Difference between revisions of "User talk:MRellek"

Revision as of 16:34, August 10, 2011

Image DEBT

Done. --Joaquín Martínez 21:29, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Why are you here?

Hi, MRellek. I'm wondering about your purpose of visiting our project. You said you would contribute to math and engineering, but your contribs show nothing in these areas. You've "talked" a lot, and last month you demanded more sysop accountability. [1]

What about contributor accountability? Please submite a Conservapedia:writing plan. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:47, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Unfortunately my life is extremely busy, and I haven't been able to contribute much. Most of my edits have been on the run from my phone, which has limited me primarily to reverting vandalism, and trying to be active in the community. I, dont believe anything I have contributed has been antagonistic or otherwise so I am largely confused as to why you are demanding a "writing plan". Your message comes across as rather rude, but I will understand this once given the large number of vandals which seem attracted here. Also my demand for sysop accountability is directly related to the minor annoyance I get from the intellectually offensive material featured on the main page by one user. Once I get more free time I plan on working on some of the math and engineering articles or chemistry related to my field.--MRellek 13:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

On a side note reviewing the diff you provided does not scream me demanding sysop accountability, as I was simply commenting on an oddity in a conversation. Additionally, I made no promise to write on math and engineering exclusively, and I have made some edits to chemistry. --MRellek 13:30, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Leaving

Due to not having much time to devote to this project, and editorial differences with some fellow users I will be leaving for at least a bit. I may return to check in from time to time. However, at this point I do not feel as though the little time I have to edit a wiki will best be used here, as it has not been appreciated thus far. --MRellek 21:55, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

• Parting shot rebuttal. You did demand sysop accountablity (no one said "screamed"): "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." And at the point I called you to account, I had not seen any of the promised math or engineering contribs; your parting shot muddies the waters by protesting that you didn't promise only to write on these; my request for a writing plan comes because you didn't write on these at all.
• Liberals like to pretend that they are blameless, while blaming everyone else. Just like the guy in Oslo the other week. Well, peddle it somewhere else, you're not fooling anyone here.
• If you really want to make contributions you (or the RW "neighbors") are always free to do so. You need not bother to keep up the pretense of persecuted rationality any more. Rational people do what is requested and keep their promises. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:09, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Ed, your Writing Plan policy comes over as nothing but "You didn't break the rules, but I still would like to have an excuse to ban you, so follow my orders or else." You single-handedly drove a user away, and now (three days later) you basically dance in his abandoned house and declare yourself to be correct?

And your bit about what "rational people do" is hilariously wrong. Rational people will consider the costs and benefits when it comes to spending their limited free time, and then act accordingly. As such, MRellek acted perfectly rational:

• User didn't break any rules, yet is suddenly on probation and has to submit a writing plan
• User delivers a writing plan ("Once I get more free time I plan on working on some of the math and engineering articles or chemistry related to my field.")
• User is banned. Forever.
• User is gradually unbanned, no word on whether the probation is lifted, and the loose-cannon sysop barely gets a slap on the wrist.

Things like these tend to make people feel unwelcome. CP already offers close to no benefits for the average user, so even "minor things" like getting a permanent ban for not unconditionally submitting to a specific sysop will tip the scales towards "Oh well, I tried, but whatever."

I know you and your fellow sysops think that Conservapedia is soooooooo much better than Wikipedia and that people would do anything to be allowed to stay and contribute to this glorious project, but... uh, no. It's not. It's a safe haven for fringe opinions ("Jesus disproves General Relativity! Beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution! Declining SAT scores disprove an old Earth!") and for parodists who get their kicks out of parroting Andy while behaving like jerks to regular non-sysops.

And how about CP's awesome reputation that makes editors want to contribute? Liberals think that CP is a troll site (literally - ask Conservative, he's the one to thank for that), conservatives just look at the "The Bible needs to be retranslated into Conservative English!" project and shake their heads, and when Dawkins mentioned Andy's little Lenski episode in his book, a Creationist site accused him of attacking a straw man.

Conservapedia was founded more than four years ago. Look at the site in its current state, look at its history, and then ask yourself whether you can afford to drive away people who did no harm just because they didn't do exactly what you expected them to do. --Sid 3050 20:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)