Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation"

Revision as of 22:23, June 9, 2007

RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations

I wish to file a complaint about the deletion of an edit I wrote for the Censorship topic. RobS falsely accuses me of subterfuge and an anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit agenda when I described one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, and one of the first instances (if not the first) of censorship entering the law. I neither mentioned Catholics nor Jesuits, and pointed out that the Pope had actually defended Michelangelo and prevented defacement of his work of art. The reference I cited is not a wiki mirror site, but an educational web site with many sources for its articles. One has only to look at the page I referenced to see that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. In spite of this, RobS has issued a warning on what I believe to be entirely unfounded complaints. Read the reference I sited, check its background, read my edit and let me know if RobS is justified in censoring my edit and issuing a warning. NitramNos 14:50, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Why did you try to hide the wikimirror cite [1] after inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation? --RobS 14:55, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea what you are talking about. How would I hide a wikimirror cite? What does that have to do with inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation? You sound paranoid to me. NitramNos 15:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

So you wish to make charges, yet not respond to (a) my specific Warning in the edit summary; (b) my recitation of it here. This comes dangerously close to trolling. Again, why did you hide the wikimirror, and why do you deny it that it is not when anyone can see that it is?

And if you can't answer those questions, you have indeed trolled me by wasting my time. RobS 16:49, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't wish to get involved in this, but I think I see your confusion - Just to clarify, NitramNos, the wikimirror RobS refers to is the link to http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm which, like eg Answers.com, is simply a mirror of the wikipedia article of the same name. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 18:09, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Finally, a voice of reason! Thank you Fox. Can you tell me how to tell if a site is a wikimirror site? I am tired of being falsely accused and threatened by RobS. I am tired of the vandalism RobS perpetrates on perfectly valid additions to articles that follow all Conservapedia guidelines (although I admit I am in the dark about what sites and what sites are not the dreaded wikimirrorr sites). NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

The clock is running on NitramNos. The lesson to be taken from all this is, the bigotry that Wikipedia is known for will not be imposed on us here. We shall determine our own content, from constuctive and cooperative editors, not trolls attempting to spoon feed us wiki-pap during the incessant vandalism intended to distract us. RobS 18:17, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

If this page is designed solely for the abuse of complainants by those about whom they are registering a complaint, it is not performing a very useful function. RobS would seem to be the troll in this instance. NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

You have not answered the question. The material came from Wikipedia. Why did you hide the wikimirror? RobS 16:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

On the contrary, you have not answered my question. What do you mean that I "tried to hide the wikimirror?" I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about and suspect that you are letting your paranoid imagination run away with you. How does one "hide a wikimirrror?" How does one "try to hide a wikimirror" and fail? What does that have to do with "inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation?" What are you talking about? Could someone enlighten me as to what RobS is getting at, as he seems unable or unwilling to clue me in? NitramNos 17:37, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

I have just finished comparing the page from which I drew my material on Michelangelo and the Wikipedia page on the same topic. They are organized differently, worded differently, and have a dfferent focus. Obviously, as they are both about the same historical individual, they contain some of the same information. Equally obviously they were written by different individuals. My conclusion, and that of any reasonable person, is that it is definitely NOT a wikimirrror, and RobS's charges are entirely unfounded. I would suggest that Conservapedia has a loose cannon on its hands in the person of RobS and that his arbitrary and rather wild accusations will prove to be an embarrassment. NitramNos 18:21, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Right here [2] bottom of the page,

• All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.

Last chance to explain yourslef. RobS 18:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Crippes

Crippes was a positive user with some good edits, but was still blocked. Duddgydids 16:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Crippes was blocked for creating a sock which caused some vandalism. Karajou 16:58, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

How would Duddgydids know--Duddgydids been here awhole two minutes. RobS 17:00, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite possibly because he's a sock from the same source. Karajou 17:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not the same as "Carlowcrab", Duddgydids 17:05, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Then what is your purpose here? Karajou 17:08, 8 June 2007 (EDT)