Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Law of multiple proportions

2008-12-26T14:35:10Z

AlanS: Redirecting to The Law of Multiple Proportions

#REDIRECT[[The Law of Multiple Proportions]]

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-26T13:27:41Z

AlanS: /* Word */

==Word==
I admit that I am not as great a linguist, translator and biblical scholar as Andy is, so pardon my question, but when did "word" ''not'' mean "a short expression of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood"? From what I see, the issue at hand seems to be rather how you actually translate "Logos" (a.k.a. "the '''W'''ord", as opposed to "a '''w'''ord"). If you just want to directly translate it to "Truth", that would sound plausible to me, but redefining "word" to ''really'' mean "Truth" is somewhat pushing it in my eyes.

But like I said in the beginning, this isn't exactly my special field of study, so I'm open for any source Andy or somebody else can show me to understand things better. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:04, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:AlanS, the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful. In response to your comment, the primary meaning of "word" in English at the time of its incorporation in translating John 1:1 was a "command" or series of speech sounds, not false or vulgar. Today its primary meaning in English is quite different from about 400 years ago, as in "he had a word with so-and-so" or "password".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::Aschlafly, the less you rely on belittling and dismissing other people and posts ("the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful", "I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]"), the more respect people will give you. I assume/hope you don't treat your students like this, so why your fellow editors? I came to this talk page to learn, not to get the wagging finger treatment from you. And I assumed that you, somebody who is going to ''retranslate the Word Of God'', have some experience as a linguist, translator and biblical scholar - no sarcasm intended. Because otherwise, I'd seriously ask what you were thinking when you started this. No offense, but this is a task more talented people than you and I have to study years for, so the thought of somebody with ''no'' experience or training in this field translating the Bible makes me frown to say the least.
::More on-topic, I find your explanation interesting, but I would welcome a source for your claim because I couldn't find any. I'm not here to doubt the you, but I want to verify it. Also, what is your explanation for the newer translations not having updated that word? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 08:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

"Word" sounds better in my opinion. Also, which editions are you using as a source for your translating, the original Hebrew and Greek, or one of the many English versions? And how far do you plan on taking this? I personally find it superfluous, but since linguistically I am a prescriptionist, that may just be me.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't think "Word" means the same to people anymore as it did a generation ago. As to your second sentence, all early manuscripts were in Greek, and the term used was "logos" as stated.

: I think the table is merely scratching the surface. The English language is devolving quickly, and retranslation of many key terms is worth considering. This exercise itself is illuminating. I'm confident we've all learned something new just from reading the first three examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:53, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: But evolution isn't real, right? :)

: Joking aside, I'll help you with my basic knowledge of linguistics if you honestly want it. Just want to avoid this degenerating into an exercise in Newspeak or playing with deeper meanings. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:58, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, that's bizarre: where did your comment on evolution come from? No, I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]. If you have an open mind, then I do welcome your efforts; if not, then maybe Wikipedia is a better place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Logos==
ASchlafly: The word "Logos" does not translate to truth. It is generally translated to "word, thought, principle, or speech." Good luck on rewriting the Bible! [[User:MReynolds|MReynolds]] 22:20, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-26T13:27:14Z

AlanS: /* Word */

==Word==
I admit that I am not as great a linguist, translator and biblical scholar as Andy is, so pardon my question, but when did "word" ''not'' mean "a short expression of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood"? From what I see, the issue at hand seems to be rather how you actually translate "Logos" (a.k.a. "the '''W'''ord", as opposed to "a '''w'''ord"). If you just want to directly translate it to "Truth", that would sound plausible to me, but redefining "word" to ''really'' mean "Truth" is somewhat pushing it in my eyes.

But like I said in the beginning, this isn't exactly my special field of study, so I'm open for any source Andy or somebody else can show me to understand things better. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:04, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:AlanS, the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful. In response to your comment, the primary meaning of "word" in English at the time of its incorporation in translating John 1:1 was a "command" or series of speech sounds, not false or vulgar. Today its primary meaning in English is quite different from about 400 years ago, as in "he had a word with so-and-so" or "password".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:Aschlafly, the less you rely on belittling and dismissing other people and posts ("the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful", "I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]"), the more respect people will give you. I assume/hope you don't treat your students like this, so why your fellow editors? I came to this talk page to learn, not to get the wagging finger treatment from you. And I assumed that you, somebody who is going to ''retranslate the Word Of God'', have some experience as a linguist, translator and biblical scholar - no sarcasm intended. Because otherwise, I'd seriously ask what you were thinking when you started this. No offense, but this is a task more talented people than you and I have to study years for, so the thought of somebody with ''no'' experience or training in this field translating the Bible makes me frown to say the least.
:More on-topic, I find your explanation interesting, but I would welcome a source for your claim because I couldn't find any. I'm not here to doubt the you, but I want to verify it. Also, what is your explanation for the newer translations not having updated that word? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 08:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

"Word" sounds better in my opinion. Also, which editions are you using as a source for your translating, the original Hebrew and Greek, or one of the many English versions? And how far do you plan on taking this? I personally find it superfluous, but since linguistically I am a prescriptionist, that may just be me.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't think "Word" means the same to people anymore as it did a generation ago. As to your second sentence, all early manuscripts were in Greek, and the term used was "logos" as stated.

: I think the table is merely scratching the surface. The English language is devolving quickly, and retranslation of many key terms is worth considering. This exercise itself is illuminating. I'm confident we've all learned something new just from reading the first three examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:53, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: But evolution isn't real, right? :)

: Joking aside, I'll help you with my basic knowledge of linguistics if you honestly want it. Just want to avoid this degenerating into an exercise in Newspeak or playing with deeper meanings. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:58, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, that's bizarre: where did your comment on evolution come from? No, I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]. If you have an open mind, then I do welcome your efforts; if not, then maybe Wikipedia is a better place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Logos==
ASchlafly: The word "Logos" does not translate to truth. It is generally translated to "word, thought, principle, or speech." Good luck on rewriting the Bible! [[User:MReynolds|MReynolds]] 22:20, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-25T20:04:23Z

AlanS: Word up, yo.

User:AlanS/Sandbox

2008-12-25T16:44:44Z

AlanS:

<div style="float:right">__TOC__</div>
==To Do==
* [[Absolute entropies]]
* [[Absolute humidity]]
* [[Acceleration]]
* [[Acid ionization constant]]
* [[Acid ionization reaction]]
* [[Adiabatic cooling]]
* [[Aerobic respiration]]
* [[Alpha decay]]
* [[Amebocytes]]
* [[Amphiprotic compounds]]
* [[Anadromous]]
* [[Anion]]
* [[Antibiotic]]
* [[Anticodon]]
* [[Aphelion]]
* [[Aristotle's dictum]]
* [[Arteries]]
* [[Artifacts]]
* [[Asexual reproduction]]
* [[Atmosphere]]
* [[Atmospheric pressure]]
* [[Atomic number]]
* [[Atrium]]
* [[Autosomal inheritance]]
* [[Autosomes]]
* [[Autotrophs]]
* [[Axial skeleton]]
* [[Barometer]]
* [[Basal metabolic rate]]
* [[Biennial plants]]
* [[Bilateral symmetry]]
* [[Bile]]
* [[Binomial nomenclature]]
* [[Biomass]]
* [[Bivalve]]
* [[Blind studies]]
* [[Bond strength]]
* [[Bone marrow]]
* [[Boyle's Law]]
* [[Capillaries]]
* [[Carnivore]]
* [[Catalyst]]
* [[Catastrophism]]
* [[Cation]]
* [[Cell]]
* [[Cell wall]]
* [[Cellulose]]
* [[Central vacuole]]
* [[Centripetal force]]
* [[Cephalothorax]]
* [[Cesium]]
* [[Change in chromosome number]]
* [[Change in chromosone structure]]
* [[Charging by conduction]]
* [[Charles' Law]]
* [[Chemical change]]
* [[Chemical compound]]
* [[Chemical equilibrium]]
* [[Chitin]]
* [[Chlorophyll]]
* [[Chromatin]]
* [[Chromoplasts]]
* [[Cilia]]
* [[Circulatory system]]
* [[Circumference]]
* [[Closed circulatory system]]
* [[Cloud condensation nuclei]]
* [[Cohesion]]
* [[Collar cells]]
* [[Complete metamorphosis]]
* [[Compound eye]]
* [[Concentration]]
* [[Condensation]]
* [[Conjugation]]
* [[Consumers]]
* [[Contour feathers]]
* [[Control (of an experiment)]]
* [[Conventional current]]
* [[Coriolis effect]]
* [[Cotyledon]]
* [[Covalent bond]]
* [[Critical mass]]
* [[Cytology]]
* [[Cytolysis]]
* [[Cytoplasm]]
* [[Cytoplasmic streaming]]
* [[Dalton's Atomic Theory]]
* [[Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures]]
* [[Deciduous plant]]
* [[Decomposers]]
* [[Decomposition reactions]]
* [[Dehydration reaction]]
* [[Dendrochronology]]
* [[Density]]
* [[Diameter]]
* [[Digestion]]
* [[Dihybrid cross]]
* [[Dilution]]
* [[Disaccharides]]
* [[Distillation]]
* [[Dominant allele]]
* [[Dominant generation]]
* [[Double fertilization]]
* [[Double-blind studies]]
* [[Down Feathers]]
* [[Ecological pyramid]]
* [[Ecology]]
* [[Ecosystem]]
* [[Ectoplasm]]
* [[Ectothermic]]
* [[Egestion]]
* [[Electric current]]
* [[Electrolysis]]
* [[Electromagnetic wave]]
* [[Element]]
* [[Empirical formula]]
* [[Endoplasm]]
* [[Endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Endospore]]
* [[Endothermic]]
* [[Endothermic process]]
* [[Energy]]
* [[Environment factors]]
* [[Epicenter]]
* [[Epidermis]]
* [[Epithelium]]
* [[Erosion]]
* [[Excretion]]
* [[Exosphere]]
* [[Exothermic process]]
* [[External fertilization]]
* [[Extracellular digestion]]
* [[Extrapolation]]
* [[Eyespot]]
* [[Fermentation]]
* [[Firn]]
* [[First Law of Thermodynamics]]
* [[Flagellate]]
* [[Focus]]
* [[Foot]]
* [[Formation reaction]]
* [[Fossils]]
* [[Free fall]]
* [[Friction]]
* [[Galaxy]]
* [[Gametes]]
* [[Gamma decay]]
* [[Gay-Lussac's Law]]
* [[Gemmule]]
* [[Genetic factors]]
* [[Geologic system]]
* [[Gestation]]
* [[Girdling]]
* [[Gland]]
* [[Gonad]]
* [[Ground state]]
* [[Half-life]]
* [[Haploid cells]]
* [[Hard water]]
* [[Haustorium]]
* [[Heat capacity]]
* [[Helium]]
* [[Hemotoxin]]
* [[Hermaphroditic]]
* [[Hess's Law]]
* [[Heterogeneous catalyst]]
* [[Heterogeneous mixture]]
* [[Heterosphere]]
* [[Heterotrophs]]
* [[Heterozygous genotype]]
* [[Holdfast]]
* [[Homogeneous catalyst]]
* [[Homogeneous mixture]]
* [[Homosphere]]
* [[Homozygous genotype]]
* [[Hormone]]
* [[Hormones]]
* [[How solutes dissolve in solvents]]
* [[Humidity]]
* [[Humus]]
* [[Hydrologic cycle]]
* [[Hydrolysis]]
* [[Hydrosphere]]
* [[Hypertonic solution]]
* [[Hypha]]
* [[Hypothesis]]
* [[Hypotonic solution]]
* [[Imperfect flowers]]
* [[Incomplete metamorphosis]]
* [[Index fossils]]
* [[Inheritance]]
* [[Insulator]]
* [[Internal fertilization]]
* [[Interphase]]
* [[Invertebrate]]
* [[Ion]]
* [[Ionization]]
* [[Ionization Potential]]
* [[Ionosphere]]
* [[Isotonic solution]]
* [[Isotopes]]
* [[Jet streams]]
* [[Jupiter]]
* [[Kinetic friction]]
* [[Known age]]
* [[Latitude]]
* [[Le Chatelier's Principle]]
* [[Leaf margin]]
* [[Leaf mosaic]]
* [[Leucoplasts]]
* [[Life science]]
* [[Light year]]
* [[Lithium]]
* [[Loam]]
* [[Longitude]]
* [[Longitudinal wave]]
* [[Lysosome]]
* [[Mammary glands]]
* [[Mantle]]
* [[Mass number]]
* [[Matter]]
* [[Maxwell's Equations]]
* [[Mechanical advantage]]
* [[Medulla]]
* [[Meiosis]]
* [[Meniscus]]
* [[Mesenchyme]]
* [[Mesoglea]]
* [[Mesosphere]]
* [[Metabolism]]
* [[Metric system]]
* [[Microorganisms]]
* [[Microtubules]]
* [[Middle lamella]]
* [[Minerals]]
* [[Mitosis]]
* [[Model]]
* [[Molality]]
* [[Molecular bond]]
* [[Molt]]
* [[Monohybrid cross]]
* [[Monosaccharides]]
* [[Mother cell]]
* [[Motor nervous system]]
* [[Mycelium]]
* [[Nastic movement]]
* [[Nematocysts]]
* [[Neurotoxin]]
* [[Nitrogen]]
* [[Notochord]]
* [[Nuclear fission]]
* [[Nuclear fusion]]
* [[Nuclear membrane]]
* [[Nucleus]]
* [[Octet rule]]
* [[Olfactory lobes]]
* [[Omnivore]]
* [[Omnivores]]
* [[Open circulatory system]]
* [[Optic lobe]]
* [[Organic molecule]]
* [[Osmosis]]
* [[Ovary]]
* [[Oviparous development]]
* [[Oxidation]]
* [[Oxidation number]]
* [[Oxygen]]
* [[Particle/wave duality theory]]
* [[Parts per million]]
* [[Pathogen]]
* [[Pellicle]]
* [[Percolation]]
* [[Perennial plants]]
* [[Perfect flowers]]
* [[Perihelion]]
* [[Periodic property]]
* [[Petrifaction]]
* [[Phagocytic vacuole]]
* [[‎Phagocytosis]]
* [[Phloem]]
* [[Photosynthesis]]
* [[Phototropism]]
* [[Physical change]]
* [[Physical constant]]
* [[Physical Quantities]]
* [[Phytoplankton]]
* [[Pinocytic]]
* [[Placenta]]
* [[Plankton]]
* [[Plasma membrane]]
* [[Plasmolysis]]
* [[Plastic rock]]
* [[Polar molecule]]
* [[Pollen]]
* [[Pollination]]
* [[Polyp]]
* [[Polysaccharides]]
* [[Popular acids]]
* [[Pore spaces]]
* [[Posterior end]]
* [[Potassium]]
* [[Potential energy]]
* [[Precipitation]]
* [[Precision]]
* [[Prefixes for naming covalent compounds]]
* [[Pressure]]
* [[Primary consumer]]
* [[Producers]]
* [[Pseudopod]]
* [[Pure substance]]
* [[Radial symmetry]]
* [[Radioactive isotope]]
* [[Radula]]
* [[Reaction mechanism]]
* [[Reaction rate]]
* [[Receptors]]
* [[Recessive allele]]
* [[Reduction]]
* [[Reference point]]
* [[Regeneration]]
* [[Relative humidity]]
* [[Reproductive plant organs]]
* [[Resin]]
* [[Rhizoid hypha]]
* [[Rough endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Rubidium]]
* [[Salinity]]
* [[Saprophyte]]
* [[Saturated fat]]
* [[Saturated solution]]
* [[Scalar quantity]]
* [[Scientific law]]
* [[Scientific Law]]
* [[Secondary consumer]]
* [[Secretion]]
* [[Secretion vesicle]]
* [[Sedimentary rock]]
* [[Seed]]
* [[Sensory Nervous System]]
* [[Sessile Colony]]
* [[Sex chromosomes]]
* [[Sex-linked inheritance]]
* [[Shell]]
* [[Simple eye]]
* [[Simple machine]]
* [[Smooth endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Sodium]]
* [[Solubility]]
* [[Solute]]
* [[Solvent]]
* [[Sonic boom]]
* [[Spiritual factors]]
* [[Spontaneous Generation]]
* [[Spore]]
* [[Sporophore]]
* [[Static friction]]
* [[Statocyst]]
* [[Steady state]]
* [[Stolon]]
* [[Strains]]
* [[Stratosphere]]
* [[Supersonic speed]]
* [[Taxonomy]]
* [[Tertiary consumer]]
* [[Testes]]
* [[Thailand]]
* [[Thallus]]
* [[The immutability of species]]
* [[Thermosphere]]
* [[Thigmotropism]]
* [[Thorax]]
* [[Titration]]
* [[Transformation]]
* [[Translocation]]
* [[Transpiration]]
* [[Transverse wave]]
* [[Troposphere]]
* [[True breeding]]
* [[Undifferentiated cells]]
* [[Uniformitarianism (science)]]
* [[Univalve]]
* [[Unsaturated fat]]
* [[Updraft]]
* [[Vacuole]]
* [[Valence electron]]
* [[Vector quantity]]
* [[Vegetative organs]]
* [[Vegetative reproduction]]
* [[Veins]]
* [[Ventricle]]
* [[Vertebrae]]
* [[Vertebrate]]
* [[Virus]]
* [[Visceral hump]]
* [[Viviparous development]]
* [[Waste vacuoles]]
* [[Water table]]
* [[Watershed]]
* [[Wavelength]]
* [[Weather front]]
* [[Weathering]]
* [[Xylem]]
* [[Zooplankton]]
* [[Zygospore]]
* [[Zygote]]

==Done==
* [[Endoskeleton]]
* [[Exoskeleton]]
* [[Gravotropism]] (should be [[Gravitropism]])
* [[Heat]]
* [[Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP)]] (should be [[Standard temperature and pressure]])
* [[The Law of Definite Proportions]] (should be [[Law of definite proportions]])
* [[The Law of Multiple Proportions]] (should be [[Law of multiple proportions]])
* [[The Law of Reflection]] (should be [[Law of reflection]])
* [[The Principle of Superposition]] (should be [[Law of superposition]])

Law of superposition

2008-12-25T16:42:52Z

AlanS: Change move target to avoid clash

{{move|Law of superposition}}
The '''law[/principle] of superposition''' states that when [[artifacts]] are found in rock or earth that is layered, the deeper layers hold the older artifacts.<ref>National Park Service: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/maca/learnhome/cur_p_glo.htm#p Paleontology Glossary - Principle of superposition]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:geology]]

Gravitropism

2008-12-25T16:32:02Z

AlanS: Much improved. Going to see if I can find more sources later.

{{move|Gravitropism}}
'''Gravitropism ''' is a growth response of [[plant]]s to [[gravity]].<ref name="NCSU">NCSU-NSCORT Outreach: [http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/nscort/outreach_exp_gravitrop.html Gravitropism]</ref>

Plants display two sorts of gravitropism simultaneously:
*Positive gravitropism: The roots grow in the direction of gravity.
*Negative gravitropism: The shoots grow against the direction of gravity.

Plants continuously sense which way is "up" and adjust their growth directions accordingly. A common experiment is to plant a seed in a pot and to place the pot on its side after some time. The result is that the roots and shoots will grow in a curve to adjust for the perceived directional change of gravity.<ref name="NCSU"/>

The exact mechanism that allows them to do so is still a matter of debate, with several theories having been voiced by scientists. One such theory argues that heavy starch grains in special cells will tell the plant the direction of gravity by sinking to the bottom of their cells. This theory is called "statolith theory".<ref name="NCSU"/>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Gravitropism

2008-12-25T15:45:58Z

AlanS: Need a page move, going to flesh this one out a bit in a few.

{{move|Gravitropism}}
'''Gravotropism ''' is a [[growth response]] to [[gravity]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

{{stub}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Irreducible complexity

2008-12-24T22:27:20Z

AlanS: /* Darwin, the eye, and "censoring information" */ new section

== Peer review claims. inaccuracy in section ==

The article claims that Behe's notions have been peer reviewed and cites his testimony in the Dover trial as such. However, there are many problems with this (including the fact that Jones found this testimony uncovincing). If one reads further in the transcript for example, one finds the following quote from one of Behe's supposed reveiewers:

:I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript.

:I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later.

:And then in the next session titled A Blessing Years Later, Dr. Atchison writes, After some time, Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, the Free Press, 1996, was published. It became an instant best seller and was widely acclaimed in the news media.

:It is currently in its 15th printing and over 40,000 copies have been sold. I heard about it, but could not remember if this was the same book that I received the call about from the publisher. Could it be?

: In November 1998, I finally met Michael Behe when he visited Penn for a faculty outreach talk. He told me that, yes, indeed, it was his book that the publisher called me about. In fact, he said my comments were the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the book. Interesting, I thought.

10 minute telephone calls do not constitute peer review. Of the other claimed reviewers, others suffer similar problems. For example, Morrow, another reviewer, in fact labeled the book as pretty close to worthless and as a result the book was not published by the initial publisher. This does not constitute peer review and to claim otherwise does a disservice to Conservapedia and its readers. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:27, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Flaws==

Cut from intro:

:Such examples have been showed to be flawed, for example precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/ode_to_the_flag.html Ode to the Flagellum</ref> Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> 

This section makes an argument. It would be better if it merely described facts and reported conclusions.

Say, rather, that Dr. A argues that ionic channels serve as precursor's to the flagellum's motor. Verbiage such as ''shown to be flawed'' implies that Dr. A's version is correct and that ID proponents are incorrect.

A balanced article would present both sides and draw no conclusions. How about this?

:Behe's argument is disputed by Dr. A & Dr. B on the grounds that ...

Can we work together on this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this?

::It has been argued that such examples are flawed. Kenneth R. Miller, for example, describes precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> Nick Matzke suggests that this is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; suggesting that of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/ode_to_the_flag.html Ode to the Flagellum</ref> Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Even Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> 

::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

That's better. Please put it back, and let's see if it sticks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:57, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to have stuck. Unfortunately this whole approach is equating [[creationism|creationist]] (AKA [[intelligent design]]) [[faith]] ([[ideology]]?) with [[science]]. That is of course an example of silliness, like trying to compare apples and pears, a [[false analogy]]. This causes no end of head scratching when trying to apply [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks|locks and blocks]] to protect the article because ''we do not block for ideological reasons'' [([[faith]]?) ...] ''but for silliness'' ([[false analogy]]).
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see that equation. Can you quote some text which does this? I think it's the other way around, and Evolutionists are equating ID with Creationism. Eugenie Scott loses no opportunity to refer to ID as "intelligent design creationism". Try googling that three-word phrase and see what comes up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry I didn't make myself very clear. I mean the approach in this encyclopedia where an article about science contains stuff criticising the science that has nothing to do with science. Example [[Theory of evolution]]. It would be ok to include different scientific hypotheses or theories. This article isn't a science article so the problem is perhaps the other way around. Science stuff getting into articles that aren't really about science, but since it is claimed that what is being presented ([[Intelligent design]]) is science, science kinda has to answer to the false claim in order to avoid people being misled by the article. You are probably right, ID and Creationism shouldn't be conflated. Perhaps ID and Creationist takes on science should only occur in the Essay space, for example [[Essay: Why evolution is bunkum]] following the excellent example set by [[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]. This way anti-intellectual unencyclopedic material can be reduced in the articles themselves.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem here (for me at least( is that it is not clear to me that "the theory of evolution" is science. First, I do not understand clearly what the "theory" is. Is there some sort of mechanism, force or principle concerning the 'origin of species' and 'natural selection'? can it be explained in 25 words or less? How about 500 words? I can explain the diffence between a toaster and a microwave '''in 10 words'''!

::Second, assuming "evolution" is scientific somehow, what are the various ways by which its proponents agree it could be [[falsifed]]? Like if we see X, these means the whole thing is wrong.

::Third, there's a legal battle going on about whether evolution or "creation science" or "intelligent design" are scientific, ideological, religious and/or pseudoscientific. People will keep trying to end the discussion by one tactic or another. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's the article on natural selection (I've also given a simple explanation of how natural selection works on the atricle's discussion page).

[[Natural selection]]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Behe's flawed argument ==

You do realize that everything Behe says can be flipped around to discredit Christianity/God right? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Since its inception, opponents have done whatever they can to discredit Christ and Christianity. They said he used demonic power to cast out demons, etc. I doubt that anything a Christian anti-evolutionist says would give an advantage to the the people trying to discredit Christianity or God.

:If some Creationists wish Behe would just shut up, I'd like to know more about it. Perhaps it would be material for a broad article on [[Science and religion]]. I'm a student of science and also a religious man, hence my interest. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
==Typos, errors==
Double "the" after the title of the book ''No Free Lunch''; Fifth paragraph, second word should be complexity, (extra "o"); In the second quote the phrase "speciality journals" might be better rendered "specialty" (no "i"). [[User:Samwell|Samwell]] 23:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Darwin, the eye, and "censoring information" ==

Since this is quickly going down the same disturbing "removing valuable insights" road as [[Axiom of Choice]], I will not edit the article any more to remove your edit. However, I will simply point out, Rod, that your quote is on AiG's [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp "Don't use"] list because, as I wrote in the edit summary, "[c]iting his statement at face value is subtly out of context." And like I also wrote in my edit summary, you are free to flesh out the argument to make your case, but I am sure you can do that without relying on out-of-context quotes, no?

I made my revert in order to not give critics overly easy targets to shoot down. If you still insist on keeping the quote in the current state, be my guest. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 17:27, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Irreducible complexity

2008-12-24T21:17:50Z

AlanS: rvv: "Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context." - Answers in Genesis. Maybe flesh out the argument, but the quote alone simply makes us an easy target for the critics.

'''Irreducible Complexity''' an argument used to support intelligent design that claims that all parts of a system are required for it to work properly, and the removal of any part would disable the whole system. The idea of irreducible complexity is that some systems are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. Proponents of [[intelligent design]] claim that irreducible complexity is evidence that the system probably was designed by an intelligent agent of some sort.

For example, a car will not go without an engine. Indeed, the engine will not run without fuel and a starter motor. The designer must ensure that all parts work together to produce the intended function.
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[William Dembski]]]]
[[William Dembski]] in his book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following:

"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. <ref>William Dembski, ''No Free Lunch'',(2001), p. 285. ISBN 0742512975</ref>

However, organisms that appear to have no unnecessary parts could have been built up from simpler parts that are no longer necessary. Irreducible complexity has been used by astronomer [[Fred Hoyle]] and biochemistry professor [[Michael Behe]] to argue against the idea of "[[evolution through natural selection]]". Hoyle compares the probability of all the parts of a [[cell]] coming together through natural forces to the probability of a cyclone in a [[hangar]] assembling all the parts of a [[Boeing 747]] aircraft.

William Dembski wrote the following in a essay:
{{Cquote|In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996). Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." <ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.kurzweil_reply.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|left|170px|thumb|[[Michael Behe]]]]
In addition, [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:
{{Cquote|Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>}}

[[Intelligent design]] theorists agree with Charles Darwin that a biological system could not make a gradual transition via small successive steps, unless each step provided an advantage to the species.

Behe presents several examples of organs and cells which he argues could not have evolved through natural forces alone due to their irreducible complexity.

Behe introduced and defined this term on page 9 of his work, "Darwin's Black Box":

:Irreducible complexity is a "single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

It is therefore a state of interacting components that could not function without all its parts. In particular, the term is used by proponents of [[intelligent design]] to argue that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot evolve.

The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the [[blood clotting cascade]], and the bacterial [[flagellum]]. However, not all parts of the blood clotting cascade are necessary, as one Behe lists is missing in whales, and different animals have different numbers of clotting steps. The evolution of the compound eye is now well understood, and it has been found that the basal body of the flagellum
is similar to a needle-like structure some bacteria use to inject toxins into eukaryotic cells.

Kenneth R. Miller describes hypothetical precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> However, Professor Behe counters that Miller's criticism of his work is flawed. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm</ref> Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> However, Professor Behe disputes the criticism of John McDonald. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm</ref>
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Intelligent Design]]

The Trouble With Tribbles

2008-12-24T16:57:29Z

AlanS: As per reasoning given in Trials and Tribble-ations

{{merge|Tribble}}
'''The Trouble With Tribbles''' is a classic [[Star Trek]] episode about a conflict between the Federation and the Klingons. The Federation wants to claim Sherman's Planet, with the aid of a grain hybrid called quadratriticale, and a Federation official uses (or abuses) a high priority distress call to get Starfleet security on the wheat, stored in a space station. Meanwhile, a trader is selling tribbles: cute, little furry animals whose trilling has "a tranquilizing effect on the human nervous system."

A Klingon ship arrives to claim [[shore leave]] rights. Uhuru brings a free sample tribble back to the ship, and it spawns over a dozen more by the next day, the same size as itself. McCoy brings one to the lab to find out "what makes it tick", and it spawns 10 more.

The trouble starts when a Klingon soldier uses an encounter with tribbles (which shriek when near a Klingon) to profess his dislike of Earthers who "remind him of Regulan bloodworms." The drunken soldier twits Chekov and Scott by insulting the Enterprise's captain; Scott tells Chekov to ignore the "opinions" of the Klingon until he says the Enterprise should be "hauled off as garbage". Scott comes up swinging, and the slugfest continues until 5 security guards arrive. Kirk treats the incident mildly: he cancels shore leave for both ships and confines Scott and the other involved crew to quarters.

It would be unfair to the reader to give away the rest of the story, but the idea for tribbles is reminiscent of the Martian flat cats of ''The Rolling Stones'', a science fiction story by [[Robert Heinlein]].

[[category:Science Fiction]]
[[Category:TV Shows]]
[[Category:Star Trek]]

Trials and Tribble-ations

2008-12-24T16:54:37Z

AlanS: It makes no sense to merge one DS9 episode into the article of a TOS episode. Merge to Tribble, if anything.

{{merge|Tribble}}
''Trials and Tribble-ations''' is the [[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine]] sequel to [[The Trouble With Tribbles]], an episode of the original [[Star Trek]]. In this episode, Captain Benjamin Sisko must travel back in time to prevent the Klingons from altering history, and changing the events of "Trouble with Tribbles" so that they end in Kirk's death. In their travels to the past, Jadzia Dax reminisces about her previous host's travels with Kirk, and Dr. Bashir lusts after a woman who, in a joke reminiscent of [[Futurama]], may be his great-grandmother.

Then-advanced computer modeling was used to work modern actors into 1960s-era film frames.

[[category:Star Trek]]
[[Category:Entertainment liveblogs]]

Jesus Christ

2008-12-24T16:51:06Z

AlanS: /* Teachings of Jesus */

[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|''"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."'' —Jesus (Rev. 22:13)]]
'''Jesus Christ''' is the only Son of [[God]] and prophesied [[Messiah]] who, at the appointed time, was sent by His [[God the Father|Father]] and became a man to be the payment for the penalty of sin that separated us from [[God]] and to reveal to us the loving nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Although He was sinless, he bore the penalty for sin upon Himself for us.

