Conservapedia talk:Guidelines

NOTE: Earlier discussions on the various sections of this page were made on the following pages:

• Attribution
• Civility
• Reliability
• Sources
• Teamwork

Tidying up

After discussion with some other administrators, I'm doing some tidying up of guidelines on other pages, in most cases redirecting them to this page. Philip J. Rayment 07:45, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Copying

What about quotations to illustrate a point or position? And how about fair use? I've started countless articles by quoting some liberal position about, e.g., feminism or global warming. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:06, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

These guidelines need improvement and clarification

For example, for "Sources" it stated:

We should not allow any and all citations to newspaper stories. Journalistic opinions are not authorities, and journalists are not authorities on scientific issues. It is better to cite the scientific article directly.

But if the article refers to the opinion as an opinion and not a hard fact, shouldn't that be allowed? Jinxmchue 02:13, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

And does this mean any citations to a newspaper story, or only in regards to scientific issues? --Jareddr 13:29, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

What happens if you are writing on a subject that is not scientific? How are we supposed, for example, to write about a recent event without using newspapers? Daphnea 20:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Attribution Section

Very curious about the lead example. I find it unnecessarily pugnacious.

There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "All living species of animals evolved from earlier species" and saying "Most atheist biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species".

English teachers call that attribution.

There are many religious scientists, including Christian Conservatives, who accept evolution as a fact. The above example is precisely equivalent to:

There's a difference between stating flatly that "Heaven is up" and reporting that "Christians believe Heaven is above Earth." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "God created the Heaven and the Earth" and saying "Most unsaved Jews believe God created the Heaven and the Earth."

The phrase "unsaved Jews" is, while technically accurate, provocative. Similarly, the full sentence, while also accurate, is incomplete, as Christians also believe God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Similarly, the example given in "Attribution" is both provocative (atheist biologists) and incomplete. A better example would be, simply, "Most biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species." There are trained biologists who do not accept this, but they are in the minority.

Since this is a guideline page, I don't think I should edit it, rather than bring this up to those in charge. But I don't like it the way it is. It's not the Christian way to say it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Encinocathy (talk)

I prefer it the way it is (I wrote it), but I'm not denying that your alternative ways of putting it would also be correct. However, I reject that your revised example is precisely equivalent. A closer equivalent to the second one would be "Most Christians believe God created the Heaven and the Earth". That doesn't sound so odd, does it? Yet it omits non-Christian Jews. It's a closer equivalent because it is referring to the single largest group that believes this, rather than a much smaller group. Similarly with "Most atheist biologists": atheist biologists would be the largest single group of biologists, plus it is atheism on which this belief is based, so it also hints at the basis for the belief. Philip J. Rayment 01:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

90/10 rule

What is Aschlafly's ratio in regards to talk pages/actual edits? OtherSide 20:21, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

it would surprise me if it did not meet the 90/10 rule, he does a lot of reverts. --Brendanw 23:50, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but my problem with the 90/10 rule is that so often what seems to be an innocuous edit is reverted, requiring a lengthy discussion. This often means I must either: (a) let it lie, and therefore not make any useful contribution, or (b) debate the issue, thereby skewing my talk : edit ratio!

I'm not talking about vandalism or provocation, either. I mean definitions of the 'young adult' demographic in publishing and redirects for The Metropolitan Museum Of Art. The mind boggles. Scoresby 21:44, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

• Well being since you are a shining example of people who make socks to troll us, to insert false information, I am leaving your post here as an example of just what liars liberals are.....that they will use any pretext to try to disrupt with silly clap trap. Those whose job it is to proffer instruction to editors, to answer questions, cannot, should not, and it is irrational to even suggest they should not be exempt from the 90/10 "rule" which isn't, really. It is a guideline. Godspeed to you! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 23:17, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Sources

Lately I've been seeing a lot of sketchy sources hanging around. For instance, the other day I found a quotation used to prove a point in an article which was taken from the comment on a blog article. I've also seen sources rejected out of hand for no real reason and other dubious sources used without any second thought. Lastly, I think we need to decide how and when to use other wikis as sources; there are numerous examples of this all over the site.

