User:Damo/Thegreatbattle

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

We all have bad days sometimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, SharonW 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning".  Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. Conservative 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 *  RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP
 * How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
 * The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. Rob Smith 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are actually finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --Ed Poor Talk 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all?  I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong.  I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --MRellek 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

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

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


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

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

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

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --Ed Poor Talk 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS.  I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits.  SamHB 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Ed, Did this warrant a one day block in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the intemperate vindictive attitude of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed.  Rob Smith 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
 * First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible.  I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned.  Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
 * Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact?  I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree.  There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal.  Why give him a chance to do more damage?"
 * That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions.  The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.
 * Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably.  I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung.  What's the old saying?  "Once bitten, twice shy?"  Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
 * I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this.  Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
 * Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
 * Respectfully, --Benp 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Ben, you make some very good points, some discussion-worthy points, and one time, you utterly missed the point.
 * The bad news first: Sharon's proposal isn't about vandals, but rather about parodists. Nobody is suggesting to hold a meeting when some idiot is running across the wiki, replacing articles with "BOUNCING TITS!!!" or something like that. This is only about parodists.
 * [tangent]
 * Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written policy-definition of "parody" on this isn't really hitting the nail on the head. It's a definition of "parody", but not the definition we're implicitly using here. We're talking about people whose edits are over-the-top by normal standards, but well within the accepted limits of Conservapedia. If you go pretty much anywhere and argue that the Bible needs to be retranslated because it's too liberal, or that Jesus disproved General Relativity and proved Quantum Mechanics, you will be thrown out for being an obvious parodist (as per the definition we currently got written down). On this site, however, all of these things have been established as insights by the site founder. If I suddenly started agreeing with Andy that the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution, would I be a parodist?
 * An effective approach to parody is difficult because Conservapedia's baseline for "normal and acceptable" is not quite where even most other conservatives would place it - both for content and conduct. This is why parodists like Bugler managed to become so successful: They imitated the worst traits of certain sysops, thus blending in perfectly from the POV of most sysops. Just to remind people of an uncomfortable truth: Bugler was one of the nastiest people imaginable and drove out several people who might have helped the site and pretty much got away with it to the point of almost becoming a sysop. (He was only "caught" because of technicalities, not because of his behavior.)
 * The solution lies less in worrying about whether somebody genuinely believes what he's writing and more in reforming this wiki from the top so abusive idiots who make absurd edits stand out properly again. As long as parody is indistinguishable from normal behavior of our supposed role models, it's hard to really justify a ban.
 * [/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. --Sid 3050 16:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Please delete
Please delete the page I have pointed out on recent changes!!! I have blocked the user that created it. MaxFletcher 20:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I do not condone that user's behaviour for a second but it is perfectly predictable. It is exactly what one would expect as a reaction to Conservative's trolling "essays".  --PierreS 20:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I don't remember if it is standard practice or not, but you may want to delete the corresponding talk page as well, so it isn't hanging in the ether. WesleySHello! 20:35, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * It would help if someone provided a link. Rob Smith 21:18, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * It has been deleted. And the link would likely never have made it through the filters from the likes of me.  WesleySHello! 21:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Pierre, I am sorry you feel that many atheists/evolutionists have thin skins and lack self-restraint when they read comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. Do you agree with Wired magazine's observation that atheists tend to be aggressive, socially challenged males? Conservative 21:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Um, I believe the user has been blocked. And, just for the record, most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else. But I wouldn't know about atheists the US. MaxFletcher 21:49, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Max, are you in the UK? Have you met Richard Dawkins? Conservative 00:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * No, I am not in the UK and no I haven't meet Richard Dawkins but I have read two of his books. Nonetheless most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else including members of my family, colleagues and close friends. Most people in my part of the world are rather personal about their faith (or lack thereof) and don't feel the need to politicize nor pour scorn on the beliefs of others. MaxFletcher 00:47, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I see you live in NZ now. Please see if you can find some statistics on NZ Christian charitable giving versus NZ atheists charitable giving. In the USA, even if church giving isn't counted, Christians give more per capita according to some data that I am acquainted with. See: Atheism and uncharitableness I do think that charitable giving is an important form of kindness and also it can a good aggregate indicator as well in terms of a population's kindness - especially in the developed world.  Conservative
 * Interestingly, there was an international survey on this recently. NZ has about 1/3 of the population marking "No religion" on the most recent survey and New Zealand came out as the most charitable country in the world next to Australia.. But again, most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else including members of my family, colleagues and close friends. MaxFletcher 00:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Max, comparing apples to apples is far more meaningful and significant. Namely, you have to compare NZ Christians vs. NZ atheists. Conservative 01:24, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I can think of no such study I'm afraid nor does it have any bearing on my comment. I am in fact one of the only Christians in my group of friends (outside of church) and everyone treats me, and each other, with kindness and respect. MaxFletcher 01:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