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says,
{{cquote|'''John 14:1-15''' Believers will be in his Father's house Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus himself is the only way people can access his Father and his Father's house Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Jesus, you know his Father “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.}}

By the power of the [[Holy Spirit]], Jesus was conceived in the [[womb]] of the virgin [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], and became man in an event known as the [[Incarnation]], as referred to in Isaiah 7:14. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''." The [[John the Apostle|apostle John]] wrote in his gospel the following regarding Jesus Christ: "''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life''" (John 3:16).
{{trinity}}
When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], inaugurating his ministry. Jesus of [[Nazareth]] is the Christ or Messiah, prophesied in the [[Old Testament]] (Greek: Χριστός; [[Aramaic]]: 'משיחא'). Jesus proclaimed that “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the Gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the [[Holy Scripture|scriptures]] had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name, ''Yeshua'' (Hebrew 'יהושע') means "[[Salvation]]" and is the concatenated form of ''Yahoshua'', ‘[[YHWH]] is salvation’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

== Jesus' Life ==
===Incarnation of the Son of God===

The Son of God, who was always with the Father before all creation, took upon himself flesh, that is, become a human being, taking the flesh of manhood from his mother Mary but without her being impregnated by any man. He was born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John begins,<blockquote>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word become flesh and dwelt among us"</blockquote>. There are two understandings of this. Though both hold that the Son of God, Divinity Himself, became a man, they understand differently the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The first understanding sees in the Son of God being the Word ("logos" in Greek) that He is the communication of the Father and thus in some sense the purpose of His coming was to mediate the knowledge of God to man among whom He would dwell and be one with them. But as mediator He is in no way inferior to the God He communicates because He Himself is God. The Trinity is emphasized though by implication (the word "Trinity" is of later usage to describe the phenomenon as presented by the New Testament). This understanding rests upon the use of "logos" in Philo and elsewhere meaning "reason", "word", "rationale"

The second interpretation, while in no way negating His coming to be the communication of the Father to man necessitating the incarnation and explicating the Trinity, rather says that we need to look not to Philo and the "logos" philosophy but to the Aramaic Jewish thought of the time. Doing so, we can see that the Gospel of John intends to rip away a veil, and in doing so, will show us that it was God Himself and no mediator, that leaped down to take the form of a human being, and that this is to be spoken of boldly.

Here is how this second understanding is developed:

The Hebrew text is very clear in visualizing the God of Israel in physical terms, even if meant to be understood metaphorically. But the Aramaic Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures will not allow it to be so presented, but will rather speak around it (paraphrase) or use an intermediary word between the physical description and God. In [[Genesis]] 32, [[Jacob]] is wrestling with "a man" but after the bout, Jacob says, in the original Hebrew text, "I have seen God face to face and my life has been saved". In the Aramaic translation, however, Jacob is made to say, " I have seen the ''angel of God'' face to face and my life has been saved". At times, the intermediary word is the word "Word" - in Aramaic, Memra (the root is Aleph, Mem, Resh as in the Hebrew word 'Omer). Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 3:8) has it, "They ([[Adam]] and [[Eve]]) heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden", the Aramaic has it, "they heard the sound of ''the Memra'' of the LORD God walking about in the garden" Apparently, walking about in the garden conjured up too much of rustling of leaves and bushes to take figuratively, and so it was the "Memra" that was heard and not the LORD God. This is the pattern in other places in Genesis. Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University notes that it is to this mindset that we owe our understanding of John 1:1 and not to Philo and the Alexandrian "logos" philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word (Memra) and the Word (Memra) was with God.. and the Word (Memra) was God. John 1:1 is meant to rip away the distinction between God and the Memra, so assiduously held to by contemporary Judaism, and so declare that they, the Memra and God, are in reality one, ...and this One has, indeed, come down and has become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. John, in his epistle would later say in wonderment, " Whom we have handled, we have touched and held Him."

=== Infancy ===
The [[Gospels]] tell us that Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] of [[Judea]] to a young virgin named [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], by the [[Holy Spirit]].<ref>http://objectiveministries.org/babyj/</ref> [[Gospel of Luke|Luke's account]] of the gospel relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). A survey of the [[Roman Empire]] was ordered by [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], which caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a [[manger]] for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi" ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests) who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]])<ref>Note: This has led to the incorrect assumption that there were only three Magi, whereas the actual number is not given.</ref> after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home was the town of [[Nazareth]] in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel.

====The Infancy and the Massacre of the Innocents====

Within sight of the southern suburbs of Modern Jerusalem,towards the eastern desert, is a conical hill, Herodium, made conical by the work of Herod the King. Herodium served as his fortress in the time of war and as royal residence for himself and visiting dignitaries in the time of peace. Mazada by the dead sea served him in the same way. From this bastion were sent by him his soldiers to slay all the children under the age of two of Bethlehem, in full view of Herodium looking south. This was in hopes that in the slaughter of all, he would also slay the child, indicated by the star and the Magi, as his rival to the throne and power. And so, escaping, Joseph and Mary took the child Jesus to Egypt until it was time, at the death of Herod, for him to make exodus back into the Holy Land and Nazareth. "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" The fury and the hatred for one child, thus saw the slaying of so many of the innocents of Bethlehem whose only guilt was that they were under 2. And so, we know now the Massacre of the Innocents

Beyond this slaughter of so many and hatred for the One who had come, the Book of the Revelation, Chapter 12 would see another and ancient hatred, whether understood or not, one that works behind all other slaying, behind the slaying of all infants, within and without the womb - hatred for the very Son of God, and hatred for all his seed that bear His image, hatred for the Image of God borne by the Son of God, and hatred for God Himself.

=== At Twelve Years Old ===
The account of Jesus' parents finding him in the temple impressing the "teachers" with his knowledge of the [[Old Testament|scripture]] is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life that is known.
{{cquote|'''Luke 2:41–51''' Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.}}

At this early age of twelve years old, there is clearly shown an inner positional or relational commitment of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that this had not been present prior to His twelfth year. His deepest belonging, that against which all other belongings were to be judged, confirmed, rejected, etc. was to the Father, the Father's House, the Father's concerns. This commitment would reverberate at later times, severing ultimate claims on Him of his closest - mother, brothers, sisters, etc. In the presence of these and to their hearing, He would ask, "Who are my mother, and brothers, and sisters? He that does the will of my Father in Heaven is ..." This, in His own life, was the moral authority to demand the same of all others, "You cannot serve two masters..." The memory of what had happened in the Temple when He was twelve, pondering it in her heart, would stand Mary in good stead, when she would see her son hanging on the cross. She also would be found with the disciples in the upper room, praying, and waiting for the coming of the Spirit which He had promised.

====From Heaven's View====
But seen from heaven, a spark had entered into the Temple's precints..

and around that the time, there was to evolve the extra biblical ceremony and practice of Judaism, which woud try to make sense of the need to be anchored into the ancient tradition of God, with the need to make new for every generation the relevance of it for each Jewish youth. And so developed the Bar Mitzvah, the "Son of the Law" ceremony and concept. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy, so it developed, would read or sing out in the synagogue, the Shabbat of his birthday, the prophetic portion (the Haftorah) for that Sabbath assigned to the Torah portion (from the 5 books of Moses, read consecutively), raining down upon him from the Women's Section (Ezrat Nashim) - the Help of Women) above or to the side, hard sweet candy signifying the hope of sweetness set before him. For at that time, the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man, taking upon himself, the obligations for fulfilling the Law of Moses, and is no longer absolved from this responsibility by the mediation of his father's fullfilment of the Law of Moses for him.

At this time, seen from Heaven, a spark entered in, another way, sometimes seen in other young boys and girls, but in a dim way, an intense concentration on the Father above all things and people, looking and judging all surrounding him from the viewpoint of Him flooding the soul, listening, speaking, believing.
So Jesus reasoned with the rabbis, never being encompassed by them, in the house of His Father. Was it told to us showing what He was and what we could be, or at least, learn to follow in His steps, or was it shown to us to allow us to view another step in His being made perfect, growing in favor with God and Man, totally consumed with the doing of His Father's will, and thus, "being made perfect", to take our place upon the Cross, for our sakes and for our salvation?

=== Ministry ===
==== Baptism ====
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus' Baptism]]
The [[gospel of Mark]] begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

'''The meaning of Baptism for Jesus:'''

Jesus insisted over the protests of John that He be baptized at the hands of John. John's protests are natural enough as John's baptism was for those who were sinners, and implied in baptism was the understanding that the baptizer was somehow greater than the one baptized. John believed that he needed to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way around. But Jesus' understanding of His being baptized was two-fold:"Baptism" meant suffering unto death, and it implied that His impending mission was to be in behalf and in place of the real sinners, the humanity for whom He would die. Jesus would later use "baptism" in the first sense when he said to disciples, "Can you be baptized with the baptism which I will undergo?" The Spirit coming down on the Son in the form of a Dove (Yonah = "Jonah" in Hebrew), and the voice of the Father, "This is My Beloved Son" was the Divine empowerment, and authorization for Jesus' mission to come entailing His sacrificial death, three days, not in the belly of the fish, but in the bowels of the earth, and after that, resurrection. As Baptism for Jesus meant, looking forward, His joining sinful humanity to the point of bearing their sins to the death of the cross, so the later New Testament understands, looking backward, that sinners believing in Jesus are also to join Him in His death through the waters of baptism "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - according to the command of the Risen Christ. See [[Christianity]] for Jesus' self consciousness.

==== Temptation ====
After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

'''The reason behind the Temptation:'''

The Temptation occurred just as told in the Gospels. But behind the happening, another message lies revealing the identity of Jesus to a people who would understand it. At the foothill of Mt. Hermon, in between the servile Roman infatuated people of Tiberius to the south west of the Sea of Galilee, and the rabidly nationalistic, anti- Roman Zealots of Gamla to the north east, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, was the answer. And Jesus explained who He was and why he had come in terms that fit their experience - not to rule and throw out the Romans, nor to uphold their ways and laws but rather something on a different plane all together - to give His life settling it on the cross.

To a later believing people, those who were not Jewish, who He was would be understood in terms fitting to who they were - He had come the Second Adam, to give His life and to provide new life to those who were not Jewish, but also including the Jews, to all the lost and wandering children of Adam.

In the Temptation, it is the those who knew the Old Testament, the physical children of Abraham primarily, who could see in the long range, and not primarily dictated to by the political passions of the moment, and who could wonder who they were and where they had gone wrong, and wonder also who would be the One to take them out. It is they, Israel, who had been in the wilderness for 40 years, and they that had succumbed to the temptations of selling out for food and drink, though they were a "Son" whom God with a strong arm and outstretched hand had taken out of the bondage of Egypt, they had turned traitor, driven by their own lust and pride. And here now, in Jesus, was One who resisted the devil in the wilderness, also "for forty", preferring the will of God as His food rather than all the world could offer, Who was He? He was Israel! The only true one left, the faithful remnant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, the servant true to the end. As the letter to the Hebrews saw, "Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He become the author of Eternal life...". This is the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew, in interpreting a passage from Hosea which was manifestly speaking of Israel the people and applying it to Jesus who also came out of Egypt with His parents at the death of Herod, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son". Who was Jesus? He was Israel who had ''not'' failed come to redeem Israel who had, and also out of all the peoples of the world.

==== Disciples and Apostles ====
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|left|100px|Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)]]
The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples of Jesus|disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and [[the parable of the sheep and the goats|the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

'''Their choosing and their purpose:''' Among the many who came to Jesus, from afar and from the surrounding villages of the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, were those moved by his insight into the nature of life, or touched deeply by His seemingly knowing them from the inside, by His intimacy with the God and Father they had only known "about", or impressed by the miracles done before their very eyes, and many, by His deep compassion for the people, so evident in all that He did. Jesus would sprinkle His words upon them as seed in a path, some to take root, and some to be blown away by the wind. But to those who heard and wanted more, they would get that more, receiving explanation, and move closer to His association. Those that would not, would receive only that which was commensurate to not wanting - more parables, silence. Never the revealing of the "Secrets of the Kingdom". Yet, there was no prohibition and no limit for getting closer to Jesus. Those that did, became His "learners" - the disciples, understanding the meanings of His word by the demonstration of His life and putting them into practice. Among these were another group, some that had been with Him from early on, possibly some from the time of His baptism at the hands of John. These He would hold in His mind for an additional and different reason.

Then one night, he ascended a hill praying about them, and came down knowing who they were to be. 12 in number, chosen not because of their virtue, or even what He would do in them in the future, but rather solely chosen by His Father to be deputized, delegated, or commissioned by Jesus to be sent out for a mission. He gave them the name "Shaliach" (meaning all that), which was translated into Greek as "apostolos" and so our Apostles.

The mission of the Apostles (see "Example 5." of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]) was to do all that they saw Jesus was doing, healing the sick, raising the dead, and with all this, to tell about the fast coming Kingdom of Heaven, the rule of His Father, and urge people to repent and get ready for it. He gave them His power and authority to do all this. But it was to be 12 in number, not more and not less, that number surviving even the suicide of one of them, Judas from the village of Kyriot, requiring an "election" to bring back the number from 11 to 12. And that was because the special additional reason for their appointment was to sit on the 12 thrones of the 12 tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) and lead them by whatever it takes - that is the meaning of the biblical term "Judge" (Shofet)*. For the community of the "little ones"., was to be, in some sense, an Israel within Israel, or a new Israel, a sort of beachhead for the onslaught of the Kingdom of God in its invasion (or sometimes, infiltration into) into and onto the Kingdom of the unjust occupier and enemy of all Goodness, the Devil, to overthrow him and all his works. This truer and newer Israel, He called His "Called Out ones" (Eklessia=Church) against whose onslaught the Fortified city of Hell with its defensive bars to its massive gates, would not prevail. Many captives would be released. The Church, then, was the community counterpart to what was known as the "Synagogue" (Greek), meaning "gathered together ones" (Beit Knesset - house of the gathering, Hebrew). It was the Synagogue of Jesus the King and Messiah, and aligned with and the focal point of the Prophetically promised and hoped-for Kingdom of God and the rule of Heaven on Earth. And the disciples and apostles of Jesus all had their place in the unfolding of it all.

*Note: For the significance of sitting on the seat and judging, see Example 2. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]].

==== Social Outcasts ====
Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Jesus showed no partiality toward outcasts, and neither did He do so to those who were in society. But being an outcast was a category beyond the reach of all others which were in society. Jesus was not for the male over against the female, the Jew over against the non Jew, townsman over against the man of the field. He was impartial and penetrating in His love for all. But all of these had a certain standing in Society, they were part of it, though all being in it, could vie for more of it as their share. But all were united, and could work in concert against what they were not - the outcast. The love of Jesus and the love of His Father through Him, could not rest lightly on any one of them, until it would reach and rest on the one beyond the fringes, the outer edges, and down below - the outcast. This demonstrated in the life of Jesus what the Cross would later show and the Apostles preach - all were outcast to the Holiness of God, and all could be loved by Him and, indeed, were.

==== Miracles ====
Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

Miracles were an intrusion of the ordinary, but the ordinary of a different and far-superior Kingdom, into the sordid and sin sick kingdoms of this world. They showed what life was really like there in that Kingdom which was coming and how weak, unstable, subject and cringing were the powers of this corrupted world, "bent" under the heel of God. That a widow should have her dead son restored to her alive, that outcasts such as lepers should be restored to the community, and as a result of their being healed, that darkness should give way to light and sight, that a woman deserving stoning find solace and forgiveness, all of these are the way things are and ought to be in the Kingdom of God because of the way He is. They were, at one and the same time, signs of the Kingdom which was coming and great works of compassion done here below which will never by surpassed or forgotten. And Jesus the Messiah was bringing them in!

Note: See Example 5 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] for the assault and infiltration of God's Kingdom on and into the Kingdom of Satan.

==== His Preaching was Offensive to the Established Authority ====
As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]], the recognized Jewish religious authorities, who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Notable among Jewish established authorities were the Pharasees, the Saduccees, and the Herodians.

The Pharisees, believing that at the time God had given to Moses the "written Torah" (Torah shebikhtav), He had also given to Moses an "Oral Torah" (Torah shebe'al peh) which would apply the written Torah to all situations and times, and that that Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation, finally, it itself written down, making, in the days of Jesus, the beginning of the Talmud. Thus it was necessary to be able to "fill in the rabbis" from whom the teaching came (see [[Judaism]]) - "Rabbi Tarfon says in the name of Rabbi..." But this man Jesus, goes straight to Moses, and straight to Heaven! ''"You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."'' and himself speaks as the ''Mouth of God!''

The Saduccees, not believing in an Oral Torah, and believing much of the written Torah to be irrelevant and impractical in the modern times that they lived, believed that the "blanks" and how the Torah was to be applied in these days, must be decided by the Kingdoms of the World, namely, Roman law and requirement. But this man Jesus speaks of another Kingdom and another King, and not of Rome!

The Herodians saw clearly who their enemy was and who their Savior was and wherein their safety lie - Herod the King of the Jews and all the aura and the might that he possessed. And their enemy was anyone who would claim, or live in the claim of others, that it was he that was the King of the Jews and not Herod (and the royalty after Herod) - such as was doing the man Jesus of Nazareth

Note: Judaism does not have a "unified" theory of Inspiration or practical authority of Scripture. That is, The most authoritative, and capable of being regulatory to life as "law" is the five books of Moses. After that, the Prophets. And after that, the "Writings." The Scripture of the Saduccees was just the Five books of Moses, and since there is little if anything about the resurrection from the dead and the after life in the the Five Books of Moses, they believed in neither. The Pharisees, believing in the on-going of revelation extending, though with lesser authority, to the Prophets (such as Daniel) and the Writings, believed in both.

=== Last Days of Jesus' Life ===
==== Lord's Supper ====
'''God and man at table are sat down:'''

It happened before - "Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu. and seventy elders of Israel. They saw the God of Israel...they gazed on God. They ate and they drank." Exodus 24: 9-11

It would happen after - "Now while He was with them at table, He took the bread and said the blessing, then He broke it and handed it to them. And their eyes were opened and recognized Him. But He had vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us as He talked to us on the road, and explained the Scriptures to us?"Luke 24: 30-32

Eating before the Lord or with the Lord, would be used as the highest form of friendship - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him and share my meal with him, side by side.". Rev. 3:20.

At the [[Passover Seder]], the last meal the Lord would eat with His followers, His presence so permeated the atmosphere, and what He said and did at that special time, and especially they having received His command to do just what He was doing before them at this time, whenever they would meet together, the Apostles of the Lord and the Gospels after them could not speak of bountiful and miraculous times of the Lord's gracious giving of food feeding the multitudes, without mentioning that which otherwise would not have been mentioned - ''He took the bread, looked up to heaven blessing the bread, He broke the bread, and He gave it to them.'' That is what the Lord did before them, and that is what Hie commanded them to do after Him, and thus provided for them, and for the Church after them, the one of two universal services - the [[Lord's Supper]], or [[Eucharist]], or [[Holy Communion]].

But in addition, He gave His own particular understanding to the unleavened bread of the Passover and ceremonial cup of wine, the 3rd and "Thanksgiving cup" of wine drunk immediately after the Passover meal was eaten. In slightly varying words, the Gospels and the Church after would perpetuate that understanding by repeating what the Lord Himself said at that Last Supper - "This is My Body which is given for you... This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you, and for the many, for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as my own Remembrance". And so He signified to His followers that His life would be given in sacrifice for them and for their benefit. How this benefit would be effected, would be explained by Jesus by other sayings, "Do not think that I have come in order to be served. I have not come to be served but rather to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

But His presence remained with them at the continual celebration of this new Christian [[Passover]] of the Communion. Though He had vanished from their eyes as He would return to the Father, yet through the Spirit which He had promised to be in His stead, He was there with them to remain- "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I!"..." Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Note 1: The word Maranatha, comes from the Greek word which is translating the Aramaic which comes in two forms according to the accent given. Marana tha - "O our Lord, come!", and Maran atha - "Our Lord has come". This appears in the earliest liturgies of the Eucharist, and was used either as an invocation for the Lord to come, a sort of invite, or as an exclamation that the Lord has indeed come, just as He said He would. In either case, it was a witness to the belief that the Lord was indeed with them when they participated in the Remembrance which He had commanded.

Note 2; What the Lord said, "This is my body... This is my blood...Do this!" (the "Words of Institution", His instituting the Holy Communion until His coming again), is absent in the Gospel of John when recounting the last time of the Lord with His disciples. This is not an oversight, as the Gospel of John, from all contextual indications, has already spoken of the matter in the 6th chapter.

==== Garden of Gethsemane ====
[[Image:Jesus in Gethsemane.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus in Gethsamane]]
Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the [[Garden of Gethsemane]] and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

Decision, certainty, from a distance is clearer and easier than when the time approaches for decision's implementation. That is because the here and now, leaves no room for imagining a rescue from all that is around us and in us. Leaving us confused or uncertain, needing assurance, or a once again revelation, of what it was that brought us to decision in the first place. John knowing from the beginning that his cousin Jesus was the promised Messiah, when years later, found himself in prison, and things not going the way he had expected, understood or hoped, required assurance that Jesus was really the One he had thought Him to be. Jesus responded forcefully and completely to that so human request - Tell John what you see, the dead are raised, the sick healed, and the poor are being told of the good news of the Kingdom of God. And it was enough.

Jesus, knowing why He had come, and that He was to mount the cross, to bear the sins of the world, knowing also what that must mean, He who had never "known" sin, now to know it in a way, that man could never know, man who all the time was in it, inured to it, accustomed to it, Jesus prayed. There was a movement in His prayer, taking on anew, the certainty and decision of old, feeling the enormity of it at close hand, and in the garden, he prayed three times, each time agonizing* dripping great drops of sweat, each time making movement in the direction from ''If there be another way, The Father knows and will show, but He would do whatever the Father wills'', towards ''being the Father's will, He would do it. There really is no other way''. And then it was done, He had settled it within Him anew, having prayed, and having received the deep silent Amen of the Father within His soul. It was enough. He was ready.

*note: "Agonize" of the text is from the Greek word "to struggle".

==== Tried before Jewish Authorities ====
Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. For the location of the Jewish trial, see Example 6 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==== Tried before Roman Authorities ====
As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demanded his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, and then gave the crowd a choice to either spare Jesus or a criminal called [[Barabbas]] as part of the passover tradition. The crowd chose to free Barabbas [Aramaic: "Son of a (the) Father") and Pilate washed his hands to signify that he bore no responsibility for Jesus' death before ultimately condemning Him to [[crucifixion]].<ref>Matthew 27: 15-44</ref>

==== Scourging ====
The penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (flogging) with the Roman ''flagellum''. a short ox-hide whip knotted with pieces of zinc, lead, and bone which removed swaths of the victims' skin with every stroke. Although the Bible mentions the scourging of Jesus only very briefly, it must have been particularly brutal from the relatively short amount of time Jesus lingered on the cross after the punishment. Victims who suffered less blood loss from the scourging were known to remain alive on the cross for two or three days.

==== Death on a Cross ====
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit.

Behind the Cross was the sum total of all the maladies of mankind, that the Old Testament unveiled : Pesh'a - conscious and "high handed" rebellion, for which , under the Old Covenant, there was no forgiveness provided, Khet - an unintended "missing of the mark", as in the deviation from the bull's eye of the bowman, Shigi'a - the mistakes, some causing great harm to others, which come about by plain ignorance, and 'Avon "iniquity" or distortion - the inner twistedness, that causes failure and suffering, seemingly from the very structure of our persons regardless of our intent. These were the sins Godwards as well as towards man, and these are all, Scripture revealed, repugnant to the nature and standard of a Holy God.

On the Cross, in a way which is unfathomable to man, but nonetheless believable, the repugnance fell upon Jesus, the Son of God, and again in a way not fully understandable to us, but believable nonetheless, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not considering us the sinners but rather His own dear Son who had no taint upon Himself. A great transaction had taken place by the imposition of Himself of Christ in our place, absorbing, as if He were a blotter, all the reaction of a Holy God upon Himself, in our place, that we might go free. Unfair to Him, Mercy to us. Yet Jesus was not forced to do it. He did it both in His great love for us and in His obedience to the way that the Father had decided. "No one takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down...I lay down my life for the sheep". Peter would say, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." Paul would say, "He was made to be sin, He who did not "know" sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him". That was Friday.

On Saturday, when all were at Sabbath's rest, Jesus was not. His body dead, He passed in spirit to those that had died before, those in the period of Noah, and proclaimed, as Peter taught, what He had done. On Sunday, the first day of the week, He would rise from the dead.

The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved. The shedding of His blood brings salvation, to anyone who will respond, according to the ability that they have, that is given them. That brings forgiveness and acceptance, even welcome, to the murderer such as Paul, the adulteress such as the "woman taken in adultery", the tax-collecting extortionist, a seeker in the night turned believer, as hopefully Nicodemus proved to be, people that just know that they are sinners without any "grave sin" to specify, and also the "fetus" whose life was cut off in the womb as a "thing", and the severely retarded child banging his head in the institution he finds himself. All, according to the light given them, and repentance and turning to God given to them, will one day know just what was the basis for their salvation - the Cross of Christ. Those who reject, will also one day know the basis by which they could have been saved if they had not rejected - the Cross of Christ

=== Resurrection ===
:''See main article: [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]''
On the third day after his death, Jesus [[resurrection of Jesus Christ|rose bodily from the dead]].

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was no mere reassembling the molecules of His dead and disintegrating body, but it was a new union of His Spirit and body, in a way that could only be called by the Apostle Paul, in reference to ourselves, when we, in turn, following His pattern, a ''spiritual body''. Having risen from the dead, He was physical enough to eat and drink with His disciples, and we can assume to digest, as well as ingest, and to be touched and felt, having Thomas' hand thrust into His spear riven side, and yet, strangely not held by the physical laws of before, passing through the door to the room where the disciples were assembled, "Peace be upon you!", and to physically ascend, in the sight of all, from a location on the Mount of Olives into the presence of the Father In some way, even the disciples on the Road to Emmaeus, could not recognize Him, perhaps an aspect of the changed body, perhaps the power of the will of Jesus himself blinding them to the fact that It was He, until the breaking of the bread.
Jesus had risen, the stone unrolled, not to let Him out, but to let others in - to have the basis for their testimony, that He is risen indeed!
By the regaining of His life in the resurrection from the dead (Scripture asserts that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that this took place) Jesus was "certified" to the Church, and to all that would come after, that He was indeed the Son of God, that the verdict of death to Him given by men, was not so much overturned, but used in a far superior way by the Father to accomplish His will for redemption, and has given Him, at the last, ''vindication''.

And for mankind, its individuals in the millions through the centuries who had believed in Him, there came the certainty, that death was also not to be their end, that they too will arise with Jesus, that death, the annihilation of all, or a future only to be dreaded, was not to be their end, that the Presence of Jesus who had gone before them, was a welcoming one, that He had found a way, and now they would be with Him forever and ever, and with good hope for the sight of loved ones again. Death had been conquered and fear could be too.

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus]]. Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]], and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>
* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
* http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
* http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref> In addition, much has been written defending the resurrection of Christ in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]].

=== Ascension into Heaven ===
He was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him form their sight. They were still staring into the sky when suddenly two men in white were standing near them and they said, "why are you men from Galilee standing here looking into the sky. Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, this same Jesus will come back in the same way as you have seen Him go there." Acts 1:9-11

Scripture posits two purposes related to man for the ascension of Jesus: 1. it was to the right hand of the Father (showing favorable disposition of the Father to the Son to hear His requests) from which position Jesus intercedes to the Father on our behalf, and 2. Having ascended to the Father, He received from the Father the Spirit. The Father pours out the Spirit "through the Son" upon the Church. The "first Pentecost"

=== Return of Jesus from heaven to earth===
I gazed into the visions of the night and I saw coming on the clouds of heaven, One like a son of man. He came to the One of Great Age and was led into His presence. On Him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship. And men of all peoples, nations, and languages became His servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away. Nor will His empire ever be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the Horn of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are still alive remaining here will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so will we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4: 16,17

You were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God; and how you are now waiting for Jesus, His Son, whom He raised from the dead, to come from heaven to save us from the retribution which is coming. 1 Thess, 1:9,10

==Jesus' Self Consciousness==

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

==Following Jesus, believing in Him==
It is sometimes said that there are two faiths in the New Testament. That of Jesus and that of Paul. Paul's religion is that of believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, and as the divine Son of God, and that of Jesus is of following Him in the sense of living and doing as He has taught. But in reality, there is only one faith and the two not in contradiction. For the Jesus of the Gospels, besides setting forth the life that He himself lived, as a pattern for all His followers, also said, "No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son choses to reveal Him", and "I and the Father are One", and "If you see Me, you see God". .And Paul, aside, from saying that "if you believe in the Lord Jesus you shall be saved", and "therefore, being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", also said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and "Owe no man anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. And he who does not believe, shall be condemned", Jesus said. It is belief in Jesus which brings a person to the waters of baptism, and it is through the waters of baptism, that one enters into the fellowship of the Church, the people of God who are being brought, day be day, one with the other, to the life that Jesus taught about. And so his new belief and his being and living and doing are all unified under the direction of Christ and His under-shephards. And if one will not believe, of course, then it goes without saying, he will not be baptized.

== Historical Analysis ==
=== Dating Jesus' Birth ===
Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C., due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
Occasionally, non-historians deny the [[historicity of Jesus]] (Having to do with the question of whether Jesus was in fact a real person who had a real life on earth), but few scholars take this seriously. [[Tacitus]], a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115,<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref> and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him.<ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref> Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'', which discusses many historical sources that mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''[[The Case for Christ]]'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Jesus' Name ==
=== ''Jesus'' ===
The bible doesn't tell us much about the meaning of the name ''Jesus'', but does tell us who gave the name, when the name was given, and a reason the name was given. Luke 2:21 tells us that his name was given (1) "by the angel," (2) and it was given "before He was conceived in the womb." The reason for naming him Jesus seems to be given in Matthew 1:21, which says, "...you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

==== Hebrew Origin ====
The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Yah, short for Yahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

=== ''Christ'' ===
Athough it appears that "Jesus Christ" is composed of a first and last name, and indeed, the New Testament at times considers the names together as a first and second name, in origin, and through much of the New Testament, "Christ" is used as a title. It is the Greek translation for "Mashiach" (Hebrew), and Meshicha (Aramaic) - meaning "Annointed". Thus He was called, "Jesus, the Annointed One". Kings priests, and prophets were often annointed with oil to consecrate them for their task, and so was Jesus for His task by the descent of the Spirit when He was baptized by John. The Spirit descended on Him and dwelt within Him. This was in fulfillment of Isaiah 61 - "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me for He has annointed (Mashach) Me; He has sent Me to bring good news to the meek, to console the broken hearted, to call out Freedom to the captives, and to prisoners Release." When Jesus ascended into the presence of the Father, the Father sent the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, through the Son, upon the believers and they too, as their Master, were "annointed" for their living and their task.

