sotnd conservaleaks

2008-06-14 ZB1 Possible Evolution citation
2008-06-15 ZB1 Dispute re Guantanamo prisoners and alleged "innocent detainees"
2008-06-15 ZB1 Conservapedia users not MYOB
2008-06-16 ZB1 Conservative Style
2008-06-16 ZB1 Defending our Judeo/Christian conservatism

Conservapedia users not MYOB

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:37:43 -0700 (PDT):

I have done similar blocks for users not minding their own business. I
have this statement on my user page:

http://www.conservapedia.com/User:DeanS#Message_to_all_liberals_.2F_p...

Troublemakers / Whiners / MYOB
You knew when you signed up to edit on Conservapedia that this is a
conservative, Christian encyclopedia. Don't come here trying to
enforce rules, deleting stuff you don't like, picking fights with
editors / administrators, whining on the talk pages, etc. If I
determine you're here to cause trouble and / or whine, you will be
blocked.
Of course, MYOB means "Mind Your Own Business".
If you see another editor get banned and you rush to their defense -
You will receive a 1 day ban if I ban another user and you "tattle" to
another sysop or post your tattle to other talk pages.
If you're not an administrator and you warn other editors about being
blocked - You will receive a 3 day ban for being a troublemaker.
After you return from your block, you should concern yourself with
improving Conservapedia or your next block will be longer.

I noticed, that when I did these blocks for not MYOB, the users
stopped this tactic when they saw I followed through with this
message. Of course, they complain because it's not official policy.
Now they're using the same tactic on Terry.

I want to discuss this issue with hopes of getting something similar
added to our policy.

Dean

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:42:59 -0500:

If they got an edit conflict, they can discuss it respectfully on the
appropriate talk page and back their reasons up with good, solid evidence.
If they want to do otherwise, they get the boot.

"Dan Holmes" <thunderbolt...@gmail.com>, Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:45:41 -0500:

Dean is, I think, referring specifically to complaints of other users
being blocked to sysops other than the blocking sysop.

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:25:26 -0700 (PDT):

Sort of. I'm referring specifically to users who complain about
someone else being blocked. It doesn't matter if it's the blocking
sysop.

Here is the scenario. A sysop blocks someone. Then other users pile
on, in their defense. They start their complaints about why this user
shouldn't have been blocked, how we're abusing our powers, etc.

What I mean by MYOB, is this: If a user is blocked, it should be a
matter of discussion between the blocked user and the sysop. Other
users should be contributing to Conservapedia, not causing more
dissension here.

I don't care whether they feel it is wrong, etc. It really is none of
their business. Are they contributing to Conservapedia, while they're
doing this defending? No.

Let me give you a recent example.

Terry blocks Aggrieved:

19:16, June 14, 2008 TerryH (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
"Aggrieved (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Contempt of the
administration; second offense)

This matter should be between Aggrieved and Terry. Everyone else
should be busy contributing to Conservapedia. That would be minding
their own business.

But now we have other users coming to his defense. Leda, Wandering,
JDavidson, WaltherPPK, Frey, SMaines, Jimmy, TomMoore and DLerner. Are
they contributing to Conservapedia while they're doing this
protesting? No. This is a liberal tactic of causing dissension and it
shouldn't be tolerated.

Now this is just one example of what happens when users go around
protesting a sysop's blocks of other users. There are so many examples
of this protesting and it's totally unnecessary.

The more we tolerate this protesting, whining, tattling, etc., the
worse it's going to be. It's time to change the policy.

Dean

Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:44:50 -0400:

Add to it that I specifically warned those other users: "Stay out of
other users' quarrels with administrators, or face blockage yourself."

I begin to think that I have created a useful buzz saw into which a lot
of interlopers have lately thrown themselves.

TerryH

"Dan Holmes" <thunderbolt...@gmail.com>, Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:19:02 -0500:

The only potential problem I could see with this is that not all of us have
our Conservapedia email working, which means that in the case of an
accidental block (i.e. a few of Andy's students have been accidentally
blocked, as well as a couple of activist organizations that had been in
contact with Andy), the blocked user may have no other option. The vast
majority of blocks are, of course, legitimate, but this is the only
potential problem I see.

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:09:41 +1000:

As I said in reply to Terry's request:

If you see a mate in trouble with the law, and believe him to be innocent,
do you (a) ignore the situation, or (b) go to his defence?

On those grounds alone, I believe that the "MYOB rule" is wrong.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:30:35 -0700 (PDT):

Philip, while your compassion is admirable, it results in chaos on
Conservapedia. The liberals are taking advantage of our compassion and
are causing dissension which distracts from improving Conservapedia.

This issue shouldn't be about "seeing a mate in trouble with the law."
Our goal should be to improve Conservapedia, and troublemakers should
not be allowed to distract us from that goal.

