Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Rude and insulting behaviour)
(Replaced content with "<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center> __NEWSECTIONLINK__ Archive 1 ...")
Line 2: Line 2:
 
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
 
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
 
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
 
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
 
+
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive2|Archive 2]]
 
+
== 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. [[User:Conservative|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. :) [[User:Conservative|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? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to?  [[User:RobSmith|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? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=887044&oldid=887012 this] part of what you're talking about? [[User:Jcw|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? [[User:NKeaton|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. [[User:Jcw|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?! [[User:NKeaton|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. [[User:Jcw|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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? [[User:NKeaton|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 [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html HERE]  Have a nice day! [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::I see that you can safely be ignored.  How is your request for Andy's input going? :) [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:NKeaton|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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 [[Gender-neutral|he]] won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has [[Gender-neutral|he]] said something about them?
+
 
+
[[User:AugustO|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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. :) [[User:Conservative|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-neutral|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 [[User talk:AugustO# You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration|here]]?
+
:::[[User:AugustO|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Deletion==
+
Perhaps user:conservative would like to tell us why he has taken to summarily deleting other users' user and talk pages. This would appear to be in contravention of the spirit of free speech that Mr Schlafly [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=887947&oldid=887941 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. [[User:TracyS|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. [[User:Conservative|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:Conservative|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::RobS, if you want to lead in this area, you need to lead by example.  I still not have received an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page.
+
::::And you're not gonna get one.
+
:::Again, you may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle. 
+
::::Then leave other people's castle alone.
+
:::Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter?
+
::::Am I gonna recieve an apology from you for your rudeness? Stop reverting, deleting, and oversighting discussions I am involved in.
+
:::You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that.
+
::::Thanks, I didn't know I needed your approval.
+
:::But I would at ask you to be consistent.
+
::::Here's consistancy: STOP ABUSING YOUR SYSOP POWERS!
+
:::I have a feeling that no apology will be forthcoming.
+
::::It ain't.
+
:::Regrettably, I have to say that I have downgraded my expectations for your success with your project in instituting new rules and getting their requisite enforcement.
+
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
+
:::I feel it will be impeded by you wanting to throw your weight around and not showing a willingness to admit your own mistakes and to abide by existing rules. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Don’t lecture me on the rules, pal.  You’ve never shown an interest in policy development or writing sysop rules.  All you’ve done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilities of people trying to contribute, and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia.  [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] 23:30, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:If "a person's talk page is their castle," why do you keep deleting and recreating other peoples' talk pages/castles? [[User:RodneyA|RodneyA]] 23:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::I have already address this matter. I will further add that unlike Aschafly I did have JPatt's and Karajou agreement to mess around with their castles. :)  In addition, Aschlafly is not particularly upset with me and has not poured oil down upon me from his castle walls. :) Lastly, I standby my action with NKeaton and the person I blocked and have no further commentary! Adios! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
::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. [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
===Reform movement===
+
 
+
:::<s>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".</s> ('''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, <s>presumably</s>, 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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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|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. [[User:Conservative|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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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. [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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.  [[User:Conservative|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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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. :) [[User:Conservative|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!--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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? [[User:RobSmith|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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.  [[User:RobSmith|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)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:Yes please do. [[User:RobSmith|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)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:DMorris|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:NickP|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.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Archiving==
+
Only discussions which are inactive for 7 days should be archived. Any discussion thread with a comment within the past 7 days should still be considered an active, ongoing discussion. This will give all users and interested parties an opportunity to review and participate. See [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Talk_pages_and_Archiving]] for more details.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
[[Category:Navigation box]]
+
[[Category:Conservapedia]]
+
 
+
== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==
+
 
+
This is a follow-up to some [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884164&oldid=884024 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.
+
[[User:SamHB|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. [[User:MeganH|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. [[User:Conservative|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,
+
 
+
*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]
+
 
+
*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]
+
 
+
Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you.  [[User:RobSmith|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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. --[[User:Blackstar24|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --[[User:Blackstar24|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg Higher, higher :)] --[[User:Blackstar24|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--[[User:SeanS|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.  --[[User:FergusE|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.--[[User:MrLCharms|MrLCharms]] 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Talk:Evolution ==
+
 
+
On Monday, I made an edit to [[Talk:Evolution]] that removed the Student Panel Decision box. My reasoning (given in the same edit) was this:
+
{{quotebox|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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? --[[User:Sid 3050|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. [[User:Conservative|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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". --[[User:Sid 3050|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}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --[[User:SeanS|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. [[User:Lewis|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}}. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:NickP|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. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::It is certainly against the spirit  that drives wiki projects. [[User:MaxFletcher|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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... --[[User:Sid 3050|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. [[User:Conservative|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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。 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::Both Please type in Englisch.--[[User:SeanS|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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 [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1#Conservative_Please_Stop|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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 [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|the CAPTCHA whitelist]]?
+
 
+
Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the [[Essay:Best News Sources|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Everyone, please... ==
+
 