Note: The change from a title to a name is much more authentic and understandable in Aramaic language than in English. There is no inner connection from "Jesus the Christ" to "Jesus Christ" in English but in Aramaic the connecting bridge is the vocative "O Christ" (O, Annointed One)! "O Christ" and "The Christ" is the same in Aramaic - Meshicha.

== Teachings of Jesus ==
Jesus' special method of teaching was very different from what we know as "class room" teaching, and different from "teaching from definition". Though His students sometimes sat around Him and listened, He often taught them through the actual every day events of life, by parable and much more - as they traveled, as they ate, as they met people. All of life was His text book. He took them from what they understood to what they ''were to understand'', and brought them to understanding of what He meant, by how they saw it enacted and displayed in His own life. His life was the commentary to what they heard from His lips. That is why, besides that He was the Savior of the World, the believers in Him need be followers as well - to learn of His ways by intimate association. They would remember the words of the Savior later on and understand even more once His Spirit would be given them. His Spirit would then be their Guide, just as Jesus had done for them when He was on earth.

The Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ are found in the four [[Gospels]] and other holy documents.

[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/default.asp '''Sermon on the Mount'''] This is the greatest sermon Jesus ever preached. It contains the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, the golden rule, and practical advice for Christian living.

'''The Lord's Prayer'''

Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

For Yours is the kingdom

and the power

and the glory forever.

[[Amen]].

See [[The Lord's Prayer]] for the Greek and the interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

'''The golden rule:'''

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!"

'''Prayer To Receive Him Now '''

''"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus' name, [[Amen]]."'' <ref> [http://www.jesus2020.com/jesus.html Prayer To Receive Him Now]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Atonement]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/default.asp Summary of the Life of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/teachings.asp Teachings of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/ Sermons of Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
* [http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C. S. Lewis Society of California].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/bodily.php The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/resurrection.php Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justice_Jesus.htm Doing Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossan: "What Victory? What God?", by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=37 The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Ben Witherington, III].

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]

Help:Creating templates

2008-12-24T12:48:19Z

AlanS: /* Creating templates */ Fixing Redirect Deletion Fail

A '''template''' is a page that can be inserted in another page. Although any page can be inserted in another page, templates are normally created in the "Template" [[namespace]].

*[[Special%3AAllpages&from=&namespace=10| List of templates]]

----
=='''Before you can attach your own template to any CP page, you will need to submit it for approval at [[Template Submission]].''' ==

== Creating templates ==

Templates can be created (started) in exactly the same way as ordinary articles. See [[Help:How to create a new article|How to create a new article]].

== Types of templates ==
{{statistics}}
Templates can be categorised into three types:
* '''Boilerplate text'''. These templates are simply some predefined text that can be inserted into articles. An example is {{tl|essay}}.
* '''List of links'''. Many templates might includes links to other articles. Templates consisting solely of links are usually referred to as navigation boxes, because they allow you to jump to related articles. And example is {{tl|statistics}} which is shown at right.
{{Ship|name=Victory|disp=3,500 tons|length=226 feet|beam=52 feet|draft=29 feet|speed=8-9 knots|armament=104 guns on 3 decks|crew=850}}
* '''With parameters'''. These templates are designed to have values passed to it to include different information in the same basic layout. ''Info boxes'' are one type of such template. The example at right is an information box for a ship, with the details of the ship passed as parameters like this: {{tt|<nowiki>{{Ship|name=Victory|disp=3,500 tons|length=226 feet|beam=52 feet|draft=29 feet|speed=8-9 knots|armament=104 guns on 3 decks|crew=850}}</nowiki>}} There are several different options for parameters:
** Parameters can be required or optional. Optional parameters often require more effort by the editor creating the parameter, but less effort by the editor using the template.
** Parameters can be named or not named. Named parameters are more flexible (they can be supplied in any order, and any optional parameters can be omitted), but require a bit more typing by the editor using them. Unnamed parameters must be supplied in order, and only parameters at the end of the list can be omitted.
** You can have a mix of named and unnamed parameters.
Templates can be designed to change their appearance depending on the parameters supplied. For example, the {{tl|ship}} template above could have been designed to not show the "Test depth" row of the table when no parameter was supplied for that field.

== Writing templates ==
It is not the purpose of this page to describe the various ways to write templates. See the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Template template manual at MediaWiki].
===Creating parameters for templates===
<nowiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki> creates a parameter for a template

<nowiki>{{{1|car}}}</nowiki> creates a parameter for a template whose default is car

<nowiki>{{{myage}}}</nowiki> creates a parameter named myage for a template

<nowiki>{{{myage|car}}}</nowiki> creates a parameter named myage for a template whose default is car

named parameters for example <nowiki>{{myage}}</nowiki> versus <nowiki> {{{1}}} or {{{2}}} or {{{3}}}</nowiki> do not have to be put in any particular order

for example let us say there is a template called Template:User age, that looks like this, <nowiki>{{{1}}} is my age</nowiki>

you would put <nowiki>{{User age|12}}</nowiki> for the template to display, 12 is my age

another example let us say there is a template called Template:User age, that looks like this, <nowiki>{{{1}}} is my age, I was born in the month, {{{2}}}</nowiki>

you would put <nowiki>{{User age|12|December}}</nowiki> for the template to display, 12 is my age I was born in the month December

another example let us say there is a template called Template:User age, that looks like this, <nowiki>{{{myage}}} is my age</nowiki>

you would put <nowiki>{{User age|myage=19}}</nowiki> for the template to display, 19 is my age

another example let us say there is a template called Template:User age, that looks like this, <nowiki>{{{myage}}} is my age, I was born in the month, {{{mymonth}}}</nowiki>

you would put <nowiki>{{User age|myage=19|my month=January}}</nowiki> for the template to display, 19 is my age, I was born in the month, January you also could put <nowiki>{{User age|my month=January|myage=19}}</nowiki> for the same result

== Documenting templates ==

Templates existing on Conservapedia ''must'' be documented, or they will be deleted.

They must be documented in two places:
* On the template page itself.
* In the [[help:templates|list of templates]].

There are some exceptions to this rule:
* User boxes do not have the same requirements. See further below.
* Some articles have a sub-page transcluded into the article as a template, even though not in template namespace. These should only be used if the sub-page is transcluded into the one (parent) article. If they are to be used in more than one place, they should be in template namespace. These do not need to be documented.
* Conservapedia does not allow signature templates. However, this does not preclude having a signature template which is ''subst''ituted into another page. It is transclusion that is not allowed. As the template is only for use by a single person, it does not need to be documented.

=== Documentation on the template page ===

To include documentation on the template page, include it between <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags. Anything between <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags will appear on the template page but is not part of the template, so will not appear on pages that the template is placed on.
There are three ways to put the documentation on the page:
# Write the full documentation.
# Put a link to another page which itself contains the documentation.
# Write the documentation on another page (usually a sub-page), and include that other page on the template page using the template syntax. For example: {{tt|<nowiki><noinclude>{{<template-name>/doc}}</noinclude></nowiki>}} will place the contents of the "doc" sub-page of the template on the template page itself.
Methods 2 and 3 are useful if the template itself is locked from editing, as it still allows the documentation itself to be edited by any editor.

The following two templates should be placed on the documentation page of all templates. In some cases, these two templates are all that is required, but often other information should be added also.
* {{tl|TemplateDoc}} This is a brief description of the template.
* {{tl|Parms}} This is a container for a list of parameters. If there are no parameters, just place {{tt|<nowiki>{{Parms|}}</nowiki>}} on the page.
* {{tl|Parm}} This comprises the details of a single parameter. Use one of these for each parameter in the template, with all of them comprising the one parameter required for the {{tl|Parms}} macro.
** Note that in a few cases with many straight-forward parameters which are obvious from the template itself, it is not necessary to list each one of them individually. See {{tl|planet}} for an example.

To make it easier, simply copy the following text to the documentation page of a template, then fill in the details. If you are not placing this on the template page itself, omit the <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags.

<blockquote style="border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;"><tt><nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> 
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>TemplateDoc|pages=|purpose=|cat=}} 
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>Parms| 
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>Parm|name|purpose|required? (yes/no)|Comment (may be default value)}}  
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>Parm||||}}  
}} 
<nowiki></noinclude></nowiki></tt>
</blockquote>

=== Documentation in the template list ===

All templates must also be included in the [[help:templates|template list]] for easy reference. To include your template in this list, locate the appropriate section and list your template in alphabetical orders using the format {{tt|* <nowiki>{{tl|</nowiki>''your template name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> ''description''}}. The description is a ''brief'' description of what the template is for, including mention of parameters.

== User boxes ==

User boxes, although also templates, do not need to be documented in the same way.

They should be listed on one of the lists of user boxes. See [[Conservapedia:Userboxes|Userboxes]] for more information.

They do not otherwise need to be documented (their purpose and use is obvious), except when they have parameters, in which case they should include the {{tl|Parms}} template.

== Locking of templates ==

Conservapedia sysops will try to leave templates unlocked, but templates that are used on many pages are prime candidates for vandalism and will be locked accordingly. If you wish to edit a locked template, contact any sysop who will unlock it for you for a brief time, but only if you have an established record of editing on Conservapedia. Alternatively, propose your changes on a talk page and ask a sysop to make the changes for you.

User:AlanS/Sandbox

2008-12-20T22:51:37Z

AlanS:

<div style="float:right">__TOC__</div>
==To Do==
* [[Absolute entropies]]
* [[Absolute humidity]]
* [[Acceleration]]
* [[Acid ionization constant]]
* [[Acid ionization reaction]]
* [[Adiabatic cooling]]
* [[Aerobic respiration]]
* [[Alpha decay]]
* [[Amebocytes]]
* [[Amphiprotic compounds]]
* [[Anadromous]]
* [[Anion]]
* [[Antibiotic]]
* [[Anticodon]]
* [[Aphelion]]
* [[Aristotle's dictum]]
* [[Arteries]]
* [[Artifacts]]
* [[Asexual reproduction]]
* [[Atmosphere]]
* [[Atmospheric pressure]]
* [[Atomic number]]
* [[Atrium]]
* [[Autosomal inheritance]]
* [[Autosomes]]
* [[Autotrophs]]
* [[Axial skeleton]]
* [[Barometer]]
* [[Basal metabolic rate]]
* [[Biennial plants]]
* [[Bilateral symmetry]]
* [[Bile]]
* [[Binomial nomenclature]]
* [[Biomass]]
* [[Bivalve]]
* [[Blind studies]]
* [[Bond strength]]
* [[Bone marrow]]
* [[Boyle's Law]]
* [[Capillaries]]
* [[Carnivore]]
* [[Catalyst]]
* [[Catastrophism]]
* [[Cation]]
* [[Cell]]
* [[Cell wall]]
* [[Cellulose]]
* [[Central vacuole]]
* [[Centripetal force]]
* [[Cephalothorax]]
* [[Cesium]]
* [[Change in chromosome number]]
* [[Change in chromosone structure]]
* [[Charging by conduction]]
* [[Charles' Law]]
* [[Chemical change]]
* [[Chemical compound]]
* [[Chemical equilibrium]]
* [[Chitin]]
* [[Chlorophyll]]
* [[Chromatin]]
* [[Chromoplasts]]
* [[Cilia]]
* [[Circulatory system]]
* [[Circumference]]
* [[Closed circulatory system]]
* [[Cloud condensation nuclei]]
* [[Cohesion]]
* [[Collar cells]]
* [[Complete metamorphosis]]
* [[Compound eye]]
* [[Concentration]]
* [[Condensation]]
* [[Conjugation]]
* [[Consumers]]
* [[Contour feathers]]
* [[Control (of an experiment)]]
* [[Conventional current]]
* [[Coriolis effect]]
* [[Cotyledon]]
* [[Covalent bond]]
* [[Critical mass]]
* [[Cytology]]
* [[Cytolysis]]
* [[Cytoplasm]]
* [[Cytoplasmic streaming]]
* [[Dalton's Atomic Theory]]
* [[Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures]]
* [[Deciduous plant]]
* [[Decomposers]]
* [[Decomposition reactions]]
* [[Dehydration reaction]]
* [[Dendrochronology]]
* [[Density]]
* [[Diameter]]
* [[Digestion]]
* [[Dihybrid cross]]
* [[Dilution]]
* [[Disaccharides]]
* [[Distillation]]
* [[Dominant allele]]
* [[Dominant generation]]
* [[Double fertilization]]
* [[Double-blind studies]]
* [[Down Feathers]]
* [[Ecological pyramid]]
* [[Ecology]]
* [[Ecosystem]]
* [[Ectoplasm]]
* [[Ectothermic]]
* [[Egestion]]
* [[Electric current]]
* [[Electrolysis]]
* [[Electromagnetic wave]]
* [[Element]]
* [[Empirical formula]]
* [[Endoplasm]]
* [[Endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Endospore]]
* [[Endothermic]]
* [[Endothermic process]]
* [[Energy]]
* [[Environment factors]]
* [[Epicenter]]
* [[Epidermis]]
* [[Epithelium]]
* [[Erosion]]
* [[Excretion]]
* [[Exosphere]]
* [[Exothermic process]]
* [[External fertilization]]
* [[Extracellular digestion]]
* [[Extrapolation]]
* [[Eyespot]]
* [[Fermentation]]
* [[Firn]]
* [[First Law of Thermodynamics]]
* [[Flagellate]]
* [[Focus]]
* [[Foot]]
* [[Formation reaction]]
* [[Fossils]]
* [[Free fall]]
* [[Friction]]
* [[Galaxy]]
* [[Gametes]]
* [[Gamma decay]]
* [[Gay-Lussac's Law]]
* [[Gemmule]]
* [[Genetic factors]]
* [[Geologic system]]
* [[Gestation]]
* [[Girdling]]
* [[Gland]]
* [[Gonad]]
* [[Gravotropism]]
* [[Ground state]]
* [[Half-life]]
* [[Haploid cells]]
* [[Hard water]]
* [[Haustorium]]
* [[Heat capacity]]
* [[Helium]]
* [[Hemotoxin]]
* [[Hermaphroditic]]
* [[Hess's Law]]
* [[Heterogeneous catalyst]]
* [[Heterogeneous mixture]]
* [[Heterosphere]]
* [[Heterotrophs]]
* [[Heterozygous genotype]]
* [[Holdfast]]
* [[Homogeneous catalyst]]
* [[Homogeneous mixture]]
* [[Homosphere]]
* [[Homozygous genotype]]
* [[Hormone]]
* [[Hormones]]
* [[How solutes dissolve in solvents]]
* [[Humidity]]
* [[Humus]]
* [[Hydrologic cycle]]
* [[Hydrolysis]]
* [[Hydrosphere]]
* [[Hypertonic solution]]
* [[Hypha]]
* [[Hypothesis]]
* [[Hypotonic solution]]
* [[Imperfect flowers]]
* [[Incomplete metamorphosis]]
* [[Index fossils]]
* [[Inheritance]]
* [[Insulator]]
* [[Internal fertilization]]
* [[Interphase]]
* [[Invertebrate]]
* [[Ion]]
* [[Ionization]]
* [[Ionization Potential]]
* [[Ionosphere]]
* [[Isotonic solution]]
* [[Isotopes]]
* [[Jet streams]]
* [[Jupiter]]
* [[Kinetic friction]]
* [[Known age]]
* [[Latitude]]
* [[Le Chatelier's Principle]]
* [[Leaf margin]]
* [[Leaf mosaic]]
* [[Leucoplasts]]
* [[Life science]]
* [[Light year]]
* [[Lithium]]
* [[Loam]]
* [[Longitude]]
* [[Longitudinal wave]]
* [[Lysosome]]
* [[Mammary glands]]
* [[Mantle]]
* [[Mass number]]
* [[Matter]]
* [[Maxwell's Equations]]
* [[Mechanical advantage]]
* [[Medulla]]
* [[Meiosis]]
* [[Meniscus]]
* [[Mesenchyme]]
* [[Mesoglea]]
* [[Mesosphere]]
* [[Metabolism]]
* [[Metric system]]
* [[Microorganisms]]
* [[Microtubules]]
* [[Middle lamella]]
* [[Minerals]]
* [[Mitosis]]
* [[Model]]
* [[Molality]]
* [[Molecular bond]]
* [[Molt]]
* [[Monohybrid cross]]
* [[Monosaccharides]]
* [[Mother cell]]
* [[Motor nervous system]]
* [[Mycelium]]
* [[Nastic movement]]
* [[Nematocysts]]
* [[Neurotoxin]]
* [[Nitrogen]]
* [[Notochord]]
* [[Nuclear fission]]
* [[Nuclear fusion]]
* [[Nuclear membrane]]
* [[Nucleus]]
* [[Octet rule]]
* [[Olfactory lobes]]
* [[Omnivore]]
* [[Omnivores]]
* [[Open circulatory system]]
* [[Optic lobe]]
* [[Organic molecule]]
* [[Osmosis]]
* [[Ovary]]
* [[Oviparous development]]
* [[Oxidation]]
* [[Oxidation number]]
* [[Oxygen]]
* [[Particle/wave duality theory]]
* [[Parts per million]]
* [[Pathogen]]
* [[Pellicle]]
* [[Percolation]]
* [[Perennial plants]]
* [[Perfect flowers]]
* [[Perihelion]]
* [[Periodic property]]
* [[Petrifaction]]
* [[Phagocytic vacuole]]
* [[‎Phagocytosis]]
* [[Phloem]]
* [[Photosynthesis]]
* [[Phototropism]]
* [[Physical change]]
* [[Physical constant]]
* [[Physical Quantities]]
* [[Phytoplankton]]
* [[Pinocytic]]
* [[Placenta]]
* [[Plankton]]
* [[Plasma membrane]]
* [[Plasmolysis]]
* [[Plastic rock]]
* [[Polar molecule]]
* [[Pollen]]
* [[Pollination]]
* [[Polyp]]
* [[Polysaccharides]]
* [[Popular acids]]
* [[Pore spaces]]
* [[Posterior end]]
* [[Potassium]]
* [[Potential energy]]
* [[Precipitation]]
* [[Precision]]
* [[Prefixes for naming covalent compounds]]
* [[Pressure]]
* [[Primary consumer]]
* [[Producers]]
* [[Pseudopod]]
* [[Pure substance]]
* [[Radial symmetry]]
* [[Radioactive isotope]]
* [[Radula]]
* [[Reaction mechanism]]
* [[Reaction rate]]
* [[Receptors]]
* [[Recessive allele]]
* [[Reduction]]
* [[Reference point]]
* [[Regeneration]]
* [[Relative humidity]]
* [[Reproductive plant organs]]
* [[Resin]]
* [[Rhizoid hypha]]
* [[Rough endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Rubidium]]
* [[Salinity]]
* [[Saprophyte]]
* [[Saturated fat]]
* [[Saturated solution]]
* [[Scalar quantity]]
* [[Scientific law]]
* [[Scientific Law]]
* [[Secondary consumer]]
* [[Secretion]]
* [[Secretion vesicle]]
* [[Sedimentary rock]]
* [[Seed]]
* [[Sensory Nervous System]]
* [[Sessile Colony]]
* [[Sex chromosomes]]
* [[Sex-linked inheritance]]
* [[Shell]]
* [[Simple eye]]
* [[Simple machine]]
* [[Smooth endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Sodium]]
* [[Solubility]]
* [[Solute]]
* [[Solvent]]
* [[Sonic boom]]
* [[Spiritual factors]]
* [[Spontaneous Generation]]
* [[Spore]]
* [[Sporophore]]
* [[Static friction]]
* [[Statocyst]]
* [[Steady state]]
* [[Stolon]]
* [[Strains]]
* [[Stratosphere]]
* [[Supersonic speed]]
* [[Taxonomy]]
* [[Tertiary consumer]]
* [[Testes]]
* [[Thailand]]
* [[Thallus]]
* [[The immutability of species]]
* [[Thermosphere]]
* [[Thigmotropism]]
* [[Thorax]]
* [[Titration]]
* [[Transformation]]
* [[Translocation]]
* [[Transpiration]]
* [[Transverse wave]]
* [[Troposphere]]
* [[True breeding]]
* [[Undifferentiated cells]]
* [[Uniformitarianism (science)]]
* [[Univalve]]
* [[Unsaturated fat]]
* [[Updraft]]
* [[Vacuole]]
* [[Valence electron]]
* [[Vector quantity]]
* [[Vegetative organs]]
* [[Vegetative reproduction]]
* [[Veins]]
* [[Ventricle]]
* [[Vertebrae]]
* [[Vertebrate]]
* [[Virus]]
* [[Visceral hump]]
* [[Viviparous development]]
* [[Waste vacuoles]]
* [[Water table]]
* [[Watershed]]
* [[Wavelength]]
* [[Weather front]]
* [[Weathering]]
* [[Xylem]]
* [[Zooplankton]]
* [[Zygospore]]
* [[Zygote]]

==Done==
* [[Endoskeleton]]
* [[Exoskeleton]]
* [[Heat]]
* [[Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP)]]
* [[The Law of Definite Proportions]]
* [[The Law of Multiple Proportions]]
* [[The Law of Reflection]]
* [[The Principle of Superposition]]

Law of superposition

2008-12-20T22:49:26Z

AlanS: While it's also called that, it's not what the ref lists it under.

{{move|Principle of superposition}}
The '''principle of superposition''' states that when [[artifacts]] are found in rock or earth that is layered, the deeper layers hold the older artifacts.<ref>National Park Service: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/maca/learnhome/cur_p_glo.htm#p Paleontology Glossary - Principle of superposition]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:geology]]

Law of superposition

2008-12-20T22:48:49Z

AlanS:

{{move|Principle of superposition}}
The '''principle of superposition''' states that when [[artifacts]] are found in rock or earth that is layered, the deeper layers hold the older artifacts.<ref>National Park Service: [http://www.nps.gov/archive/maca/learnhome/cur_p_glo.htm#p Paleontology Glossary - Law of superposition]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:geology]]

The Law of multiple proportions

2008-12-20T22:45:00Z

AlanS:

{{move|Law of multiple proportions}}
The '''law of multiple proportions''' states that if [[element]]s combine in a different proportion, they produce a different [[compound]].<ref>Hillsdale College, Chemistry 101: [http://www.hillsdalesites.org/AcademicAssociations/Chemistry/science101/gloss2.html Glossary - Law of multiple proportions]</ref>

{{stub}}
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Chemistry]]

Law of definite proportions

2008-12-20T22:40:55Z

AlanS:

{{move|Law of definite proportions}}
The '''law of definite proportions''' states that the proportion of [[element]]s in any [[compound]] is always the same.<ref>WordNet: [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=law%20of%20definite%20proportions Law of definite proportions]</ref> For example, 1 drop of [[water]] and 1 million [[gallon]]s of water each have the same ratio of [[hydrogen]] to [[oxygen]] (that is, 2:1).

==References==
<references/>

[[category:chemistry]]

User:AlanS/Sandbox

2008-12-20T22:37:10Z

AlanS:

<div style="float:right">__TOC__</div>
==To Do==
* [[Absolute entropies]]
* [[Absolute humidity]]
* [[Acceleration]]
* [[Acid ionization constant]]
* [[Acid ionization reaction]]
* [[Adiabatic cooling]]
* [[Aerobic respiration]]
* [[Alpha decay]]
* [[Amebocytes]]
* [[Amphiprotic compounds]]
* [[Anadromous]]
* [[Anion]]
* [[Antibiotic]]
* [[Anticodon]]
* [[Aphelion]]
* [[Aristotle's dictum]]
* [[Arteries]]
* [[Artifacts]]
* [[Asexual reproduction]]
* [[Atmosphere]]
* [[Atmospheric pressure]]
* [[Atomic number]]
* [[Atrium]]
* [[Autosomal inheritance]]
* [[Autosomes]]
* [[Autotrophs]]
* [[Axial skeleton]]
* [[Barometer]]
* [[Basal metabolic rate]]
* [[Biennial plants]]
* [[Bilateral symmetry]]
* [[Bile]]
* [[Binomial nomenclature]]
* [[Biomass]]
* [[Bivalve]]
* [[Blind studies]]
* [[Bond strength]]
* [[Bone marrow]]
* [[Boyle's Law]]
* [[Capillaries]]
* [[Carnivore]]
* [[Catalyst]]
* [[Catastrophism]]
* [[Cation]]
* [[Cell]]
* [[Cell wall]]
* [[Cellulose]]
* [[Central vacuole]]
* [[Centripetal force]]
* [[Cephalothorax]]
* [[Cesium]]
* [[Change in chromosome number]]
* [[Change in chromosone structure]]
* [[Charging by conduction]]
* [[Charles' Law]]
* [[Chemical change]]
* [[Chemical compound]]
* [[Chemical equilibrium]]
* [[Chitin]]
* [[Chlorophyll]]
* [[Chromatin]]
* [[Chromoplasts]]
* [[Cilia]]
* [[Circulatory system]]
* [[Circumference]]
* [[Closed circulatory system]]
* [[Cloud condensation nuclei]]
* [[Cohesion]]
* [[Collar cells]]
* [[Complete metamorphosis]]
* [[Compound eye]]
* [[Concentration]]
* [[Condensation]]
* [[Conjugation]]
* [[Consumers]]
* [[Contour feathers]]
* [[Control (of an experiment)]]
* [[Conventional current]]
* [[Coriolis effect]]
* [[Cotyledon]]
* [[Covalent bond]]
* [[Critical mass]]
* [[Cytology]]
* [[Cytolysis]]
* [[Cytoplasm]]
* [[Cytoplasmic streaming]]
* [[Dalton's Atomic Theory]]
* [[Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures]]
* [[Deciduous plant]]
* [[Decomposers]]
* [[Decomposition reactions]]
* [[Dehydration reaction]]
* [[Dendrochronology]]
* [[Density]]
* [[Diameter]]
* [[Digestion]]
* [[Dihybrid cross]]
* [[Dilution]]
* [[Disaccharides]]
* [[Distillation]]
* [[Dominant allele]]
* [[Dominant generation]]
* [[Double fertilization]]
* [[Double-blind studies]]
* [[Down Feathers]]
* [[Ecological pyramid]]
* [[Ecology]]
* [[Ecosystem]]
* [[Ectoplasm]]
* [[Ectothermic]]
* [[Egestion]]
* [[Electric current]]
* [[Electrolysis]]
* [[Electromagnetic wave]]
* [[Element]]
* [[Empirical formula]]
* [[Endoplasm]]
* [[Endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Endospore]]
* [[Endothermic]]
* [[Endothermic process]]
* [[Energy]]
* [[Environment factors]]
* [[Epicenter]]
* [[Epidermis]]
* [[Epithelium]]
* [[Erosion]]
* [[Excretion]]
* [[Exosphere]]
* [[Exothermic process]]
* [[External fertilization]]
* [[Extracellular digestion]]
* [[Extrapolation]]
* [[Eyespot]]
* [[Fermentation]]
* [[Firn]]
* [[First Law of Thermodynamics]]
* [[Flagellate]]
* [[Focus]]
* [[Foot]]
* [[Formation reaction]]
* [[Fossils]]
* [[Free fall]]
* [[Friction]]
* [[Galaxy]]
* [[Gametes]]
* [[Gamma decay]]
* [[Gay-Lussac's Law]]
* [[Gemmule]]
* [[Genetic factors]]
* [[Geologic system]]
* [[Gestation]]
* [[Girdling]]
* [[Gland]]
* [[Gonad]]
* [[Gravotropism]]
* [[Ground state]]
* [[Half-life]]
* [[Haploid cells]]
* [[Hard water]]
* [[Haustorium]]
* [[Heat capacity]]
* [[Helium]]
* [[Hemotoxin]]
* [[Hermaphroditic]]
* [[Hess's Law]]
* [[Heterogeneous catalyst]]
* [[Heterogeneous mixture]]
* [[Heterosphere]]
* [[Heterotrophs]]
* [[Heterozygous genotype]]
* [[Holdfast]]
* [[Homogeneous catalyst]]
* [[Homogeneous mixture]]
* [[Homosphere]]
* [[Homozygous genotype]]
* [[Hormone]]
* [[Hormones]]
* [[How solutes dissolve in solvents]]
* [[Humidity]]
* [[Humus]]
* [[Hydrologic cycle]]
* [[Hydrolysis]]
* [[Hydrosphere]]
* [[Hypertonic solution]]
* [[Hypha]]
* [[Hypothesis]]
* [[Hypotonic solution]]
* [[Imperfect flowers]]
* [[Incomplete metamorphosis]]
* [[Index fossils]]
* [[Inheritance]]
* [[Insulator]]
* [[Internal fertilization]]
* [[Interphase]]
* [[Invertebrate]]
* [[Ion]]
* [[Ionization]]
* [[Ionization Potential]]
* [[Ionosphere]]
* [[Isotonic solution]]
* [[Isotopes]]
* [[Jet streams]]
* [[Jupiter]]
* [[Kinetic friction]]
* [[Known age]]
* [[Latitude]]
* [[Le Chatelier's Principle]]
* [[Leaf margin]]
* [[Leaf mosaic]]
* [[Leucoplasts]]
* [[Life science]]
* [[Light year]]
* [[Lithium]]
* [[Loam]]
* [[Longitude]]
* [[Longitudinal wave]]
* [[Lysosome]]
* [[Mammary glands]]
* [[Mantle]]
* [[Mass number]]
* [[Matter]]
* [[Maxwell's Equations]]
* [[Mechanical advantage]]
* [[Medulla]]
* [[Meiosis]]
* [[Meniscus]]
* [[Mesenchyme]]
* [[Mesoglea]]
* [[Mesosphere]]
* [[Metabolism]]
* [[Metric system]]
* [[Microorganisms]]
* [[Microtubules]]
* [[Middle lamella]]
* [[Minerals]]
* [[Mitosis]]
* [[Model]]
* [[Molality]]
* [[Molecular bond]]
* [[Molt]]
* [[Monohybrid cross]]
* [[Monosaccharides]]
* [[Mother cell]]
* [[Motor nervous system]]
* [[Mycelium]]
* [[Nastic movement]]
* [[Nematocysts]]
* [[Neurotoxin]]
* [[Nitrogen]]
* [[Notochord]]
* [[Nuclear fission]]
* [[Nuclear fusion]]
* [[Nuclear membrane]]
* [[Nucleus]]
* [[Octet rule]]
* [[Olfactory lobes]]
* [[Omnivore]]
* [[Omnivores]]
* [[Open circulatory system]]
* [[Optic lobe]]
* [[Organic molecule]]
* [[Osmosis]]
* [[Ovary]]
* [[Oviparous development]]
* [[Oxidation]]
* [[Oxidation number]]
* [[Oxygen]]
* [[Particle/wave duality theory]]
* [[Parts per million]]
* [[Pathogen]]
* [[Pellicle]]
* [[Percolation]]
* [[Perennial plants]]
* [[Perfect flowers]]
* [[Perihelion]]
* [[Periodic property]]
* [[Petrifaction]]
* [[Phagocytic vacuole]]
* [[‎Phagocytosis]]
* [[Phloem]]
* [[Photosynthesis]]
* [[Phototropism]]
* [[Physical change]]
* [[Physical constant]]
* [[Physical Quantities]]
* [[Phytoplankton]]
* [[Pinocytic]]
* [[Placenta]]
* [[Plankton]]
* [[Plasma membrane]]
* [[Plasmolysis]]
* [[Plastic rock]]
* [[Polar molecule]]
* [[Pollen]]
* [[Pollination]]
* [[Polyp]]
* [[Polysaccharides]]
* [[Popular acids]]
* [[Pore spaces]]
* [[Posterior end]]
* [[Potassium]]
* [[Potential energy]]
* [[Precipitation]]
* [[Precision]]
* [[Prefixes for naming covalent compounds]]
* [[Pressure]]
* [[Primary consumer]]
* [[Producers]]
* [[Pseudopod]]
* [[Pure substance]]
* [[Radial symmetry]]
* [[Radioactive isotope]]
* [[Radula]]
* [[Reaction mechanism]]
* [[Reaction rate]]
* [[Receptors]]
* [[Recessive allele]]
* [[Reduction]]
* [[Reference point]]
* [[Regeneration]]
* [[Relative humidity]]
* [[Reproductive plant organs]]
* [[Resin]]
* [[Rhizoid hypha]]
* [[Rough endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Rubidium]]
* [[Salinity]]
* [[Saprophyte]]
* [[Saturated fat]]
* [[Saturated solution]]
* [[Scalar quantity]]
* [[Scientific law]]
* [[Scientific Law]]
* [[Secondary consumer]]
* [[Secretion]]
* [[Secretion vesicle]]
* [[Sedimentary rock]]
* [[Seed]]
* [[Sensory Nervous System]]
* [[Sessile Colony]]
* [[Sex chromosomes]]
* [[Sex-linked inheritance]]
* [[Shell]]
* [[Simple eye]]
* [[Simple machine]]
* [[Smooth endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Sodium]]
* [[Solubility]]
* [[Solute]]
* [[Solvent]]
* [[Sonic boom]]
* [[Spiritual factors]]
* [[Spontaneous Generation]]
* [[Spore]]
* [[Sporophore]]
* [[Static friction]]
* [[Statocyst]]
* [[Steady state]]
* [[Stolon]]
* [[Strains]]
* [[Stratosphere]]
* [[Supersonic speed]]
* [[Taxonomy]]
* [[Tertiary consumer]]
* [[Testes]]
* [[Thailand]]
* [[Thallus]]
* [[The immutability of species]]
* [[The Law of Definite Proportions]]
* [[The Law of Multiple Proportions]]
* [[The Principle of Superposition]]
* [[Thermosphere]]
* [[Thigmotropism]]
* [[Thorax]]
* [[Titration]]
* [[Transformation]]
* [[Translocation]]
* [[Transpiration]]
* [[Transverse wave]]
* [[Troposphere]]
* [[True breeding]]
* [[Undifferentiated cells]]
* [[Uniformitarianism (science)]]
* [[Univalve]]
* [[Unsaturated fat]]
* [[Updraft]]
* [[Vacuole]]
* [[Valence electron]]
* [[Vector quantity]]
* [[Vegetative organs]]
* [[Vegetative reproduction]]
* [[Veins]]
* [[Ventricle]]
* [[Vertebrae]]
* [[Vertebrate]]
* [[Virus]]
* [[Visceral hump]]
* [[Viviparous development]]
* [[Waste vacuoles]]
* [[Water table]]
* [[Watershed]]
* [[Wavelength]]
* [[Weather front]]
* [[Weathering]]
* [[Xylem]]
* [[Zooplankton]]
* [[Zygospore]]
* [[Zygote]]

