whether CP's current blockers/Sysops do or have ever done an unwarranted block or whether Sysops should undo another Sysops block, I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks. I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking.

Absent of such a policy being developed using the framework I am about to suggest, I would be willing to assist in the creation of such a policy sometime in the fall of 2011.

Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting:

1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable.

2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.

3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board that could meet either bi-monthly or monthly or every two months (or perhaps quarterly). The CP community can offer up suggestions on whose blocks should be reviewed, but each CP editor can only offer so many candidates lest a cumbersome list be created of past blocks (CP has been around for 3 plus years. Perhaps, the blocking review board will only look at blocks for a given period). The blocking review panel could be made up of Sysops and non-Sysops and a certain amount of blocks per blocking period (which will be decided by this proposed framework} will be reviewed. For example, say the blocking review board meets one a month. It could be decided that 5 blocks per month could be reviewed by the board. Perhaps, Andy could choose to review the boards decision for any given period that the board meets. Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board.

I am not saying my framework couldn't be adjusted as time goes by (how often they meet, how many candidates are reviewed, etc.), but I do think that my proposed blocking reform provides adequate protection, but is not overly complex or burdensome given any blocking periods blocking volume. I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board. I would suggest that RobS not be a part of such a blocking review board because including myself 3 Sysops that I am aware of now think he should lose his Admin rights.

I was told by a pessimist that a workable blocking reform couldn't possibly be developed in 30 minutes or less. However, I believe I just created one.  :) I welcome other editors comments on my blocking reform framework lest I am being overly optimistic about the viability of my suggested reform. :) Conservative 12:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I like it. Although I would say, if Rob doesn't lose admin rights he should be allowed on the review board. --SeanS 18:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
If such a board is created, I will suggest to Andy and my fellow Admins (including the two who think he should no longer have Admin rights) that RobS not be allowed to serve on the board. Perhaps, after a considerable amount of time and evidence that RobS has changed, I would no longer oppose him being on such a board. Conservative 19:02, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

3 Sysops now agree that RobS should lose his Admin rights

Including myself, 3 Sysops now think RobS should lose his Admin rights. Sysop TerryH said I could list his name. I have not yet strongly lobbied for RobS to lose his Admin rights among my fellow Sysops and editors. I am giving RobS a chance to apologize for his recent behavior including among other things, the behavior I mentioned on this talk page but was whitewashed off this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am for his Admin rights to be removed. Conservative 14:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

There are more users that have come forth believing you should lose your Admin rights. RobS has pushed for accountability for sysops and clear banning rules. It speaks volumes about you three. The one person calling for user friendly changes should lose his rights, while the man/woman/man-child/eunuch who bans the dissenters, burns evidence of dissent, and writes asinine articles on casual relationships present in any demographic, should continue unabated? No, you are a large factor in the farce that is Conservapedia.
Conservapedia has yet to gain any large-scale positive attention. No high-profile conservatives have endorsed Conservapedia. This project can't even attract many good faith editors. Many who come in get banned at the door. Those who make it through are immediately suspected parodists. Those who toe the CP line too hard are branded as parodists and banned. Those who deviate from the CP line are vandals and banned. When a user disagrees with a sysop they are banned. If they disagree with you in particular, they are banned and the relevant talk page is burned. CP bans for ideological differences and censors dissent. As long as this behavior continues CP will never be a respectful source. RobS is pushing to change this. His proposed changes won't end the problem, but it is certainly a large step forward from the current system.
User:Conservative, you are the one who needs to lose admin rights for your obvious abuse of power, not RobS. JonS 15:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
While I do not agree with all of CP's material, Concerned women of America (CWA), Human Events, Patriot Update (PU) and other conservative websites have linked to CP in a positive way (CWA and PU linked to material I had a substantial hand in if memory serves). Please try to have an informed opinion rather than merely an opinion. Second, I am not of the opinion that the number of people advocating a position is paramount. Neither did America's Founding Fathers who set up a republic and not a democracy. While I do not agree with all of Ann Coulter's political positions (the military, etc.), I am considering reading my first Ann Coulter book which focuses on how liberals love mob rule. Third, you certainly did prove your claim that anyone or anyone who disagrees with me, I ban or that I oversight all those disagree with me. I would also point out that RobS banned me and I never never banned him. It could be argued that in many ways I have shown more tolerance of him than he has afforded me. And all of this could have been avoided. All RobS had to do was stop pestering concerning inane and non-urgent matters. I wonder if RobS likes to poke sleeping dogs over and over and then complain when they bite him. And lately, RobS's poor behavior has gone significantly beyond merely pestering me which I mentioned on this talk page before it was whitewashed away (RobS recommended doing the whitewashing). As a result, I said enough is enough and sided with those who think he should lose his Admin rights. I do think he should be able to earn back his Admin if he admits his wrongdoing and behaves in a more positive manner for a period of time. Conservative 15:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I specified high profile conservatives, I said nothing of websites. Either way, this link compares Conservapedia, the three websites you mentioned, and a comic strip. As you can see, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is bigger than all of them. So I feel safe saying CP has no large scale positive support. Furthermore, there are no Congressmen or Senators that have endorsed CP. To my knowledge there are no candidates that have endorsed CP either.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of open discussion of problems. They did not stifle discussion by suddenly becoming busy when challenged, or by doing whatever the 18th century equivalent of locking their talk pages was. The Founding Fathers also had a large problem with men abusing their power.