+
Come on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=894414 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). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:RobS has turned on [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in particular and Conservapedia in general.  I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::Edit to add: And may I suggest you read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. --[[User:FergusE|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. [[User:Conservative|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. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|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.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::You obviously misunderstood Sid.  Conservative, your blocking policy is that of {{personal remark removed}}  [[User:TerryB|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 {{personal remark removed} [[User:Conservative]]'s content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::: "You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&curid=11675&diff=893483&oldid=893477]].  [[User:TerryB|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 {{personal remark removed}}, 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. [[User:Conservative|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?  [[User:RobSmith|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 {{removed personal remark}} 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. [[User:Conservative|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:Conservative|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? [[User:RobSmith|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. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Rob, I don't know if you {{remove personal remark}}, but I urge you to read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|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 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] alone.--[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::*''Without any further ado''
+
::::::Conservative, 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 (ado). Second, the word is of French origin and is properly spelled ''adieu''. Per [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]], an adjunct to the [[Conservapedia Commandments]], states, ''Use plain English, preferably American English''. I suggest you begin familiarizing yourself those two core content policies. Thank you.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 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]] <ref>Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President, which a Congressional Committee has described as "The Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party".</ref> 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.<ref>At the time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA/HK WP:RfA Lyndon LaRouche 1 &  Lyndon LaRouche 2]; a third and other cases have since been added.</ref> 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"<ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Arbitration_filed_naming_you Nobs and others acting in concert]</ref> 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.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Motion_2_by_Nobs01_on_.22acting_in_concert.22</ref> 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"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaRouchetalk</ref>, 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.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
===Notes===
+
{{reflist}}
+
 
+
== 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, [[User:SharonW|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:RobSmith|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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. --[[User:MRellek|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. [[User:SharonW|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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). [[User:MaxFletcher|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. [[User:Conservative|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?  [[User:RobSmith|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 [[Straw man fallacy|strawman arguments]] and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).[[User:Conservative|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?  [[User:RobSmith|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 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.  [[User:RobSmith|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,  --[[User:Benp|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 [http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tits.gif "BOUNCING TITS!!!"] or something like that. This is only about parodists.
+
::::[tangent]
+
::::Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written [[Conservapedia:Parody|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.
+
::::[/tangent]
+
:::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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Enforceable_rules_for_sysop_conduct 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.
+
 
+
[[User:SamHB|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.  [[User:Conservative|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%27s_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.  [[User:SamHB|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". [[User:Conservative|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 {{removed personal remark}} 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 {{removed personal remark}}.
+
 
+
I think RobS is at heart an {{removed personal remark}} 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 [http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot "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. [[User:Conservative|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.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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. [[User:Conservative|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).--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 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. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::::I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. [[User:MaxFletcher|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:MaxFletcher|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.  --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. [[User:Conservative|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.  --[[User:JarradD|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.) --[[User:Sid 3050|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. [[User:Conservative|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.  --[[User:JarradD|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. --[[User:SeanS|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.  --[[User:JarradD|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. --[[User:SeanS|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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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. --[[User:SeanS|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. [[User:MaxFletcher|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.  --[[User:JarradD|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--[[User:SeanS|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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?  --[[User:JarradD|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.  --[[User:JarradD|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? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::'''[[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]''' states,
+
::::*'''15. We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs''';,
+
:::and has been CP site policy since 13 April 2007. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=105805] The blocking of editors for alleged "membership in a website supporting vandalism" ''has always been illegitimate'', and if anything, an apology is due.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:03, 30 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. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site?  --[[User:JarradD|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! --[[User:Sid 3050|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.  --[[User:JarradD|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. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::Yes, it would.  --[[User:JarradD|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?  --[[User:Benp|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]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Let me explain Conservapedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology 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:
+
::::*neither RobS nor User: Conservative desysoped;
+
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed] has been repealed;
+
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=894017&oldid=892763 Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interfact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors] is added;
+
::::*and moving forward with other initiatives has been endorsed.
+
::::Now, somebody want to go around with a mop bucket after [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism_and_obesity&action=historysubmit&diff=893866&oldid=893394 User:Conservative's incivility here] and hang the {{[[Template:personal remark removed|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed.  [[User:RobSmith|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.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal.  [[User:RobSmith|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.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks.  [[User:RobSmith|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.  --[[User:Benp|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::::Then where is he? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::::RobS, I can live with you being an {{personal remark removed}}|. On the other hand, a {{personal remark removed}} is a problem. [[User:Conservative|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?  --[[User:JarradD|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.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have {{removed personal remark}} 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. [[User:Conservative|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? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. [[User:NickP|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. [[User:NickP|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.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::The offending comment presumably was,
+
:::*'''The subject seemed to think it quite comical, and basically conceded it the motivation was only to tweak his RW & Youtube critics, the latest "kick" so to speak.''' nobs RW, 02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
+
::Please cease speaking in innuendo.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:31, 30 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. [[User:NickP|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished.  --[[User:BradleyS|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, <s>censored</s>, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/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. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=894161&oldid=894159 this user did it.] ive since reverted it.--[[User:SeanS|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.  [[User:LowKey|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? --[[User:SeanS|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. [[User:NickP|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.  --[[User:JarradD|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.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:[[Hearsay]].  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:56, 29 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 [[User:Conservative|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 [[User:RobS|RobS]] were able to succeed in his attempts to reign in the more idiotic 'contributions' of [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Davidspencer|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. [[User:Conservative|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.  [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
Sid and David, the [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] and the reactions of atheists with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|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 [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|satires concerning atheism and evolution]].
+
 