SamHB 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
 * SamHB, very melodramatic. Your bold text suggest you are very angry.  I suspect that is because I asked you to show me how its done and create outstanding content that would gain a following and I also asked you if you currently have a following. By the way, I am flattered that you have followed my content for several years now. :)  Best wishes in your off wiki pursuits because I don't think your crusade to remove my administrator rights is going to give you a sense of accomplishment.  Conservative 00:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)


 * The bold text was copied directly from the other edit, where it had been placed for emphasis, not due to anger. You also seem to be referring to a discussion taking place at Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%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.  SamHB 00:27, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * SamHB, I still think your quest is quixotic. By the way, given your liberal leanings, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to you that in the Western World, the left in many cases is running out other peoples money to spend on their misadventures so your in good company in terms of pursuing quixotic quests. I have two parting words for you: "Austerity budget". Conservative 01:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

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

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

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


 * Conservative - you and I have discussed this in an entirely civil manner to this point, and my opinion of you has not changed with this section, but I am requesting that you remove this section on your own accord (but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am sending an email to Andy); even in quotes, "useful idiot" is a personal attack - and I am convinced that this type of name calling is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.-- I Duan  17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * The term "useful idiot" is political term and I have also heard it used outside of politics as well. Here is a definition: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot I see no reason retract this information and I am very positive that RobS doesn't want me to oversight it given his previous statements.  In short, I think the shoe fits and I am giving others a warning. Conservative 17:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Conservative, I quote from your source: "The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial" - I maintain its not keeping with site decorum to call an established editor any of these things (certainly at least calling an editor either of the first two - "naive" or "foolish" - would constitute a personal attack).-- I Duan  17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I also see Rob losing his sysop rights soon. After all, he is trying to do three things: (1) Make the rules clearer so people have a clear idea what can get them blocked and don't have to live in constant fear of breaking some obscure rule interpretation. (2) Apply the rules also to sysops. (3) Generally hold sysops accountable for their actions and limit abuse of powers.
 * The last person who tried to drag the site down this absolutely horrible path was some liberal... what was his name... oof... oh yeah, Philip J. Rayment. You know, the guy who tried to stop Bugler and TK from driving out everybody? The guy who actually dared to ask why some people were banned and wanted to see evidence? Yeah, that went well, didn't it?
 * Because we all know that a community will grow if a group of people can waltz all over the place with editorial authority, no pressure to follow the rules, and the power to block anybody for any reason.
 * It's a true tragedy that Andy is looking away as Rob is trying to salvage and help this community. --Sid 3050 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. MaxFletcher 17:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Sid, you are trying to cloud the central issue. I clearly said I was not against clarifying block policy. It's RobS's other behavior that I have a problem with. Conservative 17:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * But wasn't the central issue to start with your own behavior Conservative? It seems to me you dislike having your own behavior called into question so believe it is Rob causing trouble. MaxFletcher 18:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I say both of them are causing trouble. Conservative is doing things people find wrong, People state this, Rob backs them up, which from Conservatives point of view is wrong, they argue, Conservative/Rob takes it to pages across the wiki while others either side with or against Rob/Conservative, pushing the fight to multiple fronts and spamming andy with "new message!". So both are to blame for exasperating the situation. --SeanS 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. Conservative
 * The central issue is indeed Conservative's behaviour. Years ago when Conservapedia had an abuse page it was almost entirely filled with complaints about Conservative.  I don't understand why he has been allowed to run amok for so long.  All Rob is doing is trying to introduce the rule of law to the site.  --JarradD 18:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * No, the central issue is the power structure on this site being so screwed up that sysops have all the rights while regular editors have pretty much none (while conversely the sysops don't have to follow the rules while editors have to follow all of them and then some). Conservative's behavior (rapid and frequent deletion of articles or talk pages, oversighting of edits, refusal to communicate constructively, etc.) is simply the most noticeable symptom. Rob's attempts to start a sweeping policy reform and to, as you said, introduce the rule of the law to the site, would indeed restrict Conservative's power abuse, but it would also be a solid step to fix the structural issues the site has. (Which also nicely explains why no other sysop is actually siding with Rob.) --Sid 3050 18:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * JarradD, I have never been popular among atheist/evolutionist whiners. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue. Conservative 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * No. You are not popular among editors who wish to be treated with respect and according to the rules.  --JarradD 18:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Your Fairly well-acquainted with the anti-conservtive viewpoint for somebody who made an account 20 minutes ago. You reek of sock-puppetry/ill-intentions. --SeanS 18:31, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Why do I reek of ill intent? I want to see this site succeed.  Which is why I want properly enforced rules rather than bullying and arbitrary authority.  --JarradD 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Because you seem to know a lot about this situation despite only having just made your account, which either means you pointlessly lurked for a while or your a parodist. --SeanS 18:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Somewhat fitting, given that part of the problem is that various people who made good points in the past have been banned because the sysops don't like people who dare to speak up. And Sean, PLEASE don't throw around "parodist" so easily. --Sid 3050 18:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I have sided with neither Rob or Conservative. I am pointing out that a new user who suddenly comes into a debate speaking with knowledge of the situation is going to appear suspicious. --SeanS 18:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * A parodist is someone who pretends to be something they are not. There is no evidence JarradD is a parodist. MaxFletcher 18:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anything I have written could be regarded as parody. You have successfully derailed this discussion.  Congratulations Sean.  How about getting back on topic.  --JarradD 18:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. As it stands, he brings more doubt and distrust by getting involved in a dispute between Senior Admins despite having no reason to fully understand the situation. The fact his first edits were to get involved raise even more doubts to his intentions--SeanS 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more.
 * How is that possible? they all get banhammered at the door. Rob Smith 21:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * If anyone's intentions are suspect, it is you. You have totally derailed this discussion.  It was a discussion on a vitally important topic and you have made it all about me.  Could you please attempt to get back on topic?  --JarradD 18:50, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