The MYOB rule is just part of stopping troublemakers from causing more
dissension. Once they realize we're not going to play their game, they
can either improve Conservapedia or be gone. Simple as that.

Dean

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:32:14 +1000:

> But now we have other users coming to his defense. ...
> No. This is a liberal tactic of causing dissension and it
> shouldn't be tolerated.

Not it's not.  It's a CONSERVATIVE practice of standing up for someone who's
been wrongly accused.

This is yet another example of calling everything we don't agree with
"liberal" instead of actually being fair and reasonable.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:41:49 -0700 (PDT):

These troublemakers are not using any Conservative practices. They're
not being wrongly accused. They're not being fair and reasonable
either.

Philip, you remind me of a defense lawyer. Whatever the liberals say
or do on Conservapedia, you're always defending them.

They are causing dissension. Please stop defending them.

Dean

"Dan Holmes" <thunderbolt...@gmail.com>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:55:03 -0500:

I think of this in terms of evangelism, as I will explain: He's not
defending the liberals per se - he's defending our fairness and use of
Christian principles.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't revert their
edits if they are pushing a liberal POV, but we should follow our own rules
in doing so, otherwise we are doing damage to the cause of Christianity and
the liberal atheists are all the less likely to accept Christianity in the
future.

I have been guilty of not being Christ-like in my actions on the site - I
have been vindictive before and unfair,  and don't often turn the other
cheek, and it's something I need to be continually aware of.

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:15:18 -0700 (PDT):

Let's see, do you think these liberal atheists are coming to
Conservapedia for good intentions? I don't think so. They are coming
here to cause dissension and distract us from building Conservapedia.

Are they being troublemakers? I believe they are. I will be fair to
the other users who want to improve Conservapedia. Goodbye to
troublemakers.

Dean

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:18:39 +1000:

Dean,

Your response is a series of unsubstantiated assertions, not coherent
argument

"it results in chaos on Conservapedia":   How?

"The liberals are taking advantage of our compassion":  WHAT compassion?

"are causing dissension which distracts from improving Conservapedia":
Unreasonable blocks cause dissension.

"This issue shouldn't be about "seeing a mate in trouble with the law."":
Why not?  It seems a pretty good analogy to me.

"troublemakers should not be allowed to distract us from that goal":
Calling them "troublemakers" is begging the question, a logical fallacy.

"The MYOB rule is just part of stopping troublemakers from causing more
dissension":  No, it's to avoid having to actually justify your actions.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:36:57 +1000:

Standing up for someone wrong accused is not a conservative practice?  Since
when?

In numerous case, they /are/ being wrongly accused (or accused of things
that there's nothing wrong with), so they /are/ being fair and reasonable.

And no, I'm not /always/ defending them.  Only when there's /reason/ to.

Us sysops are causing dissension by being unreasonable, applying double
standards, and the like.  Yes, many of them cause dissension also, but
there's a verse in the Bible about getting the log out of our own eye before
trying to get the splinter out of someone else's eye.

And no, as long as I'm editing on Conservapedia, I will not stop defending
people who have been wrongly or unfairly accused.  It's the Christian thing
to do.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:00:24 -0700 (PDT):

 "it results in chaos on Conservapedia":   How?

Get ready for some recent examples. Btw, these are just the edit
summaries. Each of these liberal users has plenty of edits that have
cause chaos on Conservapedia.

Aggrieved
18:04, June 14, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:TerryH (Please apologize
and withdraw the lie)
17:32, June 14, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Main Page (TerryH, please
withdraw your lie)

