User:Jazzman831/block

I am now officially blocked from Conservapedia for life. Why? Well, here's the series of events.

• June 28, 2007: I join Conservapedia.
• Several months pass by. During this time:

• I make almost 1,500 edits to Conservapedia, over 1,000 of which were mainspace edits. The vast majority of them, with possibly one or two total exceptions, were uncontroversial. They largely consisted of minor grammatical changes, formatting and fact checking.
• I revert vandalism from over 30 vandals
• I create or completely rewrite at least 35 pages; some of the additions are pretty substantial.
• TK petitions Andy on my behalf to allow me to edit nights.

• August 21st:

• I allow myself to slip into a debate with Ed Poor about cp:deterrence theory, particularly during the Cold War. I realize, upon writing this response, that nobody has made any political theory articles (particularly national security policy theory and international political theory, as well as various Cold War topics).
• I create a list of topics of articles to create.
• Scratching articles off my list, I create a definition for realist, which includes a mention of the opposite of a realist, a liberal.
• I notice that the definition of liberal does not include the international politics definition, so I post what I thought was a simple request:

In international politics liberalism has a slightly different meaning than in American politics. May I request that this be added somewhere please? Liberal is referenced on the cp:realism page, so we need to alleviate the confusion :)

In [[international politics]], liberal is a term which describes an actor whose [[foreign policy]] methods are focused on institutions and [[international law]]s instead of [[political power]]. They believe that there is a complex [[interdependence]] between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues. The [[United Nations]] is an example of a liberal political organization.

The opposite of a liberal is a [[realist]].

Thanks!! Jazzman831 22:59, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

• Rob Smith responds, asking why we need a new definition

• Ten days of intense discussion continues. Yes, 10 days. I alone made about 50 responses. The effort it took to keep up drastically lowered my productivity elsewhere on the site. The details of the debate are discussed below, but the important part to know is that I won, and Rob got angry for being bested.
• 9:20pm: In another Ed Poor related addition, I revamp the article on the Patriot Act. It takes Rob 9 minutes to start hacking away at it. He of course, "advises against" saying he has a personal vendetta.[1] From this point on in the timeline, he never denies a vendetta, he just skirts around it.
• The hacking and discussion continue, but nothing that exciting happens (at least, nothing you shouldn't by now come to expect from Rob).
• September 4th, I start a page on which I am going to lay out my liberalism article. I plan to someday show it to Rob, once it's finished.
• Exactly six minutes later, Rob blocks me for "abbetting vandalism". He is refering to this edit. Since I'm sure he's found the IP's contributions page, I have no doubt in my mind that it's one of the other edits he's actually mad about, but they aren't good enough to get me blocked. I am pretty explicit in my feelings of Rob in some of my other edits.
• Soon after, I found out that Rob sends the following to all the sysops: "An IP from RW shows User:Jazzman abbetted the two recent incidents were (sic) vandals made comments and signed my name to it. Is a permablock in order? --RobS" I find out right away that Dan votes against me, but TerryH and Andy Schlafly himself vote to unblock me.
• I send the following letter to Rob:

Rob,

I see that you have blocked me for posting on another site. I won't insult your intellegence by pretending it wasn't me, but considering the IP address used was from a school dormitory, you have no way to know that those posts (and all of those posts, for that matter) were in fact by me, and not by a room mate, hall mate or doorm mate.

That being said, I have looked over the rules, and I can't seem to find any that I broke. You said I was "abetting vandalism" (which I contest, see below), which isn't against any of the rules. Additionally, "How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia) point 15 says, "We do not ban users for their comments elsewhere." According to this, which was written by Andy himself (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?itle=Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=95537), I should not have been blocked, at least not for the reason you gave.

As for "abetting vandalism", this simply was not the case. First of all, out of all the edits I made on RW, there is only one (http://www.rationalwiki.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F&diff=prev&oldid=51386) which could be construed as "abbetting," and I hardly think it's fair to ban me without warning for one single off-hand comment. At any rate, I was not trying to aid them in their pursuit of imitating you (before I posted the comment I actually decided against language which would seem to encourage more vandalism), I was simply pointing out that they did a sophomoric job. Clearly, with all the editors who have been banned for mentioning the FBI, no sysop would go stir that hornet's nest in an off-hand comment, like they tried to make it seem you did. Additionally, the user decided to use the redlinked name "Beefsupreme," which sticks out rather well in the edit comment (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Communism&curid=13655&diff=285130&oldid=285029) -- certainly not a top rate job. I was simply pointing out (not instructing) that if they want to vandalize they had better put some thought into it.