==Done==
* [[Endoskeleton]]
* [[Exoskeleton]]
* [[Heat]]
* [[Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP)]]
* [[The Law of Reflection]]

Law of reflection

2008-12-20T22:34:10Z

AlanS:

{{move|Law of reflection}}
The '''law of reflection''' states that the [[angle]] of [[reflection]] equals the angle of incidence.<ref>Macmillan/McGraw-Hill: [http://www.macmillanmh.com/science/2008/student/na/grade6/glossary/l.html Glossary - Law of reflection]</ref>

{{stub}}
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Heat

2008-12-20T22:20:34Z

AlanS:

'''Heat''' is generated by the [[kinetic energy]] of a collection of interacting [[particle]]s. <ref>Chemistry Vocabulary: [http://misterguch.brinkster.net/vocabulary.html Heat]</ref> Heat is generally measured in [[joule]]s, though [[calorie]]s and [[BTU]]s are also used as units.

==See also==
*[[radiant heat]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Exoskeleton

2008-12-20T22:15:24Z

AlanS:

A body covering, typically made of [[chitin]],<ref>Ants of the North Quabbin: [http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/personnel/web/aellison/antsofthenorthquabbin/NQAnts/glosssary.htm Glossary - Exoskeleton]</ref> that provides support and protection. It is found predominantly on insects. <ref>Study of Northern Virginia Ecology: [http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/glossary.htm Glossary - Exoskeleton]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Endoskeleton]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Endoskeleton

2008-12-20T22:09:22Z

AlanS:

An '''endoskeleton''' is a [[skeleton]] that is inside a creature's body. It is typically composed of [[bone]] or [[cartilage]].<ref>WordNet: [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=endoskeleton Endoskeleton]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Exoskeleton]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Gallery of Sports Idols

2008-12-18T21:56:16Z

AlanS: /* Like To See */

==Like To See==
*Tiger Woods
*Jack Nicholson
*Mike Tyson
*Wayne Gretsky
*Terry Bradshaw
*Joe Montana
*Jeff Gordon
*John Mcenroe
*Babe Ruth
*Venus Williams
*Richard Petty
*Dan Marino
{{unsigned|Jpatt}}

Are you quite sure Mike Tyson is a good plan to have? His behavior hasn't exactly been the best. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 16:26, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:He was the undefeated champ for a good period of time. I agree on the behavior aspect that he could be disqualified, same for Jim Brown.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 16:52, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:...Jack Nicholson? I wasn't aware he's a sports idol... --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)
::Every record Tiger breaks seems to be ones previously set by Nicholson--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 16:52, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:::...are you sure you don't mean Jack '''Nicklaus'''? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:::(Please note: I know NOTHING about golf, so this is an honest question based on some googling. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:56, 18 December 2008 (EST))

Talk:Gallery of Sports Idols

2008-12-18T21:55:29Z

AlanS: /* Like To See */ ...are you sure you don't mean Jack Nicklaus?

Sudden Jihad Syndrome

2008-12-18T21:52:47Z

AlanS: Off-topic and already covered in Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. This is not "What Wikipedia wrote or didn't write about subject x"-pedia.

{{merge|Jihad}}
'''Sudden Jihad Syndrome''' is a term [[Daniel Pipes]] coined to describe [[Muslims]] that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against others and engage in acts of terror.<ref>"...a widespread pattern of Muslims who lead quiet lives before turning to terrorism" [http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=29080]</ref> Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all [[Islamist]]s must be considered potential terrorists.<ref> "Individual [[Islamist]]s may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers." [http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_fighting_militant.html]</ref>

Examples include:
* [[John Allen Muhammad]] and [[Lee Malvo]], the so-called Washington snipers. John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim convert, but some people allege that his motivations may not have been religious.<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/24/muhammad.profile/index.html</ref> <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/sprj.dcsp.malvo.trial/index.html</ref>Larry Pratt of [[Gun Owners of America ]] suggested that Malvo and Muhammad were examples of Sudden Jihad Syndrome.<ref name=Motanna>http://www.montanasnews.com/articles.php?mode=view&id=7227</ref>
* [[Ali Hassan Abu Kamal]], a [[Palestinian]] school teacher who engaged in a shooting rampage on top of the [[Empire State Building]]. He killed one and wounded six before taking his own life.<ref>http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-97/02-25-97/a05wn036.htm</ref><ref name=Motanna/>
*[[Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar]], an American Muslim born in Tehran who ran over students at the [[University of North Carolina]] to punish the United States. Taheri-azar was the first terrorist to be explicitly called an example of Sudden Jihad Syndrome by Daniel Pipes.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={730A921C-1FED-4DCD-9949-D28A3390317D}</ref><ref name=Motanna/>
* [[Mujtaba Rabbani Jabbar]] who shot up a movie theater in [[Baltimore]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700725.html</ref><ref name=Motanna/>
* [[Rashid Baz]], a Lebanese can driver living in [[New York City]] who shot at a van full of [[Orthodox Jew|Orthodox Jews]].<ref name=Meforum>http://www.meforum.org/article/77</ref> The [[FBI]] initially did not label this act a terrorist act.<ref name=Meforum/> <ref name=Motanna/>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Riots and terrorist incidents in the United States]][[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Syndromes]]

Brainwashing

2008-12-18T21:46:44Z

AlanS: Undo revision 589929 by AlanS (Talk) My bad! Didn't know that mind control redirects here!

'''Brainwashing''' refers to any system of involuntary [[indoctrination]] technique. The word was first used by CIA operative Edgar Hunter to describe "[[re-education]]" practices used on prisoners of war by the Communist Chinese during the [[Korean War]]<ref>[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/marks8.htm]</ref>. An investigation by the American Psychological Associations in the 1980s ended with the conclusion that "mind control" was not a [[scientific]]ally viable theory.<ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/molko_brief.htm]</ref>

==''The Heist''==
[[Image:Derren_Brown_Heist.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Psychological illusionist Derren Brown]]
''A 10 minute YouTube video showing the highlights of the experiment, including the robberies, is available [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iBLM21BI6WE here].'' 
British psychological illusionist [[Derren Brown]] has demonstrated however that the power of suggestion can be used to make subjects cross the line between normal and deviant behaviour. His technique often revolves around the nature and process of persuasion, and highlights how little it takes to push people into behaviour that is designated, and known by the subjects to be, anti-social. Quoting counter-culture artist [[Banksy]], Brown has observed that "...more crimes are committed in the name of obedience than disobedience. And generally far worse crimes."

In his TV experiment ''The Heist'' Brown set out to "persuade" a group of responsible, middle-management businessmen and women to steal £100,000 in an armed robbery in the [[City of London]]. Using [[Neuro-linguistic programming]] (NLP) Brown aimed to instill a feeling of invincibility, risk-taking and "want, take, have" in his subjects, a feeling which could later be triggered by certain cues - specifically in this experiment the colour green, a security van and the Jackson Five song "Can You Feel It?" Throughout the (relatively short) period of "conditioning", there was no mention of committing a crime to the participants, and they were at no stage directly or consciously instructed to carry out the robbery: there was no hypnosis involved, and the subjects had to carry out the robbery of their own "choice", albeit after receiving the implanted suggestions and cues from Brown.

The heist opportunity is constructed in central London on Gresham Street where a security van with actors playing the security guards awaits each individual subject. One by one they walk down the street, and a car playing the Jackson Five song loudly on the stereo is cued to drive past. The first participant, Victoria, a previously law-abiding press officer, pulls the replica firearm Brown previously handed out at the seminar on what she believes to be a genuine security guard and very calmly instructs: "I think you should get on the floor". Out of the four subjects, 3 actually committed the armed robbery.

==References in popular culture==
*[[The Manchurian Candidate]] - POW programmed to commit murder on signal <ref>"The story was about a joint Soviet-Chinese plot to take an American soldier captured in Korea, condition him at a special brainwashing center located in [[Manchuria]], and create a remote-controlled assassin who was supposed to kill the President of the United States." [http://www.djmsp.com/feedingtrough/reading/The_Search_for_the_Manchurian_Candidate.pdf The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control], by John Marks </ref>
*[[The Family Man]] - "Promise you won't kidnap me and my brother and plant stuff in our brains?" [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218967/quotes]

==External Links==
*[http://people.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing1.htm How Brainwashing Works] by Julia Layton

==See Also==
*[[Barack Obama]]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[category:psychology]]

Brainwashing

2008-12-18T21:46:00Z

AlanS: /* See Also */ What?

Talk:Gallery of Sports Idols

2008-12-18T21:40:50Z

AlanS: ...Jack Nicholson?

Talk:Gallery of Sports Idols

2008-12-18T21:36:45Z

AlanS: (unsigned)

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-18T21:28:06Z

AlanS: /* Elvis and Paul Newman are American Heroes, but adding Phyllis Schlafly gets you a three month block? */ So what? Do these Shadow People suddenly decide our content policies?

I removed Robert E. Lee. He is ''not'' an American hero--he was a traitor who waged war against his country and his fellow citizens.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:I do understand your point of view; But, before removing Lee I would like to have the opinion of other editors or an honest debate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:14, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::What's to debate? He fought for the enemy. He's responsible for the deaths of thousands of loyal American soldiers. If you're going to include Lee in the list, you might as well add Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes Booth, Adlrich Ames, Timothy McVeigh, and the 9/11 hijackers to the list.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::I'd agree that "American" hero doesn't quite fit Lee. While "traitor" is a bit strong, he led an armed rebellion AGAINST the United States... hardly rationale for calling the man a hero. [[User:PhilScheur|PhilScheur]] 16:47, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:::To his credit, he came pretty close to being the next George Washington... but I agree, even if he'd won, he'd have been a confederate hero, not an American hero.
:::On a different note - removed Barry Bonds from the links section. With the scandals going on, he really isn't a good role model right now.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 15:13, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::There's one thing I don't understand about this page. Shouldn't the McCain picture not be so big? It's probably four times bigger than any other picture on there. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:31, 16 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Because he's a big American hero--unlike that traitorous Lee. Let's stick to the issue, please.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:51, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Putting McCain ahead of ''Washington''? His image should be the same as the others, please. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:42, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I question actor [[Paul Newman]] and the notorious drug user [[Elvis Presley]]. They are famous; they are not heroes. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:34, 17 December 2008 (EST) Fixed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:09, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==Peyton Manning==

First off, I question him as an American hero. Second, I wonder if we could find another picture? That's him in the pro-bowl and it looks like he's playing for the Arizona Cardinals. Maybe find one where he's in a Colts uniform? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:33, 17 December 2008 (EST)

:We need a separate category for sports idols. We can idolize someone for a reason other than [[heroism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:55, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::That's a great idea, Ed. Good job on the picture, Joaquin. That looks much better! [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:01, 17 December 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote that page, see [[Gallery of Sports Idols]]. Add as needed. Also, does that mean we can start taking down the sports ones? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 12:58, 17 December 2008 (EST)

==Like To See==
[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 12:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)
*schwarzkopf
*reagan
*alexander gram bell
*wright brothers
*john glenn
*Charles Lindbergh
*fdr
*susan b. anthony
*paul revere
*tomb of the unknown soldiers

:Good list, and the last one is particularly appropriate. One suggestion might be to categorize them (sports, military, leadership, science/discovery, etc.) In any case, I'd like to add the following:

:*The passengers of Flight 93 on Sept.11, 2001
:*The Police, Firefighters and EMT's who lost their lives helping others on 9/11/2001.
:*Michael Phelps
:*Lance Armstrong
:*Jimmy Doolittle

:I'm sure more will follow once I think about this a bit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:39, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::"''The Police, Firefighters and EMT's who lost their lives helping others on 9/11/2001.''" - ...only the ones who died? I think I know what you were trying to get at, but the way you put it was a bit unfortunate. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 20:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:::Good point. It should say "who risked their lives", which is more inclusive. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::*Pat Tillman--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:18, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:::::You beat me to it, J. Good one! --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:53, 18 December 2008 (EST)

== Elvis and Paul Newman are American Heroes, but adding [[Phyllis Schlafly]] gets you a three month block? ==

I think this article just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_American_Heroes&diff=589385&oldid=589250 proved] to be a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABrianF&year=&month=-1 minefield.]

Could a sysop give a definition of "American Hero" before more people get blocked for making one wrong addition here? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

: What is a [[hero]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:13, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::That was my question (<s>and I find it somewhat odd that the sysop who made a judgment call in this issue ''also'' asks it</s> No, scratch that. I only now noticed that it was you who added most of those definitions just today, so I guess this wasn't an actual question.), but since you gave a link...
::*A hero is a [...] figure who is a person of virtue
::*They usually believe in honour and have strong morals.
::*A person noted for special achievement in a particular field
::*A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.
::While Phyllis may not have fulfilled every single one of them (even though I'm not familiar with her detailed biography, so maybe she did indeed fulfill them all), I would say she easily qualifies. But I'm sure you had your reasons for declaring her addition to be "moronic vandalism"... right? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:54, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::: Who was supposedly blocked 3 months for that? Often blocks take into consideration the totality of the edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:03, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::BrianF. See the links in the opening posts, plus [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BrianF contribs] list. This was the only edit since December 4, and it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_American_Heroes&diff=589441&oldid=589385 reverted] here. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 23:07, 17 December 2008 (EST)
::::::The "user" in question was a sock of a person from (how to put this...) a website which does not have CP's best interests at heart. Furthermore, the now-reverted addition was done at the behest of persons at said website, intended as parody. I'd post a link to the discussion of all this, but that would likely be inappropriate.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:21, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::And this influences Phyllis Schlafly being or not being an American Hero... how? Right now, this sounds a bit like "Somebody somewhere said something that caused Phyllis Schlafly to be added. Because they said she should be added, we should not add her", which would be a classic case of ''Reductio ad Hitlerum''. I wasn't aware that people on other sites you won't even name get to decide who is an American Hero. Truth is still truth if it was added by a parodist, and it shouldn't be reverted "just because". --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==Proposed Additions==

*Norman Schwarzkopf - Military Service / Leadership
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - Leadership
*[[Alexander Graham Bell|Alexander Graham Bell]] - Engineering
*[[The Wright Brothers]] - Engineering
*[[John Glenn]] - Exploration
*[[Charles Lindbergh]] - Exploration / Individual Achievement
*[[FDR]] - Leadership
*[[Susan B. Anthony]] - Human Rights
*[[Paul Revere]] - Service to Country
*[[The Unknown Soldiers from America's Military
*The passengers of Flight 93 on [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11]] - Service to Country
*The Police, Firefighters and EMT's who risked their lives helping others on [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11]]. - Service to Country
*[[Michael Phelps]] - Sports
*[[Lance Armstrong]] - Sports
*[[James Doolittle|Jimmy Doolittle]] - Military Service / Leadership
*[[Pat Tillman]] - Military Service
*[[Glenn Miller]] - Arts
*Jonas Salk - Medicine
*Chuck Yeager - Military Service / Exploration

==Comments on proposed additions==

:: I think it is a good idea. I suggest to make a second page in order to make it easy to handle. You could start it with all those names. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:07, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:::Do you mean setting up pages like "Gallery of American Heroes - Exploration"? I'm wondering if we should break it down with colons, like this - "Gallery:American Heroes:Exploration", unless that's too awkward. It also allow for other collections to be organized under a "Gallery:" heading. Thoughts? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:18, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-18T04:07:01Z

AlanS: /* Elvis and Paul Newman are American Heroes, but adding Phyllis Schlafly gets you a three month block? */ Links in top post, plus some more.

I removed Robert E. Lee. He is ''not'' an American hero--he was a traitor who waged war against his country and his fellow citizens.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:I do understand your point of view; But, before removing Lee I would like to have the opinion of other editors or an honest debate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:14, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::What's to debate? He fought for the enemy. He's responsible for the deaths of thousands of loyal American soldiers. If you're going to include Lee in the list, you might as well add Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes Booth, Adlrich Ames, Timothy McVeigh, and the 9/11 hijackers to the list.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::I'd agree that "American" hero doesn't quite fit Lee. While "traitor" is a bit strong, he led an armed rebellion AGAINST the United States... hardly rationale for calling the man a hero. [[User:PhilScheur|PhilScheur]] 16:47, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:::To his credit, he came pretty close to being the next George Washington... but I agree, even if he'd won, he'd have been a confederate hero, not an American hero.
:::On a different note - removed Barry Bonds from the links section. With the scandals going on, he really isn't a good role model right now.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 15:13, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::There's one thing I don't understand about this page. Shouldn't the McCain picture not be so big? It's probably four times bigger than any other picture on there. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:31, 16 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Because he's a big American hero--unlike that traitorous Lee. Let's stick to the issue, please.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:51, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Putting McCain ahead of ''Washington''? His image should be the same as the others, please. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:42, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I question actor [[Paul Newman]] and the notorious drug user [[Elvis Presley]]. They are famous; they are not heroes. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:34, 17 December 2008 (EST)

==Peyton Manning==
First off, I question him as an American hero. Second, I wonder if we could find another picture? That's him in the pro-bowl and it looks like he's playing for the Arizona Cardinals. Maybe find one where he's in a Colts uniform? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:33, 17 December 2008 (EST)

:We need a separate category for sports idols. We can idolize someone for a reason other than [[heroism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:55, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::That's a great idea, Ed. Good job on the picture, Joaquin. That looks much better! [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:01, 17 December 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote that page, see [[Gallery of Sports Idols]]. Add as needed. Also, does that mean we can start taking down the sports ones? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 12:58, 17 December 2008 (EST)

==Like To See==
[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 12:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)
*schwarzkopf
*reagan
*alexander gram bell
*wright brothers
*john glenn
*Charles Lindbergh
*fdr
*susan b. anthony
*paul revere
*tomb of the unknown soldiers

:Good list, and the last one is particularly appropriate. One suggestion might be to categorize them (sports, military, leadership, science/discovery, etc.) In any case, I'd like to add the following:

:*The passengers of Flight 93 on Sept.11, 2001
:*The Police, Firefighters and EMT's who lost their lives helping others on 9/11/2001.
:*Michael Phelps
:*Lance Armstrong
:*Jimmy Doolittle

:I'm sure more will follow once I think about this a bit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:39, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::"''The Police, Firefighters and EMT's who lost their lives helping others on 9/11/2001.''" - ...only the ones who died? I think I know what you were trying to get at, but the way you put it was a bit unfortunate. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 20:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:::Good point. It should say "who risked their lives", which is more inclusive. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::*Pat Tillman--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:18, 17 December 2008 (EST)

== Elvis and Paul Newman are American Heroes, but adding [[Phyllis Schlafly]] gets you a three month block? ==

I think this article just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_American_Heroes&diff=589385&oldid=589250 proved] to be a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABrianF&year=&month=-1 minefield.]

Could a sysop give a definition of "American Hero" before more people get blocked for making one wrong addition here? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

: What is a [[hero]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:13, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::That was my question (<s>and I find it somewhat odd that the sysop who made a judgment call in this issue ''also'' asks it</s> No, scratch that. I only now noticed that it was you who added most of those definitions just today, so I guess this wasn't an actual question.), but since you gave a link...
::*A hero is a [...] figure who is a person of virtue
::*They usually believe in honour and have strong morals.
::*A person noted for special achievement in a particular field
::*A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.
::While Phyllis may not have fulfilled every single one of them (even though I'm not familiar with her detailed biography, so maybe she did indeed fulfill them all), I would say she easily qualifies. But I'm sure you had your reasons for declaring her addition to be "moronic vandalism"... right? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:54, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::: Who was supposedly blocked 3 months for that? Often blocks take into consideration the totality of the edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:03, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::BrianF. See the links in the opening posts, plus [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BrianF contribs] list. This was the only edit since December 4, and it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_American_Heroes&diff=589441&oldid=589385 reverted] here. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 23:07, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-18T03:59:42Z

AlanS: /* Elvis and Paul Newman are American Heroes, but adding Phyllis Schlafly gets you a three month block? */ Just looked at the history of hero

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-18T03:54:47Z

AlanS: /* Elvis and Paul Newman are American Heroes, but adding Phyllis Schlafly gets you a three month block? */ Yes... and?

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-18T03:02:50Z

AlanS: /* Elvis and Paul Newman are American Heroes, but adding Phyllis Schlafly gets you a three month block? */ new section

User:AlanS/Sandbox

2008-12-18T02:39:53Z

AlanS: "I will sing for crescent moon / dancing with the castanets / as the end will come so soon / in the land of twilight"

* [[Absolute entropies]]
* [[Absolute humidity]]
* [[Acceleration]]
* [[Acid ionization constant]]
* [[Acid ionization reaction]]
* [[Adiabatic cooling]]
* [[Aerobic respiration]]
* [[Alpha decay]]
* [[Amebocytes]]
* [[Amphiprotic compounds]]
* [[Anadromous]]
* [[Anion]]
* [[Antibiotic]]
* [[Anticodon]]
* [[Aphelion]]
* [[Aristotle's dictum]]
* [[Arteries]]
* [[Artifacts]]
* [[Asexual reproduction]]
* [[Atmosphere]]
* [[Atmospheric pressure]]
* [[Atomic number]]
* [[Atrium]]
* [[Autosomal inheritance]]
* [[Autosomes]]
* [[Autotrophs]]
* [[Axial skeleton]]
* [[Barometer]]
* [[Basal metabolic rate]]
* [[Biennial plants]]
* [[Bilateral symmetry]]
* [[Bile]]
* [[Binomial nomenclature]]
* [[Biomass]]
* [[Bivalve]]
* [[Blind studies]]
* [[Bond strength]]
* [[Bone marrow]]
* [[Boyle's Law]]
* [[Capillaries]]
* [[Carnivore]]
* [[Catalyst]]
* [[Catastrophism]]
* [[Cation]]
* [[Cell]]
* [[Cell wall]]
* [[Cellulose]]
* [[Central vacuole]]
* [[Centripetal force]]
* [[Cephalothorax]]
* [[Cesium]]
* [[Change in chromosome number]]
* [[Change in chromosone structure]]
* [[Charging by conduction]]
* [[Charles' Law]]
* [[Chemical change]]
* [[Chemical compound]]
* [[Chemical equilibrium]]
* [[Chitin]]
* [[Chlorophyll]]
* [[Chromatin]]
* [[Chromoplasts]]
* [[Cilia]]
* [[Circulatory system]]
* [[Circumference]]
* [[Closed circulatory system]]
* [[Cloud condensation nuclei]]
* [[Cohesion]]
* [[Collar cells]]
* [[Complete metamorphosis]]
* [[Compound eye]]
* [[Concentration]]
* [[Condensation]]
* [[Conjugation]]
* [[Consumers]]
* [[Contour feathers]]
* [[Control (of an experiment)]]
* [[Conventional current]]
* [[Coriolis effect]]
* [[Cotyledon]]
* [[Covalent bond]]
* [[Critical mass]]
* [[Cytology]]
* [[Cytolysis]]
* [[Cytoplasm]]
* [[Cytoplasmic streaming]]
* [[Dalton's Atomic Theory]]
* [[Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures]]
* [[Deciduous plant]]
* [[Decomposers]]
* [[Decomposition reactions]]
* [[Dehydration reaction]]
* [[Dendrochronology]]
* [[Density]]
* [[Diameter]]
* [[Digestion]]
* [[Dihybrid cross]]
* [[Dilution]]
* [[Disaccharides]]
* [[Distillation]]
* [[Dominant allele]]
* [[Dominant generation]]
* [[Double fertilization]]
* [[Double-blind studies]]
* [[Down Feathers]]
* [[Ecological pyramid]]
* [[Ecology]]
* [[Ecosystem]]
* [[Ectoplasm]]
* [[Ectothermic]]
* [[Egestion]]
* [[Electric current]]
* [[Electrolysis]]
* [[Electromagnetic wave]]
* [[Element]]
* [[Empirical formula]]
* [[Endoplasm]]
* [[Endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Endoskeleton]]
* [[Endospore]]
* [[Endothermic]]
* [[Endothermic process]]
* [[Energy]]
* [[Environment factors]]
* [[Epicenter]]
* [[Epidermis]]
* [[Epithelium]]
* [[Erosion]]
* [[Excretion]]
* [[Exoskeleton]]
* [[Exosphere]]
* [[Exothermic process]]
* [[External fertilization]]
* [[Extracellular digestion]]
* [[Extrapolation]]
* [[Eyespot]]
* [[Fermentation]]
* [[Firn]]
* [[First Law of Thermodynamics]]
* [[Flagellate]]
* [[Focus]]
* [[Foot]]
* [[Formation reaction]]
* [[Fossils]]
* [[Free fall]]
* [[Friction]]
* [[Galaxy]]
* [[Gametes]]
* [[Gamma decay]]
* [[Gay-Lussac's Law]]
* [[Gemmule]]
* [[Genetic factors]]
* [[Geologic system]]
* [[Gestation]]
* [[Girdling]]
* [[Gland]]
* [[Gonad]]
* [[Gravotropism]]
* [[Ground state]]
* [[Half-life]]
* [[Haploid cells]]
* [[Hard water]]
* [[Haustorium]]
* [[Heat]]
* [[Heat capacity]]
* [[Helium]]
* [[Hemotoxin]]
* [[Hermaphroditic]]
* [[Hess's Law]]
* [[Heterogeneous catalyst]]
* [[Heterogeneous mixture]]
* [[Heterosphere]]
* [[Heterotrophs]]
* [[Heterozygous genotype]]
* [[Holdfast]]
* [[Homogeneous catalyst]]
* [[Homogeneous mixture]]
* [[Homosphere]]
* [[Homozygous genotype]]
* [[Hormone]]
* [[Hormones]]
* [[How solutes dissolve in solvents]]
* [[Humidity]]
* [[Humus]]
* [[Hydrologic cycle]]
* [[Hydrolysis]]
* [[Hydrosphere]]
* [[Hypertonic solution]]
* [[Hypha]]
* [[Hypothesis]]
* [[Hypotonic solution]]
* [[Imperfect flowers]]
* [[Incomplete metamorphosis]]
* [[Index fossils]]
* [[Inheritance]]
* [[Insulator]]
* [[Internal fertilization]]
* [[Interphase]]
* [[Invertebrate]]
* [[Ion]]
* [[Ionization]]
* [[Ionization Potential]]
* [[Ionosphere]]
* [[Isotonic solution]]
* [[Isotopes]]
* [[Jet streams]]
* [[Jupiter]]
* [[Kinetic friction]]
* [[Known age]]
* [[Latitude]]
* [[Le Chatelier's Principle]]
* [[Leaf margin]]
* [[Leaf mosaic]]
* [[Leucoplasts]]
* [[Life science]]
* [[Light year]]
* [[Lithium]]
* [[Loam]]
* [[Longitude]]
* [[Longitudinal wave]]
* [[Lysosome]]
* [[Mammary glands]]
* [[Mantle]]
* [[Mass number]]
* [[Matter]]
* [[Maxwell's Equations]]
* [[Mechanical advantage]]
* [[Medulla]]
* [[Meiosis]]
* [[Meniscus]]
* [[Mesenchyme]]
* [[Mesoglea]]
* [[Mesosphere]]
* [[Metabolism]]
* [[Metric system]]
* [[Microorganisms]]
* [[Microtubules]]
* [[Middle lamella]]
* [[Minerals]]
* [[Mitosis]]
* [[Model]]
* [[Molality]]
* [[Molecular bond]]
* [[Molt]]
* [[Monohybrid cross]]
* [[Monosaccharides]]
* [[Mother cell]]
* [[Motor nervous system]]
* [[Mycelium]]
* [[Nastic movement]]
* [[Nematocysts]]
* [[Neurotoxin]]
* [[Nitrogen]]
* [[Notochord]]
* [[Nuclear fission]]
* [[Nuclear fusion]]
* [[Nuclear membrane]]
* [[Nucleus]]
* [[Octet rule]]
* [[Olfactory lobes]]
* [[Omnivore]]
* [[Omnivores]]
* [[Open circulatory system]]
* [[Optic lobe]]
* [[Organic molecule]]
* [[Osmosis]]
* [[Ovary]]
* [[Oviparous development]]
* [[Oxidation]]
* [[Oxidation number]]
* [[Oxygen]]
* [[Particle/wave duality theory]]
* [[Parts per million]]
* [[Pathogen]]
* [[Pellicle]]
* [[Percolation]]
* [[Perennial plants]]
* [[Perfect flowers]]
* [[Perihelion]]
* [[Periodic property]]
* [[Petrifaction]]
* [[Phagocytic vacuole]]
* [[‎Phagocytosis]]
* [[Phloem]]
* [[Photosynthesis]]
* [[Phototropism]]
* [[Physical change]]
* [[Physical constant]]
* [[Physical Quantities]]
* [[Phytoplankton]]
* [[Pinocytic]]
* [[Placenta]]
* [[Plankton]]
* [[Plasma membrane]]
* [[Plasmolysis]]
* [[Plastic rock]]
* [[Polar molecule]]
* [[Pollen]]
* [[Pollination]]
* [[Polyp]]
* [[Polysaccharides]]
* [[Popular acids]]
* [[Pore spaces]]
* [[Posterior end]]
* [[Potassium]]
* [[Potential energy]]
* [[Precipitation]]
* [[Precision]]
* [[Prefixes for naming covalent compounds]]
* [[Pressure]]
* [[Primary consumer]]
* [[Producers]]
* [[Pseudopod]]
* [[Pure substance]]
* [[Radial symmetry]]
* [[Radioactive isotope]]
* [[Radula]]
* [[Reaction mechanism]]
* [[Reaction rate]]
* [[Receptors]]
* [[Recessive allele]]
* [[Reduction]]
* [[Reference point]]
* [[Regeneration]]
* [[Relative humidity]]
* [[Reproductive plant organs]]
* [[Resin]]
* [[Rhizoid hypha]]
* [[Rough endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Rubidium]]
* [[Salinity]]
* [[Saprophyte]]
* [[Saturated fat]]
* [[Saturated solution]]
* [[Scalar quantity]]
* [[Scientific law]]
* [[Scientific Law]]
* [[Secondary consumer]]
* [[Secretion]]
* [[Secretion vesicle]]
* [[Sedimentary rock]]
* [[Seed]]
* [[Sensory Nervous System]]
* [[Sessile Colony]]
* [[Sex chromosomes]]
* [[Sex-linked inheritance]]
* [[Shell]]
* [[Simple eye]]
* [[Simple machine]]
* [[Smooth endoplasmic reticulum]]
* [[Sodium]]
* [[Solubility]]
* [[Solute]]
* [[Solvent]]
* [[Sonic boom]]
* [[Spiritual factors]]
* [[Spontaneous Generation]]
* [[Spore]]
* [[Sporophore]]
* [[Static friction]]
* [[Statocyst]]
* [[Steady state]]
* [[Stolon]]
* [[Strains]]
* [[Stratosphere]]
* [[Supersonic speed]]
* [[Taxonomy]]
* [[Tertiary consumer]]
* [[Testes]]
* [[Thailand]]
* [[Thallus]]
* [[The immutability of species]]
* [[The Law of Definite Proportions]]
* [[The Law of Multiple Proportions]]
* [[The Law of Reflection]]
* [[The Principle of Superposition]]
* [[Thermosphere]]
* [[Thigmotropism]]
* [[Thorax]]
* [[Titration]]
* [[Transformation]]
* [[Translocation]]
* [[Transpiration]]
* [[Transverse wave]]
* [[Troposphere]]
* [[True breeding]]
* [[Undifferentiated cells]]
* [[Uniformitarianism (science)]]
* [[Univalve]]
* [[Unsaturated fat]]
* [[Updraft]]
* [[Vacuole]]
* [[Valence electron]]
* [[Vector quantity]]
* [[Vegetative organs]]
* [[Vegetative reproduction]]
* [[Veins]]
* [[Ventricle]]
* [[Vertebrae]]
* [[Vertebrate]]
* [[Virus]]
* [[Visceral hump]]
* [[Viviparous development]]
* [[Waste vacuoles]]
* [[Water table]]
* [[Watershed]]
* [[Wavelength]]
* [[Weather front]]
* [[Weathering]]
* [[Xylem]]
* [[Zooplankton]]
* [[Zygospore]]
* [[Zygote]]