DLerner
23:12, June 15, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Essay:Marry Someone You Love
(New page: Kudos, I'm glad we got something to balance that tripe.
~~~~)
10:39, May 17, 2008 (hist) (diff) Conservapedia:AFD Liberal values
(New page: absolute rubbish, I bet I'll be guilty of liberal this or
that just for saying it should go.
06:00, May 10, 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk pollution (many people
pollute their airwaves, stop the riduculous libels)

DinsdaleP
06:56, May 2, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wife (New page: =="Role" of the
Wife?== Please, PLEASE tell me this was written as a joke. --~~~~)

TomMoore
23:06, June 15, 2008 (hist) (diff) Essay:Marry Someone You Love (New
page: Having read Essay:Marry a Conservative by our own Andy Schlafly,
and finding myself in disagreement, here are my own beliefs on the
matter: Marry someone you love. A relationship sho...)
14:44, June 13, 2008 (hist) (diff) User:TomMoore/StolenImages (New
page: The following images appear to be stolen. Some of them are
listed as "fair use," despite the fact the Conservapedia is not using
them in a manner which would generally be considered fair ...)
21:22, June 8, 2008 (hist) (diff) Farce (Literature) (Okay, couldn't
do that with a straight face. Revert.) (top) [revert]
21:22, June 8, 2008 (hist) (diff) Farce (Literature) (Copyedit, clean
up, wikify, and remove the liberal bias in spelling. We use the
correct American ways here. Also blockquotes. And Pericles.)
13:33, June 5, 2008 (hist) (diff) The Crusades (→Holy Land Crusades -
They were an army of 10,000 armed soldiers led by a nobleman, not a
peasant mob. Quit trying to whitewash the incident.)

AliceBG
18:58, June 9, 2008 (hist) (diff) Music (Learn your elementary music
theory, boy.C to e flat = c to d sharp which is an augmented second. C
to d natural is a major second.)
19:38, June 8, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Classroom prayer (Uh, Phillip -
you're joking, right?)
20:10, April 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:ARoss Batman.png ("You
are going to answer that question whether you like it or not,")
19:02, April 29, 2008 (hist) (diff) Image talk:ARoss Batman.png (why
Karajou is wrong again. Part of a series.....)
12:02, March 6, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Unisex movement (EdPoor
obviously does not know what the word "unbalanced" means...)
10:27, March 5, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Greenock (New page: Hee
Hee....how does stuff like this stay up for nine whole months? ~~~~)

Wandering
16:05, June 9, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Aschlafly (are you
ignoring me for some reason?)
10:48, June 9, 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wandering (hi aschlafly,
please talk rather than blocking)
03:40, June 8, 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Aaron Wildavsky (New page:
please don't make pages just to linkspam accuracy in media, thanks.
~~~~)
12:08, May 25, 2008 (hist) (diff) Conservapedia talk:Videos on
Conservapedia (New page: Once again, how is this encyclopedic? ~~~~)
14:26, May 16, 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Wandering (New page: == Just a
note == For reasons of personal curiosity, I am (sporadically)
compiling a list of pages which have "been deleted and protected to
prevent re-creation". I do not intend to publ...)

There are many more examples throughout the history of Conservapedia.
Liberals come here and mock us and cause trouble. Looks like chaos to
me.

Dean

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:04:50 -0700 (PDT):

"The liberals are taking advantage of our compassion":  WHAT
compassion?

Your compassion. The compassion of not blocking them the first time
they cause trouble. The compassion of letting them come here and
harass us over and over again until they get permabanned.

Dean

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:11:12 -0700 (PDT):

"are causing dissension which distracts from improving
Conservapedia":
Unreasonable blocks cause dissension.

I don't think they're unreasonable blocks.
These users cause dissension BEFORE they are blocked. If they wouldn't
cause trouble, they wouldn't be blocked in the first place.

Dean

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT):

"This issue shouldn't be about "seeing a mate in trouble with the
law."":
Why not?  It seems a pretty good analogy to me.

Sure it does... to you. You have no problem with the liberals
constantly questioning our edits and authority, protesting, etc. How
about they make a positive contribution to Conservapedia and that's
it.

Dean

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:24:32 +1000:

Please define "Good intentions".

Is it..

A) Anything other than vandalism?
B) Trying to promote Conservatism?
C) Anything other than causing dissension and distraction?
D) something else?

My answers are yes, no, and yes.

Some are here to vandalise, some are here to cause dissension, some are here
because they like editing Wikis, some are here to try and keep us honest and
accurate, and so on.  Not all are here to cause dissension.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:36:40 +1000:

Is this an admission that I'm the only one in this group with the Christian
virtue of compassion?

Is this really something that you want to defend?

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:52:51 +1000:

"If they wouldn't cause trouble, they wouldn't be blocked in the first
place."

Again, that's begging the question.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:10:01 +1000:

"It results in chaos on Conservapedia" was a reference to my compassion.

Yet your first two entries...
A) have already been explained as a reference to something that Terry said
that /was/ wrong.  So it is not due to compassion, but to an incorrect
statement by a sysop.
A) I'm certain that I've never had any interaction with Aggrieved, so this
has NOTHING to do with my compassion.

Simply listing entries without explaining /how/ they are due to my
compassion is hardly a good argument anyway.  And as the first one struck
out so badly, I'm not going to bother with the rest.  You've failed to
substantiate your claim.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment" <PJRaym...@yahoo.com.au>, Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:11:11 +1000:

Yes, it does to me.  And you've not even attempted to explain how it's /not/
a good analogy.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

2008-06-14 ZB1 Possible Evolution citation
2008-06-15 ZB1 Dispute re Guantanamo prisoners and alleged "innocent detainees"
2008-06-15 ZB1 Conservapedia users not MYOB
2008-06-16 ZB1 Conservative Style
2008-06-16 ZB1 Defending our Judeo/Christian conservatism

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.