I have no motivation to encourage vandalism, and I think my record speaks for itself in this regard. I have stopped numerous vandals in my few months on Conservapedia -- many before any sysop noticed. I even reverted a couple of the (in)famous SteveCarlson edits -- and this was before I knew about the helpful "undo" feature! I have reverted the vandalism from the following vandals (I would include diffs, but it is too messy; see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1500&target=Jazzman831 for all of my edits): XxPrODiGalxx, MarsianMan, HueyCominTogetcha, Biblefan1346, PinkFlowerHeart, Kirsch, Jackmehoffer, Libervative, NadhoB, Thir (almost 50 edits!), Kreed, Johnlee, Antichrist, Fergyson, Gopusa, Ra, Marowit, Lulzpatrol, HitlerIsBackBaby, William123, Tgb, Khenemet, Dragonman, LinuxArtemisbeak, Liberalman666, DarrylJones, Kittysayshello, RightLeft, Roflcopter, Johndeer54, Stevecarson, Nickw252, Hachiman128 and JackTH. The vast, vast, majority of those were made before I had ever heard of Rationalwiki. I also suggested that we protect the most vandalized page on Conservapedia within the last couple weeks (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservapedia&diff=prev&oldid=285730).

I have also made a lot of improvements to the site; many of them too tedious to simply let the site be vandalized. I have bolded the subjects of possibly hundreds of articles and I corrected the source of every battle ship that begins with the letter "A" and most that begin with the letter "B". I have had over 1000 mainspace edits, out of only 1500 total site edits. Granted, many of these are the small changes mentioned above (reverting the vandalism alone probably accounts for around 100 mainspace edits!), but I have created or majorly revamped almost 30 pages (http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Jazzman831#Pages_I_started_.28and_pages_with_major_contributions.29.2C_not_including_redirects), and I have a list of at least 35 more that I plan(ned) to create sometime in the near future.

For all of the above reasons I am asking that you please reconsider your block. Even if I were abbeting vandals (which I wasn't), this isn't a valid reason to block me, and additionally, I think I have shown that I have done much more good for the site than harm.

Thank you,

Jazzman831

PS: In interest of full disclosure I want you to know that I am also sending this email to TK and Bohdan. I believe both of them have had enough experience with me to know that I intend no harm befall Conservapedia. I ask that you please confer with them and any other Sysops who are familiar with my work, as I believe they will be able to round out your opinion of me.

• Rob, being the great reader that he is, stops reading after sentence two. He commutes my sentence to 3 days, saying "Jiminy! per confession, block commutted."
• Wait just a second, here! I didn't confess, I didn't do it, and I'm not going to have Rob make fun of me in front of the entire CP community! I send him another letter, in which I offer a truce:

Rob,

I don't appreciate the lie you told to the Conservapedia community. I did not confess to abetting vandalism, in fact I emphatically denied it, AND I showed you examples which proved that I have entirely the opposite intention. It would be one thing If I only sent the email to you (then it's just your word against mine), but I also sent it to two other sysops. Not only are you insulting me, but you are insulting TK and Bohdan (as well as anyone they may have forwarded it to) by suggesting that they can not tell the difference between "I admit I abetted vandalism" and "[a]s for 'abetting vandalism', this simply was not the case." Your continual and blatantly false attacks on my character are starting to irritate me.

You keep telling me to separate "you" from the "facts", but the "facts" tell me that "you" are the problem. You blocked me for a dubious reason (a reason Andy said is not block-worthy) and then proceeded to contintue arguing with "me" on several talk pages, where you know I can not respond. Not only is this severely poor form, all of these things point to a personal grief you have with me, *especially* since you blocked me only 6 minutes after I created a page on which I was going to spell out my argument from Talk:Liberal. If you *don't* have a personal problem with me, the prudent thing to do would have been to ask a neutral party instead of unilaterally blocking me. I have already told you that I think you just don't like me, and your actions to nothing to disuade this notion.

Frankly, your actions have been very detrimental to my feelings about Conservapedia. When my block is up, how do I know you won't follow me around and hound me on every page? Actions like these take away all the fun from editing CP. I have no vested interest in editing CP; once it stops being entertaining, I'm gone.

I am offering, as a possible alternative to my complete discontinuation from the site, a truce. I will not argue any more with the definition of liberal (which you still misunderstand, by the way; I'd respond to your last comment, but you made it after you blocked me from the site) nor on the Patriot Act. I will not involve myself with any other such discussion with you, nor will I comment on or object to any edits you make. In return, I ask that you do the same. I ask that you do not continue discussion with me at either article, and if you, in the future, take issue with my edits, you ask another sysop to look over them. This is really the only way I can know that I can contribute on Conservapedia without being hounded. If you do not agree to this (or if you either lie about me again or decide not to read all the way down to the end of this letter) I do not see how I will be able to contribute to Conservapedia any longer.