While I think the current wording of the "Sources" section was good at the time it was written, it has become necessary to find something else. I don't think we should say "source X is always out and source Y is always in", but clear, general guidelines without too much room for debate would clearly do the project a good service. HelpJazz 13:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I had a second thought. Often times a genralized statement is "proved" by citing one example of the statement. For example (I'm making this up) one might say "Conservatives are richer than liberals" and as the reference might show an article about some rich conservative. I don't know if this directly falls under "sources", but I think this issue should be discussed in the Guidlines (if not the Commandments). HelpJazz 14:44, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I like the recent change by Karajou. I would love to see my comments above (which I forgot I had written until just a second ago) integrated as well. I think the comment about newspaper's reliability is interesting, but I think that blogs are of even lower reliability. Newspapers lose readers (and therefore money) if they consistently give false reports; bloggers are held to no standards, and almost none are used as a primary source of income. HelpJazz 21:48, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Partisanship of Sources

This sentence "It's typical of partisans to strengthen their criticisms of a target by claiming a source who is supposedly loyal to the target," doesn't make any sense. What does it mean to "claim a source"? Looks like a clause is missing or the "who" is unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephM (talk)

Sorry if this information is posted somewhere else, but would someone in the know mind posting a list of reliable, non-partisan sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JakeW (talk)

90/10 rule (2)

I know its just a nitpick, but there is a link that section which leads back to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edgar16 (talk)

Fixed, thanks. Philip J. Rayment 03:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Proposed Template Guideline Amendment

Where it says that templates should be immediately protected, I can understand that this is to reduce vandalism. However, due to the volatile (sp?) nature of most rosters, I would like to request that all roster templates be unprotected, unless vandalized, so that all changes can be made at the appropriate time. I make this request now because most leagues are either in or getting into their offseasons. Thank you, JY23 10:07, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Anatomical blunder

The humerus is in the arm, so it isn't the thigh bone. Unless this is a deliberate joke (in which case I'll get my coat, although I don't find it all that "humerus") it should be changed quickly, as this is one of the first pages new users read. I'd do it myself but the page is rightly locked.--CPalmer 14:09, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

• Thanks! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:46, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Request for Cleanup of Article Mainspace

I'd like to request that administrators, when they get a chance, remember to take a look at Category:Speedy deletion candidates - a category given to pages with the "speedy" Template:db tag. Thanks!--IDuan 11:41, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Typoes

For the Administrators section, it should be protect/unprotect pages, not protect/unprotected pages.--James Wilson 11:38, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Also, in the Promotions subsection, it should say nominations are not accepted, nominations not accepted.--James Wilson 11:46, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Revert Wars page proposal

What about a page discussing Revert wars for policy? I'd like to see pages discussing what exactly blocking can be done for so there's no confusion. I will write up proposed text here to be altered as needed. But I do think it's necessary so people know what the rules are exactly, and don't violate them.

Proposed Page:

"Revert Wars are caused by re-adding material that was previously deleted. Rather than undoing the deletion, discuss the proposed material on the relevant talk page instead. Andy Schlafly (ASchlafly) is the site's owner, and his reversions are final. Attempts to Revert War in such an instance are taken very seriously."

Right now, it seems like there's some confusion about blocking policy and what exactly constitutes a good block, how long it should be, and what the Appeals process is. I know I'm confused about it. I think the best way to ensure fairness is spell out what exactly a block is for as opposed to a permanent ban, and what the specific criteria are that determine the length of a block. Otherwise, if we can't show a warning was in place and the rules were clearly stated, people are just going to say blocks aren't fair, and they'd be right.

--Jzyehoshua 13:16, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

90/10 Rule Should Be Changed Or Deleted

I think the 90/10 rule needs either serious clarification or to be deleted altogether. Recently it led to a case where a user (AcomaMagic) was banned for making 3 talk page comments out of 4 total. Apparently, the rule can be used to ban someone at any point, even if they have only made a single edit. There's a huge potential for abuse with this rule, as it allows banning for any reason or no reason if a user makes only 1 or 2 talk page edits that a moderator disagrees with. In this case, AcomaMagic did not even exceed 90% talk page edits, and had made just 75% talk page edits.

I would support replacing this rule with another stating that banning is allowed for changing Conservapedia pages to support evolution or other liberal agendas. Because that's what AcomaMagic was really banned for, making a change supportive of evolution. The policy could say something like "Support for such liberal agendas as evolution should be discussed on debate topics, not on article talk pages, and articles should not be changed to reflect such changes." At least that way it will be clear to everyone what the standard is, no liberal talking points made in articles or on article pages.

