Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T06:13:58Z

FergusE: お客様は、サポートの炎を止めることはできない User:Conservative

== Rename headlines ==

I'm almost tempted to rename "Yea" and "Nay" to "I want to be promoted!" and "I want to be banned soon!" respectively. Some truth in advertising would be refreshing ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Time Limit ==

Should there be some sort of time limitation on how long this vote lasts? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Given how this vote is more about making a point than actually deciding Rob's fate, does it matter? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose not. I feel like we're all part of the Charge of the Light Brigade...[[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== spelling ==

The spelling "loose" for "lose" is one of my pet peeves. Sorry, Rob, but you spelled it wrong. Please fix. Rob should not lose his sysop rights, and Conservative should not be allowed to loose his inane ramblings over this website. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you feel that way SamHB then add your vote to the main page. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Yea votes ==

I don't think we can trust User:Conservative's assertion that there are five sysops against RobS. If these sysops want to cast a vote they cannot cast a vote through Conservative acting as a proxy. They should have to come to the page and vote themselves. Only seems fair. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:17, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:This is true; also, there are site policies regarding the use of [[gossip]], bullying, and innuendo. It should be noted User:RobSmith edits under his real life identity. Some untempered, inflamitory comments made by unrestrained sysops, such as User:Conservative, about real life persons have the potential to be problematic. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::[[File:Fireman 2.jpg|thumbnail|350px|right|
 
お客様は、サポートの炎を止めることはできない [[User:Conservative]] ]] --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:This website has become a collection of jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:ok [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

===Fundamental reform===
Fundamental reform would be incorporating into Conservapedia's core content policy what already comes up in Google Search results: '''An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.''' Let's call it '''[[CPOV]]'''. Then editor's that sign up here, be they obese homosexual liberal atheists or Jesus himself upon return would know article content must adhere to Conservapedia's core content policy of CPOV, "this is non-negotiable", top borrow language from Wikipedia. This would end ceaseless and pointless discussion, sockpuppetry, parody, and trolling that's plagued CP from the early days. This website now, neither has it ever, required an ideological litmus test of contributors. There have been abusive Administrators in the past who have ''illegally'' blocked on ideological grounds. This is why CP is in need of a reform movement. The language administrators used to overstep editors efforts was,
:*'''''Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. ''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763]
has been rescinded, per the site owners approval. This opens the door to Community input. Likewise it has fostered a Resistance movement among the CP Old Guard who feel threatened with a loss of power. But now we are all equals, editors and sysops. All must follow the same rules of interaction and civility.

These are only first steps. I encourage constructive editors to get involved in this reform process. It's not about personal disputes, it's about making Conservapedia a healthy, constructive, less threatening and friendly-to-the-newbie editing environment and educational resource. It begins with admitting our failures, moving on past them to making Conservapedia less of a joke, and more of an encyclopedic resource. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T02:40:49Z

FergusE:

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T02:38:47Z

FergusE: /* A slightly more pressing comment */

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T02:13:15Z

FergusE:

Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T02:12:45Z

FergusE: /* A slightly more pressing comment */

== Rename headlines ==

I'm almost tempted to rename "Yea" and "Nay" to "I want to be promoted!" and "I want to be banned soon!" respectively. Some truth in advertising would be refreshing ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Time Limit ==

Should there be some sort of time limitation on how long this vote lasts? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Given how this vote is more about making a point than actually deciding Rob's fate, does it matter? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose not. I feel like we're all part of the Charge of the Light Brigade...[[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== spelling ==

The spelling "loose" for "lose" is one of my pet peeves. Sorry, Rob, but you spelled it wrong. Please fix. Rob should not lose his sysop rights, and Conservative should not be allowed to loose his inane ramblings over this website. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you feel that way SamHB then add your vote to the main page. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Yea votes ==

I don't think we can trust User:Conservative's assertion that there are five sysops against RobS. If these sysops want to cast a vote they cannot cast a vote through Conservative acting as a proxy. They should have to come to the page and vote themselves. Only seems fair. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 15:17, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:This is true; also, there are site policies regarding the use of [[gossip]], bullying, and innuendo. It should be noted User:RobSmith edits under his real life identity. Some untempered, inflamitory comments made by unrestrained sysops, such as User:Conservative, about real life persons have the potential to be problematic. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:50, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
[[File:Fireman 2.jpg|thumbnail|350px|right|
 
:::::::::::お客様は、サポートの炎を止めることはできない [[User:Conservative]] ]] --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:This website has become a collection of jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:ok [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

===Fundamental reform===
Fundamental reform would be incorporating into Conservapedia's core content policy what already comes up in Google Search results: '''An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.''' Let's call it '''[[CPOV]]'''. Then editor's that sign up here, be they obese homosexual liberal atheists or Jesus himself upon return would know article content must adhere to Conservapedia's core content policy of CPOV, "this is non-negotiable", top borrow language from Wikipedia. This would end ceaseless and pointless discussion, sockpuppetry, parody, and trolling that's plagued CP from the early days. This website now, neither has it ever, required an ideological litmus test of contributors. There have been abusive Administrators in the past who have ''illegally'' blocked on ideological grounds. This is why CP is in need of a reform movement. The language administrators used to overstep editors efforts was,
:*'''''Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. ''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763]
has been rescinded, per the site owners approval. This opens the door to Community input. Likewise it has fostered a Resistance movement among the CP Old Guard who feel threatened with a loss of power. But now we are all equals, editors and sysops. All must follow the same rules of interaction and civility.

These are only first steps. I encourage constructive editors to get involved in this reform process. It's not about personal disputes, it's about making Conservapedia a healthy, constructive, less threatening and friendly-to-the-newbie editing environment and educational resource. It begins with admitting our failures, moving on past them to making Conservapedia less of a joke, and more of an encyclopedic resource. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T01:30:24Z

FergusE: /* A slightly more pressing comment */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only people who actually support Conservative's articles and "essays" are trolls, vandals, and sockpuppets. Conservative has truly contributed NOTHING of value or quality to the site, and what little he has contributed does nothing but attract vandals and parodists. Conversely, RobS wants to hold sysops accountable for their actions and fix the ban policies. Of course Conservative wants RobS to lose his sysop rights, otherwise Conservative couldn't continue to undermine this site from within with his awful essays and poorly researched, shoddy articles. Conservative only cares about his own power, even if that means turning this site into a caricature of conservatism and his own personal blog/echo chamber.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:23, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T01:08:53Z

FergusE: /* A slightly more pressing comment */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T00:54:59Z

FergusE: /* A slightly more pressing comment */

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T00:49:40Z

FergusE: /* A slightly more pressing comment */

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T00:15:44Z

FergusE:

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T21:10:08Z

FergusE: Restored supressed votes

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T20:30:43Z

FergusE: Signed my vote

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T20:29:52Z

FergusE: /* Yea */

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-31T17:14:15Z

FergusE: /* Thank you, Karajou */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires ==

I thought about RobS wanting to make it a more open wiki and so I decided to remove the talk page protection for the comedy/satire pages on atheism and evolution

I put the redirects and page protection to add to the humor of the comedy/satire pages. Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see: [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]] ). The thought of quarrelsome militant atheists hitting the talk page buttons of those comedy/satire pieces and getting redirected to another page had a element of humor to me. Like getting the last laugh to often humorless persons in humorous way. Plus, I just don't see the point of it. I don't foresee me participating in the talk pages of these comedy/satire pages in the future. The idea of debating comedy/satire/humor does not hold any interest to me. If any liberals want to debate humor, I suggest they contact their locale papers about their political satires or send any angry letter to some stand up comics. In addition, I don't see the point of bothering with the posts of whiny atheists with thin skins who want to make picayune and inane comments.

With the above said, obviously there are cost and benefits to decisions and I wanted to assist RobS in his aforementioned effort.

However, I don't want anyone unlocking the comedy/satire pages themselves. Some have a lot of viewership and if they are not broke, I don't want them "fixed" - especially by atheists/evolutionists. Within reason, I personally think essay pages should be like a person's talk page and be their castles. The thought of someone altering essays seems odd to me except for minor proofreading. Of course, I would be against the essays promoting immorality such as engaging in bank robberies, etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:53, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I returned to tie up a loose end with editor Nate. With that being said, I just wanted to say that if atheists in the future wish to fill those talk pages with whiny comments, it will of course confirm atheists are often proud people who have thin skins so I welcome them to squeal like stuck pigs on the comedy/satire talk pages. :) I won't be reading their whiny comments, but I am guessing that others might enjoy seeing them whelp on the talk pages of the comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

My conversation with "Conservative" was removed after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review it. What is the meaning of this outrageous behavior? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::It was in the section above this one. The posts are from yesterday. "Conservative" deleted the whole section after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review "Conservative's" insulting behavior and state whether the editorial policy here is YEC as to articles like evolution. I don't know how to find the posts. Can administrators look at the history? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=887044&oldid=887012 this] part of what you're talking about? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes, thank you. That's the last post in the section "Conservative" deleted. How do you find pages like that? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:21, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There's a little tab at the top of the page labeled 'history'; click on that and you get a list of changes starting with the most recent. Hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:23, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Very much, thank you. I knew abut my contributions button but didn't know about history. I now see that entire discussions that took place in December between "Conservative" and various users challenging the absolute lack of evidence of any correlation between atheism and obesity have completely disappeared. What is going on on this site?! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:38, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Now that's something one does need to be an administrator to answer. I try to stay out of these things. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Nate, the comment was never deleted, or reverted. It was Archived. I would be supportive of a guideline on Archiving that gives a 7 day waiting period since the last posting before Archiving. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I didn't know what an archive is. Thank you for showing me, RobS. All I saw was that the conversation was suddenly missing. It was archived around 11:30 Central time and I had to get to bed so I never had a chance to see "Conservative's" last post ending the conversation by "stating the obvious" and further denigrating the Catholic Church as "not the most Bible loving institution" and saying "I really think it is hard to deny that much of the Catholic leadership and a significant amount of RCC scholars fail to take a high view of Scripture." I deny it. I deny it up and down and am getting and more offended as "Conservative" continues slandering the Catholic Church. It may surprise "Conservative" to know that people just like me read the Bible (there are a LOT of us) literally where the context indicates it should be read literally. People can obviously come to different conclusions based on ''how'' they decide what is to be read literally. Young Earth Creationists like "Conservative" treat the first chapters of Genesis as history. I was taught and accept the "Framework View". Our disagreement should not entitle "Conservative" to slander an entire Church and an enormous group of people who walk the walk everyday. Will someone please help get this person under control and stop the sneering anti-Catholic jabs and clarify whether YEC is the editorial policy here? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:32, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Nate, you never addressed information like this that I provided from the online version of Roman Catholic New American Bible: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm which gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture. The website http://www.usccb.org is maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I suggest you cease your denialism. You can cry slander day and night, but unless you demonstrate it, you are not particularly convincing. By the way, it appears things are not looking good for evolutionism in the key biology textbook state of Texas as can be seen [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html HERE] Have a nice day! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::What's to address? You're laughably wrong. You gave a link to the introduction to Second Peter in an edition of the Bible but haven't even bothered to justify your offensive claim that it "gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture." These men are bishops of the Catholics Church. What do you think they're doing if they're not devoting their lives in service of a "high view of scripture"? You also haven't demonstrated why scholarship questioning the provenance of Second Peter is wrong. So you've failed altogether to do anything more than argue by assertion based on an absurdly erroneous misreading of the source. And I'm in denial? You can't even accurately cite sources in order to prop up your vendetta against "liberals", atheists, "evolutionists" now Catholics. I looked at this shockofgod stuff you keep spamming. The guy looks like a Youtube crank running his mouth about an ambitious campaign that's having little or no effect. Good luck with that. I'll ignore him like everyone else seems to be doing. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I see that you can safely be ignored. How is your request for Andy's input going? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy's refusal to intervene to stop your abuses is disappointing. The smiley face and your insulting non response just prove my point that you're an awful debater who refuses to address things on the level or cooperate. I'm very sorry for this site that no other admin except this sneering creature chose to intervene. Please close my account if no other admin is willing to assist with controlling this person. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 02:44, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Well geez, what are you asking? Pardon me, but your complaints seem to be all over the map. First you complain about a possible anti-Catholic bias because the assertion is made the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as arbiter of God's Word and not scripture; then you make complaints about the user your in dispute with; then you complain about the sites owner; then you complain nobody's willing to help; then you complain about the site. Now you wanna take your ball and go home cause others can't debate whatever you are driving at.
:Let's address the complaint of anti-Catholic bias: other sites, devoted to athiesm and rational science, I'm sure are much less sympathetic to Catholicism than the devotion and respect it recieves here. Have you tried defending the Catholic faith at those sites? If so, gimme a link so we can see your bona fidas. Maybe then your complaints would be taken more seriously. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Resolution of matters ==

[[User:Conservative]] wrote: ''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved, CP not becoming a pro-evolution website''. My proposal: when a matter is resolved, a short (but highlighted) statement should be added under the respective discussion, summarizing the achieved consensus. After this, the discussion can be archived.

[[User:Conservative]] stated that [[Gender-neutral|he]] won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has [[Gender-neutral|he]] said something about them?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative said so above, "''''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved''". I'm not certain restoring all, or certain, talk page deletions are possible. And mainspace, such as the link you provided, are simple reversions or edit wars. Am I understanding your question properly? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:28, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will use more discretion as far as the delete button so as not to remove credit to other contributions. Including this time, I have said this three times now. I suggest you stop beating this dead horse and let it rest in peace. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

:::@RobSmith: I thought that Conservative's comment indicated that some issues had been resolved. And that's my point: After having a problem resolved, there should be an easily readable short resolution, perhaps a template which states in which way the matter was solved. After this, the topic could be archived. This would help to avoid repeating the same discussions over and over again - one could link to the already resolved project. Just an idea for the future...
:::BTW: I linked each occurence of ''he'' to the article on [[gender-neutral|gender-neutrality]], as I wanted to explain why I won't address [[User:Conservative]] as ''(s)he''.
:::@Conservative: it's nice that you'll ''"use more discretion as far as the delete button"'' is concerned. What's about using the ''preview-button'' - as taken into consideration by you [[User talk:AugustO# You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration|here]]?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::AugustO, thanks for the input. A person I invited to this wiki who created a very popular article at Conservapedia told me he created his material on a word processor first and then transferred that material to Conservapedia. I can use this same approach. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Perhaps user:conservative would like to tell us why he has taken to summarily deleting other users' user and talk pages. This would appear to be in contravention of the spirit of free speech that Mr Schlafly [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=887947&oldid=887941 encourages] on this wiki.