Standard temperature and pressure

2008-12-18T02:25:15Z

AlanS: Replacing reference ("Exploring Creation With Chemistry"?) with a better one and suggesting move.

{{move|Standard temperature and pressure}}
In [[thermodynamics]], '''standard temperature and pressure''' are defined as a [[temperature]] of 273.15 K (0 °C) and a [[pressure]] of 1.00 atm (100 kPa).<ref>International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry: [http://www.iupac.org/goldbook/S06036.pdf Compendium of Chemical Terminology - STP]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:meteorology]]
[[category:chemistry]]

Barton Fink

2008-12-18T02:12:30Z

AlanS: Less than fifteen words for a movie article? Yes, that's most definitely a stub.

{{stub}}

'''Barton Fink''' is a movie produced by [[Ethan Coen]] and written by [[Joel Coen]].
[[Category:Movies]]

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-18T01:57:08Z

AlanS: /* Like To See */ You don't have to die to be a hero.

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-12-16T22:03:31Z

AlanS: /* Unwarranted 90/10 block */ There we go. I think that should be all. You can block me for pointing out how blocks are used on all those who point out that blocks are used to...

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]]

== [[Axiom of Choice]] ==

Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in [[Axiom of Choice]] (which I'll just call AC).

Brief summary:
*AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning.
*Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM.
*BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct.
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Foxtrot&oldid=571141#AndyJM Full conversation] - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk".
*BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue.
*I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts.
*Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow.
*When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer.").
The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.''
::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble''
::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.''
::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance''
::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A five year block of a new user ''without any warning'' for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we ''trying'' to shut down Conservapedia? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I think this is just ''bad style'':
# 14:49, 28 November 2008 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)

*looking at the list of his contributions, AlanS hasn't violated the 90/10 guideline
*granted, he was involved in some discussions: it took a while to show that Foxtrot was wrong
*for the record: AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong, and AlanS is blocked...

Is this the way we want to perform discussions to improve the quality of our articles?
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::Ceaseless arguments like this only help the enemies of Conservapedia. For the benefit of the project, please all drop this matter and get back to making more substantive contributions. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Range Blocks==
TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:
* ''Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy''

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the ''anon proxy'' part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable.
Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
:# 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
:# 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
:# 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
:# 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
:# 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
:# 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
:lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Well, that's the problem with assumptions. Your email was in with the spam. In the future, you might consider actually making a post to a person's talk page, if you don't hear back, as anyone should, getting a question. I will respond to your email in a few minutes, or perhaps Justine would prefer me to forward it to her? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::I didn't assume anything. I use e-mail only as a last resort, i.e., when I'm blocked, as it was the case - I've this idea that one should try to produce at least the modicum that any discussion takes place in the open on a medium like this :-)
:::I'm now used to be an editor at CP, so I take some effort to be able to edit - which you can't expect from a casual visitor. These /16 blocks are - at least - bad PR.
:::Of course, I care for ''the Poles and others'', as I'm one of them. I know that CP is American-centered, but I resent this high-handed approach to us few foreigners.
:::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::I too am non-American and have nothing but praise for the way that we are accommodated within the welcoming bounds of this fundamentally American project. I would add, BRichtigen, that this page is for issues to be noted, whereupon sysops will decide on the action to be atken. [Inappropriate remark removed by Administrator] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::*Justine, I know you know my email, and I also think you can tell what was done was in consult with others, including Geo. As I stated above, taking my queue directly from Andy and other Senior Administrators, we should not be discussing particulars here, but rather privately. Conservapedia does not now, nor has it ever, discussed security issues on the wiki, nor blocks. That is what the wiki email system is. I think it violates peoples privacy to be discussing such things here. you go right ahead and unilaterially take whatever action you feel is justified in regard to blocks. You are, after all, one of our most senior and trusted administrators! I just thought given all the unilaterial arguments going on, this was something better dealt with directly among those of us who can block,is all. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:I'll consult Andy with these range blocks asap. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't that what ''should'' have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "<s>Terrorists!</s> Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us.
Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... ''share his knowledge''.
But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The [http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.htm URL] you gave shows that the ''network'' this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's ''a fourth''. This means that ''at least'' 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::I don't have time to perform every single block. It is for that reason that I authorized TK to perform these rangeblocks. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 23:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)
It's better not to discuss range blocks. If '''you''' can't access CP because of a range block, contact a sysop via email. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:It seems to me that it's better not to ''perform'' range blocks. What if the "you" in question is a new user? When I first started at CP I didn't know what a sysop was, let alone how to contact one. How many complaints a month do we get from people who don't understand that "night editing" being turned off doesn't mean that they are blocked? The fact remains that it doesn't make sense to block 4 times more people than you intend to, unless your intent is to shut down editing on this site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Interference and Collusiveness==
AlanS received the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlanS&year=&month=-1 block]:
*20:00, 2 December 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Interference)

The ''interference'' seems to be the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RodWeathers&diff=prev&oldid=575891 edit] on a talk-page:
:Well, the information is freely available, so there is no need to invade anybody's privacy: The user was blocked for "Evolutionist Vandalism", and only one of his/her edits has been reverted: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575825&oldid=572439 This] one for being made by a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575827&oldid=575825 "liberal evolutionist"] --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

So, he answered a question of another editor in a civil manner. How is this interference? And what is bad about interference, anyway?

When the ''administrator'' HenryS lifted the block, the ''editor with blocking rights'' Bugler blocked AlanS again, stating the same reason.

To use the terminology Bugler had introduced: we common grunts are interested in what's happening here at CP and want to be dealt with fairly. And why don't the sergeants follow the orders of the officers, but expect us to be obedient to them, not allowing us to raise even simple questions - because that's what AlanS's block is about?

Another troubling tendency in the last days was that frequently the instruction to use email or other non-public venues of information popped up, more often than in the months before.

As this is a board where high-school pupils and elder women and men communicate, A. Schlafly has rightly tried to provide an environment where any idea (how misguided ever) of ''creepiness'' is ruled out. As any teacher knows, one should try to stick to the ''open door'' policy and refrain from contacting pupils via email, IM or such.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:Simple questions are always okay. Rhetorical questions might not be. Using "simple questions" as a disguise for opening a debate about the rules is strictly out. Next time I see someone doing this - other than in the [[Debate Topics]] - he's gone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::Personally I find the actual block the least important issue here. The most important issues are the flagrant breaches of the chain of command, the total lack of recourse on the off chance that abuse occurrs, and the likelyhood of an encouragement of off-site communication (which, to me, seems counter to the idea of having a wiki anyway; why else would the software include talk pages?) leading to an increased likelyhood of placing minors in an inapropriate position. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Is (was) Tolkiendil a Vandal?==
Ed Poor blocked [[User:Tolkiendil|Tolkiendil]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page=User%3ATolkiendil&year=&month=-1 stating]:

* 08:48, 12 December 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked Tolkiendil (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting nonsense or gibberish into pages or edit comments)

I don't regard Tolkiendil as a vandal, and elaborated this on Ed Poor's talk page:

::As far as I can see, He '''wasn't''' vandalizing the Tolkien articles - most of which he had created. There is - a minor - quibble of interpretation over the role of [[Eowyn]]. When I tried to find a resolution in the internet, I found much of debate instead, nothing clear cut, IMO (and nothing to important). I understand both positions Tolkiendil's and Ed Poor's , but Ed Poor enforces his view via his blocking rights.

::And then there are other minor points. For instance, have a look [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Middle-earth_objects&diff=584641&oldid=581816 here]:

::Tolkiendil had written:'''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been given to Gríma Wormtongue for safekeeping, but was returned to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor changes this to: '''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been kept by [[Gríma]] Wormtongue along was "many other things that men had missed", but was taken back to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor claims in his edit comment: ''No record that Grima was "given" this sword - or anything else for that matter''

::In '''Book III, Chapter VI''', "''The King of the Golden Hall''". we read:

::
::[...] At the moment Háma came again from the hall. Behind him cringing between two other men, came Gríma the Wormtongue. His face was very white. His eyes blinked in the sunlight. Háma knelt and presented to Théoden a long swarod in a scabbard clasped with gold and set with green gems.

::'Here, lord, is Herugrim, your ancient blade', he said. 'It was found in his chest. Loth was he to render up the keys. Many other things are there which men have missed.'

::'You lie,' said Wormtongue. 'And this sword your master himself gave into my keeping.'

::'And he now requires it of you agaian,' said Théoden.'Does this displease you?'[...]

::So Grima - as thief and a liar - claimed in front of Théoden that he was given the sword, and Théoden doesn't deny this. Unnecessary quibble in my opinion: I think that Tolkiendil is right, but Ed Poor's version isn't wrong, altogether. But I think that Ed Poor is very wrong in the way he tries to enforce his version.

::Tolkiendil has made countless edits on the '''Lord of the Ring'''. I daresay that he knows more about Tolkien than any of us, including Ed Poor. But perhaps that's the rub: Maybe Ed Poor doesn't like the idea that someone has a greater knowledge of this subject than he does.

::Of course, there may be a few honest mistakes made by Tolkiendil. The ''infinite'' ban because Ed Poor dislikes some of his interpretations, or because he added to many details, seems to be absolutely unjustified - and the instantaneous deletion of Tolkiendil's user page just undignified!
::OTOH, I don't think that one should take the whole ''middle-earth'' universe to serious, it should be fun!

::BTW, Tolkiendil seems to be right with his categorization of the Eskimo-Aleut languages, too.

::I have said this a couple of times: This high-handed approach to us common editors destroys the spirit which is necessary to be a volunteer on this project. Here, the work of months was disregarded in seconds!

::Therefore, I appeal to Ed Poor to lift the block of Tolkiendil. Though I don't know whether this action is futile, but I hope that Tolkiendil rejoins us editors though he was treated in such a capricious way.

::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)

For this, I got a block of one day.

Tolkiendil made more than 1000 edits on CP. Most of these regard Tolkien's ''The Lord of the Ring''. This is - of course - not a central part of CP, but nonetheless, it is nice to have it on board: The book - and the movies- impressed millions of teenagers around the world, and perhaps, one or the other finds via Tolkien to CP.
As far as I can see were Tolkiendil's edits careful and diligent. But we shouldn't forget that we are talking about a piece of fiction, so, there are always different interpretations possible. The examples Ed Poor gave for Tolkiendil's vandalism are examples for such different interpretations: was Éowyn recognized when she was under disguise? Tolkien himself attributed her the male pronouns, so she was shielded from the eyes of the readers. And as no one in Tolkien's needs the loo, why should she be discovered? It's futile to debate about this point (there are endless debates on the net), but it is worse to decree a point of view.

Tolkiendil described ''Rivendall'' as a city. Well, it's more of a village, or a hamlet. But is this chose of wording '''vandalism'''? I don't think so.

As I stated above, this is a discussion at the fringe of CP. Most of us don't take that much interest in ''The Lord of the Rings''. Tolkiendil did, and he put quite an effort in his posts. To disesteem such an effort is to disappoint the editor badly. To destroy his user page within minutes after his block means to add insult to injury.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:34, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Unwarranted 90/10 block ==

Does my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BRichtigen history] violate the 90/10 guideline ''at any time''? Or is the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:BRichtigen block reason] ''"Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk"'' just a handy tool to quell inconvenient questions? Frankly, for me this seems less than ''administrator's discretion'' but ''administrator's caprice'' --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:33, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:Frankly, if others sysops think I have made a mistake I'm inclined to trust their judgment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)

{{cquote|'''It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.''' The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

'''Theodore Roosevelt''', "Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 14:01, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:So, you concur that Ed Poor made a mistake. But shouldn't your post be in the quote-of-the-day section? Here, I'd expect the arguments to be closer to the point. Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:16, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:*No you would be incorrect. The quote posted here, in this case, was a polite way of telling you that its extremely easy to criticize, find fault. And since this is an encyclopedia project, not a debate forum, it would be wrong of you to think anyone is so valuable that their constant argument and dissent will be allowed forever. Our Commandments and Guidelines are not a suicide pact, something we will allow to be used or argued against us, in order that a user may distract and waste our time with endless questions the answers to which are then argued over endlessly. As Teddy Roosevelt succinctly said, the man in the arena, he will make mistakes, errors in judgment, but that is incidental to at least trying, instead of sitting on the sidelines hurling criticism and pointing out where others are wrong. It is a lesson you will not learn, it seems. Please take your vacation to reflect on the manner of your ways, or not. God's speed to you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:40, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::Ed used the block option to win an argument and used it again to shut up an abuse complaint. How is this OK? Why not just delete this page? Everybody that brings up abuse just gets blocked. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:Fascinating:
::(Block log); 15:54, 16 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked BRichtigen (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (account creation disabled) ‎ (TerryH & Ed Poor were right, reflect on constant arguing and being a distraction. You have been blocked 6 times by 3 admins in Dec, now 7/4)
:Blocked for challenging the validity of his block? Nice one!
::(Block log); 16:19, 16 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Corry (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: and continued argument over things that do not concern him)
:And this just minutes after Corry replied to TK here... hmmmmmmm...
:I am with Corry and BRichtigen: The rules may not be a suicide pact, but that doesn't mean that sysops and wannabe-sysops can simply go all Wild West on whoever they don't like. The rules are already biased against those with no special rights and those who dare to bring up abuse or to point out that those in power made an innocent mistake, but these days, they are effectively discarded in favor of pure "might makes right".
:This isn't how a community works. And it merely turns the Abuse Helpdesk into a honeypot trap.
:And yes, I completely expect to be banned or blocked for some convenient reason, too. Wouldn't be my first block for complaining here about abuse, even. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-12-16T22:01:02Z

AlanS: /* Unwarranted 90/10 block */ Gotta work fast before the Hammer hits me, too!

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]]

== [[Axiom of Choice]] ==

Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in [[Axiom of Choice]] (which I'll just call AC).

Brief summary:
*AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning.
*Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM.
*BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct.
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Foxtrot&oldid=571141#AndyJM Full conversation] - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk".
*BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue.
*I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts.
*Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow.
*When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer.").
The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.''
::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble''
::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.''
::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance''
::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A five year block of a new user ''without any warning'' for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we ''trying'' to shut down Conservapedia? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I think this is just ''bad style'':
# 14:49, 28 November 2008 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)

*looking at the list of his contributions, AlanS hasn't violated the 90/10 guideline
*granted, he was involved in some discussions: it took a while to show that Foxtrot was wrong
*for the record: AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong, and AlanS is blocked...

Is this the way we want to perform discussions to improve the quality of our articles?
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::Ceaseless arguments like this only help the enemies of Conservapedia. For the benefit of the project, please all drop this matter and get back to making more substantive contributions. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Range Blocks==
TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:
* ''Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy''

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the ''anon proxy'' part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable.
Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
:# 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
:# 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
:# 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
:# 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
:# 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
:# 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
:lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Well, that's the problem with assumptions. Your email was in with the spam. In the future, you might consider actually making a post to a person's talk page, if you don't hear back, as anyone should, getting a question. I will respond to your email in a few minutes, or perhaps Justine would prefer me to forward it to her? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::I didn't assume anything. I use e-mail only as a last resort, i.e., when I'm blocked, as it was the case - I've this idea that one should try to produce at least the modicum that any discussion takes place in the open on a medium like this :-)
:::I'm now used to be an editor at CP, so I take some effort to be able to edit - which you can't expect from a casual visitor. These /16 blocks are - at least - bad PR.
:::Of course, I care for ''the Poles and others'', as I'm one of them. I know that CP is American-centered, but I resent this high-handed approach to us few foreigners.
:::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::I too am non-American and have nothing but praise for the way that we are accommodated within the welcoming bounds of this fundamentally American project. I would add, BRichtigen, that this page is for issues to be noted, whereupon sysops will decide on the action to be atken. [Inappropriate remark removed by Administrator] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::*Justine, I know you know my email, and I also think you can tell what was done was in consult with others, including Geo. As I stated above, taking my queue directly from Andy and other Senior Administrators, we should not be discussing particulars here, but rather privately. Conservapedia does not now, nor has it ever, discussed security issues on the wiki, nor blocks. That is what the wiki email system is. I think it violates peoples privacy to be discussing such things here. you go right ahead and unilaterially take whatever action you feel is justified in regard to blocks. You are, after all, one of our most senior and trusted administrators! I just thought given all the unilaterial arguments going on, this was something better dealt with directly among those of us who can block,is all. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:I'll consult Andy with these range blocks asap. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't that what ''should'' have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "<s>Terrorists!</s> Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us.
Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... ''share his knowledge''.
But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The [http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.htm URL] you gave shows that the ''network'' this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's ''a fourth''. This means that ''at least'' 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::I don't have time to perform every single block. It is for that reason that I authorized TK to perform these rangeblocks. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 23:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)
It's better not to discuss range blocks. If '''you''' can't access CP because of a range block, contact a sysop via email. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:It seems to me that it's better not to ''perform'' range blocks. What if the "you" in question is a new user? When I first started at CP I didn't know what a sysop was, let alone how to contact one. How many complaints a month do we get from people who don't understand that "night editing" being turned off doesn't mean that they are blocked? The fact remains that it doesn't make sense to block 4 times more people than you intend to, unless your intent is to shut down editing on this site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Interference and Collusiveness==
AlanS received the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlanS&year=&month=-1 block]:
*20:00, 2 December 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Interference)

The ''interference'' seems to be the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RodWeathers&diff=prev&oldid=575891 edit] on a talk-page:
:Well, the information is freely available, so there is no need to invade anybody's privacy: The user was blocked for "Evolutionist Vandalism", and only one of his/her edits has been reverted: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575825&oldid=572439 This] one for being made by a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575827&oldid=575825 "liberal evolutionist"] --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

So, he answered a question of another editor in a civil manner. How is this interference? And what is bad about interference, anyway?

When the ''administrator'' HenryS lifted the block, the ''editor with blocking rights'' Bugler blocked AlanS again, stating the same reason.

To use the terminology Bugler had introduced: we common grunts are interested in what's happening here at CP and want to be dealt with fairly. And why don't the sergeants follow the orders of the officers, but expect us to be obedient to them, not allowing us to raise even simple questions - because that's what AlanS's block is about?

Another troubling tendency in the last days was that frequently the instruction to use email or other non-public venues of information popped up, more often than in the months before.

As this is a board where high-school pupils and elder women and men communicate, A. Schlafly has rightly tried to provide an environment where any idea (how misguided ever) of ''creepiness'' is ruled out. As any teacher knows, one should try to stick to the ''open door'' policy and refrain from contacting pupils via email, IM or such.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:Simple questions are always okay. Rhetorical questions might not be. Using "simple questions" as a disguise for opening a debate about the rules is strictly out. Next time I see someone doing this - other than in the [[Debate Topics]] - he's gone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::Personally I find the actual block the least important issue here. The most important issues are the flagrant breaches of the chain of command, the total lack of recourse on the off chance that abuse occurrs, and the likelyhood of an encouragement of off-site communication (which, to me, seems counter to the idea of having a wiki anyway; why else would the software include talk pages?) leading to an increased likelyhood of placing minors in an inapropriate position. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Is (was) Tolkiendil a Vandal?==
Ed Poor blocked [[User:Tolkiendil|Tolkiendil]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page=User%3ATolkiendil&year=&month=-1 stating]:

* 08:48, 12 December 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked Tolkiendil (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting nonsense or gibberish into pages or edit comments)

I don't regard Tolkiendil as a vandal, and elaborated this on Ed Poor's talk page:

::As far as I can see, He '''wasn't''' vandalizing the Tolkien articles - most of which he had created. There is - a minor - quibble of interpretation over the role of [[Eowyn]]. When I tried to find a resolution in the internet, I found much of debate instead, nothing clear cut, IMO (and nothing to important). I understand both positions Tolkiendil's and Ed Poor's , but Ed Poor enforces his view via his blocking rights.

::And then there are other minor points. For instance, have a look [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Middle-earth_objects&diff=584641&oldid=581816 here]:

::Tolkiendil had written:'''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been given to Gríma Wormtongue for safekeeping, but was returned to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor changes this to: '''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been kept by [[Gríma]] Wormtongue along was "many other things that men had missed", but was taken back to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor claims in his edit comment: ''No record that Grima was "given" this sword - or anything else for that matter''

::In '''Book III, Chapter VI''', "''The King of the Golden Hall''". we read:

::
::[...] At the moment Háma came again from the hall. Behind him cringing between two other men, came Gríma the Wormtongue. His face was very white. His eyes blinked in the sunlight. Háma knelt and presented to Théoden a long swarod in a scabbard clasped with gold and set with green gems.

::'Here, lord, is Herugrim, your ancient blade', he said. 'It was found in his chest. Loth was he to render up the keys. Many other things are there which men have missed.'

::'You lie,' said Wormtongue. 'And this sword your master himself gave into my keeping.'

::'And he now requires it of you agaian,' said Théoden.'Does this displease you?'[...]

::So Grima - as thief and a liar - claimed in front of Théoden that he was given the sword, and Théoden doesn't deny this. Unnecessary quibble in my opinion: I think that Tolkiendil is right, but Ed Poor's version isn't wrong, altogether. But I think that Ed Poor is very wrong in the way he tries to enforce his version.

::Tolkiendil has made countless edits on the '''Lord of the Ring'''. I daresay that he knows more about Tolkien than any of us, including Ed Poor. But perhaps that's the rub: Maybe Ed Poor doesn't like the idea that someone has a greater knowledge of this subject than he does.

::Of course, there may be a few honest mistakes made by Tolkiendil. The ''infinite'' ban because Ed Poor dislikes some of his interpretations, or because he added to many details, seems to be absolutely unjustified - and the instantaneous deletion of Tolkiendil's user page just undignified!
::OTOH, I don't think that one should take the whole ''middle-earth'' universe to serious, it should be fun!

::BTW, Tolkiendil seems to be right with his categorization of the Eskimo-Aleut languages, too.

::I have said this a couple of times: This high-handed approach to us common editors destroys the spirit which is necessary to be a volunteer on this project. Here, the work of months was disregarded in seconds!

::Therefore, I appeal to Ed Poor to lift the block of Tolkiendil. Though I don't know whether this action is futile, but I hope that Tolkiendil rejoins us editors though he was treated in such a capricious way.

::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)

For this, I got a block of one day.

Tolkiendil made more than 1000 edits on CP. Most of these regard Tolkien's ''The Lord of the Ring''. This is - of course - not a central part of CP, but nonetheless, it is nice to have it on board: The book - and the movies- impressed millions of teenagers around the world, and perhaps, one or the other finds via Tolkien to CP.
As far as I can see were Tolkiendil's edits careful and diligent. But we shouldn't forget that we are talking about a piece of fiction, so, there are always different interpretations possible. The examples Ed Poor gave for Tolkiendil's vandalism are examples for such different interpretations: was Éowyn recognized when she was under disguise? Tolkien himself attributed her the male pronouns, so she was shielded from the eyes of the readers. And as no one in Tolkien's needs the loo, why should she be discovered? It's futile to debate about this point (there are endless debates on the net), but it is worse to decree a point of view.

Tolkiendil described ''Rivendall'' as a city. Well, it's more of a village, or a hamlet. But is this chose of wording '''vandalism'''? I don't think so.

As I stated above, this is a discussion at the fringe of CP. Most of us don't take that much interest in ''The Lord of the Rings''. Tolkiendil did, and he put quite an effort in his posts. To disesteem such an effort is to disappoint the editor badly. To destroy his user page within minutes after his block means to add insult to injury.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:34, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Unwarranted 90/10 block ==

Does my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BRichtigen history] violate the 90/10 guideline ''at any time''? Or is the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:BRichtigen block reason] ''"Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk"'' just a handy tool to quell inconvenient questions? Frankly, for me this seems less than ''administrator's discretion'' but ''administrator's caprice'' --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:33, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:Frankly, if others sysops think I have made a mistake I'm inclined to trust their judgment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)

{{cquote|'''It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.''' The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

'''Theodore Roosevelt''', "Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 14:01, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:So, you concur that Ed Poor made a mistake. But shouldn't your post be in the quote-of-the-day section? Here, I'd expect the arguments to be closer to the point. Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:16, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:*No you would be incorrect. The quote posted here, in this case, was a polite way of telling you that its extremely easy to criticize, find fault. And since this is an encyclopedia project, not a debate forum, it would be wrong of you to think anyone is so valuable that their constant argument and dissent will be allowed forever. Our Commandments and Guidelines are not a suicide pact, something we will allow to be used or argued against us, in order that a user may distract and waste our time with endless questions the answers to which are then argued over endlessly. As Teddy Roosevelt succinctly said, the man in the arena, he will make mistakes, errors in judgment, but that is incidental to at least trying, instead of sitting on the sidelines hurling criticism and pointing out where others are wrong. It is a lesson you will not learn, it seems. Please take your vacation to reflect on the manner of your ways, or not. God's speed to you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:40, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::Ed used the block option to win an argument and used it again to shut up an abuse complaint. How is this OK? Why not just delete this page? Everybody that brings up abuse just gets blocked. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:Fascinating:
::(Block log); 15:54, 16 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked BRichtigen (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (account creation disabled) ‎ (TerryH & Ed Poor were right, reflect on constant arguing and being a distraction. You have been blocked 6 times by 3 admins in Dec, now 7/4)
:Blocked for challenging the validity of his block? Nice one!
::(Block log); 16:19 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Corry (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: and continued argument over things that do not concern him)
:And this just minutes after Corry replied to TK here... hmmmmmmm...
:I am with Corry and BRichtigen: The rules may not be a suicide pact, but that doesn't mean that sysops and wannabe-sysops can simply go all Wild West on whoever they don't like. The rules are already biased against those with no special rights and those who dare to bring up abuse or to point out that those in power made an innocent mistake, but these days, they are effectively discarded in favor of pure "might makes right".
:This isn't how a community works. And it merely turns the Abuse Helpdesk into a honeypot trap.
:And yes, I completely expect to be banned or blocked for some convenient reason, too. Wouldn't be my first block for complaining here about abuse, even. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-12-16T22:00:20Z

AlanS: /* Unwarranted 90/10 block */ Oh, wait, BRichtigen was ALSO blocked! WAY TO HANDLE THE ABUSE HELPDESK, TK!