But this 90/10 rule is senseless. It can be used to ban anybody at any time by anyone for any reason. It needs to either go or undergo a serious revamp, like defining how many total edits are required for rule violation. I think at least 50 edits should be required before the rule can be violated, otherwise it allows banning new users if they say anything that's disagreed with. Clearly 90% is not even a line in the sand right now either, as the aforementioned user was banned for 75% talk page edits over a 4-edit period. That's ridiculous. If the site wants to ban users for pro-liberal viewpoints or page changes that's fine, but at least clearly state it in policy. That still leaves no explanation for a silly rule like the 90/10, which is acting as a catch-all to allow moderators to ban whoever they feel like. --Joshua Zambrano 07:57, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

It also needs to be clearly specified the rules do not apply to debate topics. There's no point in having a debate section if users can be banned for discussing there. Edits made to the debate section should not count at all. It makes zero sense to say we want to discourage the incessant talking of other sites when we have a debate topics section that other wikis don't have! And if we allow banning for opposing points of view in the debate topics section, then it makes the debate section pointless. What point is there in having a debate section where only one side is allowed to present their points? That is ridiculous. I debate constantly from socially conservative points of view, but there's no point in debating only those you agree with, you never learn anything or say anything that needs to be heard. You'll never convince anyone allowing only one side to present their arguments. --Joshua Zambrano 08:02, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Proposed Rewrite of 90/10 Rule

I propose rewriting the section as follows - proposed changes are bolded:

“

The 90/10 rule, unique to Conservapedia, authorizes the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive article talk page,[2] bickering, last wordism, and other unproductive activity. Specifically, as stated in the Conservapedia:Commandments since soon after the formation of Conservapedia: "Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account after 50 total edits to articles and talk pages (excluding debate pages and user pages, but not user talk pages)." The 90/10 Rule applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Inordinate amount of talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk, as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn. Users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. But no project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Discussion of liberal viewpoints should occur on debate topics, not on articles and their talk pages. Users who edit articles and their talk pages should be productive by the 50 edit mark (excluding debate topic edits, which exist to allow disagreement from opposing views). Edits made to debate topics do not count toward the 50 total edits, nor do they count as talk page edits. Edits made to one's own user pages do not count either, although edits to user talk pages do. The 90/10 Rule is remarkably adept at discouraging and eliminating the mobocracy or talk pollution that runs rampant on other sites, such as Wikipedia. Implementation is simple and application is swift.

”

I also propose a new section for "Point of View" as follows, with any other key issues added as necessary:

“

Conservapedia operates from a conservative point of view, specifically a Young Earth Creationist, pro-heterosexual marriage, Pro-Life point of view. Articles and article talk pages should therefore avoid support for Evolution, homosexuality, and abortion, given the site's purpose. Those who wish to discuss contrasting views should do so in the debate section.

”

--Joshua Zambrano 08:32, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

I think it should be very clear what banning is allowed for and then we should stick to it. But right now the 90/10 rule is far too ambiguous and vague, as evidenced by the recent ban on AcomaMagic for 4 total edits, 75% of them to talk pages. Clearly the rules aren't written clearly enough right now for people to know what a bannable offense is, and definitely should be updated. --Joshua Zambrano 08:47, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

I believe the 90/10 rule is intentionally vague right now so Sysops and blocking editors don't have to nitpick and count edits. If the vast majority of a user's recent edits are unproductive talk, they can be blocked. But this shouldn't be abused, for example, by giving exceedingly long blocks to new users who have not broken any other rule. This guideline gives a lot of discretion to the Sysops. Whether some of the Sysops around here are capable of such discretion is another debate entirely...

Also, adding in the part about 50 edits is probably not a great idea. It would just give 50 free edits to users who come here to argue without trying to improve the project, even if they're not trolling or breaking any other rule. But along these lines, I think Sysops need to do a better job of assuming good faith, because every time a user criticizes something on this site, they're not necessarily trolling or trying to cause trouble. --Randall7 14:53, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Why should this even be a concern? We have a debate section for a reason, right? So those who disagree can discuss the issues, right? If they want to disagree, as long as they do that in the debate topics specifically, I don't see why that should be an issue. Sometimes those who are most in disagreement have objections they want resolved before becoming highly productive editors. That was how it was for me when I came, actually. I talked a lot because I was trying to get a feel for what Conservapedia was like and whether this was a place for me to try and help improve. I had concerns about the policy. Only through talking to Conservative did I start to believe in the site, and made a gut decision to begin contributing. My point is that disagreement is often the first step for editors to decide whether or not to contribute. Disagreement may not indicate "trolling" but unresolved concerns about the site that are barriers to deciding to contribute.