Sadly, this is yet another indication of user:conservative's complete lack of interest in the protocols of this wiki, nor is he interested in anything but himself and his own agenda, even if it means insulting Catholics like NKeaton and Mr. Schlafly. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:54, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::TracyS, I don't think you are a sincere person and your most recent instance of trying to pick a fight with me over a complete trivial non-issue. Please find something productive to do rather than making baseless charges and trying to waste other peoples time. Also, if you truly felt I have insulted Mr. Schlafly I would think you would have contacted him about this matter. Unsurprisingly, I have no indication you did. My guess is that if you did try to make this allegation with Mr. Schlafly you would get the same non-response as NKeaton. I have nothing further to say about deleting a person's page who indicated they no longer wanted to edit. I also have nothing further to say about recently deleting another profile with nonsensical and contradictory material created by an inane provocateur. If you think I am going to waste a lot of my time dealing with your melodramatic and phony posts to me, guess again. I am not. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::User:Conservative has in the past several hours reverted talk page comment from Aschlafly's page. Stop. Please stop. You are not Aschlafly. This is a violation of another's user space. You are not free to remove comments from other users space. If Mr. Schlafly wanted those comments removed he would do it himself or ask someone to do it. Mr. Schlafly removed personal information from that same thread; if Mr. Schalfly wanted that thread removed he would have done it there and then. User:Conservativis action is disrespectful to another users talk page, and all CP editors.
:::User:Conservative has gained quite the reputation for information destruction. This wiki has survived some battles, and now is the time to demand accountability from Sysop. Sysops are to be models of interaction for junior editors, but they are not whenthey feel they can violate and ignore CP's core principles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside your allegation about my reputation information destruction (A claim which I find odd given my 63 page article on [[atheism]] which I largely wrote, 46 written page article on [[evolution]] which I largely wrote and a 62 written page article [[homosexuality]] which I largely wrote. Perhaps, I have a reputation for information dissemination? ), I will briefly say that you raise a good point in this instance. A person's talk page is their castle. Although I decided to remove my own post, I do think it would have been better if I had asked Mr. Schlafly first. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and changing the way I do things. RobS, can the same be said of you? I have yet to receive an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page. You may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle. Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter? You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that. But I would at ask you to be consistent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is not your talk page. It is Mr. Schalfly's. Your talk page is your castle, do what you want with it. But other's talk pages must be respected. If the comment was innapropriate, it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. And users who troll other's talk pages generally get blocked. Both are blockable offenses, and edit warring over it is another. You need to be an example for sysop wannabe's, both (a) how to interact with other editors, and (b) how ''not'' to misuse sysop powers. There is entirely too much shoot-from-the-hip with you in all of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:31, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm concerned that the focus here isn't necessarily in the right spot, and I apologize for not having contributed to the community portal earlier - I'd been on a series of summer vacations visiting family up and down the East Coast. Frankly, I think it's acceptable if some leeway is given to comments written by the user, even if on another user's talk page. Do I think it's ideal to post a comment and then remove it? No, but the wiki doesn't break down if it happens. In the same sense that it's acceptable to fix typos in your posts, I think it's acceptable - though again, not ideal - for a user to determine that his post might no longer be relevant, or perhaps was redundant, and take it upon himself to delete said post (assuming no other users have contributed to the discussion).

I must admit I was previously more concerned with the wholesale deletion and recreation of pages, but I think that a lot of progress has been made on that issue thanks in large part to Rob, so my commenting would serve no real purpose.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, if you want to lead in this area, you need to lead by example. I still not have received an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page.
::::And you're not gonna get one.
:::Again, you may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle.
::::Then leave other people's castle alone.
:::Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter?
::::Am I gonna recieve an apology from you for your rudeness? Stop reverting, deleting, and oversighting discussions I am involved in.
:::You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that.
::::Thanks, I didn't know I needed your approval.
:::But I would at ask you to be consistent.
::::Here's consistancy: STOP ABUSING YOUR SYSOP POWERS!
:::I have a feeling that no apology will be forthcoming.
::::It ain't.
:::Regrettably, I have to say that I have downgraded my expectations for your success with your project in instituting new rules and getting their requisite enforcement.
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
:::I feel it will be impeded by you wanting to throw your weight around and not showing a willingness to admit your own mistakes and to abide by existing rules. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Don’t lecture me on the rules, pal. You’ve never shown an interest in policy development or writing sysop rules. All you’ve done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilities of people trying to contribute, and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] 23:30, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:If "a person's talk page is their castle," why do you keep deleting and recreating other peoples' talk pages/castles? [[User:RodneyA|RodneyA]] 23:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have already address this matter. I will further add that unlike Aschafly I did have JPatt's and Karajou agreement to mess around with their castles. :) In addition, Aschlafly is not particularly upset with me and has not poured oil down upon me from his castle walls. :) Lastly, I standby my action with NKeaton and the person I blocked and have no further commentary! Adios! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::RobS, I just saw your post. I suggest if you have a good case as far as some of your allegations that you take it up with Mr. Schlafly and with all due haste. I suggest you do that right now. I don't think that is gong to happen and even if you tried, I don't think it would go anywhere. We both know this. I don't mind altering my behavior due to reasonable requests. I think you should take a good hard look at how Iduan and August is approaching matters as I think you will have far more success. I do find it sad that your oversized ego and hot temper are getting in the way of admitting you erred concerning violating policy on my talk page.
:::Admit you erred in reverting, deleting, archiving, and oversighting active discussions I was involved in, blocking some participants without cause, and deleting their user pages. And let's understand this straight out -- this discussion is not about roasting User:Conservative, it is about developing guidleines and policies for editor and sysop conduct. You my good man, are simply the posterboy for abuse because of your unresponsiveness to other editors.
:::So you can cease right here and now with personal attacks about others ego, etc. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:40, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::Good luck with pushing your reforms with your present attitude and inconsistency. Next, I will certainly admit that with TK around I wasn't exactly an eager beaver as far as developing policies. I have from day one had my primary focus be content creation and related matters. I don't regret my decision. I think at this point, we should just avoid needlessly butting heads and get along as much as possible. I think I have clarified my position sufficiently and responded to other comments sufficiently. Despite your personal shortcomings and your recent behavior towards me, I have no ill will towards you and I hope your initiative bears fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. Let's work together to improve the wiki. I too, was always focused on content, but now we have the opportunity to overcome earlier mistakes the CP project made in ''not'' providing adequate guidelines and development support for sysops and editors. Registered users should be ''encouraged'' to contribute, and worked with to help develop their talents, not suspected as trolls from the minute they register, hounded, stalked, and blocked before they perform their first edit. The sysops that remain in this project must seriously review our shortcomings and recognize much of what we've tried has failed. I propose we overhaul our existing written policies and guidelines, and present them to the site's owner for input and ratification. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Thanks for the cordial response. A pointless wiki battle doesn't serve anyone. I am working on making some changes as well which I believe could make a big change if they were implemented. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

===Reform movement===

:::<s>User:Conservative ... firstly I can't find what you accuse RobS of doing in your page log - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AConservative - there's no record of an "unprotection".</s> ('''update''': I was mistaken - an unprotection did occur; I stand by my second point. Apologies for the mistake.) Secondly, I think the notion that, without an apology for a, <s>presumably</s>, one-time mistake, Rob's efforts have no legitimacy, is an absurd one - and so is the notion that this is only Rob's crusade. Rob started an attempt at reform, and I think we'd all say he deserves many kudos for doing so, but it's on all of us to build a better encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Iduan, I had asked RobS for clarification and received no response. Regardless, RobS's recent behavior towards me still has caused me to downgrade my expectations. Frankly, my expectations were not that high to begin with, but I had hoped for the best. Personally, I think the first order of business is to enforce existing core rules such as citing your sources which is given in the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia commandments]]. The people I requested to create content Conservapedia cited their sources and those articles are among the most popular articles at Conservapedia. However, most if not all wikis, are under sourced. I do think Conservapedia could do better in this area and I think the Admin group could do better in this department and lead by example. I may have ignored the preview button for various reasons and I am not against altering my behavior at this stage, but giving my sources has been a strong point of my content. Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time. Higher quality content, on the other hand, often gets ranked at the search engines and is more apt to bring in new readers and new editors. Non-quality content serves as a deterrent to gaining new editors. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:56, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I absolutely agree that citing sources is important - I think that's something that I've certainly been very careful to do in almost all my articles, but of course every user, including myself, could always do better. As to the preview button: I'm not especially concerned with the preview button and its usage. I think the question here, though, is what must sysops be subservient to? Obviously, Andy is the final authority, but regulating every sysops behavior would be a waste of time on his part. So I think what we all are trying to accomplish is some sort of explicit guidelines that will allow users to know what to expect from sysops, as well as allow sysops to police each-other and point out if one has erred.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
::::::*We need clearly defined blockng policy.
::::::*We need clearly defined deletion policy.
::::::*We need a definition of vandalism.
::::::*We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
::::::*We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
::::::*We need a definition of good faith.
::::::*We need to end this hideous "member of a vandal site" cause for blocking, which I can find no precedent anywhere how it came into existence, other than TK invented it out of whole cloth.
::::::*We need to end blocking on sight. Some sysops must run traceroute before a user makes thier first edit. This is not showing good faith and a terrible example to set.
::::::*We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
::::::*We need a definition of consensus.
::::::*And a few other things. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Iduan, some of Conservapedia's biggest missteps have been the result of poor sourcing and poor research which inevitably lead to poor content in those instances and this has happened to all wikis and not just Conservapedia. Second, I had told RobS that I had wanted to attend to this matter at another time and frankly RobS knows it could have waited as I told him privately that I had wanted to tackle other non-wiki matters and would not be creating much content and be far less active at Conservapedia in the short term. Plus, I think some of his charges towards me are ill conceived and ill supported. This is what convinces me that RobS has a problem with throwing his weight around and showboating. Furthermore, his refusal to apologize for removing the protection of my talk page further adds to this assessment. Did I want to say this about RobS? Was I trying to undermine his efforts? No. I said I wished him the best and until today I had chosen to remain silent about my reservations in terms of the success of his initiative. Does this mean that I think the project is doomed and RobS cannot change his behavior. No and I hope he does. I would suggest he start showing more good faith towards me and stop pestering me. I have no problems with being cordial towards RobS and cooperating with his initiatives, but it has to be a two way street in terms of respecting each other and our efforts. If RobS chooses to repair things I think that would be great and I could be among his biggest supporters. If he continues to show bad faith that would be most unfortunate. The balls is in his court now. I am certainly not going to support someone who is pestering me though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, I would add that it would not surprise me if the content/allegations/tone of this portal has caused Mr. Schlafly not to participate in this portal. I would think that RobS would want Aschlafly as a big supporter and for him to participate in this community portal. That certainly would be a big boost to his efforts. Have I told Mr. Schlafly how wonderful this community portal is? No, I have not. I said that although some good points were raised, I certainly had some reservations on how things were being conducted. Again, I would suggest that RobS cease and desist his pesterfest as I would far prefer being a wholesale supporter of this initiative than being a skeptical detractor who hopes for the best, but has some open reservations as far its potential for success. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

I think the biggest concern about delaying the conversation is that it will be delayed indefinitely; obviously any contributions that you can add despite your schedule are extra-appreciated. Its certainly reasonable to have a small delay, but without a timeline that's hard to do. I can't serve as a medium between you/Rob, but I do think no user is purposely pestering another; I think any bluntness can be attributed to the supposed urgency of the moment that all wikis are subject to, and not to hostility.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:Iduan, I do thank you for your cordiality and reasonableness. Despite some inappropriate conduct, I do think some positive benefits have resulted from this portal. As far as RobS pestering me, I think it was the result of impatience and ego and not being particularly concerned about another editor. I don't think his main focus is to pester me at an importune time, but nonetheless that has been the result. I am usually fairly successful at getting key participants cooperation for things that are important to me as I can be pleasantly persistent. RobS has chosen to be unpleasant and pushy. I would prefer to be a supporter of RobS though and time will tell if this happens. I think it is fair to say that things are fairly frosty in terms of us having a working relationship at the present time and that is unfortunate. I do have a feeling though that I may have accomplished my objective of not having RobS pester me and he may finally see the light concerning this matter. It shouldn't have taken this long though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