+
Obsessed atheist: Keep it away!  Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! [[User:Conservative|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 [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|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. [[User:Davidspencer|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.--[[User:CPalmer|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. [[User:Conservative|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.--[[User:CPalmer|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. [[User:Conservative|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. :)  [[User:Conservative|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. --[[User:SeanS|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. [[User:Conservative|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.  [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:JonS|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::You have twice now made the very serious charge that I reverted other Admin's comments on my own talk page, with no diffs as evidence, which I pointedly deny. I do not have Oversight privileges, either. If comments you made to my talk page were reverted, deleted, or oversighted, it could  not have possibly be done by me.  Now, please desist from your personal attacks impugning my reputation, character, and integrity as Conservapedia Sysop. I edit under my real life identity, and I suggest you immediately desist from these unfounded personal attacks. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:46, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
I specified high profile conservatives, I said nothing of websites. Either way, [http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1350/comparisonv.png 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)'' [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/XavierC Here] is his contribs. He called you out for locking your talk page and stifling debate, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=886852 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) wit''h 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. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=873210 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, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Agnosticism&diff=prev&oldid=869530 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. [[User:JonS|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 [[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:JonS|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.  --[[User:JarradD|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. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::This has been a serious problem.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:02, 30 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. [[User:JonS|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. [[User:MaxFletcher|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. [[User:Conservative|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). [[User:MaxFletcher|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::You end your comments by calling him a hypocrite, then claim to avoid insults?--[[User:SeanS|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 [[User_talk:Aschlafly#RobS_becoming_a_pawn_and_a_.22useful_idiot.22_of_an_atheist_website|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.  --[[User:JarradD|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? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 19:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
:Amen.  Can we please show the man a little respect by giving him a chance to respond?  --[[User:Benp|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. --[[User:SeanS|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.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::: ''If he is going to, he will when he considers it best.''--[[User:SeanS|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. [[User:Bclough|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!)
+
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Sharon, if you eventually gain Sysop status,  I would work on getting a blocking review board going. Putting notices of the board meeting on the front page will never realistically happen though.  I would also suggest having the meetings occur according to a specified time  period for predictability (bi-monthly, monthly, every two months, etc. )  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:29, 29 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)
+
 
+
::'''''We''''' shouldn't present it to them - it should be either Conservative or Rob who bring the case before the panel, since it involves them. Andy could, if he prefers to remain neutral in this case, have the panel look over the situation. If there are any other editors who are ''directly'' involved, then they too might have a reason to take it before the panel. The rest of us are onlookers and we should all cease involving ourselves into the matter. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::I appreciate the concern SharonW.  I should have asked Aschlafly intervene earlier as far as RobS as it would have been a better use of time. He would have been glad to do it. As far as a blocking policy, I put together what I thought was a workable block review policy framework and maybe someone will pick up that ball and run with it.  I said I may help develop a blocking review policy in the fall, but the more I think about it that was wishful thinking. I have decided to pursue other matters. As far as the RobS matter, from what I have been told Aschalfly is going to review matters in the very near future and decide what to do. I have said my piece on the matter and have decided to move on.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:37, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::Does the Panel still exist?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 01:18, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::[[User:SharonW|SharonW]], I respectfully disagree.  RobS and Conservative are creating a problem for the whole community and it is therefore the responsibility of the whole community to see that it gets solved.  --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 02:21, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::The point is moot, anyway; the Student Panel's [[User Talk:CPanel|talk page]] is locked.  If they're watching, or if someone has the ability to bring this issue to them,  I urge that person to do so.  --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:55, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::Sorry Fergus, but the student panel may as well not exist. "Conservative" completely coopted the Evolution article for his own YEC purposes, which is expressly contrary to the student panel's instructions, yet nobody's heard a peep from the student panel in 4+ years. If it was watching don't you think it would have intervened in that situation years ago? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 19:17, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::I have checked into the record and it appear the CP Student Panels' ruling only applies to the evolution article, as I cannot find any record anywhere it extends beyond that. It may have at one time, but there is no record now of it. I may be wrong in this interpretation. Also, a recent question has arisen whether to ruling still stands or is valid, as the current version is not the one the Student Panel endorsed.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:08, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Moving on..... ==
+
+
What about both parties calling it quits and letting the encyclpedia move forward. In the mean time, user:conservative can perhaps,
+
+
1. Tone down his abuse of people with other belief patterns.
+
+
2. Consider getting his articles reworded by a native English speaker as the prose style of "Indian English" appears quite different to what people of United States of America or most of the western world is used to. --[[User:PHilton|PHilton]] 08:54, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
:They should move on but conservative must make changeS?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Blocking review ==
+
 
+
I strongly believe the only true way to have a fair blocking policy is to have users who are willing to review blocks. I've been worried about the implications of what amounts to block-reverting, but I'm confident enough in the sysop community that I don't think any user would object to having a second pair of eyes look at a block; I also think it's important that users who really think they've been unfairly blocked be able to make their case and in some cases be given a second chance. It's been said we don't have the manpower for such reviews, but I think we're overestimating the number of users who would take the time to ask for review on a block. I've publicly listed my email on my [[User:Iduan|userpage]] for users who do wish to do so.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 13:58, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:I've raised the idea of a [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&diff=prev&oldid=894420 Blocking Foreman] to review and councel blocking editors as a way to gain a uniform standard to interpret CP blocking policy. But the position would require some muscle. I haven't worked out a formal proposal on it yet.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::I like the idea of this, but I think your mistaken as to the number of active bureaucrats the site has. The number is one, maybe two. You can see all of them [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=bureaucrat here]. "Admin"'s last edit was four years ago, CPWebmaster's was 8 months ago, and SharonS's was 2 years ago.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 18:27, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Policies that need to die: Editorial Authority ==
+
 
