User:Diebot/User:Conservative/Complaints

This is a backup of revision 108468 at Conservapedia
title:	User:Conservative/Complaints
timestamp:	2007-04-15T14:51:25Z
user:	AmesG
comment:	/* Macroevolution */
page-id:	18381
rev-id:	108468

Complaints about Conservative go here, until his talk page is unlocked.

Macroevolution

Conservative, I saw that you submitted the article on Macroevolution to the Panel. Before you did that, though, you blanked it. I am sure you know that there is a written policy on submissions to the Panel - submissions to the Panel must stay in their current state until review has been completed. As such, I demand that you re-instate the blanked material. Obviously, though, your protection was proper - all articles under submission must be protected. Please return the content ASAP. Thank you for your quick attention to this matter.-AmesG_yo! 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I second AmesG's statements. This flagrant abuse of your sysop status is the epitome of your tyrannical editing spree here at Conservapedia. I wonder how long it will be before you delete this page and lock it, in order to hide away from the truth! MatteeNeutra 17:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Isn't there already a page for this? Or is this an attempt to sort things out with Conservative without making an official complaint? Tsumetai 17:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

That's right, Tsumetai. Plus, I can't remember where that old page is. Anyways, this new page will probably fill up fast. Do you agree that his actions were abusive?-AmesG_yo! 17:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes; involving the panel at this stage seems entirely unwarranted, and he's made no attempt whatsoever to resolve (or even state) his issues on the discussion page. Tsumetai 17:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Could some sysop please undo the damage he did, then?-AmesG_yo! 18:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, you cannot effectively BLANK an article in anticipation of a panel decision. Those are the RULES, and they apply to you.-AmesG_yo! 22:22, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Did not blank the article. I reverted it and then submitted my request to the panel if memory serves. Conservative 22:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

You submitted and then reverted. It's improper to take action like that. And other sysops agree.-AmesG_yo! 22:43, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't know of any rule regarding submitting to the panel/reverting. I think you guys are making that up. Conservative 22:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

You're not allowed to change content once you've submitted it to the panel for editing. You submitted; then reverted. Your actions have the practical effect of closing off debate, and then winning your debate without allowing anyone else a recourse. This is an action disfavored by the very policy of submission to the panel - that objectionable material is allowed to be commented upon, not removed without cause. -AmesG_yo! 22:49, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I am from Missouri. Show me the rule, AmesG. Conservative 22:52, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Your being from Missouri explains nothing. However, I do not know where the rule is codified, but I remember very pointedly that editing the Evolution article was forbidden as a result of its submission. I am certain that the analogy should be clear by now.-AmesG_yo! 23:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The evolution article if memory serves was edited after its submission to the panel. Conservative 23:02, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

By whom was it edited? Ah yes, YOU! --Hojimachong^talk 00:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It was edited for minor grammar inconsistencies, et al. Don't pretend you don't remember this rule. You were chastised by multiple sysops for making even the insertion of a comma, which was later ok'd since it changed no content.-AmesG_yo! 23:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Apparently I was right - the page got blanked. I guess this is the new reading of the rule.-AmesG_yo! 10:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Macroevolution, deleted from his talk page

Could you please explain why you locked the Macroevolution page? The edits that you reverted do not appear to me to be vandalism, and even if they were, one such edit does not, to my mind, constitute reason to lock a page. Philip J. Rayment 03:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• Philip, with all respect, a fellow Sysop should not be posting in public, making requests for explanation of another. This kind of thing has a "chilling effect" on others, and makes people defensive. --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

It was a request, not a demand. Philip J. Rayment 04:48, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• Understood. I have edited my post, to remove the inaccuracy of calling it a demand. Might I just suggest these things have better results, especially with those not well-versed in typical "wiki" procedures at other sites, when handled via email or IM? Thanks for putting up with me, Philip! You too, Conservative. --~ TK ^MyTalk 05:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure that I totally agree, but I've sent an e-mail now. Philip J. Rayment 05:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Phillip J. Raymont, please see this information regarding the Macroevolution article: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:CPanel#Macroevolution_article_-_request_a_ruling

I've seen it now, thanks. Philip J. Rayment 20:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Please see my comments about your improper use of sysop power on the macroevolution article. For your reference, the comments are here - at your complaints page - and macroevolution here. Obviously other users back me up on this issue, including a few sysops. Please take heed.AmesG_yo! 22:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)