I would like to return this discussion to matters of significance. The feeling among a number of editors is that there is a lack of uniformity in enforcement of rules and that some sysops act in an arbitrary and, sometimes, capricious manner. What is sought is, in essence, the rule of law. A system wherein all editors know where they stand and are not subject to whim. In my view this is a hugely important issue for this site. In any venture these issues are important, but in a co-operative venture such as a wiki they are absolutely vital. --JarradD 19:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * If I recall correctly, haven't people been banned from Conservapedia for being a member of an atheistic site before? If we do want consistency of rules/sysop accountability and if Rob is indeed a member of said site, then shouldn't he face a penalty? --BradleyS 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * How cute of you to start enforcing the most idiotic "rule" ever that was likely introduced by a troll who wanted CP to fail. But hey, sure, all for it. I'm sure Ed Poor will agree; after all, he has no account on-... oh, wait. :) --Sid 3050 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --JarradD 20:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * In his/her world, there is no evidence at all unless he/she personally admits anything, such as his/her gender or his/her name. So what makes you think he/she would admit his/her username on any site? Give it up, liberals! --Sid 3050 20:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Indeed. We seek him/her/it here. We seek him/her/it there. Those Frenchies seek him/her/it everywhere.  Is he/she/it in heaven?  Is he/she/it in hell?  That d****d elusive Pimpernel.  --JarradD 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Obviously Conservative is not a member of that atheist website because it would be really stupid of him to complain about Rob's association with it while simultaneously holding an account there. --BradleyS 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Yes, it would. --JarradD 20:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Gentlemen, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. Schlafly's talk page is not the place to hold such debates? And that it would be both prudent and considerate to move this discussion to another forum? --Benp 21:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Seeing how Andy seems determined not to chime in, this may be for the best. I'd support a mass move of the last few sections (starting with "User: RobS") to Conservapedia:Community Portal‎. --Sid 3050 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. MaxFletcher 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--SeanS 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Let me explain Conservapedia Kremlinology (tea leaf reading): If the site owner likes the idea, he'll speak up. If he's neutral or negative, silence. That's traditoinally how Senior CP Sysops read the tea leaves. Conclusion:
 * neither RobS nor User: Conservative desysoped;
 * 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;
 * 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 User:Conservative's incivility here and hang the, per CP:Guidelines? I'd do it, but I have a COI. Let's help this man/woman/other become a better editor. He/she/it needs to learn how to play nice with others. Please treat him/her/other respectfully. But remember, his/her/other days of being an allegedly abusive sysop are over. Rob Smith 22:23, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * It would be nice if we didn't have to give a PC-esque list of pronouns for him. --SeanS 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. Rob Smith 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't suggest trying to sweep this discussion under the rug. I believe Admin Karajou wants to give his thoughts to Ashlafly on this matter. And of course, I can certainly consider asking other Sysops to weigh in as well. I would suggest that RobS not thrash around in this tar pit he has jumped in.  Conservative 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. Rob Smith 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * RobS, I have been asked if I felt you should lose your Admin privileges and if the benefits you bring outweigh your costs. So far, I have said that you should not lose your Admin status. You most recent behavior which I mentioned above, is tipping the scale in the wrong direction. I suggest making some changes and avoid trying to dodge issues. Conservative 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. Rob Smith 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I certainly don't think the discussion should be swept under the rug, but I do feel that consideration for Andy merits moving it to a more appropriate venue. I support the idea of moving the discussion to Community Portal.  --Benp 23:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * If this discussion is attempted to be pushed under the rug and RobS chooses not to address matters. This certainly would be another sign that RobS should lose his Admin status. If a an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion, this certainly does not work in his favor. I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not willing to give RobS infinite second chances in terms of how I feel about his behavior. I have also been told that Karajou wants to join the discussion on Ashlafly's talk page. Conservative 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * RobS, I can live with you being an egotistical blowhard. On the other hand, a backstabbing untrustworthy egotistical blowhard is a problem. Conservative 23:36, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * "If a (sic) an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion..." I'm sorry.  Who were we talking about Pot?  --JarradD 23:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)