+
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=893605&oldid=893603 DouglasA removes a list of games from a game franchise article]
+
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=894046&oldid=893605 SeanS reverts this (IMHO senseless) deletion]
+
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASeanS&year=&month=-1 DouglasA blocks SeanS for two weeks: "Reverting admin"]
+
Anybody see what is wrong in this picture? Anybody? You, the man in the top hat! What was that? "It's sysop abuse to block somebody for a simple revert?" BZZZZZZZZZZZT! WRONG! DouglasA is absolutely in the right here.
+
 
+
''It's the rules that are messed up.''
+
 
+
I feel it's time we take a closer look at one of the more silent policies of Conservapedia: Editorial authority!
+
 
+
So what is Editorial Authority? Let's take a look at [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]]:
+
*'''Do not revert an Administrator's changes without first discussing it with them, and gaining their permission. Administrators are in charge of deciding the editorial policy of Conservapedia. Their instruction(s) on such matters are always to be followed.'''
+
 
+
In other words: If an administrator edits a mainspace article to read "General Relativity causes breast cancer", then normal editors are not allowed to remove that without asking for permission. If said permission doesn't come, then tough luck, go edit something else, liberal.
+
 
+
This is why this block is perfectly within the rules. And even a five-year block would have been fine - after all, we don't have any guidelines about block durations.
+
 
+
It's also an ''excellent'' illustration that something is deeply wrong here.
+
 
+
Can we ''please'' get rid of this obscure rule? It's one of the worst policies ever introduced and completely kills off the wiki spirit through the most literal form of "Might makes right". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
:I absolutely and completely agree with you, Sid 3050. This rule needs a '''''lot''''' of clarification. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:15, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::I think that the 2 week block was too harsh, but I disagree with the idea that the rule should be revoked.  Administrators are supposed to be chosen for their judgement, and there's nothing wrong with requiring some discussion beforehand--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:02, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::I agree completely, and I firmly believe that this is CP's biggest flaw.  Admins should not be considered as having a greater say editorially than other editors.  A wiki is a collaborative endeavour and this rule completely inverts this process and turns editors right off.  I know it turns people off because I remember once hammering out a compromise on some (minor) articles talkpage with various people about how an article should begin, only to have an admin come in and tell us that our input was not required.  My editing slowed right down after that.  If you want to run a blog, then run a blog, if you want a wiki then lets have a wiki.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Mr. Schlalfy approved [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 changes to the Conservapedia:Guidelines] on July 23 2011, with copies sent to DMorris, Jpatt, TerryH, EdPoor, User:Conservative, and myself. User:DouglasA may not have been aware of the change. It was my mistake in not removing that language immediately from the Editing Etiquette page. The specific language removed no longer gives Sysops dictatorial charge over editors, as was the subject of numerous complaints in recent years.  I apologize to any editors this change may have inconvenienced. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:25, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::I am new user here but how am I supposed to know what has been added by an administrator? Do I have to find names of every administrator in the past and then check every edit in an article before I can change anything? And what about edits made before someone became an administrator, are they also inviolable? It all seems very confusing to me. --[[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
==  4 Sysops believe that RobS should lose his Admin rights - Another Sysop emailed me  ==
+
 