Thank you,

Jazzman831

• Rob, in his great wisdom, can not feel like a man if I am not humiliated first:

From your email:

"...before I posted the comment I actually decided against language which would seem to encourage more vandalism), I was simply pointing out that they did a sophomoric job."

This is either a confession or its not. I received much support for my decision for in infinite block. Likewise I received support for the decision to grant clemency after the confession.

You have a simple choice here, admit now it is a confession, or the infinite block is reinstituted.

Other than that, there's nothing else to discuss.

• I responded:

Deciding not to abet vandalism is the same as abetting vandalism? Really? I was going to tell them that they have to, at a minimum, de-redlink their name or there's no way they could sneak something by. But then I took this language out because I didn't want to make it seem like I was encouraging them. What part of this activity is not allowed on Conservapedia? Or, more accuratly, what part of this activity is not allowed *by* Conservapedia (because none of it happened *on* Conservapedia)?

Naturally you are quote mining again. The important part of that quotation you missed is the part where I say, "I was not trying to aid them in their pursuit of imitating you," and earlier, where I say, "As for 'abetting vandalism', this simply was not the case," and later, where I say "I have no motivation to encourage vandalism." And then there's the fact that you are making Andy a liar by blocking me for something I said on another site.

If you want to bully a good editor away from the site, be my guest. Make sure Andy knows the reasoning behind it, though, because I heard a rumor he was one of the ones who voted to unblock me. If you decide to permanently block me, tell Andy that it's because the only way that you would let me back onto the site is by insulting myself. If lying to the community and insulting myself is the only way to contribute to Conservapedia, it's not a place I would feel comfortable editing.

So really the choice is yours: block me, and admit that you are blocking me for personal reasons of your own, or take the higher ground and unblock me, agreeing to abide by the truce I layed down below.

-Jazz

• Two which he responds (I've highlighted some important clauses):

"Sounds fun, but you have to be more subtle. Mentioning the FBI is a pretty sure sign that you are a vandal. 134.82.109.72 18:31, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

"Sounds fun" (under subhead ==New hobby/game==); this is not abetting? Giving advice for trolling is not abetting?

And I can assure, this particular type of vandalism, forging a Sysops signature, was viewed as falling in class by itself. I had extended much courtesy and good faith in several lengthy discussions over several pages. This was a breach of faith on your part, and failure to follow a CP Sysops instructions, continuing constructive editing and dialogue in an atmosphere of civility and good faith. The entire discussion we've had, and the hours I have committed to it, now appear little more than a waste of my time, i.e. trolling.

The spirit of CP's rules are flexible for Sysops, and CP does not wish to become bureaucratized by burdensome rules. Arguing over what the meaning of is 'is' is is, is, will result in nothing but getting a permablock.

Please feel free to share the contents of this message with anyone. Thank you.

RobS

• Good faith, really? Failure to follow a sysop's instructions... what instructions exactly? The one where you tell me to bend over and take it like a man? Luckily I don't say these things. If I did, then his block would have been justified. My actual response is as follows:

You can take that however you want to, Rob, but I have said that it wasn't abetting, I have shown that I have no reason to abet vandalism, and I have shown that no actions on RationalWiki can be used against me anyway. I'm not going to say that the comment below was abetting, because it wasn't my intention, and I'm not going to change my story.

Knowing these three things, if you are going to keep my block permanent please let me know, so that I can at least have some closure to this issue.

Jazz

• His response? Of course he's right, he's Rob Almighty:

I don't give a rip what you've written since; I am only looking at your postings on that RW page. I could care less the spin you place upon it now. You confessed those were your words. I, that is me, made the judgement, it was abetting. Your block was comutted. Then you wanted to argue whether or or not you confessed, and denied the whole matter. What am I to do? take you at your word.

The block remains infinite.

• Knowing that he will keep pestering me unless I give him the last word, I decided to not respond to this email.
• September 6th: I'm officially done with Conservapedia forever (unless they get rid of Rob and ask me back, of course).

Conclusion

In conclusion, Conservapedia isn't that bad a place, as long as none of the sysops have a beef against you. Perhaps someday they will realize, when all of their good editors have left, that they should have been nice to people who contribute positively and constructively to their website (these types of people are rare indeed!) instead of spouting off crazy talk and forcing them to humiliate themselves.