====Proposal 1; re:blocking====
Perhaps we should create a block review panel? Users with blocking rights who are willing to be contacted in the case that a user feels a block was unfairly handed out. I feel as though having a specific block policy and this theoretical panel could circumvent the need to define "vandalism" - which in my experience can be amorphous. Obviously specifics could be drawn up later, but as I see it a panel member could, should the scenario call for it, reverse a block without any hard feelings, and perhaps as a general guideline (though not a rule) the unblocked user should - barring clear vandalism - under no circumstances be reblocked by the original blocking user. This is very similar to current policy, except users inexperienced with wikis might not know how to find users with blocking privileges to contact if they have a concern, and this would conveniently list willing, active users. This would at least partly address bullets 1, 3, 5 re: blocking, 6 and 9.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That may not be feasible. Every blocked person could ask for review as a result. It may have unintended consequences. I think a better solution in the meantime is to be choosier about who is given block rights. I should have been more vocal about Bugler and RodWeathers being phonies but at least I got RodWeathers to create content. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:14, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well presumably with a large enough pool of willing "admins" (I'm using that to mean people with blocking rights, but I do understand the difference) it shouldn't be hard to accommodate those requests. I think it's relatively easy to determine whether a user is completely bad faith or whether perhaps a second chance should be granted. Certainly well done on Rod!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:18, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need serious blocking policy reform; I tried to log in minutes ago from my local public library and the account was blocked because of "possible misuse of U.S. or other government computer system." Can anyone help me right now in locating these blocks so they can be undone? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need full articulation when and under what circumstances a Range block is applicable. We've probably blocked every Starbucks and McDonald's on the planet, infinitely, as well as every public library and college. Undoing 4 years of inappropriate blocking is a real chore. [[Conservapedia:New sysop training page]] needs updating. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:36, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can absolutely get behind that. I would offer to help with range blocks, but I'm not familiar at all with that area - I've never even issued a range block. I also agree the language should be toned down on the blocking section of the sysop training page. While it is important to "err on the side of caution", as the page suggests, block are a serious punishment, and should be handed out with careful consideration.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:07, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the page[[ Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]; it should be written primarily for sysops. Editors can get the idea from there what is expected from them if they aspire to be sysops. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Conservapedia:New_sysop_training_page#Blocking]] - which you already linked to - seems to be a much more detailed (longer, certainly) approach. I would almost go so far as to suggest that the content from that section literally be flipped with content from that guideline page, after the language is toned down. (I could work on doing that, if you'd like, although perhaps it'd be best coming from you)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:Yes please do. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is what I've come up with: [[User:Iduan/guidelinedraft#Blocking]]. I would suggest that the first point - which is applicable to all users with block rights - be moved to [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]], but the second two points - which involve using administrator tools like "checkuser" or "delete" - be kept on the sysop page. If you could check over what I did it'd be greatly appreciated! (And obviously feel free to edit - I'm just using my userspace as a sandbox)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:43, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::(Just so you know - and you don't think I'm just being lazy - I'm actually unable to edit the new sysop guide page as its protected, hence the fork)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::Personally, I think that we should try working with ISPs before issuing rangeblocks. For ISPs that will not work with us, we should block those ISPs altogether, with a note that users should complain to their ISP or switch to another one to contribute to Conservapedia. This is what email administrators have been doing for quite some time, and although it isn't without flaw, it seems to have been somewhat effective for them. Since I have five years of experience dealing with ISPs, I'd be more than happy to help Conservapedia in doing this, and both Jpatt and Karajou can attest to my effectiveness.
::As for people desiring to appeal their block, Wikipedia and some other wikis allows blocked users to edit their own talk page and insert a template to challenge their block. They have an option to revoke this privilege if it is abused. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:44, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. I may have some questions on ISP and want to know more. Appealing a block presents some problems, namely manpower (or personpower to be politically correct) to handle it. This of course can be another source of efforts to just waste sysops time. If we had dozens of sysops with time on their hands to respond, and handle it responsibly, it wouldn't matter. Let's not put nthe cart before the horse. Let's hammer out a definition of "good faith user" and "vandalism", then if there's any misunderstanding in what that means, we could add an appeals process. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Hold on here. My thoughts are this. Disputing an administrator's block (unless you are an admin yourself) is disputing their judgement, which is uncalled for. I, for one, trust Andy's judgement in appointing his admins, and by extent trust the admins he appoints. I think, as editors, we should not question an sysop's decision. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:We need to identify and define grounds for blocking. Then we can review a sysop's actions. This means ''both'' sysops and editors can be held accountable. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Only discussions which are inactive for 7 days should be archived. Any discussion thread with a comment within the past 7 days should still be considered an active, ongoing discussion. This will give all users and interested parties an opportunity to review and participate. See [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Talk_pages_and_Archiving]] for more details. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Navigation box]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==

This is a follow-up to some [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884164&oldid=884024 points I made on Andy's talk page], which he said he agreed with completely.

First, I have to recognize and congratulate RobS for his work on bringing the rule of law to Conservapedia, and for lending his sysop influence to this.

The point I want to make is that "tweaking" the 90/10 rule (80/20, 70/30, whatever) requires that rules, and violations thereof, be logically connected with account blocks. This is simple logic. '''It does no good to lay out criteria for blockable misbehavior if sysops block people for whatever reason they please, with no regard for actual infractions''' (90/10, combative arguing, trolling, vandalism, lying, etc.)

Blocks '''must have verifiable reasons'''. But a look at the block log shows things like:
*By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki
*provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true
*Negative personal comments: The pigstie you require is down at Uncle Billy's farm.
*नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार (what???????)
*Multiple accounts; same IP(s) as existing/previous user(s): Need to change your socks, pardner...try washing them as well.
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: fake professors need not apply
*lack of machismo
*no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: I'm all for improvement too, stupid, which is why you're outta here.
*Broken arrow! (with a youtube page about the movie "We Were Soldiers") (what???????)
*I suggest going to Africa and searching for Mokele-mbembe. You have 5 years to do it now
*If only you were as nice as a pony, maybe women would love you
*probably an obese atheist with a thin skin!
*conservapedia obssessive compulsive disorder
*obesity

Blocking is serious business! It reflects upon the seriousness of Conservapedia. If you can't put in a cogent block reason, find some other sysop who can.

Now some of the cases above were probably well-founded, like the one with the comment with "try washing them as well", but sysops should be models of probity and levelheadedness, and should not have made that comment. Even if personally annoyed by someone's behavior, sysops should not let it get to them.

There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:

*Wanton deletion of pages, without VERY good reason. For example, deleting another user's user page or talk page. Even if it is swiftly recreated, and even if this is done without loss of information, there is simply no excuse for it.
*"Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
*Deletion of material from talk pages, unless it is truly libellous. Talk pages are a journal of discussions. There is almost never a reason to delete anything. Merely being peeved by something is not an excuse. If you are insulted by something, there should be a way to mark it with "personal attack removed" or something. I don't know the details.

Now I'm going to step on some toes. Take a deep breath, everybody.

The sysop guidelines / rules need to be '''enforceable'''. The Conservapedia community needs to know that they will be followed. Therefore, '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''. I see plenty of well-intentioned "junior" sysops who are doing an excellent job of keeping the site running smoothly. The removal of one or two sysops for flagraqnt violations will not harm Conservapedia. In fact, it may help immensely, by setting an example of expected behavior.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:17, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see why you're so upset over the block comments. Conservative is simply trying to add some humor. However regarding the Hindi/Thai/whatever block summary, this is an English wiki so everything should be in English. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 11:05, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::MeganH, you are a good guesser. It was Hindi. With that being said, SamHB's post has some merit as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:41, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Community input requested==
Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,

*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]

*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]

Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Block appeal? ==

A thought that just hit me: I'm genuinely not sure if this has been considered so far, but with internal e-mail now being disabled and the Zoho account not being listed on the Main Page, what is the current appeal process when you're blocked? I didn't check how many sysops list their e-mail address on their user page, but I'd be somewhat surprised if many do (since it attracts spam bots).

[[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] probably needs to be amended with a link to whatever appeal/contact policy is up to date, too. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:That link's hilarious. But seriously, we're looking into this. We'd like to get a good blocking policy everyone can get behind in place. I'm arguing CP should stop trying to re-invent the wheel, and look at how WP has learned to deal with sockpuppetry and vandalism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights? ==
:''Discussion moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]
Coming here to complete a registration and start writing about my topics of interest, I got deeply disappointed when I saw the message '''Only alphanumerical usernames are accepted'''. So how come that one isn't entitled to contribute here for the sole reason that they have an underscore or a gap in the desired username? I'm sure these restrictions have a strongly negative effect on the development of the Conservapedia, deterring a significant portion of contributors. Just look how many people work on Wikipedia, write popular pages on subject they now without bothering about admins imposing their views. Can you take a moment to imagine how many users, well, not only have been pressed to the wall next to the "open gate", but even compressed to death by the following crowd? It's way too surprising that the amount of users and articles is still important to you, as you state on the main page. If it's the case, I urge you to reconsider your policies and give more freedom to newcomers. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Just wait until you get to the part where you can't move pages, upload images or even edit at certain times. Assuming you won't be blocked to force you into registering again with a user name that follows the "first name, last initial" convention. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You talk about giving freedom to newcomers, but then dismiss me pointing out that newcomers indeed lack many freedoms they would expect to have? Well, have fun then. For what it's worth, I agree with the point about underscores in names. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Because instead of letting competent users respond to my claim you digress from the topic in an unconstructive manner, giving an outlet for your butthurt in a wrong place. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg Higher, higher :)] --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 15:30, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I could care less about the problems this section raises, I was pointing out that if your going to go around insulting people you aren't going to go anywhere here or anywhere--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservapedia is run strictly at the pleasure of [[Andy Schlafly]] as the founder, and to a lesser extent at that of the administrators. If you don't like their policies, then you have no business here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 17:17, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I always thought that this site was run in the interest of presenting items without the liberal bias that is prevalent through out the internet and the MSM. The opinions and whims of [[Andy Schlafly]] should have little to no bearing on the content of the site so long as the information set forth is well argued and is able to be backed up.
:::::::::If this site is run at the pleasure of Mr. Schlafly, than I'm afraid it is no better than wikipedia. For Conservapedia and the conservative movement to succeed, we must hold ourselves to higher standards than those of wikipedia and the MSM.--[[User:MrLCharms|MrLCharms]] 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Talk:Evolution ==

On Monday, I made an edit to [[Talk:Evolution]] that removed the Student Panel Decision box. My reasoning (given in the same edit) was this:
{{quotebox|I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)}}
Today, Conservative bluntly reverted my edit without discussion, making my last line there extra hilarious. Can we maybe have some actual discussion about this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sid, if you truly wanted discussion, you didn't need to remove the panel's notice to do that. Nor did you need your friend Horace in Australia who is obsessed with evolution/atheism/Conservapedia/myself to try to revert my reversion of you. What you wanted was an atheist revision of Conservapedia history. Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism. More anti-evolution content is not a major change. Evolutionists adding pseudoscience which is what you are ultimately seeking to do is a major change. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Sure we can have a discussion. But as I understand it, the decision of the CP Panel still stands. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Please restore the edit history of the article to show that the article hasn't "changed in any major way". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:43, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sid wants to gut an article showing the folly of evolution because it gets a lot of web traffic. He would rather have a gutted article that gets little traffic. That is what this is about. If he really cared what the panel said, he would not have removed their notice. If Sid wants the panel or Andy to pare down the evolution article or do major revisions, then the frontal attack of removing the panel's notice while bold is very foolish from a human relations point of view. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
"Sid wants to gut an article..." He never asked for it to be unlocked, only for its full edit history to be restored. [[User:Lewis|Lewis]] 15:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Sid, your removing of the panel's notice betrayed you. You showed your true colors. Plus, there is the issue of {{personal remark removed}}. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I'm with Conservative here. Here it is our job to discuss, not censor. There seems to be no consensus at all to remove the student panel decision, and all the admins seem to disagree. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:06, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism." That's an interesting claim considering it's directly contradicted by the notice you put back on the talk page. In fact, there's no evidence Mr. Schlafly or the student panel ever gave "Conservative" permission to do whatever he wanted to that article, nor is it an appropriate purpose for an encyclopedia article to communicate one's editorial position that "evolutionism" is "folly". So let's discuss whether "Conservative" taking the article over to the exclusion of every single other editor and in open defiance of the student panel's instructions not to change it in any "major way" and to submit proposed changes on the article talk page is going to be permitted. Some of the irrelevant nonsense "Conservative" has been stacking up in this article wouldn't be so bad if the article adequately explained the subject matter before attacking it, but it doesn't. I've asked Mr. Schlafly to clarify the editorial policy here regarding YEC vs. evolution, which he will not comment on, but I would eat my hat if the version of the article the student panel locked in 2007 was the same pro-YEC hit piece it is today. So sure, have a discussion about the student panel's notice but don't pretend it means anything anymore. Talk about revisionist history. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::It is certainly against the spirit that drives wiki projects. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:56, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, I'm not an atheist; and try to keep your little personal attacks to yourself. Please restore the history of the article so we can see what the April 2007 version looked like. Without the history, the Student Panel decision is pointless since it has no reference point to base itself on. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:(Side note: I see that Lewis just got a 2-year block by Conservative. Posting to the Community Portal is really a danger for one's wiki-health... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT))
::::Sid, I see you are fond of the exclusionary fallacy. Did Lewis have other edits as well? Second, if you think I am going to help a militant evolutionist, you are fooling yourself. By the way, your aforementioned frontal attack and your persistence in this matter remind me of Pickett's charge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your refusal to let us see the April 2007 version is quite telling. Just as telling as blocking a guy for two years right after he pointed out your error while claiming that the block was for comments the user made yesterday. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sid, I have decided to retire from this battle that you cannot win. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Both Please type in Englisch.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section break===
I've had a problem being able to review 2700+ deleted edits and am not familiar with the earlier wiki-battles over that entry. Perhaps you can encapsulate. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:33, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

:I have taken the liberty of moving this post to its own section because it may go on for a bit. The very rough overview is basically this:
:*Between February and March 2007, this article had been central to lots of editing back and forth.
:*Conservative was made sysop (on February 25, 2007) to make his changes to the article, and his intention to have this article locked forever became apparent. Note that I'm not exaggerating here. From [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1#Conservative_Please_Stop|Archive 1]], a post from the day he was sysop'd:
:*:Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. Conservative 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:*Since that had been the magical time before locking anything forever became the norm, Andy promised to ask the anonymous Student Panel for their ruling, and the article was frozen in a fairly anti-evolution version.
:*Some time later (weeks later, I think?), the panel announced the decision that is still visible on [[Talk:Evolution]]. Aside from infinite protection, the central part of the ruling was "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way."
:*There was a fair share of complaining about this (since having a mostly static article violates the wiki spirit), but the sysops (Conservative especially) held up the ruling as a shield against any further (pro-evolution) suggestions, so everybody kinda gave up and sighed.
:*However, Conservative kept editing the article as he pleased: Conservative's patrol log (which was only introduced on June 16, 2008 - more than a year after the ruling!) shows... 200+ edits for "Theory of evolution" and 950+ edits to "Evolution" (the article was moved in December 2008).
:*Between February 9, 2011 (first visible edit after Conservative erased the article history) and last week alone, the article gained roughly ten thousand characters. That's roughly the length of articles like [[Radiometric dating]] or [[Date of the Exodus]]. And this is just what happened during the last five to six months.
:*I am arguing that the Student Panel decision is utterly outdated and pointless: Locking forever is the norm for many articles anyway, nobody doubts that Conservative completely owns the article, and the "no major changes" clause is doubly absurd because the article has been constantly edited since then, and the point of reference (a version from March/April 2007) is unavailable.
:*That is why I removed the Student Panel decision and gave my reasoning in the form of the post I quoted up there.
:So the problem is not one of the many deleted edits, but rather the fact that there are so many edits and that they were deleted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:06, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. Now I see the point more clearly. I do recall peripherally being aware of those happenings back then, but never was involved. The 2700+ edits maybe unrecoverable-I don't know. The overriding question is similar to the question of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (WP:OWN); also, it may be fair to assume much of the Student Panel of 2007 has graduated, and a new Student Panel may have to be asked to look at this version, if that overall policy remains in place. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== CAPTCHA Whitelist ==

I finally remembered to make this request while I was busy making a minor point: Could we add a few entries to [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|the CAPTCHA whitelist]]?

Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the [[Essay:Best News Sources|best news sources]], [[conservative blogs]], and the various [[conservative links]] (especially sections such as "Conservative Organizations" or "Creation Study"). Adding those sites to the whitelist would allow us to insert such links without hassle. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Everyone, please... ==

Come on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=894414 terms like treacherous backstabber] ARE personal remarks themselves. Are we not supposed to kind and considered? Please pay heed: ''Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.'' (Epehsians 4:32). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS has turned on [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in particular and Conservapedia in general. I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Edit to add: And may I suggest you read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== User: RobS ==

At [[User talk:RobSmith]] I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:My modest proposal: Make Conservative a Bureaucrat so he can protect his talk page even from sysops and demote troublemakers who urge him to cooperate instead of treating this site as his personal property where he can do as he pleases. I believe it's the only logical step after tolerating his current behavior. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I fully support this. I am a great fan of [[User:Conservative]] having been brought here by his many irrefutable evidences and amusing essays. If it were not for him I would not be here to contribute and I am sure it is the same for many other users.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You obviously misunderstood Sid. Conservative, your blocking policy is that of {{personal remark removed}} [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Unless your comment is a joke, Terry, you leave me with no option but to declare you a calumny-loving {{personal remark removed} [[User:Conservative]]'s content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::: "You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&curid=11675&diff=893483&oldid=893477]]. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 09:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Whatever it takes to prevent RobS and his inflated ego to stop having a forum at my talk page, I am generally for. In his current "RobScentric" world, he appears to have no respect for polite and reasonable requests. I do not care if RobS is a Sysop/Admin or not, but if it takes removing his Sysop powers for him to no longer have a forum at my talk page for his {{personal remark removed}}, I am for it. As far as becoming a Bureaucrat at this point: If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Lastly, barring RobS losing his Sysop powers, I have a feeling that over the coming days, weeks or months that Karajou and RobS will continue to have differences over blocking policy and that a blocking policy will be worked out. Given the current demands and priorities in my life, if a refinement of blocking policy were developed rather than a certain person or persons losing their Sysop or blocking powers, I would prefer that blocking policy be worked out by others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sysops not communicating violates the spirit of the wiki. Perhaps if you allowed other sysops the courtousy of communicating with you, there would not be misunderstandings, such as in the case of User:BobSherman. But I am appreciative of you allowing me 5 minutes of your time, per your e-mail, this September, or is it next September? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have communicated with you RobS. I have also communicated to you that I have a lot on my plate right for the short term and I don't want to be pestered by an {{removed personal remark}} who apparently likes to showboat on my talk page and mire me in needless and inane contention at this point. Barring you seeing the light on this matter and apparently still believing that your posts to me have any importance to me (which they do not), I will recommend that you lose your Sysop status if you continue your behavior which another Sysop believes should happen as well. In the meantime, I suggest that you post your supposed matters of great importance and urgency to me on Aschlafly's talk page and if he feels they are important and urgent, I am sure he will relay them to me. Thank you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please, no incivility and personal attacks; those are blockable offenses. And Sysops need to be held to the same standard other members of the Conservapedia Community are held. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, by the way, as you probably know, I did more than offer you 5 minutes of my time in September as I suggested via email a September meeting with you, Karajou and possibly Aschlafy to help resolve the blocking conflicts which have arisen as of late. I received no reply which is no great tragedy to me. Given your most recent behavior, I have since rescinded my offer for such a September meeting. Perhaps, your statement above is just a matter of sloppy reading on your part, but I believe your statement on this matter reflects why I believe you are often an unreasonable person. I know it still may amaze you that I am no longer interested in what you have to say, but I would start believing it and reflecting on why this has happened. I have nothing further to say on this matter to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, I'm just having a very difficult time understanding any of this. I can not communicate with (or for that matter, nobody can) on your user page. I can not email you cause you've spam blocked me; no wait, you un-spma blocked me. I cannot discuss with you (or for that matter, no one can) on regular Conservapedia project pages because you delete and oversight the discussions. You come to Andy's page with charges, yet have no diffs or evidence, cause you deleted and oversighted it. How is that not (a) misues of sysop priveleges; (b) trolling? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Did you send an email that reads,
::::*''Here are my conditions for such a meeting:
:::::''3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, '''RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month. ''' ''
::::This is not conducive to collaborative content. This is not cooperative editing or helping to build an internet community. You have done nothing in four years to help define [[Conservapedia:Vandalism]], yet how many editors have you arbitrarily blocked on site for that offense? Stop trolling me and wasting my time. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Rob, I don't know if you {{remove personal remark}}, but I urge you to read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. "Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye." Leave [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] alone.--[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Arbitrary and unfair blocking===
Let me explain at some length, from personal experience, why I feel strongly about arbitrary and unfair blocking. I hesitate bringing it up, because of the personal emotional torment it wreaked on me, unfairly, all the result of overzealous ideological partisans, too quick on the banhammer, and determined to take revenge on their enemies.

I was working on an anti-communism series in Wikipedia, and because of the specialized nature of it, [[Chip Berlet]] <ref>Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President, which a Congressional Committee has described as "The Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party".</ref> was recruited to vet, verify, and challenge the information for NPOV purposes. Unbeknownst to me and prior to my arrival in Wikipedia, Berlet had for many years studied the Lyndon LarRouche movement and successfully obtained Arbitration sanctions (banning and blocking) against several "Larouche editors" in several Wikipedia Arbitration cases.<ref>At the time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA/HK WP:RfA Lyndon LaRouche 1 & Lyndon LaRouche 2]; a third and other cases have since been added.</ref> The sanctioned users become notorious sockpuppets, hunted by overzealous sysops, and in constant conflict with Chip Berlet. As Berlet and my Mediation over anti-communism broke down, Berlet labeled me the head of a cabal of "Larouche editors" and being "the most problematic."

In dealing with Berlet, I had crossed paths with some of his old enemies. Berlet seized on these open-wiki communications to drag me before the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee under the pretext that "Nobs and others acting in concert"<ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Arbitration_filed_naming_you Nobs and others acting in concert]</ref> were harassing him. Needless to say, the "others" were sanctioned "LaRouche editors" and this guilt by association prompted the Arbitration Committee to accept a hearing on the case. But I had no knowledge of this ongoing wiki-battle between Wikipedia and the Lyndon LaRouche organization, of which now I was at the center. In the process, my real life identity became known, and I was now being seriously defamed as a "LaRouchie" in an open forum, accessible to Google Search engines. No less than three times did I make motions to separate and remove my name from the LaRouche editors, all denied.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Motion_2_by_Nobs01_on_.22acting_in_concert.22</ref> In frustration, I made incivil comments and was banned, with no immediate recourse to clear my name from slanders.

The idea of me being a sympathizer to Lyndon LaRouche is ludicrous, as is commonly known now. Yet it took me years to clear my name over several forums, gaining public statements from Arbitrators and others connected with the case, that I had indeed been unfairly slandered. See for example, a template in Wikipedia to keep track of the abuses and rulings against "LaRouche editiors", if you scroll down to the "Arbiration 2005", the first case reads "N__and others"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaRouchetalk</ref>, what it took me to get the "acting in concert" removed, and no direct reference to my username, "Nobs", was a nightmare. But I still regard the emotional stress and damage done, by overzealous, ideological sysops, hell bent on stamping out the wiki's enemies, as troublesome.

Then a younger generation of sysops comes along, taking their cue from others, and all they see is "ratvandal", or "larouchie", and a real life identity or username connected to it, and the Terminator mentality takes over. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, no compromise, pity or remorse. Nevermind facts, or misunderstandings. They just have it set in their minds they are doing right, and good, by wielding the banhammer. Never thinking for a moment those are real people out there, with hopes and dreams, and real lives. These sysops are just on autopilot, kill kill kill, destroy destroy destroy.

This may seem harsh, but reliving some of this reminds me why I've tried to learn to be civil and patient, and understanding, even to those I disagree with. I made it my lot to try and be a model of interaction, even in the toughest, most controversial, and emotional disputes. This dispute we're having here, is not really between two sysops -- I actually like the guy/gal/other making these charges. He just needs to lighten up with people. If he has such strong ideological convictions, he should at a minimum be able to defend them. And a locked user page, or redirects on article talk pages, is just pointless. This discussion is simply about being fair with users and demanding the same standards of civility from sysops we expect from editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

== New proposal regarding the ban policy ==

I would like to propose a procedure with regards to the banning policy here at CP. This would apply to situations where people are suspected of being parodists, or other situations that are not as clear-cut as blatant vandalism such as inserting pure gibberish, blanking pages, etc.

We all have bad days sometimes.

We sometimes write things on the internet that comes across to other people as sounding harsh or incoherent, or that doesn't quite get the point across we're trying to make.

We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.

We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.

Instead of one person being responsible for the decision whether or not a person is a parodist, etc., how about a procedure where that person is brought before a committee. The person nominating the possible offender must present his case, complete with '''hard evidence''' that proves the accusations, not just state that "I believe this, thus it's true." Other editors should be allowed to submit evidence, either pro or con, for a certain length of time before a decision is reached.

This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.

I also propose that the committee consist of both sysops and regular editors, thus providing a greater range of opinions. If an editor (either regular or a sysop) is directly involved with the situation, they should not be allowed to be a member of the committee.

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning". Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::*'' RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP''
:::::How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
:::::The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all? I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

How many casual or part-time editors have ceased contributing to the wiki because of uncertainty over the banning policy? Right now, banning often seems arbitrary and uneven – sometimes as though it depends on the mood of the banning editor. I know personally I have stopped myself from offering my opinion and/or edits on different articles because I see things from a different angle or have different information.

What's the harm in making the less obvious banning situations a consensus of opinion, and transparent to all as well? What's the harm in allowing the accused editor to make his/her case in the open, and to allow different editors to give their opinion on the situation? It might not change the ultimate decision, but it's a more democratic process. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ed says,
:*''If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this.''
:*Here's the problem: 40,000 registered users have been blocked for vandalism, and 10,000,000 + IP's, affecting an estimated 30,000,000 potential users. These blocks were handed out for vandalism, yet here ([[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]) is the Guideline blocking Sysops have to guide them after four years.
:*If there were any potental good faith editors who wanted to be helpful in defining vandalism, they probably were blocked years ago as a suspected sock of lcewedge or horace. Them and the whole state or province they live in.
:*Now the Range blocks are undone, yet Old Guard sysops ''still'' block on sight for anything they don't like, despite the floodgates being opened. Conservapedia Sysops have learned nothing from their colossal errors in dealing with vandalism, have yet to even define it, nor hold themselves to the same standards of editing conduct they require of others.
:*Establishing a Commitee won't work, at least not yet; there just aren't enough editors allowed to participate at any level.
:*Blocking policy is in serious need of overhaul, if Conservapedia is serious at all about building an online collaborative wiki community.
:*Sysops need to understand they are not God, and can and will be held accountable to the extent of losing their sysop powers for failing to abide CP's own rules and standards of conduct it requires of others (the few we have).
:*Some editors were punished with blocks just for daring to interject into this important discussion. This kind of arbitrary blocking has got to stop.
:*CP needs a serious reform movement; it's not about personality disputes between sysops, or payback, or roasting an abusive sysop. It's about building a collaborative community which includes atheists, liars, homosexuals, sinners, drunks, drug addicts, felons, ex-cons, university professors, doctors, lawyers, hollywood starlets and anyone else who wants to register an account, abide by CP's Commandments & Guidelines and contribute constructive content without an ideological litmus test for the user. That has always been CP's mission. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I have stayed out of this debate because I don't find it relevant to my goals on/with Conservapedia but i must say these proposals by Rob sound reasonable (although we can probably do without drunks and liars). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:37, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::MRellek, if you want to attempt to further refine CP's blocking guidelines/policies I would not be against that. I would be against RobS writing any blocking policy on parodist since he cannot spot parodist material when he sees it and/or is unwilling to ban parodists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fortunately for site users, you don't own this website, neither do you single-handedly make policy. Should we take a poll of site users who want to see you head up a policy reform committee? or do you think they may be terrorized to even participate, for fear of reprisal block, given the unhealthy editing atmosphere you help create for several years now? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::If anyone has any useful suggestions concerning refining blocking policy, I don't see why they couldn't be suggested and incorporated into our current policy. And there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas concerning this matter. That could start immediately. Of course, given the current authority structure of Conservapedia for any policies to be binding, they would have to be approved by Aschafly or a committee authorized by Andy to make binding policy. Absent of a parodist defining policy being written for encyclopedia articles by September, I am considering writing one. If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up [[Straw man fallacy|strawman arguments]] and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::*''there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas ''
::::::Oh yes, two were blocked just for posting to the above thread. Does that aid in encouraging others to contribute? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I helped formulate our policies, four years ago, shortly after I joined. I was made a sysop much more quickly than I expected (in a mere 8 days), possibly because of my extensive Wikipedia experience: developer rights to the database, the first electeed "bureaucrat", etc.

If there have been 40,000 blocks that is because our project has suffered an unprecedented onslaught of vandals, particularly of the "stealth" kind who plant ridiculous errors so that they can undermine the project by blaming us for those errors.

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS. I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 this warrant a one day block] in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 intemperate vindictive attitude] of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

::I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
::First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned. Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
::Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact? I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree. There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal. Why give him a chance to do more damage?"
::That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions. The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.
::Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably. I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung. What's the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy?" Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
::I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this. Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
::Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
::Respectfully, --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Ben, you make some ''very'' good points, some discussion-worthy points, and one time, you utterly missed the point.
:::The bad news first: Sharon's proposal isn't about ''vandals'', but rather about ''parodists''. Nobody is suggesting to hold a meeting when some idiot is running across the wiki, replacing articles with [http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tits.gif "BOUNCING TITS!!!"] or something like that. This is only about parodists.
::::[tangent]
::::Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written [[Conservapedia:Parody|policy-definition of "parody"]] on this isn't really hitting the nail on the head. It's ''a'' definition of "parody", but not ''the'' definition we're implicitly using here. We're talking about people whose edits are over-the-top by normal standards, but well within the accepted limits of Conservapedia. If you go pretty much anywhere and argue that the Bible needs to be retranslated because it's too liberal, or that Jesus disproved General Relativity and proved Quantum Mechanics, you will be thrown out for being an obvious parodist (as per the definition we currently got written down). On this site, however, all of these things have been established as insights by the site founder. If I suddenly started agreeing with Andy that the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution, would I be a parodist?
::::An effective approach to parody is difficult because Conservapedia's baseline for "normal and acceptable" is not quite where even most other conservatives would place it - both for content and conduct. This is why parodists like Bugler managed to become so successful: They imitated the worst traits of certain sysops, thus blending in perfectly from the POV of most sysops. Just to remind people of an uncomfortable truth: Bugler was one of the nastiest people imaginable and drove out several people who might have helped the site and pretty much got away with it to the point of ''almost becoming a sysop''. (He was only "caught" because of technicalities, not because of his behavior.)
::::The solution lies less in worrying about whether somebody genuinely believes what he's writing and more in reforming this wiki from the top so abusive idiots who make absurd edits stand out properly again. As long as parody is indistinguishable from normal behavior of our supposed role models, it's hard to really justify a ban.
::::[/tangent]
:::The point I kinda disagree with, but which I still find a valid question: Should we do all this bickering here in public? I agree that especially the huge discussions on this page are not CP's finest hour. But that doesn't mean that we should drag mindless bickering behind the stage, and it also doesn't mean that we should simply stop. It means that we should ''do better''. Not just in discussions, but also as a whole. We need to make CP as a community a better and more inviting place. I agree with Rob that we need to rework consistent policies (that aren't scattered all over the place) and that we need to actually enforce them, no matter what rank the offender has.
:::Your very good points are about the current tension (eggshells, landmines, etc.) and that it's ''hard'' at times to be fair and just. Because yes, it is. Of course it is. Having the banhammer is great power. And to echo a terribly overused Spider-Man quote: With great power comes great responsibility. The people wielding it need to be able to handle it. If sysops start using it to retaliate against people they don't like, or if they get twitchy and start banning people who haven't done anything simply because they happened to register around the same time as a vandal, they should either take a voluntary time-out to cool off or give the hammer back. Bringing back something from my tangent: Sysops are supposed to be the ''role models'', and they ''will'' lead by example. They ''need'' to have a cooler head than the regular users, and they ''mustn't'' let their raw emotions guide their actions. That is one of the keys to building a healthy community: Be a good leader, and people will start following you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Please revoke Conservative's Sysop, Block, and Administrator Rights ==

Please revoke conservative's sysop, block, and administrator rights, for flagrant and repeated violations of expected standards for sysops.

