Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?/welshmanps

The comment referred to

Is this comment really from a sysop? Lets keep this kind of childish insults to minimum please, they just make this encyclopedia look bad. AustinP 13:49, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, looking through the history reveals that the "motto" above was something this user had on his page. ~ Sharon^Talk 14:18, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

But the user deleted it from his page, and to put it back now, out of context, looks like a deliberate insult and a cheap shot. Isn't a user page supposed to be the user's castle? Shouldn't that principle be maintained, even once the user has left us? Humblpi 16:55, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Doesn't count for sysops or for edits the sysops approve of.--TomMoore 00:43, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the support above, everybody, but I thought I'd better come back one last time, to explain my reasons for throwing in the towel, especially given developments behind my back. Part of me expected that rather than query why I was leaving, the account would be blocked. I didn't expect a sysop to spitefully and childishly [1] revert a part of my original talk space to convert a saying (which I rather enjoy) to imply an insult (not to mention he couldn't come up with one himself), rather than inspiration. Just how many Commandments were broken there, I wonder, and what action will be taken against the perpetrator? Probably none, but Ed Poor, that was shallow and mean-spirited and I'd like to know your justification for doing so. Will you own up, or cower behind a shield of "personal remarks?"

I'm also expecting this post will be reverted (so much for free speech) and my user account blocked again. No matter, I won't be back and I've recorded this little chapter's history on my personal blog anyway for broader consumption. It does give a very clear example, however, of just how valued the average contributor is to this wiki.

So why did I finally decide to leave?
1. The frightening comments made about "reverting the Bible to remove liberal bias," in the debate about the forgiven prostitute. This either implies a paranoia regarding liberalism that borders on the dangerous, or some sort of messianic delusion by the writer that they are bigger than God's Word. It's more worrying that the other Christians on here seem to see nothing wrong with that stance, or are too frightened to comment. If it was meant as a joke, then it was in exceedingly poor taste and needs a public apology and retraction.

2. When I first joined, one of my first entries was on the Meiji Restoration and I was quite rightly called on it by Ed Poor and Phil Rayment for possible copyright infringement. I duly slunk off, rewrote, and resubmitted it. However, when similar queries are raised regarding a certain university's entry, then one of the sysops mentioned above, rather than checking the well-documented copyright infringements, proceeded to block anybody raising that query, despite the fact that if the copyright infringement had come to light, it could have had serious implications for the site. Obviously, there is some sort of cabal in force, where certain users operate above the law of this wiki, which is unacceptable. Once again, Ed Poor, what defence can you offer for your actions against well-meaning members of this wiki, over somebody plagiarising work? On the subject of copyright, the repeated uploading of copyrighted images (especially from AP) by certain sysops could end up costing the site owners a great deal of money, if they're ever called on it.

3. The final straw came in one of the worst examples of indefensible deceit I've yet seen. Aschlafly first propounds that "That's ridiculous - conservatives don't categorize people by race" in this debate, then only after saying that modifies any entry with the category "African-American" that were already in Conservapedia. Here's some examples, I'm sure anybody interested will find plenty more:[2], [3], [4], [5], [6] & [7]. For somebody who consistently harps on about Liberal Deceit, that was a cynical slap in the face to the users of this wiki and how anybody can keep their faith in what he says is beyond me. That was dishonest, deceitful and morally corrupt. I know it would be useless to expect an explanation as to why he lied, or why racial classifications was present in the first place, if conservatives don't use them.

4. Finally, and I admit this is a personal bias, but I have grave problems with a site purporting to be for Christian Conservatives, where one of the leading sysops is not a member of the Christian church, but rather a cult - the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon is very clearly defined as a cult and I'm surprised and disturbed by this wiki's association with it and the sysop who is a cultist.

I can no longer associate myself with something that is rapidly giving both conservatism and fundamental Christianity a bad name. I wish those remaining behind luck, you're going to need it in ever-increasing doses. I believe there are some good intentions and well-meaning people involved in this project (although give up on the night edit requests, HelpJazz, you've been given enough slaps in the face by now to realise it's not going to happen), but it has lost its focus and has become more of a forum for a few individuals to spout their slightly odd world-view, with no fear of dissent, due to the much abused blocking of users with a ounce of common sense. I wish the little people and PJR (I don’t agree with many of your views, but your heart is in the right place) well, and to the others... Godspeed. Welshman 12:36, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

(14:43, 13 April 2008) The page is deleted by Ed Poor.