I think you're right that a big problem is assuming good faith. I see a very quick trigger finger on the part of certain moderators who look for any reason to block and ban. The same reason I dislike Obama's support of the NDAA is the same reason I'm concerned here. I quote the founding fathers on religious freedom and human rights all the time. So I can't help but notice when users are treated unfairly by those same standards here on the site. The policies should be specific so users know what the standard is. There is way too much room for discretion in blocking and banning right now, and frankly I think it is hurting Conservapedia's reputation. --Joshua Zambrano 15:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

I personally feel that we should not have any limit on talk. Even if a user does spend 99% of his/her time talking, and proposing changes, they are still getting more done to the project than someone who spend's their time blocking, linkspamming, etc. Furthermore, we should not be in a position where we are even debating whether or not a person can speak. As Voltaire said:

“

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

”

brenden 15:31, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Personally I feel this way too, but the site does have a specific purpose of conservatism, and I see nothing wrong with that. It's Andy's site and if he wants to ban users for liberal arguments on talk page discussions that's his call. I recognize moderators like JamesWilson ban others for liberal beliefs on evolution or other topics for saying anything they consider objectionable. I personally disagree strongly with evolution, but for me it's a fairness issue. If we're going to allow banning for comments supportive of evolution by new users, per JamesWilson's recent blocks, then we should at least make sure the guidelines clearly state what the rules are, so people don't get banned without knowing what they did wrong. And it definitely shouldn't allow banning of people who state such opinions in debates - and I have seen users blocked for their opinions in debates before - which is obviously wrong. --Joshua Zambrano 15:41, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

The blocks were placed, as I said on another page, because he was trolling. He was adding evolutionary POV knowing full well this is a Christian conservative site, and his talk page edits were not productive at all, hence 90/10. --James Wilson 17:19, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Conservative can mean different things to different people. You're assuming he knew that. But why would he have gone to so much trouble explaining himself and even using edit summaries if he was just trying to cause trouble? And why ask on Andy's talk page? I'm not convinced he was aware he was doing anything wrong. He might be conservative on other issues and just not on evolution. The edits show signs of someone who didn't understand what the policies were on this issue.

The Conservapedia Commandments and guidelines don't make it all that clear what the site considers to be Conservatism, and what editing policy is. It's easy to see how a new user could've not realized they were making a mistake. That's why it's necessary to change the guidelines so people know what the rules are. He did make at least one productive edit that I can see, and therefore did not violate 90/10.[1] --Joshua Zambrano 17:30, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

There is no policy or statement on the site that I know of that says "only Creationist views are allowed here and you get banned for opposing views". I don't know why you think he should've known that, and don't assume good faith about his intentions. It's highly necessary to change site guidelines so people at least know that these are the rules here, because otherwise banning like this for such comments is unjustifiable. --Joshua Zambrano 17:33, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

He knew full well. Liberals have often bickered about lack of "tolerance" of evolutionary POV and about Barack Hussein Obama's middle name being used in the article title. He knew and was intentionally trolling. If you do not realize this, I will not try to explain this point further. Look at the name of the site: Conservapedia. If evolution is what he wants, evolution is what he will get on Wikipedia. He can go there to spout those talking points he calls "science". He wouldn't have reverted me or Senior Sysop User:Ed Poor if he didn't know he was in the wrong. "Assume good faith" stuff is malarkey on Wikipedia; editors are recognized by their contributions in making this a trustworthy encyclopedia. --James Wilson 17:44, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Which only indicates he has some liberal views, not that he was intentionally trolling. It doesn't show all his views are liberal or that he supports Obama (it's possible for an Obama opponent to dislike the middle name because they think it makes the article look unprofessional). That he made a productive edit and was trying to talk things through suggests he was interested in making the site better, and not intentionally trolling. I don't think there's evidence to conclude he was intentionally trolling. He only made one revert that I can see, of your revert of him on the Solar System page.[2] I don't know that that's enough to conclude he knew he was in the wrong. --Joshua Zambrano 17:51, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Conclusion

Ultimately, banning people for a 90/10 violation that never actually occurred like this just looks bad. It makes conservatives look bad, it makes Creationists look bad, and it makes Christians look bad. I don't like being made to look bad on three different fronts. --Joshua Zambrano 17:52, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Creationists look bad if they are forced to take false evolutionist info paraded as fact; conservatives look bad if they are forced to let liberals have their way; and Christians look bad if they are forced to have things thrown in their faces which are contrary to their beliefs. While I can concede JZ's point about this 90/10 incident, the fact of the matter was that the individual in question was blocked by a senior admin, and it is to that admin that one must go to to seek permission to get the block lifted.