+
I unexpectedly had another Sysop email me.  Including myself, 4 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights. I will qualify my position that RobS should lose his Sysop rights by indicating that I believe he should be able to earn them back. I also believe he should apologize for his recent poor behavior and alter his behavior. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:Have they asked that their identities and reasoning remain a secret?  --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::TerryH and I have gone on record. If you want further elaboration from Sysop TerryH, I suggest contacting him via his talk page. If the 2 other Sysops want to elaborate they can certainly do so. I hadn't planned on commenting on this matter further, but I did receive an unexpected email from another Sysop. I thought the most expeditious way to handle the matter would be relay the information to Mr. Schlafly and let others know about it as well.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Make your case here of site policy violations [[Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation]] or cease trolling this talk page.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Conservative, even if Rob gets demoted, infinitely blocked, and unperson'd, do you really think it's going to stop?  You're the one being unprofessional, look at your response to AugustO [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=894878&oldid=894871]].  Maybe the other four sysops should lose their privileges along with you.  [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 23:45, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::I have to agree, Terry.  It doesn't really matter what happens to RobS (not that his actions warrant any demotion anyway).  So long as Conservapedia allows editors to speak their minds without fear of censorship or reprisal, Conservative will be at risk of demotion because his behaviour has been, and continues to be, so abysmal.  His constant deletions and oversighting, his rudeness to editors and his refusal to address issues raised with him are legendary.  In addition, his raft of locked pages bring the site into disrepute as a result of their generally low quality, their trolling nature and their propagandistic content.  Anyone supporting Conservative in these matters should also lose their privileges.  --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 00:16, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::We're just seeing resistance to reform. Cowards, and petty dictators who feel threatened. None of them are qualified to be Wikipedia editors, let alone Conservapedia sysops.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::RobS, before making another run at building a community, perhaps you should consider taking a Dale Carnegie course and read some of his books. Judging from some of your recent posts, particularly this latest one, I don't think your current methods are working too well. But I could be wrong, maybe your winning friends and influencing people and I just don't realize it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:57, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::I've done that, my friend, and trained more people in sales (i.e., taught them to feed themselves) than you've arbitrarily blocked, which says a lot. The difference between RW & CP is, RW has a community, and CP sysops are hell bent on destroying any sort of collaborative cooperation. RW started from nothing but foul-mouthed trolls to an open, thriving, talented and successful wiki project, while while {{Personal remark removed}} elements such as yourself have recklessly abused willing volunteers who wanted to help. You've destroyed your own reputation, and the reputation of the Conservapedia project along with it. RW is a community, despite nasty differences between users, they can function. As long as {{Personal remark removed}} [people] such as yourself continue to wield sysop & oversight tools on this site, I pity any poor fool who comes across it and tries to get involved. They'd have a better chance -- with no talent -- surviving at Wikipedia.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:21, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::Whilst, as a new user, I do hesitate to weigh in User:RobS has a very valid point. Community, I believe, is what is required to expand what has already been achieved here. --[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 02:32, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::::::It is just common sense that people working together will achieve more as team than single editors monopolising parts of the wiki, surely it is also more American - 'E pluribus unum'! [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 03:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
"Willing volunteers" wanting to work here?  Is that what you say about RW, RobS?  A "functioning community"? I looked on your user page in that freak show that is RW, and my question to you must be said in front of all of these witnesses: who authorized you to take private email accounts from private Google groups that we were all a part of and post them to Conservaleaks?  You claim we're the problem?  You're part of their little trolling world, you're part of the problem, and you're the cause of a huge amount of damage to this site and the raising of hate and discontent among us, and all because you decided on your own to abandon reason for madness.  You're done here, RobS.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:*'''Q.'''''who authorized you to take private email accounts from private Google groups that we were all a part of and post them to Conservaleaks?
+
''
+
::'''A.''' (1) Those are private communications between me and a deceased person. I am free to disclose my own private correspondance, whilst presumably the estate of an anonymous username, which the anonymous user always denied matched his real life identity, may possibly have some claim of breach of privacy, but I doubt it; (2) you Karajou, need some understanding of facts before you perform an action such as the above post. You seem to have a habit of jumping to conclusions without any facts or evidence.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:RobS, touting your supposed accomplishments while bashing other Sysops and perhaps others with various allegations is not proving to be a successful strategy. If you are an accomplished salesman, I would suggest using your interpersonal skills at this wiki with your fellow Sysops and others. Third, you haven't sold me on your claims about another wiki and I remain skeptical. For example, I have a hard time believing that a website of former foul mouthed trolls with current nasty differences between users is still not a foul mouthed place. It is largely an atheist wiki and the [[Barna Group]] found among other things that atheists and [[agnostics]] in America were more likely, than [[theist]]s in America to use [[Profanity|obscene language]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard] As long as you continue down this same path while blaming others for your failure due to your ego, I don't see things changing as far as your ineffectiveness at gaining the cooperation of others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::I have contacted the FBI and Rob will be taken away within the hour. As we all know collaborating with liberal vandals in punishable by death and I for one look forward to seeing the look on his face in court when he is condemned. [[User:PatK|PatK]] 07:05, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
===User:Conservative asks ASchlafly to invoke mob rule===
+
::::RobS, as it stands, I think it would take a considerable amount of work to repair your relationships with various individuals at this wiki and I don't see you being willing to do that work due to your excessive ego.  In addition, due to some of your recent activity, there is now a feeling that you can't be trusted which further compounds matters.  I haven't asked a particular Sysop if your Sysop rights should be removed. I believe if I did ask this person, the tally of Sysops who think you should lose your Sysop rights would be 5. Do you really want to continue down your current counterproductive path? If you continue to shoot yourself in the foot, you will eventually cause your own demise at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:What_exactly_is_Conservapedia%3F&diff=prev&oldid=48123 Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy]. ...Aschlafly 12:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
+
:::::*A wiki need not be a direct democracy, just as most countries are not. It is essential to avoid mob rule. Wikipedia fails in this essential regard. Consevapedia, in contrast, is based on rules [Ibid]... Aschlafly 11:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
+
:::::*'''There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and [[mob rule]], we don’t. Violators of the CP Guidelines will be blocked. [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]]'''  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
:I'm actually amazed that a simple request from a sysop for user:Conservative to be a bit more accommodating in the spirit of a wiki, has degenerated to the point where the latter, rather than amend his ways, openly rallies the mob to have the first sysop hanged, drawn and quartered in public. Is keeping your talk pages locked ''that'' important to you? Are you ''that'' afraid of responding to criticism and questions. Those that you might have a few precious seconds of your valuable time to respond to, of course.
+
:Just in case user:Conservative is unaware, this is the definition of a wiki: '''A Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content.''' From your actions, it would appear as if you would be happier at WordPress or Blogger. You certainly are not interested in collaboration.
+
:User:Conservative has brought Conservapedia into disrepute through his actions, including dragging the sysops into it - this reference to vague sysops supporting you smacks of deceit. If they do, it should be up to them to admit it, as Karajou has done, not for you to be whispering in Mr. Schalfly's ear like some Tolkein-esque Wormtongue.
+
:In addition, Karajou appears to have missed the point. He seems to be dismissing RobS's complaint because of something totally unrelated to user:Conservative's actions. This is sad, as it would appear as if the whole mess has boiled over into petty rivalries and the participants can no longer see the woods for the trees. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 07:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::You ask excellent questions, Tracy, but you're missing an important one: Assuming that those anonymous sysops exist, why are they supporting Conservative and not Rob? I think that fact alone speaks volumes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::I'm guessing it's more important for them to have abysmally written articles about flying kitties and Indian Christian dancing girls (even if the accompanying picture is of a Hindu!) on their main page, than to have accountability. There can be no other explanation. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 08:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:Something just hit me: "[[Big Government]] refers to a government that is very influential in the everyday lives of citizens, often due to its far-reaching agencies." So it shouldn't be so surprising to see a conservative fighting to reduce the reach and power of the local ruling class (whose power currently reaches as far as making them right by default in ''content editing''), should it? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::I registered on the 1st of January 2011 but for some reason editing seems to be almost permanently blocked for someone in the UK as I am, hence I have made no real contribution - along with my earlier comments about user:conservative childish articles putting me off.  Truth is (and I KNOW I will be blocked for this and this edit reverted but_ I get the impression that some sysops and admins here have very little power elsewhere in their lives so instead of addressing the evident shortcomings in the <i>input</i> and hehaviour of user:conservative to the wiki, they prefer to hold on to what little power they have as it justifies them.  I watched and witnessed TK slowly destroying this site from within, user:conservative and user:karajou are completing the late TK's work.  Now feel free, go ahead and prove me right by blocking me and reverting this edit. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)  I put it there for a reason obvious troll PatK.  You are the kind of idiot that is slowly destorying this wiki, along with Conservative.