That's where you come in. Let's look at your block reasons. Of course, I can only provide the diff logs for a few of these, you've burned most of the pages:

15:45, 6 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Soxwon04 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (having a sentence with an unsupported clause followed by a question. waste someone else's time) Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

04:10, 7 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked XavierC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki) Here is his contribs. He called you out for locking your talk page and stifling debate, here. Yes, he called you a coward, but this is extremely common for you to do other people.

16:49, 29 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Haggger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo) Burned diff logs. How can we evaluate his actions? 02:00, 2 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked SNg (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार [Masculinity is not behaving]) Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

21:55, 25 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Sasayaki (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize ) Contribs is blank, I remember this one. User answered the Question Evolution Campaign and asked own questions to you. Oh, boo-hoo he linked to RW. He disagreed with you, took up your debate, and you deleted the evidence.

02:41, 24 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Atheistlogic1995 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (oxymoron) Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

18:25, 1 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked PapaBear (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (too much talk, talk not enough serious enditing) User made three posts, two of them talk pages, one of which was remember to add his sig. Offending post here. Criticizes gossip in the BHO article.

00:34, 28 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Jclough (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk) Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk) Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk) Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

22:54, 15 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aleksyevt (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk) Yeah, he talked a lot. You know what else he did? Ask for more sources, here.

Ten examples within you're last 120 blocks: 8.3% Seven of these had blank contribs pages. How can we even analyze this? You are showing no accountability in your position of power on this wiki. JonS 16:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

JonS, you are still wrong. Matt Barber and William Dembski linked to Conservapedia in a positive light as can be seen HERE. I personally know that a leader in a extremely well known Christian organization linked to CP's atheism and evolution articles which I largely wrote (Please do not forget the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don't know about various links does not mean they do not exist. :) ). Second, please feel free to have your liberal/evolutionists/atheists bean counter friends scour through my blocks and tabulate and examine them. I would hope they have bigger fish to fry in their lives, but I am not particularly concerned if they do. The truth is that those who whine and kvetch about me in the vast majority of cases do so because of the atheism/evolution articles I largely created at CP. Conservative 17:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Please provide a link to this "extremely well known Christian organization." You should also acknowledge your wanton abuse of power. You can spin a quick look into your block log however you like, but that does not change you ban people for disagreeing with you, and that you burn the evidence of it. You are complained about for two reasons: 1) you abuse your sysop powers. 2) Your atheist/evolution articles are non-encyclopedic. JonS 17:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Ha! Demski links to Conservapedia in a "positive light"? The best that he says is that a part of the Conservapedia Climategate article "...does not sound entirely far fetched". A ringing endorsement! As for Matt Barber, no link is provided and a search of the CWA website (that you refer to in reference to him) for "Conservapedia" comes up with no results. --JarradD 18:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
I would like to note something here. Just because a user's contributions are blank does not mean that they didn't make contributions. I assume that they made inappropriate articles, or in some cases, did not follow the proper username policies. NickP 18:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