You may recall that I wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Enforceable_rules_for_sysop_conduct this], which was a logical consequence of things that you said you agreed with fully. Now I am not a sysop, and therefore don't have much voice in such matters, but the fact is that what I wrote is still present on the Community Portal page. Furthermore, user Conservative said that "[my] post has some merit."

In that section, I said that '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''.

Furthermore, quite a bit of policy material has come into existence, pointing out that it is improper for someone with blocking powers to use those powers frivolously, or for a person with deletion or oversight powers to use those powers unless the material being deleted is libelous.

User Conservative has, as is well known to everyone, engaged in repeated and flagrant violations of the standards for sysops. The repeated deletion of BobSherman's user and talk pages are examples, but there are many more.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SamHB, very melodramatic. Your bold text suggest you are very angry. I suspect that is because I asked you to show me how its done and create outstanding content that would gain a following and I also asked you if you currently have a following. By the way, I am flattered that you have followed my content for several years now. :) Best wishes in your off wiki pursuits because I don't think your crusade to remove my administrator rights is going to give you a sense of accomplishment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:The bold text was copied directly from the other edit, where it had been placed for emphasis, not due to anger. You also seem to be referring to a discussion taking place at [[Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Christian_lady_dancers]]. Please continue the discussion there, if you wish. You will see that I already responded to you. Or continue it on your talk page, if you wish. Or mine. By the way, I already have quite a sense of accomplishment. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:27, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::SamHB, I still think your quest is quixotic. By the way, given your liberal leanings, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to you that in the [[Western World]], the left in many cases is running out other peoples money to spend on their misadventures so your in good company in terms of pursuing quixotic quests. I have two parting words for you: "Austerity budget". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website ==

RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his {{removed personal remark}} concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to {{removed personal remark}}.

I think RobS is at heart an {{removed personal remark}} who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him. Although he did do a service in unblocking all of those IPs and I think clarifying block policy and not having an overly aggressive block policy is good, I do think now that RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call [http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot "a useful idiot"] and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist website.

If he continues down his present path, I see him losing his Admin rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative - you and I have discussed this in an entirely civil manner to this point, and my opinion of you has not changed with this section, but I am requesting that you remove this section on your own accord (but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am sending an email to Andy); even in quotes, "useful idiot" is a personal attack - and I am convinced that this type of name calling is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The term "useful idiot" is political term and I have also heard it used outside of politics as well. Here is a definition: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot I see no reason retract this information and I am very positive that RobS doesn't want me to oversight it given his previous statements. In short, I think the shoe fits and I am giving others a warning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Conservative, I quote from your source: "The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial" - I maintain its not keeping with site decorum to call an established editor any of these things (certainly at least calling an editor either of the first two - "naive" or "foolish" - would constitute a personal attack).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:I also see Rob losing his sysop rights soon. After all, he is trying to do three things: (1) Make the rules clearer so people have a clear idea what can get them blocked and don't have to live in constant fear of breaking some obscure rule interpretation. (2) Apply the rules also to sysops. (3) Generally hold sysops accountable for their actions and limit abuse of powers.
:The last person who tried to drag the site down this absolutely horrible path was some liberal... what was his name... oof... oh yeah, ''Philip J. Rayment''. You know, the guy who tried to stop Bugler and TK from driving out everybody? The guy who actually dared to ask ''why'' some people were banned and wanted to see ''evidence''? Yeah, that went well, didn't it?
:Because we all know that a community will grow if a group of people can waltz all over the place with editorial authority, no pressure to follow the rules, and the power to block anybody for any reason.
:It's a true tragedy that Andy is looking away as Rob is trying to salvage and help this community. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sid, you are trying to cloud the central issue. I clearly said I was not against clarifying block policy. It's RobS's other behavior that I have a problem with. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::But wasn't the central issue to start with your own behavior Conservative? It seems to me you dislike having your own behavior called into question so believe it is Rob causing trouble. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I say both of them are causing trouble. Conservative is doing things people find wrong, People state this, Rob backs them up, which from Conservatives point of view is wrong, they argue, Conservative/Rob takes it to pages across the wiki while others either side with or against Rob/Conservative, pushing the fight to multiple fronts and spamming andy with "new message!". So both are to blame for exasperating the situation. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::::::::The central issue is indeed Conservative's behaviour. Years ago when Conservapedia had an abuse page it was almost entirely filled with complaints about Conservative. I don't understand why he has been allowed to run amok for so long. All Rob is doing is trying to introduce the rule of law to the site. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::No, the central issue is the power structure on this site being so screwed up that sysops have all the rights while regular editors have pretty much none (while conversely the sysops don't have to follow the rules while editors have to follow all of them and then some). Conservative's behavior (rapid and frequent deletion of articles or talk pages, oversighting of edits, refusal to communicate constructively, etc.) is simply the most noticeable symptom. Rob's attempts to start a sweeping policy reform and to, as you said, introduce the rule of the law to the site, would indeed restrict Conservative's power abuse, but it would also be a solid step to fix the structural issues the site has. (Which also nicely explains why no other sysop is actually siding with Rob.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::JarradD, I have never been popular among atheist/evolutionist whiners. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::No. You are not popular among editors who wish to be treated with respect and according to the rules. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your Fairly well-acquainted with the anti-conservtive viewpoint for somebody who made an account 20 minutes ago. You reek of sock-puppetry/ill-intentions. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:31, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Why do I reek of ill intent? I want to see this site succeed. Which is why I want properly enforced rules rather than bullying and arbitrary authority. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Because you seem to know a lot about this situation despite only having just made your account, which either means you pointlessly lurked for a while or your a parodist. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Somewhat fitting, given that part of the problem is that various people who made good points in the past have been banned because the sysops don't like people who dare to speak up. And Sean, PLEASE don't throw around "parodist" so easily. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have sided with neither Rob or Conservative. I am pointing out that a new user who suddenly comes into a debate speaking with knowledge of the situation is going to appear suspicious. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::A parodist is someone who pretends to be something they are not. There is no evidence JarradD is a parodist. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anything I have written could be regarded as parody. You have successfully derailed this discussion. Congratulations Sean. How about getting back on topic. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. As it stands, he brings more doubt and distrust by getting involved in a dispute between Senior Admins despite having no reason to fully understand the situation. The fact his first edits were to get involved raise even more doubts to his intentions--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::*''If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more.''
::::::::::::::How is that possible? they all get banhammered at the door. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::If anyone's intentions are suspect, it is you. You have totally derailed this discussion. It was a discussion on a vitally important topic and you have made it all about me. Could you please attempt to get back on topic? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:50, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I would like to return this discussion to matters of significance. The feeling among a number of editors is that there is a lack of uniformity in enforcement of rules and that some sysops act in an arbitrary and, sometimes, capricious manner. What is sought is, in essence, the rule of law. A system wherein all editors know where they stand and are not subject to whim. In my view this is a hugely important issue for this site. In any venture these issues are important, but in a co-operative venture such as a wiki they are absolutely vital. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
: If I recall correctly, haven't people been banned from Conservapedia for being a member of an atheistic site before? If we do want consistency of rules/sysop accountability and if Rob is indeed a member of said site, then shouldn't he face a penalty? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::'''[[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]''' states,
::::*'''15. We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs''';,
:::and has been CP site policy since 13 April 2007. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=105805] The blocking of editors for alleged "membership in a website supporting vandalism" ''has always been illegitimate'', and if anything, an apology is due. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::How cute of you to start enforcing the most idiotic "rule" ever that was likely introduced by a troll who wanted CP to fail. But hey, sure, all for it. I'm sure Ed Poor will agree; after all, he has no account on-... oh, wait. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::In his/her world, there is no evidence at all unless he/she personally admits anything, such as his/her gender or his/her name. So what makes you think he/she would admit his/her username on any site? Give it up, liberals! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Indeed. We seek him/her/it here. We seek him/her/it there. Those Frenchies seek him/her/it everywhere. Is he/she/it in heaven? Is he/she/it in hell? That d****d elusive Pimpernel. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::: Obviously Conservative is not a member of that atheist website because it would be really stupid of him to complain about Rob's association with it while simultaneously holding an account there. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, it would. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Gentlemen, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. Schlafly's talk page is not the place to hold such debates? And that it would be both prudent and considerate to move this discussion to another forum? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Seeing how Andy seems determined not to chime in, this may be for the best. I'd support a mass move of the last few sections (starting with "User: RobS") to [[Conservapedia:Community Portal‎]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Let me explain Conservapedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology Kremlinology] (tea leaf reading): If the site owner likes the idea, he'll speak up. If he's neutral or negative, silence. That's traditoinally how Senior CP Sysops read the tea leaves. Conclusion:
::::*neither RobS nor User: Conservative desysoped;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed] has been repealed;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=894017&oldid=892763 Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interfact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors] is added;
::::*and moving forward with other initiatives has been endorsed.
::::Now, somebody want to go around with a mop bucket after [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism_and_obesity&action=historysubmit&diff=893866&oldid=893394 User:Conservative's incivility here] and hang the {{[[Template:personal remark removed|personal remark removed]]}}, per [[CP:Guidelines#Civility]]? I'd do it, but I have a COI. Let's help this man/woman/other become a better editor. He/she/it needs to learn how to play nice with others. Please treat him/her/other respectfully. But remember, his/her/other days of being an ''allegedly'' abusive sysop are over. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:23, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It would be nice if we didn't have to give a PC-esque list of pronouns for him. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I wouldn't suggest trying to sweep this discussion under the rug. I believe Admin Karajou wants to give his thoughts to Ashlafly on this matter. And of course, I can certainly consider asking other Sysops to weigh in as well. I would suggest that RobS not thrash around in this tar pit he has jumped in. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::RobS, I have been asked if I felt you should lose your Admin privileges and if the benefits you bring outweigh your costs. So far, I have said that you should not lose your Admin status. You most recent behavior which I mentioned above, is tipping the scale in the wrong direction. I suggest making some changes and avoid trying to dodge issues. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I certainly don't think the discussion should be swept under the rug, but I do feel that consideration for Andy merits moving it to a more appropriate venue. I support the idea of moving the discussion to Community Portal. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If this discussion is attempted to be pushed under the rug and RobS chooses not to address matters. This certainly would be another sign that RobS should lose his Admin status. If a an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion, this certainly does not work in his favor. I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not willing to give RobS infinite second chances in terms of how I feel about his behavior. I have also been told that Karajou wants to join the discussion on Ashlafly's talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Then where is he? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::RobS, I can live with you being an {{personal remark removed}}|. On the other hand, a {{personal remark removed}} is a problem. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::"If a (sic) an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion..." I'm sorry. Who were we talking about Pot? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
*''play power games and '''try stifle discussion'''''
:My friend, User:Conservative, seriously, who stifles discussion by locking their user page? who stifles discussion by placing redirects on article talk pages? who stifles discussion by deleting other Sysops comments? who stifles discussion by oversighting other sysop's comments? Need I remind you, you started these threads claiming I wanted to discuss things with you and you want no discussion on your talk page. Then, you came here, claiming some offense, but deleted and oversighted the evidence. Do I have to point out to you, what other's see, extremely erratic behavior? I'm sorry, but this really borders on trolling. If it wasn't for the fact Conservapedia can be improved from discussing some of these problems, I'd really rather remain silent. I'm sorry, but this is not an issue of personalities, it regards the future of this project. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have {{removed personal remark}} as my friends. Second, people are free to leave me messages to me. I know you like to whine about my talk page, but please restrain yourself because a user's talk page is still his/her castle. Next, I am certainly amenable to admitting where I can make improvements and the talk pages on comedy/satires on now open. On the other hand, I have yet to see you apologize for your backstabbing behavior. And your poor behavior in terms of altering my talk page was also never apologized for. Of course, your modus operandi is avoiding taking responsibility for your bad behavior. This does not work in your favor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Am I the only who thinks all Admins should have their talkpages left unlocked so people can ask them things? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Right now I am neutral however. I see Conservative's points on this, but Rob has done a lot of good work for this wiki too. I think it is best of we leave to to Andy to decide. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
'''RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication.''' Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. '''Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::The offending comment presumably was,
:::*'''The subject seemed to think it quite comical, and basically conceded it the motivation was only to tweak his RW & Youtube critics, the latest "kick" so to speak.''' nobs RW, 02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::Please cease speaking in innuendo. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:31, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