+
<br>
+
::For your treasonous actions and treacherous words, I have also reported you to the FBI. We shall string you up alongside Rob. [[User:PatK|PatK]] 08:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::The proposals of Sid and David sound suspiciously like [[communism]]. [[User:PatK|PatK]] 08:21, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::I have no shortage of things to do and there are a lot more enjoyable things I could be pursuing. RobS and his sidekick Sid 3050 can rant and rave, but I will not be paying attention to these clowns.  I shouldn't have allowed RobS to distract me from pursuing more important matters.  I am sure Andy would have put an end to RobS's pestering if I had asked him to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::Regardless of what Rob did on RW, I agree that RW has a thriving community and articles that are well written and informative.  Here we have Conservative's "articles", and no quality control.  Like I said, it's not going to stop with Rob gone. As long as sysops like Karajou and Conservative continue doing what they're doing, Conservapedia will be nothing more than a third rate wiki. ...and Conservative, how many times have you said that?  [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 09:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
"I am sure Andy would have put an end to RobS's pestering if I had asked him to do so." Um, excuse me - if you never asked Mr Schlafly to intervene, then just why exactly is this discussion taking place on his talk page? Just looking for attention? You really should try and keep your story straight if you're going to make things up. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:Also, just this Friday, you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ACommunity_Portal&action=historysubmit&diff=894562&oldid=894559 said] "As far as the RobS matter, from what I have been told Aschalfly is going to review matters in the very near future and decide what to do. I have said my piece on the matter and have decided to move on." Interesting how "moving on" now means returning here yet again to proclaim that Rob should lose sysop rights and that another anonymous sysop (who may or may not exist) agrees with you. (Oh, and I'm still not an atheist. But I guess you will ignore this fact yet again the moment you need to vilify those who dare to criticize you.)  --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:07, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
Just a general comment for Andy from a new editor.  I don't think it's relevant at all what other wiki projects are doing be it Wikipedia or wikis dedicated to criticizing Conservapedia.  Of course, we should be sympathetic to a conservative POV. (Why call this Conservapedia then if we were not?). As a general point which I think applies here, I am getting tired of conservatives having to act apologetic towards underachieving liberals who dedicate their whole lives to personally maligning conservatives with providing any ideas of substance. [[User:HP|HP]] 10:48, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::User:HP, how did you get past Karajou when you added this content with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 potentially racist overtones] to the current MainPage Fetaure? It was in for over a month and neither User:Conservative nor User:Karajou spotted, reverted it, nor blocked you? Are you a sockpuppet of User:Conservative or Karajou?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:39, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
:I think an end needs to be put to this bickering caused by the misguided attempts of User:RobSmith to drive this website in a more atheistic and liberal direction. As an outsider (avid reader but non-contributor) I see that User:Conservative has created (and continues to create, unless bogged down in timewasting arguments initiated by User:RobSmith as he attempts to undermine the core conservative Christian values of the site) huge amounts of high quality material on subjects that really matter, where as User:RobSmith seems content to merely defend liberal trolls and actively prevent the site from dealing with atheists and others who hate all we stand for. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 11:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::You should go back to coaching Nottingham Forest, Mr Clough. or may I call you Brian? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::You are so transparent it's pathetic.  Conservative's material is extremely low quality and a lot of it is just copy and paste jobs from other articles.  He knows this, so he reverts, burns, locks talk pages, and bans users.  Rob is trying to put an end to these community strangling practices by holding sysops accountable.  Is that such a bad thing except to those in power?  As far as other wiki's go, there is a reason why RW is successful and CP isn't.  Think about it.  [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 11:38, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::BClough, it's not unlikely you are a sock of another sysop. I know I'm a first time contributor (although I am a long-time reader), but your use of certain key phrases like "liberal troll" gives you away. If this is true, that sysop  would be in violation of the site's policies that prohibit multiple accounts per person. Can someone run check user on BClough and other sysops just to make sure? You seem to run check user on '''everyone'''. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 11:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Given that Mr Schlafly recently removed RobS's checkuser rights, there might be some merit in the question. After all, if Mr Schlafly was going to punish RobS, it seems a strange right to remove. Is there a cover-up going on? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::I wouldn't be surprised. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 11:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::::Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that [[User:FergusE]] is a sock of a sysop...can check user be run on him also? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 13:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::Conservative has been suspected of creating socks.  His writing style is extremely unique.  [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:38, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
I'm not much involved in this wiki politicking, but it seems utterly extraordinary to me that one of the few very senior administrators of this website, who seems intelligent and fair, and who wanst to establish fair rules and systematic policies across the website, is being disciplined while another incredibly childish and noisy sysop who seems to fill up 75% of Recent Changes posting ludicrous articles on the main page about "walrus slides" is being supported.  While I like this website and the article content quite a bit, I've found that it's almost impossible to get any of my like-minded friends to take it seriously, as any time I've ever forward a link to here, the response is usually "Why are there all those ridiculous articles there? - that place looks like my child's bedroom after a birthday party" (an actual response from a friend of mine).  I would like to publicly support RobS and if I had any power would like to give "Conservative" a good talking to.  [[User:JanW|JanW]] 13:52, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
:Folks,
+
:Once again, Mr. Schlafly's talk page has been turned into a general opinion form--much of it from "new contributors" who seem remarkably conversant with Conservapedia nonetheless and who are not directly involved in this matter.
+
:I am going to ask politely: please stop.  It's rude, and it's not what a user's talk page is for.  Mr. Schlafly knows the facts, and he is, I'm sure, quite capable of reaching his decision without endless debate by those of us who aren't directly involved.
+
:In particular, accusations of "conspiracy" and deception directed towards sysops are an extremely serious matter.  Unless you have some substantial evidence to show, I strongly suggest refraining from such accusations.  Thus far, they've been remarkably tolerant and patient with respect to such accusations and personal attacks, but that doesn't mean they're justified or appropriate.
+
:If you have a question or a direct message for Mr. Schlafly, please feel free to ask.  Otherwise, please show some respect and take the discussion to another venue. 
+
:Thank you.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::But Mr. Schlafly isn't responding and as the site owner and ultimate authority on issues like these the community feels that he should be made aware of it. He hasn't provided a response yet. Also, with Conservapedia's self-proclaimed record breaking monthly viewership, why are you surprised at all the new members? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:07, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::It's less that we have a lot of new people... its the fact we have a lot of new editors who seem to show up with the "Long time listener, first time caller" statement, who then get involved almost immediately in a dispute between Synops and have more knowledge of the way the site works and the various Personalities that populate the site that is the problem.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 14:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::You don't think three days of incessant spam on his webpage has "made him aware?"  He knows what's going on.  And I'm not surprised at the new members--or the way they're swarming to this particular issue--in the slightest.  As SeanS has pointed out, sudden influxes of "new editors" with remarkable knowledge of the doings here are not a new phenomenon.
+
::::I asked nicely.  I will repeat myself: please take it elsewhere.  Those who are directly involved are more than capable of resolving this for themselves.  Again, thank you.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::Ben, Conservative chose a public forum for his provocative comments, so why are you complaining about reply by the public? If he had wanted to inform Andy in private, he would have sent him a mail. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:36, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::::Conservative is a senior member of this project who regularly communicates with Mr. Schlafly.  So is RobS.  As I said before, they're quite capable of resolving this for themselves, and it's not my place to tell them how to go about doing that.  However, pointing out that people who are not directly involved are being inconsiderate is another matter entirely. 
+
::::::I'm asking people to show basic respect for another user by not cluttering up his talk page.  It has nothing to do with Conservative and RobS, and everything to do with basic manners. Is that really such an unreasonable request to make?  The general discussion was moved to the Community Portal for a reason.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::::::"it's not my place to tell them how to go about doing that" - It's also not your place to go around acting like a sysop, telling everybody else to ''look away'' while one person alone goes around crowing in public about how he assembled a mob to throw Rob out.
+
:::::::This isn't about some inconsequential proposal, this is a turning point for the entire site, and the community senses it. So no, we won't look away while Conservative, TerryH and Karajou (and two mystery sysops) stomp around on the ''one sysop'' who actually realizes that the current system needs to change in order for the community to grow beyond mindless yay-sayers.
+
:::::::I reiterate: Conservative has the option to use private communication, yet he keeps making public sections (like the new one below). What does that tell you? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== 5 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights. ==
+
 