The userpages are left blank because Conservative has oversighted the pages they contributed to. There are two people who have names technically in violation of the rules on the list. Neither of them are said to be blocked for that reason. Given the people who have been blocked for 90/10 violations, I assume they disagreed with Conservative, he seems to block for that (Aleksyevt, PapaBear, and Sasayaki all criticized him). Even if they made inappropriate articles, Conservative should only delete them, rather than burn them, then we can be aware of these blocks, and he can be accountable, a concept he seems unfamiliar with. JonS 19:20, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

In an effort to end this continued and protracted debate

This has gone one for long enough. Both editors, RobS and Conservative, have used personal comments against each other and both have argued from opposite corners but to no avail. Why don't they both lose their sysop rights for a time - then they can prove themselves once more. I know I am just a new user but still, this is going on and on without resolution. MaxFletcher 16:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Max, in the absence of RobS pestering me again or engaging in additional very egregious behavior, I have spoken my piece on this matter. I have a feeling that RobS will either lose his Admin rights in the next 1-5 days or keep shooting himself in the foot through his poor behavior and cause his own demise or he will alter his course. Conservative 17:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
I feel, and I am sure that many other observers would agree, that you are both guilty of poor behaviour, personal attacks and actions unbecoming of someone in a position of power. I am a mere observer and carry no weight of course but it is people like me who come to conservapedia to contribute and who'll be turned off by protracted arguments, reverting and disappearing of editors comments, accusations and poorly thought out essays and ongoing in fighting. Which you are both guilty of (one in more areas than the other). MaxFletcher 17:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, if your words carry no weight, then why offer them? Frankly, given the substance of your recent post to me I have to agree with you on this point. Now that we both agree that your words carry no weight, I won't feel bad ignoring you. Conservative 19:08, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
carry no weight as in no authority not because of lack of substance. All I was trying to do was be even handed, rational and end the pointed bickering. But since you have insulted me, and not for the first time, I leave you to ignore me. Frankly for someone that calls atheist quarrelsome and socially challenged you certainly seem to be showing similar traits yourself. As a Christian I avoid insults and try to be polite and fair and as I don't feel I can continue to be so I'll have to end my response here. MaxFletcher 19:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
You end your comments by calling him a hypocrite, then claim to avoid insults?--SeanS 19:19, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I think that Max is selling himself short. He has shown himself to be a calm and considered editor. His input should be valued and I would ask that he continue to participate in this discussion. SeanS, on the other hand, has shown himself incapable of staying on topic. In the section above he totally derailed the discussion in an attempt to attack me. However, his input is also welcome if he can stay on topic and avoid irrelevant personal attacks.

I would like to voice my view of Max's original post in this section. I do not see why Rob should lose any rights. So far as I can see he has worked hard to improve this site and introduce reform that would only benefit the site. He has been met by a series of largely unreferenced slurs by Conservative who clearly regards his own position as under threat. If Rob were to lose rights it would send out the message that anyone who seeks to improve the site is putting their own position at risk. I do not regard that as a positive message. On the other hand I have no difficulty with Conservative losing admin rights. His history is one of abuse and failure to co-operate as has been demonstrated above and elsewhere again and again. I have no personal animosity towards him/her but he/she stands in the way of this site ever becoming a serious educational tool. That is regrettable but it is also an unavoidable conclusion. --JarradD 19:59, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

One second...