:Hold on. Why is RobS even a member of an Atheist website. Surely he of all people knows that they will not accept the logic of conservatism and that it is a hopeless cause to try to convert them that way. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There is converting going on. I just received an email saying RobS is becoming more and more like the members of a atheist vandal website. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::In that case I am not sure RobS should be given this much power, if he has such close affiliations with sites that support such illogical viewpoints. RobS, you are a good contributor, but I'm sorry; if what Conservative says is true, then it is better safe than sorry. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:45, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::If this atheist vandal website is wikipedia, than I should admit that I have an account there. However I have not used it for quite a few months now. I think it would be wrong to punish people like me, who only were trying to help when they made Wikipedia accounts but have since moved on. [[User:MorrisF]]
:::::::::I have an account at just about every "wiki" type site. I was an active member of "the trio of wiki" (Cpedia, <s>censored</s>, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 08:09, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section Break===
Wait a minute. Why were Conservative's posts replaced with "Personal attacks removed"? He never personally attacked anyone. Plus, many of his key points were removed. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=894161&oldid=894159 this user did it.] ive since reverted it.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::SeanS, that's a diff, not a user. I replaced Conservative's several personal attacks with the template that is prescribed at [[Guidelines#Civility]]. NickP, I cannot tell if you are being serious. Conservative's post in this section are full of personal attacks against another user, that user has been conscientiously polite in response. If the personal attacks that I removed are the key points then that merely shows them to be invalid points in the first place. SeanS, you have now reinstated the personal attacks, in clear contravention of site policy. Please read the policy, and replace the templates. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know what they are. IF you notice, the Diff has your username in it, therefor, I can say who did what. And if it is indeed a personal attack, why make it harder for an admin to see what it is and judge accordingly? --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 23:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Also note that a lot of the comments you removed were not really personal attacks. When Conservative said that RobS was a "useful idiot", he wasn't actually calling RobS stupid. "Useful Idiot" is actually someone who sympathizes with the enemy, as Conservative was accusing RobS. "Egotistical" is not a personal attack; it is a critique (though arguably impolite) on a user's behavior, not an attack on the person. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::In the same way that "Sleazy Nazi", for example, is really just an assessment of a person's moral fibre and political views, not a personal attack. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his Administrator rights ==

I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his administrator rights. I regret to say that RobS is engaging in inexcusable behavior which was previously described on this talk page, but has now been whitewashed from this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am considering lobbying harder for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:[[Hearsay]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:56, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== I know I am a new poster ==
But I have been registered for some time and I have to say one of the main reasons I have not tried to contribute here is because of the behaviour of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. His childish 'satire' articles have done more to make me re-consider than anything else on here, and I have already spoted several parody entries in articles such as the article on Motorcycles. About the only thing that would make me become a regular contributor would be if [[User:RobS|RobS]] were able to succeed in his attempts to reign in the more idiotic 'contributions' of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. But no doubt I will now be blocked for daring to voice this opinion, despite Aschlafly having said previously that dissenting opinions are not censored on Conservapedia. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Davidspemcer, If you do choose to contribute in the future, I would suggest using the Firefox browser as it would enable you find your spelling mistakes (behavior and spotted). Second, if you want to show you are a good faith editor and not merely a member of a vandal website, I would suggest further expanding the article [[Soviet atheism]] and please cite reputable sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Oh the irony. Myusername is DavidspeNcer and not M. And I do use the firefox browser, 3.6.3 to be precise with greasemonkey, no script and IE View installed.
:::::And I am British so the word is spelt behaviour as far as I am concerned and seeing as we created the English language I will use that version if that is ok with you. And this is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that I mean. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Sid and David, the [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] and the reactions of atheists with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] reminds me of the movies when "holy water" is sprinkled on the demon possessed.

Obsessed atheist: What's that?

Conservapedian: One of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|satires concerning atheism and evolution]].

Obsessed atheist: Keep it away! Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Concerning the article [[Soviet atheism]], how can I improve on what is evidently perfection. Concerning your articles such as [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] most of them can not be improved on can they, hence them being locked. However I will see what I can do to improve the already good article concerning [[Soviet atheism]]. Now I will refrain from commenting again for a while as I do not wish to violate the 90/10 rule which, as Aschlafly said, is only a guidleine anyway. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Without wanting to pronounce on the rights and wrongs of the situation under discussion, is it quite seemly for a user to weigh in and reply to complaints made to a third party about his own conduct? Monkeys and organ grinders spring to mind.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
CPalmer, because you are an atheist and an evolutionists, I humbly defer to your superior atheist intellect and your superior knowledge of monkeys. "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, why do you think that I am an atheist and an evolutionist(s)? I am just questioning whether your hasty butting in on people's overtures to Mr Schlafly can be considered polite. From a practical point of view, I would think it would also tend to prolong or inflame disputes (wasting more of your time and others'), rather than speeding their resolution. We know what your position is, so you do not need to restate it here until the discussion is furthered by a response from Aschlafly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::CPalmer, my apologies. The was a former user with a similar username as you who had a habit of being unreasonable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Proposed blocking reform framework ==

Setting aside the current disputes about blocking and whether CP's current blockers/Sysops do or have ever done an unwarranted block or whether Sysops should undo another Sysops block, I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks. I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking.

Absent of such a policy being developed using the framework I am about to suggest, I would be willing to assist in the creation of such a policy sometime in the fall of 2011.

Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting:

1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable.

2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.

3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board that could meet either bi-monthly or monthly or every two months (or perhaps quarterly). The CP community can offer up suggestions on whose blocks should be reviewed, but each CP editor can only offer so many candidates lest a cumbersome list be created of past blocks (CP has been around for 3 plus years. Perhaps, the blocking review board will only look at blocks for a given period). The blocking review panel could be made up of Sysops and non-Sysops and a certain amount of blocks per blocking period (which will be decided by this proposed framework} will be reviewed. For example, say the blocking review board meets one a month. It could be decided that 5 blocks per month could be reviewed by the board. Perhaps, Andy could choose to review the boards decision for any given period that the board meets. Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board.

I am not saying my framework couldn't be adjusted as time goes by (how often they meet, how many candidates are reviewed, etc.), but I do think that my proposed blocking reform provides adequate protection, but is not overly complex or burdensome given any blocking periods blocking volume. I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board. I would suggest that RobS not be a part of such a blocking review board because including myself 3 Sysops that I am aware of now think he should lose his Admin rights.

I was told by a pessimist that a workable blocking reform couldn't possibly be developed in 30 minutes or less. However, I believe I just created one. :) I welcome other editors comments on my blocking reform framework lest I am being overly optimistic about the viability of my suggested reform. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:I like it. Although I would say, if Rob doesn't lose admin rights he should be allowed on the review board. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::If such a board is created, I will suggest to Andy and my fellow Admins (including the two who think he should no longer have Admin rights) that RobS not be allowed to serve on the board. Perhaps, after a considerable amount of time and evidence that RobS has changed, I would no longer oppose him being on such a board. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:02, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== 3 Sysops now agree that RobS should lose his Admin rights ==

Including myself, 3 Sysops now think RobS should lose his Admin rights. Sysop TerryH said I could list his name. I have not yet strongly lobbied for RobS to lose his Admin rights among my fellow Sysops and editors. I am giving RobS a chance to apologize for his recent behavior including among other things, the behavior I mentioned on this talk page but was whitewashed off this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
: There are more users that have come forth believing you should lose your Admin rights. RobS has pushed for accountability for sysops and clear banning rules. It speaks volumes about you three. The one person calling for user friendly changes should lose his rights, while the man/woman/man-child/eunuch who bans the dissenters, burns evidence of dissent, and writes asinine articles on casual relationships present in any demographic, should continue unabated? No, you are a large factor in the farce that is Conservapedia.

:Conservapedia has yet to gain any large-scale positive attention. No high-profile conservatives have endorsed Conservapedia. This project can't even attract many good faith editors. Many who come in get banned at the door. Those who make it through are immediately suspected parodists. Those who toe the CP line too hard are branded as parodists and banned. Those who deviate from the CP line are vandals and banned. When a user disagrees with a sysop they are banned. If they disagree with you in particular, they are banned and the relevant talk page is burned. CP bans for ideological differences and censors dissent. As long as this behavior continues CP will never be a respectful source. RobS is pushing to change this. His proposed changes won't end the problem, but it is certainly a large step forward from the current system.

:User:Conservative, you are the one who needs to lose admin rights for your obvious abuse of power, not RobS. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::While I do not agree with all of CP's material, Concerned women of America (CWA), Human Events, Patriot Update (PU) and other conservative websites have linked to CP in a positive way (CWA and PU linked to material I had a substantial hand in if memory serves). Please try to have an informed opinion rather than merely an opinion. Second, I am not of the opinion that the number of people advocating a position is paramount. Neither did America's Founding Fathers who set up a republic and not a democracy. While I do not agree with all of Ann Coulter's political positions (the military, etc.), I am considering reading my first Ann Coulter book which focuses on how liberals love mob rule. Third, you certainly did prove your claim that anyone or anyone who disagrees with me, I ban or that I oversight all those disagree with me. I would also point out that RobS banned me and I never never banned him. It could be argued that in many ways I have shown more tolerance of him than he has afforded me. And all of this could have been avoided. All RobS had to do was stop pestering concerning inane and non-urgent matters. I wonder if RobS likes to poke sleeping dogs over and over and then complain when they bite him. And lately, RobS's poor behavior has gone significantly beyond merely pestering me which I mentioned on this talk page before it was whitewashed away (RobS recommended doing the whitewashing). As a result, I said enough is enough and sided with those who think he should lose his Admin rights. I do think he should be able to earn back his Admin if he admits his wrongdoing and behaves in a more positive manner for a period of time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::You have twice now made the very serious charge that I reverted other Admin's comments on my own talk page, with no diffs as evidence, which I pointedly deny. I do not have Oversight privileges, either. If comments you made to my talk page were reverted, deleted, or oversighted, it could not have possibly be done by me. Now, please desist from your personal attacks impugning my reputation, character, and integrity as Conservapedia Sysop. I edit under my real life identity, and I suggest you immediately desist from these unfounded personal attacks. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:46, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

I specified high profile conservatives, I said nothing of websites. Either way, [http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1350/comparisonv.png this link compares Conservapedia, the three websites you mentioned, and a comic strip.] As you can see, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is bigger than all of them. So I feel safe saying CP has no large scale positive support. Furthermore, there are no Congressmen or Senators that have endorsed CP. To my knowledge there are no candidates that have endorsed CP either.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of open discussion of problems. They did not stifle discussion by suddenly becoming busy when challenged, or by doing whatever the 18th century equivalent of locking their talk pages was. The Founding Fathers also had a large problem with men abusing their power.

That's where you come in. Let's look at your block reasons. Of course, I can only provide the diff logs for a few of these, you've burned most of the pages:

''15:45, 6 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Soxwon04 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (having a sentence with an unsupported clause followed by a question. waste someone else's time)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''04:10, 7 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked XavierC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki)'' [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/XavierC Here] is his contribs. He called you out for locking your talk page and stifling debate, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=886852 here.] Yes, he called you a coward, but this is extremely common for you to do other people.

''16:49, 29 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Haggger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo)'' Burned diff logs. How can we evaluate his actions?
''02:00, 2 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked SNg (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार [Masculinity is not behaving])'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''21:55, 25 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Sasayaki (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize )'' Contribs is blank, I remember this one. User answered the Question Evolution Campaign and asked own questions to you. Oh, boo-hoo he linked to RW. He disagreed with you, took up your debate, and you deleted the evidence.

''02:41, 24 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Atheistlogic1995 (Talk | contribs) wit''h an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (oxymoron)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''18:25, 1 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked PapaBear (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (too much talk, talk not enough serious enditing)'' User made three posts, two of them talk pages, one of which was remember to add his sig. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=873210 Offending post here.] Criticizes gossip in the BHO article.

''00:34, 28 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Jclough (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''22:54, 15 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aleksyevt (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Yeah, he talked a lot. You know what else he did? Ask for more sources, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Agnosticism&diff=prev&oldid=869530 here.]

Ten examples within you're last 120 blocks: 8.3% Seven of these had blank contribs pages. How can we even analyze this? You are showing no accountability in your position of power on this wiki. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 16:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::JonS, you are still wrong. [[Matt Barber]] and [[William Dembski]] linked to Conservapedia in a positive light as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia|HERE]]. I personally know that a leader in a extremely well known Christian organization linked to CP's atheism and evolution articles which I largely wrote (Please do not forget the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don't know about various links does not mean they do not exist. :) ). Second, please feel free to have your liberal/evolutionists/atheists bean counter friends scour through my blocks and tabulate and examine them. I would hope they have bigger fish to fry in their lives, but I am not particularly concerned if they do. The truth is that those who whine and kvetch about me in the vast majority of cases do so because of the atheism/evolution articles I largely created at CP. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Please provide a link to this "extremely well known Christian organization." You should also acknowledge your wanton abuse of power. You can spin a quick look into your block log however you like, but that does not change you ban people for disagreeing with you, and that you burn the evidence of it. You are complained about for two reasons: 1) you abuse your sysop powers. 2) Your atheist/evolution articles are non-encyclopedic. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ha! Demski links to Conservapedia in a "positive light"? The best that he says is that a part of the Conservapedia [[Climategate]] article "...does not sound entirely far fetched". A ringing endorsement! As for Matt Barber, no link is provided and a search of the CWA website (that you refer to in reference to him) for "Conservapedia" comes up with no results. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would like to note something here. Just because a user's contributions are blank does not mean that they didn't make contributions. I assume that they made inappropriate articles, or in some cases, did not follow the proper username policies. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::This has been a serious problem. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:02, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
The userpages are left blank because Conservative has oversighted the pages they contributed to. There are two people who have names technically in violation of the rules on the list. Neither of them are said to be blocked for that reason. Given the people who have been blocked for 90/10 violations, I assume they disagreed with Conservative, he seems to block for that (Aleksyevt, PapaBear, and Sasayaki all criticized him). Even if they made inappropriate articles, Conservative should only delete them, rather than burn them, then we can be aware of these blocks, and he can be accountable, a concept he seems unfamiliar with. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 19:20, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== In an effort to end this continued and protracted debate ==

This has gone one for long enough. Both editors, RobS and Conservative, have used personal comments against each other and both have argued from opposite corners but to no avail. Why don't they '''both''' lose their sysop rights for a time - then they can prove themselves once more. I know I am just a new user but still, this is going on and on without resolution. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, in the absence of RobS pestering me again or engaging in additional very egregious behavior, I have spoken my piece on this matter. I have a feeling that RobS will either lose his Admin rights in the next 1-5 days or keep shooting himself in the foot through his poor behavior and cause his own demise or he will alter his course. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I feel, and I am sure that many other observers would agree, that you are both guilty of poor behaviour, personal attacks and actions unbecoming of someone in a position of power. I am a mere observer and carry no weight of course but it is people like me who come to conservapedia to contribute and who'll be turned off by protracted arguments, reverting and disappearing of editors comments, accusations and poorly thought out essays and ongoing in fighting. Which you are both guilty of (one in more areas than the other). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, if your words carry no weight, then why offer them? Frankly, given the substance of your recent post to me I have to agree with you on this point. Now that we both agree that your words carry no weight, I won't feel bad ignoring you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::carry no weight as in no authority not because of lack of substance. All I was trying to do was be even handed, rational and end the pointed bickering. But since you have insulted me, and not for the first time, I leave you to ignore me. Frankly for someone that calls atheist quarrelsome and socially challenged you certainly seem to be showing similar traits yourself. As a Christian I avoid insults and try to be polite and fair and as I don't feel I can continue to be so I'll have to end my response here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You end your comments by calling him a hypocrite, then claim to avoid insults?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:19, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I think that Max is selling himself short. He has shown himself to be a calm and considered editor. His input should be valued and I would ask that he continue to participate in this discussion. SeanS, on the other hand, has shown himself incapable of staying on topic. In the section [[User_talk:Aschlafly#RobS_becoming_a_pawn_and_a_.22useful_idiot.22_of_an_atheist_website|above]] he totally derailed the discussion in an attempt to attack me. However, his input is also welcome if he can stay on topic and avoid irrelevant personal attacks.