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]]

== [[Axiom of Choice]] ==

Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in [[Axiom of Choice]] (which I'll just call AC).

Brief summary:
*AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning.
*Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM.
*BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct.
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Foxtrot&oldid=571141#AndyJM Full conversation] - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk".
*BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue.
*I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts.
*Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow.
*When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer.").
The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.''
::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble''
::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.''
::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance''
::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A five year block of a new user ''without any warning'' for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we ''trying'' to shut down Conservapedia? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I think this is just ''bad style'':
# 14:49, 28 November 2008 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)

*looking at the list of his contributions, AlanS hasn't violated the 90/10 guideline
*granted, he was involved in some discussions: it took a while to show that Foxtrot was wrong
*for the record: AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong, and AlanS is blocked...

Is this the way we want to perform discussions to improve the quality of our articles?
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::Ceaseless arguments like this only help the enemies of Conservapedia. For the benefit of the project, please all drop this matter and get back to making more substantive contributions. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Range Blocks==
TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:
* ''Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy''

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the ''anon proxy'' part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable.
Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
:# 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
:# 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
:# 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
:# 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
:# 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
:# 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
:lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Well, that's the problem with assumptions. Your email was in with the spam. In the future, you might consider actually making a post to a person's talk page, if you don't hear back, as anyone should, getting a question. I will respond to your email in a few minutes, or perhaps Justine would prefer me to forward it to her? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::I didn't assume anything. I use e-mail only as a last resort, i.e., when I'm blocked, as it was the case - I've this idea that one should try to produce at least the modicum that any discussion takes place in the open on a medium like this :-)
:::I'm now used to be an editor at CP, so I take some effort to be able to edit - which you can't expect from a casual visitor. These /16 blocks are - at least - bad PR.
:::Of course, I care for ''the Poles and others'', as I'm one of them. I know that CP is American-centered, but I resent this high-handed approach to us few foreigners.
:::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::I too am non-American and have nothing but praise for the way that we are accommodated within the welcoming bounds of this fundamentally American project. I would add, BRichtigen, that this page is for issues to be noted, whereupon sysops will decide on the action to be atken. [Inappropriate remark removed by Administrator] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::*Justine, I know you know my email, and I also think you can tell what was done was in consult with others, including Geo. As I stated above, taking my queue directly from Andy and other Senior Administrators, we should not be discussing particulars here, but rather privately. Conservapedia does not now, nor has it ever, discussed security issues on the wiki, nor blocks. That is what the wiki email system is. I think it violates peoples privacy to be discussing such things here. you go right ahead and unilaterially take whatever action you feel is justified in regard to blocks. You are, after all, one of our most senior and trusted administrators! I just thought given all the unilaterial arguments going on, this was something better dealt with directly among those of us who can block,is all. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:I'll consult Andy with these range blocks asap. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't that what ''should'' have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "<s>Terrorists!</s> Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us.
Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... ''share his knowledge''.
But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The [http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.htm URL] you gave shows that the ''network'' this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's ''a fourth''. This means that ''at least'' 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::I don't have time to perform every single block. It is for that reason that I authorized TK to perform these rangeblocks. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 23:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)
It's better not to discuss range blocks. If '''you''' can't access CP because of a range block, contact a sysop via email. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:It seems to me that it's better not to ''perform'' range blocks. What if the "you" in question is a new user? When I first started at CP I didn't know what a sysop was, let alone how to contact one. How many complaints a month do we get from people who don't understand that "night editing" being turned off doesn't mean that they are blocked? The fact remains that it doesn't make sense to block 4 times more people than you intend to, unless your intent is to shut down editing on this site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Interference and Collusiveness==
AlanS received the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlanS&year=&month=-1 block]:
*20:00, 2 December 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Interference)

The ''interference'' seems to be the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RodWeathers&diff=prev&oldid=575891 edit] on a talk-page:
:Well, the information is freely available, so there is no need to invade anybody's privacy: The user was blocked for "Evolutionist Vandalism", and only one of his/her edits has been reverted: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575825&oldid=572439 This] one for being made by a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575827&oldid=575825 "liberal evolutionist"] --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

So, he answered a question of another editor in a civil manner. How is this interference? And what is bad about interference, anyway?

When the ''administrator'' HenryS lifted the block, the ''editor with blocking rights'' Bugler blocked AlanS again, stating the same reason.

To use the terminology Bugler had introduced: we common grunts are interested in what's happening here at CP and want to be dealt with fairly. And why don't the sergeants follow the orders of the officers, but expect us to be obedient to them, not allowing us to raise even simple questions - because that's what AlanS's block is about?

Another troubling tendency in the last days was that frequently the instruction to use email or other non-public venues of information popped up, more often than in the months before.

As this is a board where high-school pupils and elder women and men communicate, A. Schlafly has rightly tried to provide an environment where any idea (how misguided ever) of ''creepiness'' is ruled out. As any teacher knows, one should try to stick to the ''open door'' policy and refrain from contacting pupils via email, IM or such.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:Simple questions are always okay. Rhetorical questions might not be. Using "simple questions" as a disguise for opening a debate about the rules is strictly out. Next time I see someone doing this - other than in the [[Debate Topics]] - he's gone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::Personally I find the actual block the least important issue here. The most important issues are the flagrant breaches of the chain of command, the total lack of recourse on the off chance that abuse occurrs, and the likelyhood of an encouragement of off-site communication (which, to me, seems counter to the idea of having a wiki anyway; why else would the software include talk pages?) leading to an increased likelyhood of placing minors in an inapropriate position. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Is (was) Tolkiendil a Vandal?==
Ed Poor blocked [[User:Tolkiendil|Tolkiendil]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page=User%3ATolkiendil&year=&month=-1 stating]:

* 08:48, 12 December 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked Tolkiendil (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting nonsense or gibberish into pages or edit comments)

I don't regard Tolkiendil as a vandal, and elaborated this on Ed Poor's talk page:

::As far as I can see, He '''wasn't''' vandalizing the Tolkien articles - most of which he had created. There is - a minor - quibble of interpretation over the role of [[Eowyn]]. When I tried to find a resolution in the internet, I found much of debate instead, nothing clear cut, IMO (and nothing to important). I understand both positions Tolkiendil's and Ed Poor's , but Ed Poor enforces his view via his blocking rights.

::And then there are other minor points. For instance, have a look [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Middle-earth_objects&diff=584641&oldid=581816 here]:

::Tolkiendil had written:'''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been given to Gríma Wormtongue for safekeeping, but was returned to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor changes this to: '''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been kept by [[Gríma]] Wormtongue along was "many other things that men had missed", but was taken back to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor claims in his edit comment: ''No record that Grima was "given" this sword - or anything else for that matter''

::In '''Book III, Chapter VI''', "''The King of the Golden Hall''". we read:

::
::[...] At the moment Háma came again from the hall. Behind him cringing between two other men, came Gríma the Wormtongue. His face was very white. His eyes blinked in the sunlight. Háma knelt and presented to Théoden a long swarod in a scabbard clasped with gold and set with green gems.

::'Here, lord, is Herugrim, your ancient blade', he said. 'It was found in his chest. Loth was he to render up the keys. Many other things are there which men have missed.'

::'You lie,' said Wormtongue. 'And this sword your master himself gave into my keeping.'

::'And he now requires it of you agaian,' said Théoden.'Does this displease you?'[...]

::So Grima - as thief and a liar - claimed in front of Théoden that he was given the sword, and Théoden doesn't deny this. Unnecessary quibble in my opinion: I think that Tolkiendil is right, but Ed Poor's version isn't wrong, altogether. But I think that Ed Poor is very wrong in the way he tries to enforce his version.

::Tolkiendil has made countless edits on the '''Lord of the Ring'''. I daresay that he knows more about Tolkien than any of us, including Ed Poor. But perhaps that's the rub: Maybe Ed Poor doesn't like the idea that someone has a greater knowledge of this subject than he does.

::Of course, there may be a few honest mistakes made by Tolkiendil. The ''infinite'' ban because Ed Poor dislikes some of his interpretations, or because he added to many details, seems to be absolutely unjustified - and the instantaneous deletion of Tolkiendil's user page just undignified!
::OTOH, I don't think that one should take the whole ''middle-earth'' universe to serious, it should be fun!

::BTW, Tolkiendil seems to be right with his categorization of the Eskimo-Aleut languages, too.

::I have said this a couple of times: This high-handed approach to us common editors destroys the spirit which is necessary to be a volunteer on this project. Here, the work of months was disregarded in seconds!

::Therefore, I appeal to Ed Poor to lift the block of Tolkiendil. Though I don't know whether this action is futile, but I hope that Tolkiendil rejoins us editors though he was treated in such a capricious way.

::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)

For this, I got a block of one day.

Tolkiendil made more than 1000 edits on CP. Most of these regard Tolkien's ''The Lord of the Ring''. This is - of course - not a central part of CP, but nonetheless, it is nice to have it on board: The book - and the movies- impressed millions of teenagers around the world, and perhaps, one or the other finds via Tolkien to CP.
As far as I can see were Tolkiendil's edits careful and diligent. But we shouldn't forget that we are talking about a piece of fiction, so, there are always different interpretations possible. The examples Ed Poor gave for Tolkiendil's vandalism are examples for such different interpretations: was Éowyn recognized when she was under disguise? Tolkien himself attributed her the male pronouns, so she was shielded from the eyes of the readers. And as no one in Tolkien's needs the loo, why should she be discovered? It's futile to debate about this point (there are endless debates on the net), but it is worse to decree a point of view.

Tolkiendil described ''Rivendall'' as a city. Well, it's more of a village, or a hamlet. But is this chose of wording '''vandalism'''? I don't think so.

As I stated above, this is a discussion at the fringe of CP. Most of us don't take that much interest in ''The Lord of the Rings''. Tolkiendil did, and he put quite an effort in his posts. To disesteem such an effort is to disappoint the editor badly. To destroy his user page within minutes after his block means to add insult to injury.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:34, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Unwarranted 90/10 block ==

Does my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BRichtigen history] violate the 90/10 guideline ''at any time''? Or is the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:BRichtigen block reason] ''"Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk"'' just a handy tool to quell inconvenient questions? Frankly, for me this seems less than ''administrator's discretion'' but ''administrator's caprice'' --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:33, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:Frankly, if others sysops think I have made a mistake I'm inclined to trust their judgment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)

{{cquote|'''It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.''' The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

'''Theodore Roosevelt''', "Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 14:01, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:So, you concur that Ed Poor made a mistake. But shouldn't your post be in the quote-of-the-day section? Here, I'd expect the arguments to be closer to the point. Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:16, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:*No you would be incorrect. The quote posted here, in this case, was a polite way of telling you that its extremely easy to criticize, find fault. And since this is an encyclopedia project, not a debate forum, it would be wrong of you to think anyone is so valuable that their constant argument and dissent will be allowed forever. Our Commandments and Guidelines are not a suicide pact, something we will allow to be used or argued against us, in order that a user may distract and waste our time with endless questions the answers to which are then argued over endlessly. As Teddy Roosevelt succinctly said, the man in the arena, he will make mistakes, errors in judgment, but that is incidental to at least trying, instead of sitting on the sidelines hurling criticism and pointing out where others are wrong. It is a lesson you will not learn, it seems. Please take your vacation to reflect on the manner of your ways, or not. God's speed to you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:40, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::Ed used the block option to win an argument and used it again to shut up an abuse complaint. How is this OK? Why not just delete this page? Everybody that brings up abuse just gets blocked. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:Fascinating:
::15:54, 16 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked BRichtigen (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (account creation disabled) ‎ (TerryH & Ed Poor were right, reflect on constant arguing and being a distraction. You have been blocked 6 times by 3 admins in Dec, now 7/4)
:Blocked for challenging the validity of his block? Nice one!
::(Block log); 16:19 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Corry (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: and continued argument over things that do not concern him)
:And this just minutes after Corry replied to TK here... hmmmmmmm...
:I am with Corry and BRichtigen: The rules may not be a suicide pact, but that doesn't mean that sysops and wannabe-sysops can simply go all Wild West on whoever they don't like. The rules are already biased against those with no special rights and those who dare to bring up abuse or to point out that those in power made an innocent mistake, but these days, they are effectively discarded in favor of pure "might makes right".
:This isn't how a community works. And it merely turns the Abuse Helpdesk into a honeypot trap.
:And yes, I completely expect to be banned or blocked for some convenient reason, too. Wouldn't be my first block for complaining here about abuse, even. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-12-16T21:58:08Z

AlanS: /* Unwarranted 90/10 block */ I guess I'll join Corry on the Block Bench in a few for posting this.

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]]

== [[Axiom of Choice]] ==

Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in [[Axiom of Choice]] (which I'll just call AC).

Brief summary:
*AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning.
*Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM.
*BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct.
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Foxtrot&oldid=571141#AndyJM Full conversation] - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk".
*BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue.
*I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts.
*Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow.
*When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer.").
The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.''
::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble''
::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.''
::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance''
::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A five year block of a new user ''without any warning'' for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we ''trying'' to shut down Conservapedia? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I think this is just ''bad style'':
# 14:49, 28 November 2008 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)

*looking at the list of his contributions, AlanS hasn't violated the 90/10 guideline
*granted, he was involved in some discussions: it took a while to show that Foxtrot was wrong
*for the record: AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong, and AlanS is blocked...

Is this the way we want to perform discussions to improve the quality of our articles?
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::Ceaseless arguments like this only help the enemies of Conservapedia. For the benefit of the project, please all drop this matter and get back to making more substantive contributions. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Range Blocks==
TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:
* ''Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy''

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the ''anon proxy'' part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable.
Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
:# 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
:# 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
:# 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
:# 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
:# 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
:# 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
:lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Well, that's the problem with assumptions. Your email was in with the spam. In the future, you might consider actually making a post to a person's talk page, if you don't hear back, as anyone should, getting a question. I will respond to your email in a few minutes, or perhaps Justine would prefer me to forward it to her? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::I didn't assume anything. I use e-mail only as a last resort, i.e., when I'm blocked, as it was the case - I've this idea that one should try to produce at least the modicum that any discussion takes place in the open on a medium like this :-)
:::I'm now used to be an editor at CP, so I take some effort to be able to edit - which you can't expect from a casual visitor. These /16 blocks are - at least - bad PR.
:::Of course, I care for ''the Poles and others'', as I'm one of them. I know that CP is American-centered, but I resent this high-handed approach to us few foreigners.
:::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::I too am non-American and have nothing but praise for the way that we are accommodated within the welcoming bounds of this fundamentally American project. I would add, BRichtigen, that this page is for issues to be noted, whereupon sysops will decide on the action to be atken. [Inappropriate remark removed by Administrator] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::*Justine, I know you know my email, and I also think you can tell what was done was in consult with others, including Geo. As I stated above, taking my queue directly from Andy and other Senior Administrators, we should not be discussing particulars here, but rather privately. Conservapedia does not now, nor has it ever, discussed security issues on the wiki, nor blocks. That is what the wiki email system is. I think it violates peoples privacy to be discussing such things here. you go right ahead and unilaterially take whatever action you feel is justified in regard to blocks. You are, after all, one of our most senior and trusted administrators! I just thought given all the unilaterial arguments going on, this was something better dealt with directly among those of us who can block,is all. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:I'll consult Andy with these range blocks asap. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't that what ''should'' have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "<s>Terrorists!</s> Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us.
Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... ''share his knowledge''.
But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The [http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.htm URL] you gave shows that the ''network'' this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's ''a fourth''. This means that ''at least'' 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::I don't have time to perform every single block. It is for that reason that I authorized TK to perform these rangeblocks. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 23:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)
It's better not to discuss range blocks. If '''you''' can't access CP because of a range block, contact a sysop via email. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:It seems to me that it's better not to ''perform'' range blocks. What if the "you" in question is a new user? When I first started at CP I didn't know what a sysop was, let alone how to contact one. How many complaints a month do we get from people who don't understand that "night editing" being turned off doesn't mean that they are blocked? The fact remains that it doesn't make sense to block 4 times more people than you intend to, unless your intent is to shut down editing on this site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Interference and Collusiveness==
AlanS received the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlanS&year=&month=-1 block]:
*20:00, 2 December 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Interference)

The ''interference'' seems to be the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RodWeathers&diff=prev&oldid=575891 edit] on a talk-page:
:Well, the information is freely available, so there is no need to invade anybody's privacy: The user was blocked for "Evolutionist Vandalism", and only one of his/her edits has been reverted: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575825&oldid=572439 This] one for being made by a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575827&oldid=575825 "liberal evolutionist"] --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

So, he answered a question of another editor in a civil manner. How is this interference? And what is bad about interference, anyway?

When the ''administrator'' HenryS lifted the block, the ''editor with blocking rights'' Bugler blocked AlanS again, stating the same reason.

To use the terminology Bugler had introduced: we common grunts are interested in what's happening here at CP and want to be dealt with fairly. And why don't the sergeants follow the orders of the officers, but expect us to be obedient to them, not allowing us to raise even simple questions - because that's what AlanS's block is about?

Another troubling tendency in the last days was that frequently the instruction to use email or other non-public venues of information popped up, more often than in the months before.

As this is a board where high-school pupils and elder women and men communicate, A. Schlafly has rightly tried to provide an environment where any idea (how misguided ever) of ''creepiness'' is ruled out. As any teacher knows, one should try to stick to the ''open door'' policy and refrain from contacting pupils via email, IM or such.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:Simple questions are always okay. Rhetorical questions might not be. Using "simple questions" as a disguise for opening a debate about the rules is strictly out. Next time I see someone doing this - other than in the [[Debate Topics]] - he's gone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::Personally I find the actual block the least important issue here. The most important issues are the flagrant breaches of the chain of command, the total lack of recourse on the off chance that abuse occurrs, and the likelyhood of an encouragement of off-site communication (which, to me, seems counter to the idea of having a wiki anyway; why else would the software include talk pages?) leading to an increased likelyhood of placing minors in an inapropriate position. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Is (was) Tolkiendil a Vandal?==
Ed Poor blocked [[User:Tolkiendil|Tolkiendil]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page=User%3ATolkiendil&year=&month=-1 stating]:

* 08:48, 12 December 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked Tolkiendil (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting nonsense or gibberish into pages or edit comments)

I don't regard Tolkiendil as a vandal, and elaborated this on Ed Poor's talk page:

::As far as I can see, He '''wasn't''' vandalizing the Tolkien articles - most of which he had created. There is - a minor - quibble of interpretation over the role of [[Eowyn]]. When I tried to find a resolution in the internet, I found much of debate instead, nothing clear cut, IMO (and nothing to important). I understand both positions Tolkiendil's and Ed Poor's , but Ed Poor enforces his view via his blocking rights.

::And then there are other minor points. For instance, have a look [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Middle-earth_objects&diff=584641&oldid=581816 here]:

::Tolkiendil had written:'''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been given to Gríma Wormtongue for safekeeping, but was returned to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor changes this to: '''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been kept by [[Gríma]] Wormtongue along was "many other things that men had missed", but was taken back to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor claims in his edit comment: ''No record that Grima was "given" this sword - or anything else for that matter''

::In '''Book III, Chapter VI''', "''The King of the Golden Hall''". we read:

::
::[...] At the moment Háma came again from the hall. Behind him cringing between two other men, came Gríma the Wormtongue. His face was very white. His eyes blinked in the sunlight. Háma knelt and presented to Théoden a long swarod in a scabbard clasped with gold and set with green gems.

::'Here, lord, is Herugrim, your ancient blade', he said. 'It was found in his chest. Loth was he to render up the keys. Many other things are there which men have missed.'

::'You lie,' said Wormtongue. 'And this sword your master himself gave into my keeping.'

::'And he now requires it of you agaian,' said Théoden.'Does this displease you?'[...]

::So Grima - as thief and a liar - claimed in front of Théoden that he was given the sword, and Théoden doesn't deny this. Unnecessary quibble in my opinion: I think that Tolkiendil is right, but Ed Poor's version isn't wrong, altogether. But I think that Ed Poor is very wrong in the way he tries to enforce his version.

::Tolkiendil has made countless edits on the '''Lord of the Ring'''. I daresay that he knows more about Tolkien than any of us, including Ed Poor. But perhaps that's the rub: Maybe Ed Poor doesn't like the idea that someone has a greater knowledge of this subject than he does.

::Of course, there may be a few honest mistakes made by Tolkiendil. The ''infinite'' ban because Ed Poor dislikes some of his interpretations, or because he added to many details, seems to be absolutely unjustified - and the instantaneous deletion of Tolkiendil's user page just undignified!
::OTOH, I don't think that one should take the whole ''middle-earth'' universe to serious, it should be fun!

::BTW, Tolkiendil seems to be right with his categorization of the Eskimo-Aleut languages, too.

::I have said this a couple of times: This high-handed approach to us common editors destroys the spirit which is necessary to be a volunteer on this project. Here, the work of months was disregarded in seconds!

::Therefore, I appeal to Ed Poor to lift the block of Tolkiendil. Though I don't know whether this action is futile, but I hope that Tolkiendil rejoins us editors though he was treated in such a capricious way.

::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)

For this, I got a block of one day.

Tolkiendil made more than 1000 edits on CP. Most of these regard Tolkien's ''The Lord of the Ring''. This is - of course - not a central part of CP, but nonetheless, it is nice to have it on board: The book - and the movies- impressed millions of teenagers around the world, and perhaps, one or the other finds via Tolkien to CP.
As far as I can see were Tolkiendil's edits careful and diligent. But we shouldn't forget that we are talking about a piece of fiction, so, there are always different interpretations possible. The examples Ed Poor gave for Tolkiendil's vandalism are examples for such different interpretations: was Éowyn recognized when she was under disguise? Tolkien himself attributed her the male pronouns, so she was shielded from the eyes of the readers. And as no one in Tolkien's needs the loo, why should she be discovered? It's futile to debate about this point (there are endless debates on the net), but it is worse to decree a point of view.

Tolkiendil described ''Rivendall'' as a city. Well, it's more of a village, or a hamlet. But is this chose of wording '''vandalism'''? I don't think so.

As I stated above, this is a discussion at the fringe of CP. Most of us don't take that much interest in ''The Lord of the Rings''. Tolkiendil did, and he put quite an effort in his posts. To disesteem such an effort is to disappoint the editor badly. To destroy his user page within minutes after his block means to add insult to injury.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:34, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Unwarranted 90/10 block ==

Does my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BRichtigen history] violate the 90/10 guideline ''at any time''? Or is the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:BRichtigen block reason] ''"Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk"'' just a handy tool to quell inconvenient questions? Frankly, for me this seems less than ''administrator's discretion'' but ''administrator's caprice'' --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:33, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:Frankly, if others sysops think I have made a mistake I'm inclined to trust their judgment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)

{{cquote|'''It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.''' The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

'''Theodore Roosevelt''', "Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 14:01, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:So, you concur that Ed Poor made a mistake. But shouldn't your post be in the quote-of-the-day section? Here, I'd expect the arguments to be closer to the point. Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:16, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:*No you would be incorrect. The quote posted here, in this case, was a polite way of telling you that its extremely easy to criticize, find fault. And since this is an encyclopedia project, not a debate forum, it would be wrong of you to think anyone is so valuable that their constant argument and dissent will be allowed forever. Our Commandments and Guidelines are not a suicide pact, something we will allow to be used or argued against us, in order that a user may distract and waste our time with endless questions the answers to which are then argued over endlessly. As Teddy Roosevelt succinctly said, the man in the arena, he will make mistakes, errors in judgment, but that is incidental to at least trying, instead of sitting on the sidelines hurling criticism and pointing out where others are wrong. It is a lesson you will not learn, it seems. Please take your vacation to reflect on the manner of your ways, or not. God's speed to you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:40, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::Ed used the block option to win an argument and used it again to shut up an abuse complaint. How is this OK? Why not just delete this page? Everybody that brings up abuse just gets blocked. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:Fascinating:
::(Block log); 16:19 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Corry (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk: and continued argument over things that do not concern him)
:And this just minutes after Corry replied to TK here... hmmmmmmm...
:I am with Corry and BRichtigen: The rules may not be a suicide pact, but that doesn't mean that sysops and wannabe-sysops can simply go all Wild West on whoever they don't like. The rules are already biased against those with no special rights and those who dare to bring up abuse or to point out that those in power made an innocent mistake, but these days, they are effectively discarded in favor of pure "might makes right".
:This isn't how a community works. And it merely turns the Abuse Helpdesk into a honeypot trap.
:And yes, I completely expect to be banned or blocked for some convenient reason, too. Wouldn't be my first block for complaining here about abuse, even. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Scientists whose careers were ruined

2008-12-16T20:30:28Z

AlanS: NEEDS MOAR REFERENCES SECTION!

'''Scientists whose careers were ruined''' because their observations or explanations conflicted with [[liberal bias]] in [[science]].

# [[Estel Melton]] was being ostracized by his peers after publishing a book that disproved the [[theory of evolution]].<ref>[http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/letters/wb/160728 Letter to the Editor]</ref>
# [[Guillermo Gonzalez]] lost out on a tenure track position for speaking out for intelligent design.
# [[Michael Behe]] has faced constant mockery for writing on intelligent design.

==See also==
*''[[The Deniers]]''

==References==
<references/>

[[category:Politics]]
[[category:Science]]

Scientists whose careers were ruined

2008-12-15T22:26:58Z

AlanS: Oh, cool, I can edit again for a change. Better make the most of it before somebody decides I need to be hammered again.

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-12-02T21:26:07Z

AlanS: /* Range Blocks */ Some numbercrunching and a quick overview about security trade-offs

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: And again with IP 139.102.254.38 from Indiana State University. http://samspade.org/whois/139.102.254.38 --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 13:59, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::First of all, phishing is not hacking. Second of all, how are we supposed to know that this IP address tried to phish for your password? We can't just block anyone who claims abuse from an IP, or someone with ill intentions could have the entire world blocked from the site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:34, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I had the same thing which was linked to a blocked user who attempted to mailbomb my e-mail account in revenge. That IP has now been blocked. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 19:39, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on ''evidence''. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
:: However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to ''detect'' troublemaking, but finds other ''evidence'' before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to ''your'' comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the ''only'' thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't ''seem'' to be guilty to me; rather, because the ''evidence'' was lacking. (The ''evidence'' is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a ''substitute'' for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is ''all that is required''.
:: Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block [[user:JasonH|JasonH]] recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

: "''Jirby is not an innocent bystander''": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
: "''Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia''": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
: "''...not complaining about another editor's block''": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our ''responsibility'' to do something about that.
: "''He is not "Minding his own business".''": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
: "''...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing''": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
: "''To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.''": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
: "''I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.''": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
: "''To me, this contradicts Philip's statement''": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
: "''To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."''": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==="Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"===
I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking ''those rules'', not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"''MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments''": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was ''not'' justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::''Au contraire, mon vieux.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! [[User:TomKilt|TomKilt]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== My recent block ==

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for ''"too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break"''. As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on [[Talk:Main Page]] not an edit war. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:DLerner, If you think it is acceptable to defend anarchists and call police fascists, you are wrong. I'm not going to tolerate that talk here on Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It is not up to ''you'' whether free speech and the right for individual opinion is allowed. Your block did not follow the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|rules]] or even the vague and unilateral [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy|blocking policy]]; The block was ''entirely'' on ideological grounds. I believe that police (no doubt under orders from their superiors) can sometimes act in a fascist manner, you don't. I don't suggest that you should be blocked, or stripped of your sysop powers, and I would be a hypocrite if I did! Furthermore, my remarks (which by the way, never defended anarchists) were in the context of a ''debate'' (albeit on the Main page talk, where as you most certainly are aware, the news of the day is discussed with opinions running through the gamut of opinions).
::If you cannot tolerate free expression and differing opinions, then I humbly suggest that this project is not right for you. It it not your job to be the ideology police, nor anyone else. The symbol of our project is the flag of the United States of America, whose ''first'' amendment ''ensures'' free speech and opinion. Unless the policy wonks here come up with [[Conservapedia:Alien and Sedition act]], I think I can say what I want about the government, military, police, fire brigade, CDC or anything or anyone else. {{unsigned|DLerner}}
:::DLerner, ''I'm writing this so the OTHER admins should be aware -and act- against this abuse)'' sounds suspiciously like a threat. My strong advice to you is to drop this, and devote your considerable energies and intelligence to constructive additions to this project. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<in order> Bugler, I assure you it wasn't a threat, it was mainly written because my blocker has so far been the only to respond, as is his right, to my complaint; and even if it ''were'' a threat, what could I possibly do if it was ignored? Come on! I've been here almost as long as you have and I'm still not allowed to night edit (despite me living in Australia...). Thank you for the compliment, but since this is not the first time that I have been blocked for disagreement, I find it difficult to simply let go. And this isn't strictly out of a personal quest for justice, (though I would be lying to say that it's entirely impersonal), if protest isn't made early against abuse, it will eventually be so rampant that -like at the ending of [[Animal Farm]] you won't be able to tell the pigs from the humans. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:19, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I agree that the comment that Bugler picked up on does not constitute a threat. However, I consider calling the police "fascists" to be name-calling rather than ideology. You do not have the freedom to say whatever you like on this site; the "free speech" guarantee does not apply in places such as private web-sites. I support DeanS in the case of this block. And you are on your way to getting one from me, for not resolving the matter of your signature template that I told you about on your talk page more than a week ago and Ed Poor has reminded you of since. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:30, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::I did not did I call ''all'' police fascists, and even if i had, so what? Yes, name calling is against our policy, but I did ''not'' call ''DeanS'' a fascist, nor did I attack him for his beliefs, why then do '''I''' get blocked?. Of course I don't expect to be able to say ''whatever'' I want, in fact, since children use this website, it is ''against the law'' for me to write ''whatever'' I want, I can't write obscenity. (Not that I have any desire to...). I had forgotten about the signature template, but rest assured I will get onto it right away, thank you for a reminder where others would have given a block. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Two side notes---what exactly constitutes a "signature template"? Can someone insert, say, an American flag next to their name on each of their sigs? Also, if calling the police "fascists" is name-calling, would calling liberals "fascists" be considered name-calling as well? Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:50, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: DLerner, no, you did not call ''all'' police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation. I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did? Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal? If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions. My point about not saying whatever you want was to point out that there are limits.
::::::: Jareddr, a template, if you don't realise, is a page (usually, but not necessarily, in the ''Template:'' namespace) that is included in another page by means of a link (the Main Page, for example, comprises two templates, i.e. separate pages, that make up the left and right columns of the Main Page respectively). DLerner uses a sub-page of his user page as a template that he has used for his signature. You can insert a flag by means of making a customised signature on your preferences page (I'm not sure how, but I have seen it done). Calling fascists (such as Hitler) "fascists" is factually correct and therefore okay. Otherwise, calling someone "fascist" is merely namecalling, particularly when referring to an institution of a democratic state.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I support the block, I would have blocked him myself at the time. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:''Reply'': '''''"no, you did not call ''all'' police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation.'''''. And therefore making a generalization during discussion is a ''blockable offense''?!
:'''''"I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did?"''''' No. I wrote that in response to what you wrote above, indeed calling some police action fascist ''is'' name calling, but to my understanding, we only need to be civil and avoid name calling towards ''each other'', '''not''' to government organizations . This is to the best of my understanding the name calling policy as written in the guidelines. And frankly I would be shocked if a consensus was reached amongst the movers and shakers of this project that attacking local or federal government agencies was a punishable act. And if such policy is eventually made, I propose it be aptly named [[Conservapedia:Sedition Act]]. (For those not in the know, Google "Alien and sedition act".)
:'''''"did someone claim that you did?"''''' No.
:'''''"Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal?"''''' Yes.
:'''''"If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions."''''' Even when they are not deserving?
:I do not believe that an organization is exempt from criticism merely because it is an arm of the democratic state, nothing is ever exempt from criticism, period. (IMHO, of course).
:If the administrators disagree with me on this, as is most certainly their right, I suggest they draw up clear, concise and easy to understand site policy defining what we may criticize, and what is forbidden. (see above for a name suggestion).
:Cheers and Shabbat Shalom
:[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:27, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::DLerner, I told you it's not acceptable to call police fascists. Apparently you didn't get the message the first time. Stop lecturing me and other admins. You have crossed the line of acceptable free speech and your insistence in defending your incorrect actions has resulted in a longer block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:57, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:: The offence was not in generalisation ''per se'', but in a name-calling generalisation.
:: I don't know where you get the idea that we should only be civil to each other. It sounds rather like you're saying that it's okay to be civil to someone to their face but you can say what you like behind their back. Being civil applies regardless of whether you are talking directly to the person.
:: I mentioned democracy because, depending perhaps on your precise definition of "fascism", it is ''by definition'' undemocratic. Therefore calling an arm of a democratic society "fascist" is not technically correct, which means that it is an insult.
:: And I'm not saying that we can never criticise a government institution. Rather, I'm saying that it is the proper thing to do to respect the authority of our governments. Yes, we can ''respectfully'' disagree with some of their actions, and offer constructive criticism of them, but we should still respect the institution, just like we should respect the office of the President or Prime Minister (as the case may be) even if we disagree with the policies, etc. of the incumbents. Your comment was ''disrespectful of the institution'', not merely a legitimate criticism (if it was even legitimate at all).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:53, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Requesting Arbitration ==

I was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASamuelHTD blocked for not complying] with a warning User:ASchlafly gave me on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASamuelHTD&diff=512667&oldid=505386 my talk page], but here's the problem:

I didn't make any edits between the warning and blocking, aside from the reply on my talk page. Though I was a bit brash, my userpage shows how ''friendly'' he's spoken to me before, so I treated him with the same respect. Down to the nitty gritty, though:

About 1/3 of my edits relate to [[crime]], but he tells me I'm obsessed with it and it's not educational. Compare that to [[User:Conservative]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Conservative domination over atheism and homosexuality articles], and ASchlafly's ax to grind on the political agenda with [[Barack Obama]]. In other words, he's trying to bully me into telling me what I can or can't edit, when he and his own sysops are ten times as obsessed with certain articles. Note that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamuelHTD my contributions] don't focus solely on crime, so I don't get why I was being picked on in the first place.