This is Andy Schlafly's talk page, so shouldn't he be the one to decide on this? He has not posted anything yet, so I assume he is busy. Perhaps we should wait until his decision? NickP 19:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Amen. Can we please show the man a little respect by giving him a chance to respond? --Benp 20:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
If andy wanted to reply, he could have by now. If he is going to, he will when he considers it best. --SeanS 20:18, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
It's no secret that Andy has quite a number of projects on his plate, Sean. He's a busy man with a lot of demands on his time. It's entirely possible that he hasn't had a chance to look at any of this yet. Whether he has or not, though, the point remains: this is his talk page. It is a place to communicate with him, not to carry on general debates with all and sundry. In the interest of putting my money where my mouth is, I will be refraining from further posts here. I urge others to do the same. Both Conservative and RobS have said their piece; Andy will respond as he chooses and in his own time, as is his perogative. --Benp 20:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
If he is going to, he will when he considers it best.--SeanS 20:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

My two cents for Mr Schlafly

I have been reading conservapedia for several months now, and I am pleased to say that my kids (11 and 14) also use it as their first point of call when needing encyclopedic information for homework assignments etc). I have not signed up an account as I do not feel knowledgeable (or tech-savvy) enough to contribute anything meaningful. However I fell compelled to chime in here regarding the ongoing discussion regarding the direction of this website. Cards on the table now: I am a conservative Christian and I read and encourage my kids to read this website because it promotes true American values. The main page is my "go to point" for the latest news, as the administrators here seem to have an uncanny knack of highlighting exactly the kind of stories I am interested in, I am also pleased to say that the article evolution has given my kids plenty of knowledge that is censored from them in school (and the satires have brought us all many hearty chuckles! :) ). From what little I know of this website, User:Conservative has contributed a huge amount of first-rate material and wishes to maintain the integrity of this site as a reliable conservative Christian resource, whilst User:Rob Smith (maybe with a view to enlarging the target audience?) wishes to make the site more liberal and cater to atheistic views. There are plenty of liberal atheistic sites out there, I choose not to read them. I choose to read conservapedia. Please don't change that Mr Schlafly. Bclough 20:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy)

Deep breath and here we go...

These are my thoughts on the blocking policy, somewhat directed at Conservative's proposals.

1) Blocking for obvious vandals is, well, obvious. Blanking pages, filling pages with gibberish, vulgar or stupid names, etc. is just childish and such children should have a time out - a long time out. I don't believe a lot of time or effort needs to be spent establishing rules for those cases.

2) Parody, as noted elsewhere on this page, is much harder to discern. I have noticed recent blocks (and no, I'm not going to go search for them - I'm not here to point fingers) that have been questionable, in my opinion. There needs to be a set and fairly easy procedure where a blocked editor who feels their block was unfair can present his/her/its case. Chances are that most blocks are good, but in cases where there was a misunderstanding, or a personality clash, a disinterested admin needs to step in.

3) I've already suggested a board of some type, consisting of both admins and regular editors. Given the number of appeals can't be known ahead of time, setting a regular schedule might not be warranted. The board could meet when a certain number (4 or 5?) appeals have been presented and make their decision, with Andy possibly reviewing it and putting his seal of approval on it. Notifications of the board meeting should be posted prominently on the front page. A talk page could be provided with a list of editors who are appealing their block. This would allow others who are not on the board but who might have a direct interest could express their opinion. There might also be a rule with regards to a blocked editor who has been restored and their subsequent behavior.

4) As for the makeup of the board – right now I feel that should be decided later, when tempers have cooled a bit. One possible idea is to make it a rotating membership, with say, a six-month tenure. This would prevent the board duties from becoming too onerous a task for the individual members.

On a personal note, I would like to request that the editors here at CP remember that debates and discussions about articles, essays and even questionable editors should be about the actual edits that have been made, not about the editors' personalities. I realize it can be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!) --SharonW 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

My proposed solution to the current crisis

My understanding is that the the Student Panel has the final word on all matters related to the site. Why don't we put the following questions to them?

  • Who is wrong here? Conservative, RobS, neither or both?
  • In the event that they determine that one or both of them has acted inappropriately, what should happen to them? (Temporary block, permanent block, demotion, etc)
  • Is the current block policy sufficient and appropriate?
  • If not, what policy would be?

I feel this is the only solution left. God Bless. --FergusE 00:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)