I would like to voice my view of Max's original post in this section. I do not see why Rob should lose any rights. So far as I can see he has worked hard to improve this site and introduce reform that would only benefit the site. He has been met by a series of largely unreferenced slurs by Conservative who clearly regards his own position as under threat. If Rob were to lose rights it would send out the message that anyone who seeks to improve the site is putting their own position at risk. I do not regard that as a positive message. On the other hand I have no difficulty with Conservative losing admin rights. His history is one of abuse and failure to co-operate as has been demonstrated above and elsewhere again and again. I have no personal animosity towards him/her but he/she stands in the way of this site ever becoming a serious educational tool. That is regrettable but it is also an unavoidable conclusion. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:59, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
===One second...===
This is Andy Schlafly's talk page, so shouldn't he be the one to decide on this? He has not posted anything yet, so I assume he is busy. Perhaps we should wait until his decision? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 19:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Amen. Can we please show the man a little respect by giving him a chance to respond? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::If andy wanted to reply, he could have by now. If he is going to, he will when he considers it best. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:18, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:::It's no secret that Andy has quite a number of projects on his plate, Sean. He's a busy man with a lot of demands on his time. It's entirely possible that he hasn't had a chance to look at any of this yet. Whether he has or not, though, the point remains: this is his talk page. It is a place to communicate with him, not to carry on general debates with all and sundry. In the interest of putting my money where my mouth is, I will be refraining from further posts here. I urge others to do the same. Both Conservative and RobS have said their piece; Andy will respond as he chooses and in his own time, as is his perogative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::: ''If he is going to, he will when he considers it best.''--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

==My two cents for Mr Schlafly==

I have been reading conservapedia for several months now, and I am pleased to say that my kids (11 and 14) also use it as their first point of call when needing encyclopedic information for homework assignments etc). I have not signed up an account as I do not feel knowledgeable (or tech-savvy) enough to contribute anything meaningful. However I fell compelled to chime in here regarding the ongoing discussion regarding the direction of this website. Cards on the table now: I am a conservative Christian and I read and encourage my kids to read this website because it promotes true American values. The main page is my "go to point" for the latest news, as the administrators here seem to have an uncanny knack of highlighting exactly the kind of stories I am interested in, I am also pleased to say that the article evolution has given my kids plenty of knowledge that is censored from them in school (and the satires have brought us all many hearty chuckles! :) ). From what little I know of this website, User:Conservative has contributed a huge amount of first-rate material and wishes to maintain the integrity of this site as a reliable conservative Christian resource, whilst User:Rob Smith (maybe with a view to enlarging the target audience?) wishes to make the site more liberal and cater to atheistic views. There are plenty of liberal atheistic sites out there, I choose not to read them. I choose to read conservapedia. Please don't change that Mr Schlafly. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 20:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy) ==

Deep breath and here we go...

These are my thoughts on the blocking policy, somewhat directed at Conservative's proposals.

1) Blocking for obvious vandals is, well, obvious. Blanking pages, filling pages with gibberish, vulgar or stupid names, etc. is just childish and such children should have a time out - a long time out. I don't believe a lot of time or effort needs to be spent establishing rules for those cases.

2) Parody, as noted elsewhere on this page, is much harder to discern. I have noticed recent blocks (and no, I'm not going to go search for them - I'm not here to point fingers) that have been questionable, in my opinion. There needs to be a set and fairly easy procedure where a blocked editor who feels their block was unfair can present his/her/its case. Chances are that most blocks are good, but in cases where there was a misunderstanding, or a personality clash, a ''disinterested'' admin needs to step in.

3) I've already suggested a board of some type, consisting of both admins and regular editors. Given the number of appeals can't be known ahead of time, setting a regular schedule might not be warranted. The board could meet when a certain number (4 or 5?) appeals have been presented and make their decision, with Andy possibly reviewing it and putting his seal of approval on it. Notifications of the board meeting should be posted prominently on the front page. A talk page could be provided with a list of editors who are appealing their block. This would allow others who are not on the board but who might have a direct interest could express their opinion. There might also be a rule with regards to a blocked editor who has been restored and their subsequent behavior.

4) As for the makeup of the board – right now I feel that should be decided later, when tempers have cooled a bit. One possible idea is to make it a rotating membership, with say, a six-month tenure. This would prevent the board duties from becoming too onerous a task for the individual members.

On a personal note, I would like to request that the editors here at CP remember that debates and discussions about articles, essays and even questionable editors should be about the actual ''edits'' that have been made, not about the editors' personalities. I realize it can be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!)
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, if you eventually gain Sysop status, I would work on getting a blocking review board going. Putting notices of the board meeting on the front page will never realistically happen though. I would also suggest having the meetings occur according to a specified time period for predictability (bi-monthly, monthly, every two months, etc. ) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:29, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== My proposed solution to the current crisis ==
My understanding is that the the [[User:CPanel|Student Panel]] has the final word on all matters related to the site. Why don't we put the following questions to them?

* Who is wrong here? Conservative, RobS, neither or both?
* In the event that they determine that one or both of them has acted inappropriately, what should happen to them? (Temporary block, permanent block, demotion, etc)
* Is the current block policy sufficient and appropriate?
* If not, what policy would be?

I feel this is the only solution left. God Bless. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 00:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

::'''''We''''' shouldn't present it to them - it should be either Conservative or Rob who bring the case before the panel, since it involves them. Andy could, if he prefers to remain neutral in this case, have the panel look over the situation. If there are any other editors who are ''directly'' involved, then they too might have a reason to take it before the panel. The rest of us are onlookers and we should all cease involving ourselves into the matter. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I appreciate the concern SharonW. I should have asked Aschlafly intervene earlier as far as RobS as it would have been a better use of time. He would have been glad to do it. As far as a blocking policy, I put together what I thought was a workable block review policy framework and maybe someone will pick up that ball and run with it. I said I may help develop a blocking review policy in the fall, but the more I think about it that was wishful thinking. I have decided to pursue other matters. As far as the RobS matter, from what I have been told Aschalfly is going to review matters in the very near future and decide what to do. I have said my piece on the matter and have decided to move on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:37, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Does the Panel still exist?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 01:18, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::[[User:SharonW|SharonW]], I respectfully disagree. RobS and Conservative are creating a problem for the whole community and it is therefore the responsibility of the whole community to see that it gets solved. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 02:21, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The point is moot, anyway; the Student Panel's [[User Talk:CPanel|talk page]] is locked. If they're watching, or if someone has the ability to bring this issue to them, I urge that person to do so. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:55, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Sorry Fergus, but the student panel may as well not exist. "Conservative" completely coopted the Evolution article for his own YEC purposes, which is expressly contrary to the student panel's instructions, yet nobody's heard a peep from the student panel in 4+ years. If it was watching don't you think it would have intervened in that situation years ago? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 19:17, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have checked into the record and it appear the CP Student Panels' ruling only applies to the evolution article, as I cannot find any record anywhere it extends beyond that. It may have at one time, but there is no record now of it. I may be wrong in this interpretation. Also, a recent question has arisen whether to ruling still stands or is valid, as the current version is not the one the Student Panel endorsed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:08, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Moving on..... ==

What about both parties calling it quits and letting the encyclpedia move forward. In the mean time, user:conservative can perhaps,

1. Tone down his abuse of people with other belief patterns.

2. Consider getting his articles reworded by a native English speaker as the prose style of "Indian English" appears quite different to what people of United States of America or most of the western world is used to. --[[User:PHilton|PHilton]] 08:54, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:They should move on but conservative must make changeS?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking review ==

I strongly believe the only true way to have a fair blocking policy is to have users who are willing to review blocks. I've been worried about the implications of what amounts to block-reverting, but I'm confident enough in the sysop community that I don't think any user would object to having a second pair of eyes look at a block; I also think it's important that users who really think they've been unfairly blocked be able to make their case and in some cases be given a second chance. It's been said we don't have the manpower for such reviews, but I think we're overestimating the number of users who would take the time to ask for review on a block. I've publicly listed my email on my [[User:Iduan|userpage]] for users who do wish to do so.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:58, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:I've raised the idea of a [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&diff=prev&oldid=894420 Blocking Foreman] to review and councel blocking editors as a way to gain a uniform standard to interpret CP blocking policy. But the position would require some muscle. I haven't worked out a formal proposal on it yet. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::I like the idea of this, but I think your mistaken as to the number of active bureaucrats the site has. The number is one, maybe two. You can see all of them [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=bureaucrat here]. "Admin"'s last edit was four years ago, CPWebmaster's was 8 months ago, and SharonS's was 2 years ago.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:27, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Policies that need to die: Editorial Authority ==

*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=893605&oldid=893603 DouglasA removes a list of games from a game franchise article]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=894046&oldid=893605 SeanS reverts this (IMHO senseless) deletion]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASeanS&year=&month=-1 DouglasA blocks SeanS for two weeks: "Reverting admin"]
Anybody see what is wrong in this picture? Anybody? You, the man in the top hat! What was that? "It's sysop abuse to block somebody for a simple revert?" BZZZZZZZZZZZT! WRONG! DouglasA is absolutely in the right here.

''It's the rules that are messed up.''

I feel it's time we take a closer look at one of the more silent policies of Conservapedia: Editorial authority!

So what is Editorial Authority? Let's take a look at [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]]:
*'''Do not revert an Administrator's changes without first discussing it with them, and gaining their permission. Administrators are in charge of deciding the editorial policy of Conservapedia. Their instruction(s) on such matters are always to be followed.'''

In other words: If an administrator edits a mainspace article to read "General Relativity causes breast cancer", then normal editors are not allowed to remove that without asking for permission. If said permission doesn't come, then tough luck, go edit something else, liberal.

This is why this block is perfectly within the rules. And even a five-year block would have been fine - after all, we don't have any guidelines about block durations.

It's also an ''excellent'' illustration that something is deeply wrong here.

Can we ''please'' get rid of this obscure rule? It's one of the worst policies ever introduced and completely kills off the wiki spirit through the most literal form of "Might makes right". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:I absolutely and completely agree with you, Sid 3050. This rule needs a '''''lot''''' of clarification. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:15, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think that the 2 week block was too harsh, but I disagree with the idea that the rule should be revoked. Administrators are supposed to be chosen for their judgement, and there's nothing wrong with requiring some discussion beforehand--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:02, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I agree completely, and I firmly believe that this is CP's biggest flaw. Admins should not be considered as having a greater say editorially than other editors. A wiki is a collaborative endeavour and this rule completely inverts this process and turns editors right off. I know it turns people off because I remember once hammering out a compromise on some (minor) articles talkpage with various people about how an article should begin, only to have an admin come in and tell us that our input was not required. My editing slowed right down after that. If you want to run a blog, then run a blog, if you want a wiki then lets have a wiki. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Mr. Schlalfy approved [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 changes to the Conservapedia:Guidelines] on July 23 2011, with copies sent to DMorris, Jpatt, TerryH, EdPoor, User:Conservative, and myself. User:DouglasA may not have been aware of the change. It was my mistake in not removing that language immediately from the Editing Etiquette page. The specific language removed no longer gives Sysops dictatorial charge over editors, as was the subject of numerous complaints in recent years. I apologize to any editors this change may have inconvenienced. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:25, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am new user here but how am I supposed to know what has been added by an administrator? Do I have to find names of every administrator in the past and then check every edit in an article before I can change anything? And what about edits made before someone became an administrator, are they also inviolable? It all seems very confusing to me. --[[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:44, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Thank you, [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ==
I wanted to leave this on [[User_talk:Karajou|your talk page]], but it was protected. Let me be the first to thank you for handling the RobS problem. We don't need agitators here, which is what he was. So once again, thank you. Finally we can have peace around here and [[User:Conservative]] can get back to his writings without certain people trying to stifle him. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 13:13, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-31T17:13:41Z

FergusE: /* Policies that need to die: Editorial Authority */

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-31T17:13:15Z

FergusE:

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-31T17:12:58Z

FergusE:

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-31T17:11:52Z

FergusE:

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-29T19:55:39Z

FergusE: /* My proposed solution to the current crisis */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires ==

I thought about RobS wanting to make it a more open wiki and so I decided to remove the talk page protection for the comedy/satire pages on atheism and evolution

I put the redirects and page protection to add to the humor of the comedy/satire pages. Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see: [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]] ). The thought of quarrelsome militant atheists hitting the talk page buttons of those comedy/satire pieces and getting redirected to another page had a element of humor to me. Like getting the last laugh to often humorless persons in humorous way. Plus, I just don't see the point of it. I don't foresee me participating in the talk pages of these comedy/satire pages in the future. The idea of debating comedy/satire/humor does not hold any interest to me. If any liberals want to debate humor, I suggest they contact their locale papers about their political satires or send any angry letter to some stand up comics. In addition, I don't see the point of bothering with the posts of whiny atheists with thin skins who want to make picayune and inane comments.

With the above said, obviously there are cost and benefits to decisions and I wanted to assist RobS in his aforementioned effort.