I doubt I'd get an apology, since courtesy is in short supply here, and I'm probably going to get blocked for even reporting this. I just don't like being pushed around and bullied based on what seems to be invisible rules of hypocrisy. All of my edits are truthful, so I just don't get it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 11:36, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with PNAS reply talk page==

Recall that DinsdaleP started the ball rolling by writing the early draft of the letter to PNAS that Andy sent under his name. Now, in the *talk* pages for the PNAS reply article, DinsdaleP (and others) make reasonable comments and get their responses [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=516788&oldid=516718 reverted].--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:As Andy is the driving force behind the article, and the person who actually sent the letter and its followup and took the responsibility for its contents, it is his call to determine what he believes to be appropriate and edifying in the talk section versus what he believes to be inappropriate. This is not a reflection on Dinsdale's earlier work, but does show what Andy believes is appropriate at this time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Is it Conservapedia policy that anyone who creates an article can decide what is allowed in the talk section? And why was DinsaleP subsequently blocked given the tremendous amount of good work ans comments he has made? Shouldn't that also be Andy's call if he thought the comments were inappropriate for the talk page? Sorry for the number of questions but I'm confused about the structure for delegation of authority in this wiki.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::It does seem that a policy wherein an author becomes the final arbiter on any content in an article or discussion page is not conducive to building a "trustworthy encyclopedia", as essentially this would relegate articles to essay status, no? Not only DinsdaleP's comments, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=516788&oldid=516718 Argon's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=prev&oldid=515838 Toffeeman's] were entirely reasonable discussions, on what is after all, a discussions page. I too think clarification is needed on this matter. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Sysops monitor articles and talk sections for compliance with Conservapedia standards. As someone intimately familiar with the article, Andy made the call that certain discussions on the talk page did not advance an understanding of the article. While it is less common decision than alterations to the article itself, it is certainly within the scope of responsibilities. Non-sysops are not allowed to alter talk page content except in the case of reverting vandalism. Dinsdale's difficulties were not related to the PNAS article, but rather were tied to another area of the site. Hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:47, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''"...Andy made the call that certain discussions on the talk page did not advance an understanding of the article..."''In other words, he's doing what he wants, censoring anyone who disagrees with him specifically. Although you can't just admit it, it's too obvious. I wonder what deemed you to respond to this when my request for arbitration section right above was ignored, and removed, by you. The problem with that talk page is that he will only allow one side of the story (his own) to show, and that won't improve any further action he does or does not take due to the fact that there is no criticism questioning him. The kind of leaders who only had yes men agreeing with them without dissent were defeated in WWII. [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 20:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::The problem with this is that while I can understand that CP wants to closely monitor and censor its article pages, if that rule is now extended to the Talk pages, then the Talk pages themsleves need Talk pages, which is why we're here. The famously 'locked for over a year' Evolution article has of course been attacked from many sides, and while the article remains locked under the conservatorship of one sysop, the Talk page is long - very long - and features very heated disagreements over the entire topic and article contents. But at least the dialog was had. The fact that this is not allowed of the PNAS letter page seems to mean the rules are 'pick and choose' by whoever wants to do so. And that's not a system, and without a system, you really have nothing but anarchy. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:52, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==Bugler, and Everyone Else Who Ignores==

Okay, there's enough of this. Bugler's [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Science calling everyone] who disagrees with him as "liberals" from a cesspit who are cancerous cells, Then he literally [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:HelpJazz#Big_Science threatens and bullies] HelpJazz (which actually is the norm these days on this site). Comparing his behavior that equates to a one day block to calm down, to his 5 year block on me for "insulting" ASchlafly, I find it deeply troubling. The double standards here are so obvious that I just don't know where to start.

For one, ASchlafly has not owned up to his responsibility as the owner of this site and THE governing authority over all users with blocking rights, that's the number one factor. He has completely ignored any abuse reported on this page, lets sysops quibble and argue and block each other so that other sites can point and laugh, and yet he does nothing. The sparks between Bugler and HelpJazz have been going on for quite some time, and ASchlafly has done ''absolutely nothing'' to any of it. As BrianCo said it best, "no one seems to be doing anything." I'm challenging Mr. Schlafly to stand and deliver for once.

Also, quoting BrianCo again, ''"What happens off-site should not be carried over here. That is a long-established principle at Conservapedia.''" Then can someone '''please''' unblock User Wisdom89, since as reported (and '''ignored''' by all) above, he was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AWisdom89 blocked] for something "off-site", as the abuse report claims. Karajou has also threatened users who have block rights, Philip J. Rayment and NathanG, showing that he can't be trusted with his rights. DeanS blocks users with the reason as "MYOB", becoming increasingly rude if anyone questions him. Conservative dominates any article on homosexuality and atheism, using the site like its a toy to him, uploading images without any information of its origin. It just keeps going, and going, and going... and the only solution is to get at the root of the problem: mass negligence of responsibility. Regular editors without rights cannot do this.

Do any of the sysops care what happens here? Is there some unwritten rule that no matter how abusive a user with block rights can be, nobody of equal stature can confront them? ASchlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Can_you_help_me.3F claims] that there are strict rules on this site, but he can't even answer a question by one of his own trusted users. So, in addition to reporting the troubles and words Bugler expressed openly without so much as a slap on the wrist, I'm reporting all other sysops who don't care about this project enough to right the wrongs, and to stop ignoring what other sysops do. I'm sorry if this earns me another lifetime block, but my conscious tells me that someone needs to say it and I myself cannot sit here and edit as if nothing was wrong. [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 20:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Sam, up until very recently I was unaware that there seems to be a policy to source images. By the way, how do you like the new Stalin picture at the top of the atheism article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:35, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Sam's not here anymore. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 12:47, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::A short survey of the editors who posted on this site to report abuse shows that most of them are banned, e.g.,
:::::<blockquote># 12:17, 6 October 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked SamuelHTD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting false information: "intellectual dishonesty" is not allowed on this site, especially by those who post an intention to do so. Bye.) </blockquote>
:::::I fail to see the "intellectual dishonesty" in the posts of SamuelHTD's history, maybe the offencive ones have been erased...--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 13:02, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

First, user Wisdon89 was in a position of power (i.e. admin) at Wikipedia, complaining that Ed Poor was in a position of power here, banning people he didn't like; and Wisdom89 was using his own position of power in Wikipedia to influence the masses there to prevent Ed Poor from gaining admin priviledges there when the discussion within Wikipedia should have been restricted to what goes on in Wikipedia; joining him in Wikipedia were the trolls and vandals who did their worst here in Conservapedia. At the same time as that was going on ''off-site'', Wisdom89 ''expected'' to be allowed to edit in ''this site''. Someone who complains about my cooking next door, whines about my cooking next door, has others join him in complaining about my cooking next door, yet expects to sit down in my house and eat what I cook, I'm just going to take him by the scruff and toss him out of my house. Period.

Then there's what Sam stated on his user page as to what he was going to do. His "intelectual dishonesty" was to consist of a deliberate attempt to insert such dishonesty within the articles; that was why he was blocked, and not for his previous edits. Deliberately placing misleading or false information in any article is not going to be tolerated. If he disavowed just that statement in an email to myself or any other admin, I will immediately unblock him, and support anyone else who unblocks him.

And then there's the blocks of "people we don't like". It serves no purpose to just have a complainent leave it at "people we don't like", as if that was the only excuse. Some of these complainents need to grasp the possibility that we don't like vandalism and those who practice it; we don't like trolling; we don't like those who cause fights or engage in edit wars. This is supposed to be a family-oriented, Judeo/Christian, conservative website, yet there are those who demand to insert material detrimental to that; we don't like those either.

As to Sam's complaint of abuse of power by the admins as stated above, including myself, I am going to take that for action. Changes do need to be made, and made quickly. Editors need to realize that edits can only go so far, and conflicts need to be resolved respectfully and in a civil manner; sysops need to be more even-handed, and learn to take a time out; they also need to have valid reasons in blocking. Simply "not liking someone" isn't it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

The arbitrary enforcement of the 90/10 rule is a nuisance on its own. But this act of creative calculation is even more embarrassing:
<blockquote>14:29, 14 October 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked KarlJaeger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)</blockquote>
(See [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Bugler#Calculation_of_the_90.2F10_ratio here]]) --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:20, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
::In his most recent score or more contributions, KarlJaeger had flouted the 90/10 rule. User Brichtigen is just trying to cause trouble and should mind his or her own business. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:24, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:23, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

So, I got a one-day-block for my questions and statements:
<blockquote>16:34, 14 October 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked BRichtigen (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ? (Disruptive behaviour)</blockquote>
And BUgler elaborates here on my sins even more:
<blockquote>User Brichtigen is just trying to cause trouble and should mind his or her own business.</blockquote>
I'm afraid that I'm sounding a little bit toplofty, but: the whole affair is about rules and their application. Therefore, it's about justice. And justice concerns everyone. Martin Niemoeller made an interesting statement about [[Martin_Niemoeller|minding your own business]].
Thus, I think BUgler's petty block of mine was inaproppriate.--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:41, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
:I honestly don't think anyone with a mind of reforming bad policies and procedures reads or acknowledges this section anymore, but that's just me.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:45, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

::I suppose I should feel honoured that the [[Liberal]]s, [[Fellow traveller]]s and troublemakers who worm their way into this project single me out for their puerile abuse. But I, together with many other hard-working editors, am only doing my job. If the vandals and saboteurs don't like it here, they can go to Wikipedia and indulge in leftist nonsense-mongering to their hearts' content. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:10, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:As I'm neither a Liberal, nor one of their fellow travelers or a troublemaker ''worming in'', I just want to know of BUgler why I was blocked. ''Mind your own business'' doesn't seem to be a reasonable answer... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

:Instead of answering, Bugler blocked me for three days - I needed ''to calm down''. Now, I'm back here with a few observations:
:<ul>
:<li>One would think that a question at this Desk/Abuse section doesn't lead to an instantaneous block, as one should think that '''this''' is the very place where such questions can be asked.
:<li>One would think that the editor who is questioned is able to muster enough fairness (i.e., Gentleman-like behaviour) not to block the questioner by himself.
:<li>Indeed, one should think that on such a section the blocks are dealt out by parties which are not involved.
</ul>
:But I'm afraid that [[User:IanG|IanG]] was right with his statement: ''I honestly don't think anyone with a mind of reforming bad policies and procedures reads or acknowledges this section anymore, but that's just me.''
:--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:14, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:: No, ''Mind your own business'' is not a reasonable answer, the second block appears unjustified, and the quote from Martin Niemoeller is very apt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Truer words have rarely been said. [[User:BrianA|BrianA]] 08:52, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
::::BRichtigen, the fact that Philip for once didn't stick his nose in in this matter shows that it is not only I who see you as a troublemaker. You would be well advised to tread carefully, and not to spread dissent amongst a rabble of leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If I didn't "stick [my] nose in", then what's that from me two posts above yours? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Can we try to keep this page a place to report and discuss abuse allegations and not a place to practice it? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Implying? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:20, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Blocking those who specifically accuse you of abusing your authority is an unprofessional conflict of interests. Obviously you're not going to side with the people who are accusing you of abuse, therefore a non biased third party should be involved in mediating these conflicts, not "I've got the banhammer, so I win" kind of exchanges.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 12:35, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
This entire section is a most unedifying display of intimidatory, gang mentality. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:47, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:: No, it's a complaint about alleged abuse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

<ol><li>On a lighter note: I'd think that everyone would applaud spreading ''dissent amongst a rabble of leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists.''
<li>Conservapedia often reminds me of a city on the hill, under siege by vandals. But it doesn't help that Bugler shoots at the relief force, i.e., the new editors signing in.
<li>Of course, editors with ''obviously'' obnoxious names should be banned - indefinitely. But if there is any doubt, why block them preemptively? I'd think it's more harmful to disappoint a innocent newcomer by blocking him with some flippant remarks á là "we know your kind" then to allow some parodist to make one or two revealing edits.
<li>One person doesn't make a gang - though I'm feeling intimidated by you, Bugler.
</ol>--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 13:13, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

::My point, Bugler, is that it does nothing good for you or anybody to come on this page and call people "leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists." If somebody comes here and accuses you of bullying and abuse, '''whether or not it is true,''' it severely weakens your case to some here and call names. For example, let's work with the assumption that BRichtigen is a troll. I'm not saying he is or isn't, but let's use the assumption. He posts some complaints about you. Were he a troll, they would likely not be genuine, or maybe he baited you, or whatever. If you come here and continue to verbally flog him, it builds sympathy for him and destroys any case you might have. So even if BRichtigen gets permabanned, your credibility is weakened. You're bigger than this, Bugler. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:16, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm feeling relieved that Philip J. Rayment as an administrator stated "No, ''Mind your own business'' is not a reasonable answer, the second block appears unjustified, and the quote from Martin Niemoeller is very apt."
But the procedure of appealing a block is somewhat lacking: writing a complaint on an abuse site and waiting that some sysops may (or may not) answer does work for a small blog with a couple of writers, but this is a wiki with some 20,000 registered editors. IMO it's to huge to rely on such informal a method... Especially the less prolific editors - like me - may fear to be ignored. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Block of [[user:Jonsen]]==
I seem to be the single contributor to this page, but nevertheless:

Ed Poor blocked Jonsen because of "(misuse of <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags)". But Jonsen never ''used'' any fact-tags.

Fact is: ''I'' inserted fact-tags in an [[Belief_in_evolution | article]] of Ed Poor, and as far as I can see, I was the only one to do so in one of the last articles of Ed Poor. As these tags were not reverted, I suppose that they aren't misused.

So, the block of Jonsen is factually wrong, a block of me would be just plain wrong :-) --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:27, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:For the future record (and anyone who wonders where the heck BRichtigen went), Bugler blocked the issuer of this complaint for three weeks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:38, 4 November 2008 (EST)

::Can you explain that one to me? He added citation tags to unsourced statistics... what's the problem with that? Ed Poor's response in BRichtigen's fact page was "Please don't fact-tag my contribs unless you doubt their truth. Otherwise, I'd rather you did the googling yourself and supplied the references. Thanks in advance!" Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of posting an encyclopedia entry, if you put in data and expect somebody else to retrace your steps and find out where you got it? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

:::Gosh, no! It's the very epitome of collaboration, Mike. I suspect BRich was merely expressing his personal doubts (or, worse, his commitment to an ideology). The sources are easy to find: I even left hints.

:::The fact that we're spending more time on this, than it would take any one of us to do the googling, convinces me that my block was justified. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:48, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is a key Liberal trick here, as I am constantly pointing out: creating endless sterile circular debates to inhibit the work of CP. Those who do so, including Mikek, should be barred. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:56, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Ed, if you know exactly where to find the references, then why not just insert them yourself? Having two editors do the work of one is less efficient. You say that spending more time on this shows that your block was justified, but had you put in the references yourself, we would have put ''zero'' time into this, right? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::Can we also add that Jonsen was unblocked by Bugler as an innocent party in this, and that Bugler blocked BRichtigen as an admin clearly intended to give a one month block for that offence, and that if Bugler is in the wrong at all, it is for unilaterally remitting BRichtigen's punishment by one week as a reward for owning up. But HelpJazz's version reads better, for the Bugler-bashing club. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:::Of course, had you done the responsible thing and asked the relevant party about it, there would be nothing to bring up in our daily meeding of the BBC, would there? I'm not fabricating anything here. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::I didn't need to ask anyone anything. Ed's intentions were perfectly clear, and that's good enough for me. And I'm sure the BBC wouldn't fall down on finding ''something''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Although I wouldn't have done what Bugler did, in simply ''transferring'' a block given to the wrong person, he does have a reasonable case here, HelpJazz. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::I'd agree with you, except that the original (intended) block was unfair and counterproductive. Bugler was not involved, so acting on assumption only made the mess more complicated, and gave one more hoop for BRichtigen to jump through. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::I was going to do it later. Then I asked for help and was pointedly refused. That is anti-collobaration.

::::I review my contribs periodically, looking for anything I may have left out or gotten wrong in my haste. I hope that other users will correct my errors and fill in my omissions, same as I do for them. My hero is [[User:Interiot]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I perhaps agree with you in ''most'' cases, but in this case you added very specific numbers, indicating that you either had the reference in hand, or made them up. Since I don't think you would make up numbers, why not just use the source that was already there? What happens if no other user notices, or if you overlook it when you go back through? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:23, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Blocking is not punishment. We merely kick out people who waste our time.

If I've expelled someone by mistake, restore them (or show me how it will save us time if I restore them.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:It has been done. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:: You did Jonsen, I've done BRichtigen. Maliciously peppering articles with {{tl|fact}} tags is blockable. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with it, and it's going to be easier for the original poster to find the figures than for another person. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I nowikied the above use of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag so that this page doesn't show up in the "sources needed" (something like that, I can't remember) category. I'm always worried about getting in trouble here, to be honest, so just to be clear, should we not use the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:On the fact tags, the only thing I object to in their use is when a user seems to insert those tags when and where (s)he likes to the point that is the only thing (s)he does, and at no time does that user go after and post relevant info that could remove the tag and help the article. My suggestion is this: if anyone inserts a fact tag within the article, then an entry must be posted as to why in the talk page; further, the user can and should do a search for any needed info, and not just an internet search only. If none is found, that fact should be added to the talk page as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::A statement like <blockquote>If "evolution" means the appearance of major new forms of life during pre-Biblical times, then around 60% of Americans believe in this; a substantial minority of 40% of Americans reject this aspect of evolution since it contradicts their religious belief that God created all forms of life less than 10,000 years ago.</blockquote>
::is hard to check if you don't know which original source was cited. Therefore, I inserted the <nowiki>{{fact}}-tags</nowiki>. Really, if in any article some numbers pop out from nowhere, I think that adding these tags is the appropriate thing to do.
::And this seems to be right, as the tags are ''still'' not removed after all these discussions. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:43, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks to all who get this mix-up untangled. At last, this page seems to work - I just hope that I don't have to report here to many mistakes in the future. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:09, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Dubious 90/10 blocks==
A. Schlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#What.3F.21 stated] yesterday: <blockquote>[...] Also, it's very simple to avoid violating the 90/10 rule. It only takes a few minutes to make substantive contributions. Unless, of course, someone has a bad attitude. It can seem impossible for him.--Aschlafly 17:49, 12 November 2008 (EST) </blockquote>

The last week, this easy task became much more difficult: [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] blocked various users for violating the rule. In at least two cases, [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] and mine ([[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]]), the ratios of substantial edits to comments on talk site (or the own user site, etc.) are far away from the ratio of the 90/10 guideline.

I have never violated the ''formal'' aspect of the rule - as I've never posted more than [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=BRichtigen&month=&year= seven comments] to talk/User sites in a row. But I think that I have not violated the ''idea'' of the rule: I'm a member of this site since Oct 6th, 2008 and contributed over 200 comments to it. Roughly a third of my edits have been the removal of vandalism, and I think that I have contributed valuable comments in my area of interests, too.

I know, that the sysops are advised to use their discretion, so Ed Poor is right when he states - concerning the blocks of LiamG and me:

<blockquote> There is no set quota. I simply judged their proportion of unproductive activity as excessive. --[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=555125 Ed Poor Talk 08:00, 12 November 2008 (EST) ]</blockquote>

But to judge my ''unproductive activity'' as ''excessive'' is just false, as any investigation of my comment history would show. And it is a slippery slope if we leave the measurable area of the 90/10 guideline and start to estimate the proportions.

Ever since my first block - and my blocking history got depressingly long, too - I took an interest in blocks. It is so hard for an editor to appeal a block. I wrote countless of emails - and I do thank all the administrators and editors who took their time and answered me.

It would have been nice if Ed Poor had answered to any of my questioning mails, too. I suspect that he is pestered by emails of vandals of all kinds beyond the legitimate mails. I just thought that my posting history would have vouched for me.

So, I ask all administrators:
*please, use the 90/10 rule less capriciously in the future
*please, keep contact with the folk you have banned. It's a shame to put off legitimate users by a high-handed handling of the bannings

Not everyone is as persistent as I am. Many will give up, and turn their back to Conservapedia. That's a thing I want to avoid, and therefore - I'm afraid - I'll keep contributing to the Desk/Abuse section of CP.

Thanks for listening, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:17, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Foxtrot and the Axiom of Choice ==

Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in [[Axiom of Choice]] (which I'll just call AC).

Brief summary:
*AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning.
*Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM.
*BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct.
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Foxtrot&oldid=571141#AndyJM Full conversation] - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk".
*BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue.
*I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts.
*Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow.
*When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer.").
The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.''
::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble''
::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.''
::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance''
::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A five year block of a new user ''without any warning'' for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we ''trying'' to shut down Conservapedia? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I think this is just ''bad style'':
# 14:49, 28 November 2008 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)

*looking at the list of his contributions, AlanS hasn't violated the 90/10 guideline
*granted, he was involved in some discussions: it took a while to show that Foxtrot was wrong
*for the record: AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong, and AlanS is blocked...

Is this the way we want to perform discussions to improve the quality of our articles?
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::Ceaseless arguments like this only help the enemies of Conservapedia. For the benefit of the project, please all drop this matter and get back to making more substantive contributions. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Range Blocks==
TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:
* ''Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy''

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the ''anon proxy'' part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable.
Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
:# 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
:# 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
:# 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
:# 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
:# 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
:# 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
:lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::Isn't that what ''should'' have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "<s>Terrorists!</s> Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us.
:::Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... ''share his knowledge''.
:::But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The [http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.htm URL] you gave shows that the ''network'' this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's ''a fourth''. This means that ''at least'' 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-12-02T20:49:03Z

AlanS: /* Range Blocks */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: And again with IP 139.102.254.38 from Indiana State University. http://samspade.org/whois/139.102.254.38 --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 13:59, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::First of all, phishing is not hacking. Second of all, how are we supposed to know that this IP address tried to phish for your password? We can't just block anyone who claims abuse from an IP, or someone with ill intentions could have the entire world blocked from the site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:34, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I had the same thing which was linked to a blocked user who attempted to mailbomb my e-mail account in revenge. That IP has now been blocked. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 19:39, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on ''evidence''. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
:: However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to ''detect'' troublemaking, but finds other ''evidence'' before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to ''your'' comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the ''only'' thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't ''seem'' to be guilty to me; rather, because the ''evidence'' was lacking. (The ''evidence'' is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a ''substitute'' for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is ''all that is required''.
:: Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block [[user:JasonH|JasonH]] recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

: "''Jirby is not an innocent bystander''": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
: "''Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia''": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
: "''...not complaining about another editor's block''": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our ''responsibility'' to do something about that.
: "''He is not "Minding his own business".''": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
: "''...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing''": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
: "''To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.''": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
: "''I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.''": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
: "''To me, this contradicts Philip's statement''": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
: "''To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."''": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==="Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"===
I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking ''those rules'', not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"''MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments''": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was ''not'' justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::''Au contraire, mon vieux.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! [[User:TomKilt|TomKilt]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== My recent block ==

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for ''"too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break"''. As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on [[Talk:Main Page]] not an edit war. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:DLerner, If you think it is acceptable to defend anarchists and call police fascists, you are wrong. I'm not going to tolerate that talk here on Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It is not up to ''you'' whether free speech and the right for individual opinion is allowed. Your block did not follow the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|rules]] or even the vague and unilateral [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy|blocking policy]]; The block was ''entirely'' on ideological grounds. I believe that police (no doubt under orders from their superiors) can sometimes act in a fascist manner, you don't. I don't suggest that you should be blocked, or stripped of your sysop powers, and I would be a hypocrite if I did! Furthermore, my remarks (which by the way, never defended anarchists) were in the context of a ''debate'' (albeit on the Main page talk, where as you most certainly are aware, the news of the day is discussed with opinions running through the gamut of opinions).
::If you cannot tolerate free expression and differing opinions, then I humbly suggest that this project is not right for you. It it not your job to be the ideology police, nor anyone else. The symbol of our project is the flag of the United States of America, whose ''first'' amendment ''ensures'' free speech and opinion. Unless the policy wonks here come up with [[Conservapedia:Alien and Sedition act]], I think I can say what I want about the government, military, police, fire brigade, CDC or anything or anyone else. {{unsigned|DLerner}}
:::DLerner, ''I'm writing this so the OTHER admins should be aware -and act- against this abuse)'' sounds suspiciously like a threat. My strong advice to you is to drop this, and devote your considerable energies and intelligence to constructive additions to this project. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<in order> Bugler, I assure you it wasn't a threat, it was mainly written because my blocker has so far been the only to respond, as is his right, to my complaint; and even if it ''were'' a threat, what could I possibly do if it was ignored? Come on! I've been here almost as long as you have and I'm still not allowed to night edit (despite me living in Australia...). Thank you for the compliment, but since this is not the first time that I have been blocked for disagreement, I find it difficult to simply let go. And this isn't strictly out of a personal quest for justice, (though I would be lying to say that it's entirely impersonal), if protest isn't made early against abuse, it will eventually be so rampant that -like at the ending of [[Animal Farm]] you won't be able to tell the pigs from the humans. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:19, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I agree that the comment that Bugler picked up on does not constitute a threat. However, I consider calling the police "fascists" to be name-calling rather than ideology. You do not have the freedom to say whatever you like on this site; the "free speech" guarantee does not apply in places such as private web-sites. I support DeanS in the case of this block. And you are on your way to getting one from me, for not resolving the matter of your signature template that I told you about on your talk page more than a week ago and Ed Poor has reminded you of since. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:30, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::I did not did I call ''all'' police fascists, and even if i had, so what? Yes, name calling is against our policy, but I did ''not'' call ''DeanS'' a fascist, nor did I attack him for his beliefs, why then do '''I''' get blocked?. Of course I don't expect to be able to say ''whatever'' I want, in fact, since children use this website, it is ''against the law'' for me to write ''whatever'' I want, I can't write obscenity. (Not that I have any desire to...). I had forgotten about the signature template, but rest assured I will get onto it right away, thank you for a reminder where others would have given a block. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Two side notes---what exactly constitutes a "signature template"? Can someone insert, say, an American flag next to their name on each of their sigs? Also, if calling the police "fascists" is name-calling, would calling liberals "fascists" be considered name-calling as well? Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:50, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: DLerner, no, you did not call ''all'' police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation. I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did? Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal? If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions. My point about not saying whatever you want was to point out that there are limits.
::::::: Jareddr, a template, if you don't realise, is a page (usually, but not necessarily, in the ''Template:'' namespace) that is included in another page by means of a link (the Main Page, for example, comprises two templates, i.e. separate pages, that make up the left and right columns of the Main Page respectively). DLerner uses a sub-page of his user page as a template that he has used for his signature. You can insert a flag by means of making a customised signature on your preferences page (I'm not sure how, but I have seen it done). Calling fascists (such as Hitler) "fascists" is factually correct and therefore okay. Otherwise, calling someone "fascist" is merely namecalling, particularly when referring to an institution of a democratic state.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I support the block, I would have blocked him myself at the time. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:''Reply'': '''''"no, you did not call ''all'' police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation.'''''. And therefore making a generalization during discussion is a ''blockable offense''?!
:'''''"I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did?"''''' No. I wrote that in response to what you wrote above, indeed calling some police action fascist ''is'' name calling, but to my understanding, we only need to be civil and avoid name calling towards ''each other'', '''not''' to government organizations . This is to the best of my understanding the name calling policy as written in the guidelines. And frankly I would be shocked if a consensus was reached amongst the movers and shakers of this project that attacking local or federal government agencies was a punishable act. And if such policy is eventually made, I propose it be aptly named [[Conservapedia:Sedition Act]]. (For those not in the know, Google "Alien and sedition act".)
:'''''"did someone claim that you did?"''''' No.
:'''''"Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal?"''''' Yes.
:'''''"If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions."''''' Even when they are not deserving?
:I do not believe that an organization is exempt from criticism merely because it is an arm of the democratic state, nothing is ever exempt from criticism, period. (IMHO, of course).
:If the administrators disagree with me on this, as is most certainly their right, I suggest they draw up clear, concise and easy to understand site policy defining what we may criticize, and what is forbidden. (see above for a name suggestion).
:Cheers and Shabbat Shalom
:[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:27, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::DLerner, I told you it's not acceptable to call police fascists. Apparently you didn't get the message the first time. Stop lecturing me and other admins. You have crossed the line of acceptable free speech and your insistence in defending your incorrect actions has resulted in a longer block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:57, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:: The offence was not in generalisation ''per se'', but in a name-calling generalisation.
:: I don't know where you get the idea that we should only be civil to each other. It sounds rather like you're saying that it's okay to be civil to someone to their face but you can say what you like behind their back. Being civil applies regardless of whether you are talking directly to the person.
:: I mentioned democracy because, depending perhaps on your precise definition of "fascism", it is ''by definition'' undemocratic. Therefore calling an arm of a democratic society "fascist" is not technically correct, which means that it is an insult.
:: And I'm not saying that we can never criticise a government institution. Rather, I'm saying that it is the proper thing to do to respect the authority of our governments. Yes, we can ''respectfully'' disagree with some of their actions, and offer constructive criticism of them, but we should still respect the institution, just like we should respect the office of the President or Prime Minister (as the case may be) even if we disagree with the policies, etc. of the incumbents. Your comment was ''disrespectful of the institution'', not merely a legitimate criticism (if it was even legitimate at all).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:53, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Requesting Arbitration ==

I was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASamuelHTD blocked for not complying] with a warning User:ASchlafly gave me on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASamuelHTD&diff=512667&oldid=505386 my talk page], but here's the problem:

I didn't make any edits between the warning and blocking, aside from the reply on my talk page. Though I was a bit brash, my userpage shows how ''friendly'' he's spoken to me before, so I treated him with the same respect. Down to the nitty gritty, though:

About 1/3 of my edits relate to [[crime]], but he tells me I'm obsessed with it and it's not educational. Compare that to [[User:Conservative]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Conservative domination over atheism and homosexuality articles], and ASchlafly's ax to grind on the political agenda with [[Barack Obama]]. In other words, he's trying to bully me into telling me what I can or can't edit, when he and his own sysops are ten times as obsessed with certain articles. Note that [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamuelHTD my contributions] don't focus solely on crime, so I don't get why I was being picked on in the first place.