And keep in mind that this is a Christian, conservative website; anyone who wants to alter that small fact had best be editing somewhere else. Karajou 18:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Concerning the 90/10 incident, that's what I was looking at originally. I had been thinking the original block was for a 90/10 incident and it just got extended. I was thinking originally I was just reverting JamesWilson's block, not EdPoor's and should've looked more carefully, but that was my reasoning originally.[3] I should've looked more closely and realized the reasoning behind EdPoor's block was different than for JamesWilson's, that one involved a 90/10 rule and the newer block was for AcomaMagic's lone revert, rather than just an update to JamesWilson's block.

"Christians look bad if they are forced to have things thrown in their faces which are contrary to their beliefs" - Actually, I'm pretty sure Christianity is supposed to believe in something about turning the other cheek. Doing unto others as you want them to do to you. Loving your enemies. That kind of thing. I am a Christian first and political afterward as a side effect. I still hold concerns that this 90/10 rule is allowing for blocking of anyone for any reason, and is contrary to Christian ideals like honesty and fairness. --Joshua Zambrano 18:23, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

"Turning the other cheek" does not mean we stand there and get slapped repeatedly; "honesty and fairness" does not mean we accept ideas or edits that are hostile to our beliefs or harmful to this site; "loving your enemies" does not mean you're going to stand there and allow the enemy to have his way on this site. Karajou 19:50, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

I never said we needed to "accept ideas or edits that are hostile to our beliefs or harmful to this site". I was arguing instead that IF we are to ban on the basis of such liberal beliefs, then what we should do is state that clearly in policy. It's why I proposed putting in policy, "Conservapedia operates from a conservative point of view, specifically a Young Earth Creationist, pro-heterosexual marriage, Pro-Life point of view. Articles and article talk pages should therefore avoid support for Evolution, homosexuality, and abortion, given the site's purpose. Those who wish to discuss contrasting views should do so in the debate section."

As a former CreationWiki editor, I don't mind one bit with a wiki having a Creationist Point of View - I just think that we should clearly state it in the rules to ensure honesty and fairness. Right now, the difference I see is that CreationWiki states their policy clearly in their rules: "The articles on the Creation Wiki are written specifically from the "creationist point of view" (CPOV), which holds that the universe and life on Earth were created by God. Because of the unique purpose of the Creation Wiki in providing a point-of-view digest, only creationists are permitted to edit articles. Non-creationists (or atheists) are prohibited from making any changes to text, except for spelling and grammar corrections. However, everyone is encouraged to review articles content using the adjoining discussion pages."[4]

I still say such a policy should be clearly stated the way CreationWiki states theirs, to ensure everyone knows what the site rules and policy are. You seem to be thinking I am saying Evolutionists should get to say whatever they want on the site. To the contrary, I am saying we should be more similar to CreationWiki in fairly stating what the policy is in the guidelines in order to be honest with everyone. I actually like the Creation Point of View (CPOV) which is why I said earlier, "the site does have a specific purpose of conservatism, and I see nothing wrong with that." I don't mind wikis like CreationWiki and Conservapedia having specific points of view, I just strongly feel they should state this up front in the guidelines so the wiki's policy is clear to everyone. CreationWiki does that, Conservapedia does not. That's the difference.