 * play power games and try stifle discussion
 * My friend, User:Conservative, seriously, who stifles discussion by locking their user page? who stifles discussion by placing redirects on article talk pages? who stifles discussion by deleting other Sysops comments? who stifles discussion by oversighting other sysop's comments? Need I remind you, you started these threads claiming I wanted to discuss things with you and you want no discussion on your talk page. Then, you came here, claiming some offense, but deleted and oversighted the evidence. Do I have to point out to you, what other's see, extremely erratic behavior? I'm sorry, but this really borders on trolling. If it wasn't for the fact Conservapedia can be improved from discussing some of these problems, I'd really rather remain silent. I'm sorry, but this is not an issue of personalities, it regards the future of this project. Rob Smith 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
 * RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have untrustworthy backstabbers as my friends. Second, people are free to leave me messages to me. I know you like to whine about my talk page, but please restrain yourself because a user's talk page is still his/her castle.  Next, I am certainly amenable to admitting where I can make improvements and the talk pages on comedy/satires on now open.  On the other hand, I have yet to see you apologize for your backstabbing behavior. And your poor behavior in terms of altering my talk page was also never apologized for. Of course, your modus operandi is avoiding taking responsibility for your bad behavior.  This does not work in your favor. Conservative 00:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Am I the only who thinks all Admins should have their talkpages left unlocked so people can ask them things? MaxFletcher 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--SeanS 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. NickP 00:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Right now I am neutral however. I see Conservative's points on this, but Rob has done a lot of good work for this wiki too. I think it is best of we leave to to Andy to decide. NickP 00:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

'''RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication.''' Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy. Conservative 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Hold on. Why is RobS even a member of an Atheist website. Surely he of all people knows that they will not accept the logic of conservatism and that it is a hopeless cause to try to convert them that way. NickP 00:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * There is converting going on. I just received an email saying RobS is becoming more and more like the members of a atheist vandal website. Conservative 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * In that case I am not sure RobS should be given this much power, if he has such close affiliations with sites that support such illogical viewpoints. RobS, you are a good contributor, but I'm sorry; if what Conservative says is true, then it is better safe than sorry. NickP 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --BradleyS 02:45, 28 July 2011 (EDT)


 * If this atheist vandal website is wikipedia, than I should admit that I have an account there. However I have not used it for quite a few months now. I think it would be wrong to punish people like me, who only were trying to help when they made Wikipedia accounts but have since moved on. User:MorrisF
 * I have an account at just about every "wiki" type site. I was an active member of "the trio of wiki" (Cpedia, censored, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? ~ JonG ~ 08:09, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Wait a minute. Why were Conservative's posts replaced with "Personal attacks removed"? He never personally attacked anyone. Plus, many of his key points were removed. NickP 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
 * this user did it. ive since reverted it.--SeanS 10:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Elvis images
My requests somehow got stuck in an archive.--JamesWilson 00:21, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Hello Conservapedia!
Hi Mr. Schlafly. I'm a new user here, and I just wanted to thank you for making this resource. I look forward to continuing to contribute, and I hope my recent edits have improved the encyclopedia. Thanks! User:MorrisF
 * Ditto. This is a very good resource for students. I shudder to think what would happen if Wikipedia was the only reliable resources for my children. NickP 01:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

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