I doubt I'd get an apology, since courtesy is in short supply here, and I'm probably going to get blocked for even reporting this. I just don't like being pushed around and bullied based on what seems to be invisible rules of hypocrisy. All of my edits are truthful, so I just don't get it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 11:36, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with PNAS reply talk page==

Recall that DinsdaleP started the ball rolling by writing the early draft of the letter to PNAS that Andy sent under his name. Now, in the *talk* pages for the PNAS reply article, DinsdaleP (and others) make reasonable comments and get their responses [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=516788&oldid=516718 reverted].--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:As Andy is the driving force behind the article, and the person who actually sent the letter and its followup and took the responsibility for its contents, it is his call to determine what he believes to be appropriate and edifying in the talk section versus what he believes to be inappropriate. This is not a reflection on Dinsdale's earlier work, but does show what Andy believes is appropriate at this time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Is it Conservapedia policy that anyone who creates an article can decide what is allowed in the talk section? And why was DinsaleP subsequently blocked given the tremendous amount of good work ans comments he has made? Shouldn't that also be Andy's call if he thought the comments were inappropriate for the talk page? Sorry for the number of questions but I'm confused about the structure for delegation of authority in this wiki.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:::It does seem that a policy wherein an author becomes the final arbiter on any content in an article or discussion page is not conducive to building a "trustworthy encyclopedia", as essentially this would relegate articles to essay status, no? Not only DinsdaleP's comments, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=516788&oldid=516718 Argon's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=prev&oldid=515838 Toffeeman's] were entirely reasonable discussions, on what is after all, a discussions page. I too think clarification is needed on this matter. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Sysops monitor articles and talk sections for compliance with Conservapedia standards. As someone intimately familiar with the article, Andy made the call that certain discussions on the talk page did not advance an understanding of the article. While it is less common decision than alterations to the article itself, it is certainly within the scope of responsibilities. Non-sysops are not allowed to alter talk page content except in the case of reverting vandalism. Dinsdale's difficulties were not related to the PNAS article, but rather were tied to another area of the site. Hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:47, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''"...Andy made the call that certain discussions on the talk page did not advance an understanding of the article..."''In other words, he's doing what he wants, censoring anyone who disagrees with him specifically. Although you can't just admit it, it's too obvious. I wonder what deemed you to respond to this when my request for arbitration section right above was ignored, and removed, by you. The problem with that talk page is that he will only allow one side of the story (his own) to show, and that won't improve any further action he does or does not take due to the fact that there is no criticism questioning him. The kind of leaders who only had yes men agreeing with them without dissent were defeated in WWII. [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 20:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::The problem with this is that while I can understand that CP wants to closely monitor and censor its article pages, if that rule is now extended to the Talk pages, then the Talk pages themsleves need Talk pages, which is why we're here. The famously 'locked for over a year' Evolution article has of course been attacked from many sides, and while the article remains locked under the conservatorship of one sysop, the Talk page is long - very long - and features very heated disagreements over the entire topic and article contents. But at least the dialog was had. The fact that this is not allowed of the PNAS letter page seems to mean the rules are 'pick and choose' by whoever wants to do so. And that's not a system, and without a system, you really have nothing but anarchy. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:52, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==Bugler, and Everyone Else Who Ignores==

Okay, there's enough of this. Bugler's [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Science calling everyone] who disagrees with him as "liberals" from a cesspit who are cancerous cells, Then he literally [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:HelpJazz#Big_Science threatens and bullies] HelpJazz (which actually is the norm these days on this site). Comparing his behavior that equates to a one day block to calm down, to his 5 year block on me for "insulting" ASchlafly, I find it deeply troubling. The double standards here are so obvious that I just don't know where to start.

For one, ASchlafly has not owned up to his responsibility as the owner of this site and THE governing authority over all users with blocking rights, that's the number one factor. He has completely ignored any abuse reported on this page, lets sysops quibble and argue and block each other so that other sites can point and laugh, and yet he does nothing. The sparks between Bugler and HelpJazz have been going on for quite some time, and ASchlafly has done ''absolutely nothing'' to any of it. As BrianCo said it best, "no one seems to be doing anything." I'm challenging Mr. Schlafly to stand and deliver for once.

Also, quoting BrianCo again, ''"What happens off-site should not be carried over here. That is a long-established principle at Conservapedia.''" Then can someone '''please''' unblock User Wisdom89, since as reported (and '''ignored''' by all) above, he was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AWisdom89 blocked] for something "off-site", as the abuse report claims. Karajou has also threatened users who have block rights, Philip J. Rayment and NathanG, showing that he can't be trusted with his rights. DeanS blocks users with the reason as "MYOB", becoming increasingly rude if anyone questions him. Conservative dominates any article on homosexuality and atheism, using the site like its a toy to him, uploading images without any information of its origin. It just keeps going, and going, and going... and the only solution is to get at the root of the problem: mass negligence of responsibility. Regular editors without rights cannot do this.

Do any of the sysops care what happens here? Is there some unwritten rule that no matter how abusive a user with block rights can be, nobody of equal stature can confront them? ASchlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Can_you_help_me.3F claims] that there are strict rules on this site, but he can't even answer a question by one of his own trusted users. So, in addition to reporting the troubles and words Bugler expressed openly without so much as a slap on the wrist, I'm reporting all other sysops who don't care about this project enough to right the wrongs, and to stop ignoring what other sysops do. I'm sorry if this earns me another lifetime block, but my conscious tells me that someone needs to say it and I myself cannot sit here and edit as if nothing was wrong. [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 20:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Sam, up until very recently I was unaware that there seems to be a policy to source images. By the way, how do you like the new Stalin picture at the top of the atheism article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:35, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Sam's not here anymore. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 12:47, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::A short survey of the editors who posted on this site to report abuse shows that most of them are banned, e.g.,
:::::<blockquote># 12:17, 6 October 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked SamuelHTD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting false information: "intellectual dishonesty" is not allowed on this site, especially by those who post an intention to do so. Bye.) </blockquote>
:::::I fail to see the "intellectual dishonesty" in the posts of SamuelHTD's history, maybe the offencive ones have been erased...--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 13:02, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

First, user Wisdon89 was in a position of power (i.e. admin) at Wikipedia, complaining that Ed Poor was in a position of power here, banning people he didn't like; and Wisdom89 was using his own position of power in Wikipedia to influence the masses there to prevent Ed Poor from gaining admin priviledges there when the discussion within Wikipedia should have been restricted to what goes on in Wikipedia; joining him in Wikipedia were the trolls and vandals who did their worst here in Conservapedia. At the same time as that was going on ''off-site'', Wisdom89 ''expected'' to be allowed to edit in ''this site''. Someone who complains about my cooking next door, whines about my cooking next door, has others join him in complaining about my cooking next door, yet expects to sit down in my house and eat what I cook, I'm just going to take him by the scruff and toss him out of my house. Period.

Then there's what Sam stated on his user page as to what he was going to do. His "intelectual dishonesty" was to consist of a deliberate attempt to insert such dishonesty within the articles; that was why he was blocked, and not for his previous edits. Deliberately placing misleading or false information in any article is not going to be tolerated. If he disavowed just that statement in an email to myself or any other admin, I will immediately unblock him, and support anyone else who unblocks him.

And then there's the blocks of "people we don't like". It serves no purpose to just have a complainent leave it at "people we don't like", as if that was the only excuse. Some of these complainents need to grasp the possibility that we don't like vandalism and those who practice it; we don't like trolling; we don't like those who cause fights or engage in edit wars. This is supposed to be a family-oriented, Judeo/Christian, conservative website, yet there are those who demand to insert material detrimental to that; we don't like those either.

As to Sam's complaint of abuse of power by the admins as stated above, including myself, I am going to take that for action. Changes do need to be made, and made quickly. Editors need to realize that edits can only go so far, and conflicts need to be resolved respectfully and in a civil manner; sysops need to be more even-handed, and learn to take a time out; they also need to have valid reasons in blocking. Simply "not liking someone" isn't it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

The arbitrary enforcement of the 90/10 rule is a nuisance on its own. But this act of creative calculation is even more embarrassing:
<blockquote>14:29, 14 October 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked KarlJaeger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)</blockquote>
(See [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Bugler#Calculation_of_the_90.2F10_ratio here]]) --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:20, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
::In his most recent score or more contributions, KarlJaeger had flouted the 90/10 rule. User Brichtigen is just trying to cause trouble and should mind his or her own business. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:24, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:23, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

So, I got a one-day-block for my questions and statements:
<blockquote>16:34, 14 October 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked BRichtigen (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ? (Disruptive behaviour)</blockquote>
And BUgler elaborates here on my sins even more:
<blockquote>User Brichtigen is just trying to cause trouble and should mind his or her own business.</blockquote>
I'm afraid that I'm sounding a little bit toplofty, but: the whole affair is about rules and their application. Therefore, it's about justice. And justice concerns everyone. Martin Niemoeller made an interesting statement about [[Martin_Niemoeller|minding your own business]].
Thus, I think BUgler's petty block of mine was inaproppriate.--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:41, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
:I honestly don't think anyone with a mind of reforming bad policies and procedures reads or acknowledges this section anymore, but that's just me.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:45, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

::I suppose I should feel honoured that the [[Liberal]]s, [[Fellow traveller]]s and troublemakers who worm their way into this project single me out for their puerile abuse. But I, together with many other hard-working editors, am only doing my job. If the vandals and saboteurs don't like it here, they can go to Wikipedia and indulge in leftist nonsense-mongering to their hearts' content. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:10, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:As I'm neither a Liberal, nor one of their fellow travelers or a troublemaker ''worming in'', I just want to know of BUgler why I was blocked. ''Mind your own business'' doesn't seem to be a reasonable answer... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

:Instead of answering, Bugler blocked me for three days - I needed ''to calm down''. Now, I'm back here with a few observations:
:<ul>
:<li>One would think that a question at this Desk/Abuse section doesn't lead to an instantaneous block, as one should think that '''this''' is the very place where such questions can be asked.
:<li>One would think that the editor who is questioned is able to muster enough fairness (i.e., Gentleman-like behaviour) not to block the questioner by himself.
:<li>Indeed, one should think that on such a section the blocks are dealt out by parties which are not involved.
</ul>
:But I'm afraid that [[User:IanG|IanG]] was right with his statement: ''I honestly don't think anyone with a mind of reforming bad policies and procedures reads or acknowledges this section anymore, but that's just me.''
:--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:14, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:: No, ''Mind your own business'' is not a reasonable answer, the second block appears unjustified, and the quote from Martin Niemoeller is very apt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Truer words have rarely been said. [[User:BrianA|BrianA]] 08:52, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
::::BRichtigen, the fact that Philip for once didn't stick his nose in in this matter shows that it is not only I who see you as a troublemaker. You would be well advised to tread carefully, and not to spread dissent amongst a rabble of leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If I didn't "stick [my] nose in", then what's that from me two posts above yours? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Can we try to keep this page a place to report and discuss abuse allegations and not a place to practice it? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Implying? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:20, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Blocking those who specifically accuse you of abusing your authority is an unprofessional conflict of interests. Obviously you're not going to side with the people who are accusing you of abuse, therefore a non biased third party should be involved in mediating these conflicts, not "I've got the banhammer, so I win" kind of exchanges.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 12:35, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
This entire section is a most unedifying display of intimidatory, gang mentality. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:47, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:: No, it's a complaint about alleged abuse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

<ol><li>On a lighter note: I'd think that everyone would applaud spreading ''dissent amongst a rabble of leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists.''
<li>Conservapedia often reminds me of a city on the hill, under siege by vandals. But it doesn't help that Bugler shoots at the relief force, i.e., the new editors signing in.
<li>Of course, editors with ''obviously'' obnoxious names should be banned - indefinitely. But if there is any doubt, why block them preemptively? I'd think it's more harmful to disappoint a innocent newcomer by blocking him with some flippant remarks á là "we know your kind" then to allow some parodist to make one or two revealing edits.
<li>One person doesn't make a gang - though I'm feeling intimidated by you, Bugler.
</ol>--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 13:13, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

::My point, Bugler, is that it does nothing good for you or anybody to come on this page and call people "leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists." If somebody comes here and accuses you of bullying and abuse, '''whether or not it is true,''' it severely weakens your case to some here and call names. For example, let's work with the assumption that BRichtigen is a troll. I'm not saying he is or isn't, but let's use the assumption. He posts some complaints about you. Were he a troll, they would likely not be genuine, or maybe he baited you, or whatever. If you come here and continue to verbally flog him, it builds sympathy for him and destroys any case you might have. So even if BRichtigen gets permabanned, your credibility is weakened. You're bigger than this, Bugler. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:16, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm feeling relieved that Philip J. Rayment as an administrator stated "No, ''Mind your own business'' is not a reasonable answer, the second block appears unjustified, and the quote from Martin Niemoeller is very apt."
But the procedure of appealing a block is somewhat lacking: writing a complaint on an abuse site and waiting that some sysops may (or may not) answer does work for a small blog with a couple of writers, but this is a wiki with some 20,000 registered editors. IMO it's to huge to rely on such informal a method... Especially the less prolific editors - like me - may fear to be ignored. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Block of [[user:Jonsen]]==
I seem to be the single contributor to this page, but nevertheless:

Ed Poor blocked Jonsen because of "(misuse of <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags)". But Jonsen never ''used'' any fact-tags.

Fact is: ''I'' inserted fact-tags in an [[Belief_in_evolution | article]] of Ed Poor, and as far as I can see, I was the only one to do so in one of the last articles of Ed Poor. As these tags were not reverted, I suppose that they aren't misused.

So, the block of Jonsen is factually wrong, a block of me would be just plain wrong :-) --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:27, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:For the future record (and anyone who wonders where the heck BRichtigen went), Bugler blocked the issuer of this complaint for three weeks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:38, 4 November 2008 (EST)

::Can you explain that one to me? He added citation tags to unsourced statistics... what's the problem with that? Ed Poor's response in BRichtigen's fact page was "Please don't fact-tag my contribs unless you doubt their truth. Otherwise, I'd rather you did the googling yourself and supplied the references. Thanks in advance!" Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of posting an encyclopedia entry, if you put in data and expect somebody else to retrace your steps and find out where you got it? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

:::Gosh, no! It's the very epitome of collaboration, Mike. I suspect BRich was merely expressing his personal doubts (or, worse, his commitment to an ideology). The sources are easy to find: I even left hints.

:::The fact that we're spending more time on this, than it would take any one of us to do the googling, convinces me that my block was justified. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:48, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is a key Liberal trick here, as I am constantly pointing out: creating endless sterile circular debates to inhibit the work of CP. Those who do so, including Mikek, should be barred. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:56, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Ed, if you know exactly where to find the references, then why not just insert them yourself? Having two editors do the work of one is less efficient. You say that spending more time on this shows that your block was justified, but had you put in the references yourself, we would have put ''zero'' time into this, right? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::Can we also add that Jonsen was unblocked by Bugler as an innocent party in this, and that Bugler blocked BRichtigen as an admin clearly intended to give a one month block for that offence, and that if Bugler is in the wrong at all, it is for unilaterally remitting BRichtigen's punishment by one week as a reward for owning up. But HelpJazz's version reads better, for the Bugler-bashing club. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:::Of course, had you done the responsible thing and asked the relevant party about it, there would be nothing to bring up in our daily meeding of the BBC, would there? I'm not fabricating anything here. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::I didn't need to ask anyone anything. Ed's intentions were perfectly clear, and that's good enough for me. And I'm sure the BBC wouldn't fall down on finding ''something''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Although I wouldn't have done what Bugler did, in simply ''transferring'' a block given to the wrong person, he does have a reasonable case here, HelpJazz. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::::I'd agree with you, except that the original (intended) block was unfair and counterproductive. Bugler was not involved, so acting on assumption only made the mess more complicated, and gave one more hoop for BRichtigen to jump through. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::I was going to do it later. Then I asked for help and was pointedly refused. That is anti-collobaration.

::::I review my contribs periodically, looking for anything I may have left out or gotten wrong in my haste. I hope that other users will correct my errors and fill in my omissions, same as I do for them. My hero is [[User:Interiot]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:::::I perhaps agree with you in ''most'' cases, but in this case you added very specific numbers, indicating that you either had the reference in hand, or made them up. Since I don't think you would make up numbers, why not just use the source that was already there? What happens if no other user notices, or if you overlook it when you go back through? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:23, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Blocking is not punishment. We merely kick out people who waste our time.

If I've expelled someone by mistake, restore them (or show me how it will save us time if I restore them.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:It has been done. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:: You did Jonsen, I've done BRichtigen. Maliciously peppering articles with {{tl|fact}} tags is blockable. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with it, and it's going to be easier for the original poster to find the figures than for another person. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I nowikied the above use of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag so that this page doesn't show up in the "sources needed" (something like that, I can't remember) category. I'm always worried about getting in trouble here, to be honest, so just to be clear, should we not use the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)
:On the fact tags, the only thing I object to in their use is when a user seems to insert those tags when and where (s)he likes to the point that is the only thing (s)he does, and at no time does that user go after and post relevant info that could remove the tag and help the article. My suggestion is this: if anyone inserts a fact tag within the article, then an entry must be posted as to why in the talk page; further, the user can and should do a search for any needed info, and not just an internet search only. If none is found, that fact should be added to the talk page as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::A statement like <blockquote>If "evolution" means the appearance of major new forms of life during pre-Biblical times, then around 60% of Americans believe in this; a substantial minority of 40% of Americans reject this aspect of evolution since it contradicts their religious belief that God created all forms of life less than 10,000 years ago.</blockquote>
::is hard to check if you don't know which original source was cited. Therefore, I inserted the <nowiki>{{fact}}-tags</nowiki>. Really, if in any article some numbers pop out from nowhere, I think that adding these tags is the appropriate thing to do.
::And this seems to be right, as the tags are ''still'' not removed after all these discussions. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:43, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks to all who get this mix-up untangled. At last, this page seems to work - I just hope that I don't have to report here to many mistakes in the future. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 14:09, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Dubious 90/10 blocks==
A. Schlafly [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#What.3F.21 stated] yesterday: <blockquote>[...] Also, it's very simple to avoid violating the 90/10 rule. It only takes a few minutes to make substantive contributions. Unless, of course, someone has a bad attitude. It can seem impossible for him.--Aschlafly 17:49, 12 November 2008 (EST) </blockquote>

The last week, this easy task became much more difficult: [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] blocked various users for violating the rule. In at least two cases, [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] and mine ([[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]]), the ratios of substantial edits to comments on talk site (or the own user site, etc.) are far away from the ratio of the 90/10 guideline.

I have never violated the ''formal'' aspect of the rule - as I've never posted more than [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=BRichtigen&month=&year= seven comments] to talk/User sites in a row. But I think that I have not violated the ''idea'' of the rule: I'm a member of this site since Oct 6th, 2008 and contributed over 200 comments to it. Roughly a third of my edits have been the removal of vandalism, and I think that I have contributed valuable comments in my area of interests, too.

I know, that the sysops are advised to use their discretion, so Ed Poor is right when he states - concerning the blocks of LiamG and me:

<blockquote> There is no set quota. I simply judged their proportion of unproductive activity as excessive. --[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=555125 Ed Poor Talk 08:00, 12 November 2008 (EST) ]</blockquote>

But to judge my ''unproductive activity'' as ''excessive'' is just false, as any investigation of my comment history would show. And it is a slippery slope if we leave the measurable area of the 90/10 guideline and start to estimate the proportions.

Ever since my first block - and my blocking history got depressingly long, too - I took an interest in blocks. It is so hard for an editor to appeal a block. I wrote countless of emails - and I do thank all the administrators and editors who took their time and answered me.

It would have been nice if Ed Poor had answered to any of my questioning mails, too. I suspect that he is pestered by emails of vandals of all kinds beyond the legitimate mails. I just thought that my posting history would have vouched for me.

So, I ask all administrators:
*please, use the 90/10 rule less capriciously in the future
*please, keep contact with the folk you have banned. It's a shame to put off legitimate users by a high-handed handling of the bannings

Not everyone is as persistent as I am. Many will give up, and turn their back to Conservapedia. That's a thing I want to avoid, and therefore - I'm afraid - I'll keep contributing to the Desk/Abuse section of CP.

Thanks for listening, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:17, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Foxtrot and the Axiom of Choice ==

Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in [[Axiom of Choice]] (which I'll just call AC).

Brief summary:
*AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning.
*Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM.
*BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct.
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Foxtrot&oldid=571141#AndyJM Full conversation] - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk".
*BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue.
*I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts.
*Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow.
*When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer.").
The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.''
::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble''
::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.''
::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance''
::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A five year block of a new user ''without any warning'' for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we ''trying'' to shut down Conservapedia? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I think this is just ''bad style'':
# 14:49, 28 November 2008 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)

*looking at the list of his contributions, AlanS hasn't violated the 90/10 guideline
*granted, he was involved in some discussions: it took a while to show that Foxtrot was wrong
*for the record: AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong, and AlanS is blocked...

Is this the way we want to perform discussions to improve the quality of our articles?
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::Ceaseless arguments like this only help the enemies of Conservapedia. For the benefit of the project, please all drop this matter and get back to making more substantive contributions. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Range Blocks==
TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:
* ''Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy''

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the ''anon proxy'' part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable.
Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
:# 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
:# 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
:# 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
:# 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
:# 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
:# 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
:lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Well-Ordering Theorem

2008-12-02T20:35:27Z

AlanS: That wasn't even a proper sentence, but I think this is what the author had in mind.

The '''Well-Ordering Theorem''' was proved by Zermelos in 1904, and it states:
<blockquote>
''Every set can be well-ordered''.
</blockquote>
This result surprised [[mathematician]]s everywhere. The Well-Ordering Theorem is equivalent of the [[Axiom of Choice]], and no well-ordering relation has ever been explicitly constructed for [[uncountable set]]s. Thus, the mathematicians who reject the Axiom of Choice also reject this theorem.
[[Category: set theory]]

Axiom of Choice

2008-12-02T20:31:58Z

AlanS: /* Instruction */ Other guises? Let's save the witty remarks for non-encyclopedia resources.

The '''Axiom of Choice''' ('''AC''')<ref>There are numerous equivalent [[mathematical formula]]e which capture the idea of the Axiom of Choice. Here are two:
::<math>\forall x\;(\forall y\;y\in x\Rightarrow\exists z\; z\in y)\;\exists S\;(\forall z\;z\in x\Rightarrow\exists w\;w\in z\;\wedge\;w\in S)\;\wedge\;(\forall v\;v\in z\;\wedge\;v\in S\Rightarrow v=w)</math>

and
::<math>\forall x\neq\varnothing\;\exists S\;(\forall z\in x\;\exists_1w\in z\cap S).</math></ref> is a powerful [[axiom]] of [[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] set theory that is useful for proving otherwise unprovable problems, but which has also been used to prove statements that appear absurd.<ref>See, e.g., the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] discussed below.</ref> The Axiom of Choice holds that:<ref name="willard">Stephen Willard, "General Topology" 1.17, p. 9 (Dover 2004)</ref>

::given any collection of sets, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection.

In layman's terms, the Axiom of Choice is "For every nonempty set there is a choice function." Or, "We can choose one element from every element of a nonempty set of disjoint sets and this process by which we choose these sets will set up a new set." More precisely, the Axiom of Choice states that:

::For every collection of nonempty sets S, there exists a function f such that f(S) is a member of S for every possible S.

Mathworld explains the Axiom of Choice as follows:<ref name="mathworld">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomofChoice.html</ref>

::Given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets.

Yet another helpful explanation of the Axiom of Choice is this:<ref name="kuro5hin">http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/23/134430/275</ref>

::If you have a collection of sets C (which may potentially contain an uncountably large number of sets), then there exists a set H, called the choice set, which contains precisely one element from each (non-empty) set in C. H is called the "choice set" because you are essentially going through each set in C and choosing one element from it. One feature of the Axiom of Choice is that H is simply assumed to exist; there is no algorithm given which might tell you how to construct an example of H.

It has been shown that neither the Axiom of Choice nor its negation will contradict the other axioms of set theory. Thus assuming the Axiom of Choice and assuming its negation will each result in differingly consistent set theories. It is the choice of the mathematician whether to believe the axiom or believe its negation; many people choose to not take a position on this issue at all because the majority of mathematics can be proven without invoking the axiom altogether.

== Instruction ==

In many undergraduate mathematics curricula, the Axiom of Choice is introduced early as a tool for solving problems. It is equivalent to other propositions such as [[Zorn's Lemma]] or the [[Well-Ordering Theorem]]. Students are taught it as a proof method, but often with little mention of the questionable nature of the axiom. Often, a full discussion of the [[paradox]]es that accompany the axiom is left to a higher (graduate) level special topics course in [[logic]], despite the fact that mathematicians in numerous fields may be tempted to use it and thus should be aware of its controversy. Undergraduate courses also neglect to adequately mention when the axiom is being invoked, giving a false sense that use of the axiom is incidental, rather than documenting its widespread nature in recent mathematical proofs.

== Use of the Axiom of Choice ==

The Axiom of Choice has many equivalent statements, such as the [[Tychonoff theorem]], the Well-Ordering Theorem<ref name="mathworld" />, the existence of [[cardinal number]]s and the existence of a basis for every vector space{{fact}}. In [[algebra]] it is common to use Zorn's Lemma (also equivalent to the Axiom of Choice<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZornsLemma.html</ref>) to study [[ideal]]s in infinite [[Noetherian ring]]s.

Use of the Axiom of Choice has led to some seemingly absurd results. In the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]], the Axiom of Choice is used to prove that a solid sphere of infinitely divisible parts may be chopped up and reconstructed as two new spheres of identical size, thereby creating 2 out of only 1. This paradox is proven only through use of the Axiom of Choice, and the authors of this proof did so to criticize this Axiom. One attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction is to show that physical spheres are not [[Lebesgue measurable]].<ref name="kuro5hin" />

The Axiom of Choice can also be used to prove the apparently absurd existence of subsets of the real line which do not have a well-defined Lebesgue measure.<ref>However, it is also possible to construct such a subset without using the Axiom of Choice. See [http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf "The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set"]</ref>

The highly publicized proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] relies on the Axiom of Choice, which was one of the points of criticism by [[Marilyn vos Savant]] in her column and book.<ref>Ask Marilyn ® by Marilyn vos Savant, Parade Magazine. November 21, 1993</ref><ref>''The World's Most Famous Math Problem: The Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Other Mathematical Mysteries'', Marilyn vos Savant. St. Martin's Griffin, 1993</ref>

Interestingly, it has been proven that any theorem of [[number theory]] which uses the Axiom of Choice may be proven in a different way unaided by the axiom.<ref>http://www.occampress.com/fermat.pdf Page 5</ref>

== Controversy ==

Despite its usefulness, many mathematicians reject the Axiom of Choice. Stephen Willard, author of the textbook ''General Topology'', wrote the following after describing the Axiom of Choice:

<blockquote>It is left to the reader to decide that these two statements both say the same thing. What they say is: given any collection of sets, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection. It bothers some people because it asserts the existence of a set (...) without giving enough information to determine that set uniquely (by applying a finite number of rules), and it is the ''only'' formal set-theoretic axiom which does this. For this reason it is customary to mention the axiom of choice whenever it is used. It need not be used if the number of sets is finite.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=-o8xJQ7Ag2cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1 Page 9 of "General Topology"]</ref></blockquote>

The rejection of the Axiom of Choice reflects a preference for [[constructive proof]]s. AC, by its very nature, is nonconstructive, since it merely asserts that a choice function exists, but does not give an explicit method for its construction. Since the Axiom of Choice is independent of the other axioms, assuming this axiom results in a more constrained system than otherwise. Thus results provable with it might not be provable or might not even be true, without it.

The formulation of a constructive Axiom of Choice is one of three major problems which challenge 21st century logicians.<ref>Edna Ernestine Kramer, "The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics", Princeton University
Press, 1982. p. 595.</ref>

== Sources ==

*http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:set theory]]
[[category:mathematics]]