CreationWiki is clear in stating what their Point of View is. I'm not convinced Conservapedia does so. And I think the 90/10 rule is vague enough that it gets used to get rid of people for any reason or no reason, and needs to be clarified. CreationWiki is clear in stating they want articles written from a certain POV. Everyone knows banning can occur for violating this. Conservapedia doesn't state their policy, and instead allows editors to use a catch-all clause in the 90/10 rule, banning them arbitrarily. So I am saying I am fine with the wiki having a Creationist POV, but like CreationWiki, it should clearly state with this is, and make a rule for banning based on it - and make the 90/10 rule more clear so it's not used unfairly anymore on people who've made just a few edits, including to the debate section. --Joshua Zambrano 01:15, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

The other thing is that CreationWiki does not have a debate topics section. I'm not aware of any other wiki that does have one. And that muddies the waters a bit. It's fine to say "we don't like liberal points of view on the site" but that doesn't mean you want to censor them in the debate topics section too, right? If so, you should clearly state rules like 90/10 don't apply to the debate topics section. Because otherwise, it looks pretty ridiculous to have a debate topics section at all if you don't want to let opposing views participate in it. If you're going to make keeping liberal points of view off the site in all areas, including debate topics, a priority, fine, but I think the whole debate topics section, at least on politics and religion, should be completely removed then.

No other wikis have a debate topics section suggesting openness and freedom of discussion. So it comes off as hypocritical to then let opposing views be censored in the debate topics section via 90/10. Basically, the idea that too much talk is wrong and that opposing views should be censored on the wiki is completely contrary to the concept of a debate topics section including sections on religion, philosophy, and politics. So if you only want one side to be allowed to participate in the debate, you might as well just delete the debate topics section, as it would be more honest in stating the site discourages discussion of the issue. If that's the route you want to take, fine, but at least be honest with everyone about it.

Right now, I think Conservapedia's policy is less honest with users than CreationWiki's, because it doesn't state clearly what its point of view is, allows banning for a non-issue (90/10) that can be applied arbitrarily and unfairly rather than stating banning is for liberal viewpoints (unlike CreationWiki), and it has a debate topics section that portrays itself as more open to discussion than CreationWiki and other wikis when the 90/10 rule policy appears to contradict such a concept. Put it all together, and I think Conservapedia needs to resolve a number of things to be more fair like CreationWiki's policy. --Joshua Zambrano 01:22, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps a review of the blocking policies could be implemented for this dispute?brenden 18:25, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

My main issues are:

• 1 - Conservapedia doesn't clearly state its point of view and policy on banning liberal views like CreationWiki does, and then to make matters worse, moderators assume users should know what the (unstated) site policy is.
• 2 - Conservapedia allows arbitrary banning using the 90/10 rule for any reason or no reason to compensate for not clearly stating a POV policy - rather than just saying "we ban liberal points of view on X, Y, and Z" you ban based on 90/10, which only leads to resentment because people don't understand why they got banned. You should make 90/10 more specific and just clearly state you ban for certain liberal points of view to stop what comes across as a sneaky way to ban for a non-issue (90/10).
• 3 - Discussion in the debate topics section should be protected from rules like 90/10 which appear to say too much talk is a bad thing; that or the debate topics section deleted. It comes off as contradictory to say too much talk is a bad thing, and liberal points of view aren't allowed, and then have a one-of-a-kind debate topics section. Conservapedia needs to decide whether it supports open disagreement, discussion, and free speech on the issues, or whether it wants to keep all liberals off the site. You can't have both.

--Joshua Zambrano 01:39, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

The other thing is that I've been debating liberals and atheists for years, since 2003. I'm used to being on the other end, where they are seeking to censor my views, and I am in the minority. I debate on articles for news sites like CNN[5], Huffington Post[6], and C-Span[7][8], debate forums like DebatePolitics[9], RenewAmerica[10], and EVCForum[11], and various other forums like Richard Dawkins' forum[12] and OKCTalk[13]. I tend to end up debating 10 or 20 liberals and atheists at once.

I guess my point is that I'm not afraid to discuss the issues with those I disagree with. I don't believe one needs to censor opposing views to protect one's own. To the contrary, I've made a lifetime's habit of seeking out those I disagree with and debating what I believe fearlessly, believing my views are right. It's why my points are all so effective, they've been honed after years and years of debating liberals and atheists. While some do resort to name-calling when they can't beat my logic, on some occasions we walk away having learned from it, even though we disagree, on amiable terms. My credentials as socially conservative are unmatched, few have gone to such lengths to criticize liberal thinking on issues like abortion, evolution, and marriage. But I do so through the free speech process, engaging with them in debate, not by avoiding discussion. That's how I've always operated. --Joshua Zambrano 02:08, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Administrative Asisstants

This section should either be redefined or this standard should be enforced. I was blocked by an assistant/junior administrator for what was apparently a policy violation a few days ago. Either formally grant these assistants more authority or enforce the status quo. --Anglican (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2017 (EDT)