+
Another Sysop indicated to me that RobS should lose his Sysop rights. Including myself, 5 Sysops now believe RobS should lose his Sysop rights.
+
 
+
Karajou, TerryH and myself are Sysops who are publicly declaring RobS should lose his Sysop rights. The other 2 Sysops are choosing to remain anonymous.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:That's great.  I could find plenty of diff's proving Terry and Karajou as bad as you.  And like I said before, it's not going to stop when Rob is gone.  [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:36, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::Actually, it ''will'' stop once Rob is gone. Why else do you think that Conservative, Karajou, TerryH and our two mystery sysops are pushing so hard to get him thrown out? Rob is advocating user rights and sysop accountability. Rob is undoing blocks left and right while trying to set up fairer rules. Do you ''seriously'' think you would last a week after Rob's demotion/departure? I know that I'll face the banhammer minutes after Rob's defeat, and I'm quite sure who is going to swing it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:43, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
User:Conservative, I admire your restraint in dealing with User:RobSmith who for some reason has decided to attack you. I hope User:Aschlafly acts quickly to remove User:RobSmith before User:Robsmith destroys the good work of User:Conservative and many other by opening the floodgates to liberals, atheists and evolutionists to turn this site in to another Wikipedia. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 14:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::A Poll has started at [[Debate:Should RobS loose his Sysop rights?]]; (please note, I will exempt voting participants from the 90/20 rule for each click while participating in this poll. This should gain some Community input regarding User:Conservatives excessive trolling of ASchlalfy's talk page which he has been asked by several editors several times to stop. Thanks.)  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== RobS's upcoming RINO-like  rule - supposed  "conservative" point of view rule ==
+
 
+
RobS is about to advise Conservapedia to have a conservative point of view rule which appears to have a [[RINO]]-like bent.  It is located [[User:RobSmith/Conservapedia:Conservative point of view|HERE]]
+
 