Timeline of the epic Talk:Liberal discussion

• At first it goes pretty logically. Rob asked a question, and I responded.
• About two days into it (Aug 23rd), Rob starts attacking my source (which he hadn't read), calling it "disinformation... intended to indoctrine (sic) young people who's (sic) political & ideological views are unmolded and unsolidified yet."
• Later that day, Rob calls me a liar, because he misunderstood what I had been talking about earlier.
• August 24th: Rob draws the mistaken parallel that liberals are peaceful, good people, and realists are evil, bad people [2]. It is the first of many. He also tells me that he has no background in international politics.
• Later that same day, I tell Rob that I want to exit the debate, since he is not familiar with the subject matter. [3] It is the first of many times.
• Still that same day, I make my first post which uses copied material from earlier [4]
• Still on that same day (it was a busy day) I make my first post where I have to drill my point home through the use of repitition, bolding, and all caps. [5]. It has become clear to me at this point that Rob is barely skimming, and clearly not reading all of my posts.
• August 25th I find this discussion. Until this point, I had never explored RationalWiki at all, but I did a search on my username to make sure they didn't catch me saying anything stupid. I post an anonymous response, explaining my actions thusfar [6]. For the next couple days, I contribute to the discussion on RW periodically.
• That same day, Rob calls me a Marxist for the first time [7]. He also calls World War II for Dummies Commie propaganda.
• I am not fooled by a non-sequiter Rob tries to present, and I call him on it, referencing an instance in which Rob rails on another user for using a "non-sequiter" [8].
• 7:45pm: I ask for the first time if there is any way Rob will ever accept my definition. [9] If there isn't, I am willing to give it up and move on to better things. (See below for more information)
• 8:40pm Rob brings up pedophilia for the first time.
• August 27th: For the first time I add a "check" to see how well Rob is reading. This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing skim. He does not notice (and calls me a Marxist again) [10]. It's becoming clear to me at this point, based on the randomness of his arguments, that he has completely run out of things to say.
• Somewhere starting around August 28th, I give up discussion entirely, because Rob doesn't read my arguments. I start copying wholesale my arguments. I even have one post which contains no almost original material. Rob keeps on fighting, though. This is also the part where I start asking Rob if divorcing the UN from the definition of liberal will allow my definition into the article. [11]
• August 29th: Rob agrees to dissagree!! [12]
• Two hours later: no he doesn't. [13]
• Yes he does! [14]
• No he doesn't. [15] He also asked what my definition of liberal was. WHAT?!?!?
• 12:24am August 31: Rob does "not deny this language is gaining currency, and [thinks] it would be helpful to sytematize it for students of diplomacy." [16]
• 5:37pm: "The term 'liberal' was hijacked" [17]
• 9:41pm: My last response, and the closing of the discussion (however see below). Rob runs out of arguments when I point out that politicians aren't political scientists. [18] Though to be honest, it may not have been because of my superior debating skills, it may have been because he found somewhere else to attack me.

Some of the stuff below this line isn't finished yet.

Times I tried to get out of the debate

I ask again, is there a possible answer that could satisfy you anyway? Am I simply wasting my time? If you will only be satisfied when I break down and say "Rob you are right; the entire field of international politics doesn't know the definition of liberal" then we need to stop right here; that's simply not going to happen. Jazzman831 19:45, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

I ask again (third time's the charm, I hope): what are you looking for? I will not change my answer, because I do not profess to know more than an entire field of political scientists. Can I ever convince you that I am actually right, or will you only stop when I stand down and say that you (someone who has no experience in the field) know better than I? Jazzman831 16:05, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to ask you a fourth time, because I'm really curious how long you will go before you read all the way down to the bottom of one of my responses: will you ever budge? Will you keep debating me until I give in and use your definition of a term from a subject in which you have no background? I'm not ever going to admit that you know more about a subject I have studied and you have not, so is there even a point to this conversation? Jazzman831 20:02, 27 August 2007 (EDT) [19]

I'm going to go for five (!) now: what are you looking for? Do you want compliance with your worldview, despite the fact that you have admitted to having no knowlege of the subject matter at hand (international politics)? Is there, theoretically, something I can say which will actually make you agree, or is this just going to go on until I decide I don't want to edit the encyclopedia anymore? I surely hope it's not the latter, as forcing away good faith editors is a horrible long-term strategy for Conservapedia. Jazzman831 23:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT) [20]

Times I tried to divorce the UN from the definition

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. JazzMan 23:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT) [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [] []

Secret things I wrote because I knew Rob wasn't reading

"This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing skim." [26]

"This is the fifth time I've added a sentence for you to miss when you aren't reading what I write." [27]