+
The "conservative" point of view rule indicates that the [[neoconservative]] view is part of the conservative point of view. Conservapedia says "A [[neoconservative]] (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government...Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead."
+
 
+
RobS's upcoming conservative point of view rule mentions none of the social issues directly. It also does not bring up the evolution issue directly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
:This is exactly why User:RobSmith should be stopped before he gets the chance to implement his plans regarding the direction of this website. True conservative and Christian information is why this site continues to grow, if User:RobSmith gets his way and starts allowing atheistic and pro-evolutionism content on this website then it will no longer continue to grow by attracting conservative Christians who reject atheism and evolutionism. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:This is exactly why User:RobSmith should be stopped before he gets the chance to implement his plans regarding the direction of this website. True conservative and Christian information is why this site continues to grow, if User:RobSmith gets his way and starts allowing atheistic and pro-evolutionism content on this website then it will no longer continue to grow by attracting conservative Christians who reject atheism and evolutionism. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::Somewhat premature, but thank you for bringing to light the proposal '''[[User:RobSmith/Conservapedia:Conservative point of view]]'''. Note the page is unlocked, and open for others to be bold in helping to draft a proposal. When it's ready, I'll present it to Andy for his ideas on it. If it were to work, we could eliminate once and for all bickering over what is liberal/parody/etc.  And I'm sure Mr. Schlalfy would agree, cause it's already written into numerous Commandments & Guidleines, an editor can be an obese liberal homosexual atheist ''and still'' abide by site policy mandating CPOV content. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::P.S. User:Consrvative, you are welcome to share you ideas in drafting this proposal; please be bold in editing its mainspace, that is, if you are capable of collaborative editing with others. Thank you.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:::I believe that RobS's intention is to have an inclusive policy for conservatives.  [[Neoconservative]]'s views are definitely a mainstream conservative viewpoint, with many of the past Republican presidents( Bush, Bush and Reagan) all adhering to many of the belief's that make up the neocon doctrine.  I'm not entirely sure why you would go here over this issue however.  Also as Rob has stated above this appears to be a work in progress so perhaps collaborating would be a better way to achieve your goals than to accuse him of trying to harm the site..--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::::Agreed, I have no idea why this wasn't brought up on the corresponding talk page, really. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:13, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
[[Neoconservatives]] are part of the reason the United States: owes over 13 trillion dollars, is filled with abortion clinics and is involved in 3 wars.  Perhaps RobS should buy the domain name www.rinopedia.com and start his own wiki. And again, the social issues were noticeably absent in his proposal as far as them being mentioned directly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
:You were told the page was open for editing (unlike so many pages you have written).  Instead of complaining, go edit it.  This is a wiki.  --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:26, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Thank you, [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ==
+
I wanted to leave this on [[User_talk:Karajou|your talk page]], but it was protected.  Let me be the first to thank you for handling the RobS problem.  We don't need agitators here, which is what he was.  So once again, thank you.  Finally we can have peace around here and [[User:Conservative]] can get back to his writings without certain people trying to stifle him.  --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 13:13, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Reverting Sysop comments==
+
[[File:Exhibit1.JPG|350px|right]]
+
This is Exhibit 1 of User:Conservative reverting other sysops comments. The comment in question regards User:Conservatives proposal to allow RW editors to contribute to Conservapedia. In context,
+
:''if the [RW] people want to take the man hours away from creating vandalism to helping us put uncited templates (that are tastefully designed) on articles [http://conservapedia.com/Sysop:Talk/Archive_2 I would applaud their helpful efforts] as they will only help us gain higher search engine rankings. Conservative 17:01, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
+
This may be cause to request ASchlalfy to revoke User:Conservative's sysop rights.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Debate on User:Conservative's appeal to invoke sysop mob rule==
+
A poll and debate on [[User:Conservative]]'s proposal to ASchlafly to allow sysop mob govern the site and derail reform. All member's are invited to. [[Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?]].  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:47, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==
+
 
+
I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]].  [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]].  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
+
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:Parody?  You're kidding me, right?  Nah, I call it as I see it.  Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture.  It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains.  I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual.  {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual.  It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable.  You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended).  But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article.  That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==
+
 
+
Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:
+
 
+
1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].
+
 
+
2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS.  Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.
+
 
+
3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not)  plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy.  RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.
+
 
+
Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.
+
 
+
4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.
+
 
+
5.  Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic.  Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.
+
 
+
6.  I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia.  I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic.  Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans.  On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].
+
 
+
7.  I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past.  For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past.  There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
+
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
+
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."? 
+
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
+
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
+
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
+
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
+
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
+
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP)  earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project.  As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach.  Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE].  If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times.  Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
+
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
+
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
+
:::We're all waiting with baited breath.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Sysops blocking other sysops ==
+
 
+
There has been a recent bout of sysops blocking other sysops. It started recently with RobS blocking me. Given that Syops can unblock themselves, I see this as pointless, undisciplined behavior that often is caused by being hot-headed and being childish. If you think Andy is enthralled with Sysops blocking other Sysops and want him to mediate a Sysop dispute in your favor, you are deluding yourself. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:13, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
:Simple solution: obey the Conservapedia Commandments and Guidelines. A block in the log merely marks the place a user abused their privileges. If you have not noticed, CP Sysops no longer have the authority to invent rules out of thin air that apply to others, but not themselves.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:59, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Rude and insulting behaviour ==
+
 
+
Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
+
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+

Revision as of 01:42, 10 August 2011

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

Archive 1 Archive 2