However, I don't want anyone unlocking the comedy/satire pages themselves. Some have a lot of viewership and if they are not broke, I don't want them "fixed" - especially by atheists/evolutionists. Within reason, I personally think essay pages should be like a person's talk page and be their castles. The thought of someone altering essays seems odd to me except for minor proofreading. Of course, I would be against the essays promoting immorality such as engaging in bank robberies, etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:53, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I returned to tie up a loose end with editor Nate. With that being said, I just wanted to say that if atheists in the future wish to fill those talk pages with whiny comments, it will of course confirm atheists are often proud people who have thin skins so I welcome them to squeal like stuck pigs on the comedy/satire talk pages. :) I won't be reading their whiny comments, but I am guessing that others might enjoy seeing them whelp on the talk pages of the comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

My conversation with "Conservative" was removed after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review it. What is the meaning of this outrageous behavior? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::It was in the section above this one. The posts are from yesterday. "Conservative" deleted the whole section after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review "Conservative's" insulting behavior and state whether the editorial policy here is YEC as to articles like evolution. I don't know how to find the posts. Can administrators look at the history? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=887044&oldid=887012 this] part of what you're talking about? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes, thank you. That's the last post in the section "Conservative" deleted. How do you find pages like that? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:21, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There's a little tab at the top of the page labeled 'history'; click on that and you get a list of changes starting with the most recent. Hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:23, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Very much, thank you. I knew abut my contributions button but didn't know about history. I now see that entire discussions that took place in December between "Conservative" and various users challenging the absolute lack of evidence of any correlation between atheism and obesity have completely disappeared. What is going on on this site?! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:38, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Now that's something one does need to be an administrator to answer. I try to stay out of these things. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Nate, the comment was never deleted, or reverted. It was Archived. I would be supportive of a guideline on Archiving that gives a 7 day waiting period since the last posting before Archiving. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I didn't know what an archive is. Thank you for showing me, RobS. All I saw was that the conversation was suddenly missing. It was archived around 11:30 Central time and I had to get to bed so I never had a chance to see "Conservative's" last post ending the conversation by "stating the obvious" and further denigrating the Catholic Church as "not the most Bible loving institution" and saying "I really think it is hard to deny that much of the Catholic leadership and a significant amount of RCC scholars fail to take a high view of Scripture." I deny it. I deny it up and down and am getting and more offended as "Conservative" continues slandering the Catholic Church. It may surprise "Conservative" to know that people just like me read the Bible (there are a LOT of us) literally where the context indicates it should be read literally. People can obviously come to different conclusions based on ''how'' they decide what is to be read literally. Young Earth Creationists like "Conservative" treat the first chapters of Genesis as history. I was taught and accept the "Framework View". Our disagreement should not entitle "Conservative" to slander an entire Church and an enormous group of people who walk the walk everyday. Will someone please help get this person under control and stop the sneering anti-Catholic jabs and clarify whether YEC is the editorial policy here? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:32, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Nate, you never addressed information like this that I provided from the online version of Roman Catholic New American Bible: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm which gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture. The website http://www.usccb.org is maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I suggest you cease your denialism. You can cry slander day and night, but unless you demonstrate it, you are not particularly convincing. By the way, it appears things are not looking good for evolutionism in the key biology textbook state of Texas as can be seen [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html HERE] Have a nice day! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::What's to address? You're laughably wrong. You gave a link to the introduction to Second Peter in an edition of the Bible but haven't even bothered to justify your offensive claim that it "gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture." These men are bishops of the Catholics Church. What do you think they're doing if they're not devoting their lives in service of a "high view of scripture"? You also haven't demonstrated why scholarship questioning the provenance of Second Peter is wrong. So you've failed altogether to do anything more than argue by assertion based on an absurdly erroneous misreading of the source. And I'm in denial? You can't even accurately cite sources in order to prop up your vendetta against "liberals", atheists, "evolutionists" now Catholics. I looked at this shockofgod stuff you keep spamming. The guy looks like a Youtube crank running his mouth about an ambitious campaign that's having little or no effect. Good luck with that. I'll ignore him like everyone else seems to be doing. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I see that you can safely be ignored. How is your request for Andy's input going? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy's refusal to intervene to stop your abuses is disappointing. The smiley face and your insulting non response just prove my point that you're an awful debater who refuses to address things on the level or cooperate. I'm very sorry for this site that no other admin except this sneering creature chose to intervene. Please close my account if no other admin is willing to assist with controlling this person. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 02:44, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Well geez, what are you asking? Pardon me, but your complaints seem to be all over the map. First you complain about a possible anti-Catholic bias because the assertion is made the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as arbiter of God's Word and not scripture; then you make complaints about the user your in dispute with; then you complain about the sites owner; then you complain nobody's willing to help; then you complain about the site. Now you wanna take your ball and go home cause others can't debate whatever you are driving at.
:Let's address the complaint of anti-Catholic bias: other sites, devoted to athiesm and rational science, I'm sure are much less sympathetic to Catholicism than the devotion and respect it recieves here. Have you tried defending the Catholic faith at those sites? If so, gimme a link so we can see your bona fidas. Maybe then your complaints would be taken more seriously. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Resolution of matters ==

[[User:Conservative]] wrote: ''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved, CP not becoming a pro-evolution website''. My proposal: when a matter is resolved, a short (but highlighted) statement should be added under the respective discussion, summarizing the achieved consensus. After this, the discussion can be archived.

[[User:Conservative]] stated that [[Gender-neutral|he]] won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has [[Gender-neutral|he]] said something about them?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative said so above, "''''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved''". I'm not certain restoring all, or certain, talk page deletions are possible. And mainspace, such as the link you provided, are simple reversions or edit wars. Am I understanding your question properly? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:28, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will use more discretion as far as the delete button so as not to remove credit to other contributions. Including this time, I have said this three times now. I suggest you stop beating this dead horse and let it rest in peace. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

:::@RobSmith: I thought that Conservative's comment indicated that some issues had been resolved. And that's my point: After having a problem resolved, there should be an easily readable short resolution, perhaps a template which states in which way the matter was solved. After this, the topic could be archived. This would help to avoid repeating the same discussions over and over again - one could link to the already resolved project. Just an idea for the future...
:::BTW: I linked each occurence of ''he'' to the article on [[gender-neutral|gender-neutrality]], as I wanted to explain why I won't address [[User:Conservative]] as ''(s)he''.
:::@Conservative: it's nice that you'll ''"use more discretion as far as the delete button"'' is concerned. What's about using the ''preview-button'' - as taken into consideration by you [[User talk:AugustO# You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration|here]]?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::AugustO, thanks for the input. A person I invited to this wiki who created a very popular article at Conservapedia told me he created his material on a word processor first and then transferred that material to Conservapedia. I can use this same approach. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Perhaps user:conservative would like to tell us why he has taken to summarily deleting other users' user and talk pages. This would appear to be in contravention of the spirit of free speech that Mr Schlafly [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=887947&oldid=887941 encourages] on this wiki.

Sadly, this is yet another indication of user:conservative's complete lack of interest in the protocols of this wiki, nor is he interested in anything but himself and his own agenda, even if it means insulting Catholics like NKeaton and Mr. Schlafly. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:54, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::TracyS, I don't think you are a sincere person and your most recent instance of trying to pick a fight with me over a complete trivial non-issue. Please find something productive to do rather than making baseless charges and trying to waste other peoples time. Also, if you truly felt I have insulted Mr. Schlafly I would think you would have contacted him about this matter. Unsurprisingly, I have no indication you did. My guess is that if you did try to make this allegation with Mr. Schlafly you would get the same non-response as NKeaton. I have nothing further to say about deleting a person's page who indicated they no longer wanted to edit. I also have nothing further to say about recently deleting another profile with nonsensical and contradictory material created by an inane provocateur. If you think I am going to waste a lot of my time dealing with your melodramatic and phony posts to me, guess again. I am not. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::User:Conservative has in the past several hours reverted talk page comment from Aschlafly's page. Stop. Please stop. You are not Aschlafly. This is a violation of another's user space. You are not free to remove comments from other users space. If Mr. Schlafly wanted those comments removed he would do it himself or ask someone to do it. Mr. Schlafly removed personal information from that same thread; if Mr. Schalfly wanted that thread removed he would have done it there and then. User:Conservativis action is disrespectful to another users talk page, and all CP editors.
:::User:Conservative has gained quite the reputation for information destruction. This wiki has survived some battles, and now is the time to demand accountability from Sysop. Sysops are to be models of interaction for junior editors, but they are not whenthey feel they can violate and ignore CP's core principles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside your allegation about my reputation information destruction (A claim which I find odd given my 63 page article on [[atheism]] which I largely wrote, 46 written page article on [[evolution]] which I largely wrote and a 62 written page article [[homosexuality]] which I largely wrote. Perhaps, I have a reputation for information dissemination? ), I will briefly say that you raise a good point in this instance. A person's talk page is their castle. Although I decided to remove my own post, I do think it would have been better if I had asked Mr. Schlafly first. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and changing the way I do things. RobS, can the same be said of you? I have yet to receive an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page. You may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle. Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter? You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that. But I would at ask you to be consistent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is not your talk page. It is Mr. Schalfly's. Your talk page is your castle, do what you want with it. But other's talk pages must be respected. If the comment was innapropriate, it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. And users who troll other's talk pages generally get blocked. Both are blockable offenses, and edit warring over it is another. You need to be an example for sysop wannabe's, both (a) how to interact with other editors, and (b) how ''not'' to misuse sysop powers. There is entirely too much shoot-from-the-hip with you in all of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:31, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm concerned that the focus here isn't necessarily in the right spot, and I apologize for not having contributed to the community portal earlier - I'd been on a series of summer vacations visiting family up and down the East Coast. Frankly, I think it's acceptable if some leeway is given to comments written by the user, even if on another user's talk page. Do I think it's ideal to post a comment and then remove it? No, but the wiki doesn't break down if it happens. In the same sense that it's acceptable to fix typos in your posts, I think it's acceptable - though again, not ideal - for a user to determine that his post might no longer be relevant, or perhaps was redundant, and take it upon himself to delete said post (assuming no other users have contributed to the discussion).

I must admit I was previously more concerned with the wholesale deletion and recreation of pages, but I think that a lot of progress has been made on that issue thanks in large part to Rob, so my commenting would serve no real purpose.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, if you want to lead in this area, you need to lead by example. I still not have received an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page.
::::And you're not gonna get one.
:::Again, you may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle.
::::Then leave other people's castle alone.
:::Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter?
::::Am I gonna recieve an apology from you for your rudeness? Stop reverting, deleting, and oversighting discussions I am involved in.
:::You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that.
::::Thanks, I didn't know I needed your approval.
:::But I would at ask you to be consistent.
::::Here's consistancy: STOP ABUSING YOUR SYSOP POWERS!
:::I have a feeling that no apology will be forthcoming.
::::It ain't.
:::Regrettably, I have to say that I have downgraded my expectations for your success with your project in instituting new rules and getting their requisite enforcement.
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
:::I feel it will be impeded by you wanting to throw your weight around and not showing a willingness to admit your own mistakes and to abide by existing rules. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Don’t lecture me on the rules, pal. You’ve never shown an interest in policy development or writing sysop rules. All you’ve done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilities of people trying to contribute, and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] 23:30, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:If "a person's talk page is their castle," why do you keep deleting and recreating other peoples' talk pages/castles? [[User:RodneyA|RodneyA]] 23:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have already address this matter. I will further add that unlike Aschafly I did have JPatt's and Karajou agreement to mess around with their castles. :) In addition, Aschlafly is not particularly upset with me and has not poured oil down upon me from his castle walls. :) Lastly, I standby my action with NKeaton and the person I blocked and have no further commentary! Adios! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::RobS, I just saw your post. I suggest if you have a good case as far as some of your allegations that you take it up with Mr. Schlafly and with all due haste. I suggest you do that right now. I don't think that is gong to happen and even if you tried, I don't think it would go anywhere. We both know this. I don't mind altering my behavior due to reasonable requests. I think you should take a good hard look at how Iduan and August is approaching matters as I think you will have far more success. I do find it sad that your oversized ego and hot temper are getting in the way of admitting you erred concerning violating policy on my talk page.
:::Admit you erred in reverting, deleting, archiving, and oversighting active discussions I was involved in, blocking some participants without cause, and deleting their user pages. And let's understand this straight out -- this discussion is not about roasting User:Conservative, it is about developing guidleines and policies for editor and sysop conduct. You my good man, are simply the posterboy for abuse because of your unresponsiveness to other editors.
:::So you can cease right here and now with personal attacks about others ego, etc. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:40, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::Good luck with pushing your reforms with your present attitude and inconsistency. Next, I will certainly admit that with TK around I wasn't exactly an eager beaver as far as developing policies. I have from day one had my primary focus be content creation and related matters. I don't regret my decision. I think at this point, we should just avoid needlessly butting heads and get along as much as possible. I think I have clarified my position sufficiently and responded to other comments sufficiently. Despite your personal shortcomings and your recent behavior towards me, I have no ill will towards you and I hope your initiative bears fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. Let's work together to improve the wiki. I too, was always focused on content, but now we have the opportunity to overcome earlier mistakes the CP project made in ''not'' providing adequate guidelines and development support for sysops and editors. Registered users should be ''encouraged'' to contribute, and worked with to help develop their talents, not suspected as trolls from the minute they register, hounded, stalked, and blocked before they perform their first edit. The sysops that remain in this project must seriously review our shortcomings and recognize much of what we've tried has failed. I propose we overhaul our existing written policies and guidelines, and present them to the site's owner for input and ratification. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Thanks for the cordial response. A pointless wiki battle doesn't serve anyone. I am working on making some changes as well which I believe could make a big change if they were implemented. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

===Reform movement===

:::<s>User:Conservative ... firstly I can't find what you accuse RobS of doing in your page log - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AConservative - there's no record of an "unprotection".</s> ('''update''': I was mistaken - an unprotection did occur; I stand by my second point. Apologies for the mistake.) Secondly, I think the notion that, without an apology for a, <s>presumably</s>, one-time mistake, Rob's efforts have no legitimacy, is an absurd one - and so is the notion that this is only Rob's crusade. Rob started an attempt at reform, and I think we'd all say he deserves many kudos for doing so, but it's on all of us to build a better encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Iduan, I had asked RobS for clarification and received no response. Regardless, RobS's recent behavior towards me still has caused me to downgrade my expectations. Frankly, my expectations were not that high to begin with, but I had hoped for the best. Personally, I think the first order of business is to enforce existing core rules such as citing your sources which is given in the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia commandments]]. The people I requested to create content Conservapedia cited their sources and those articles are among the most popular articles at Conservapedia. However, most if not all wikis, are under sourced. I do think Conservapedia could do better in this area and I think the Admin group could do better in this department and lead by example. I may have ignored the preview button for various reasons and I am not against altering my behavior at this stage, but giving my sources has been a strong point of my content. Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time. Higher quality content, on the other hand, often gets ranked at the search engines and is more apt to bring in new readers and new editors. Non-quality content serves as a deterrent to gaining new editors. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:56, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I absolutely agree that citing sources is important - I think that's something that I've certainly been very careful to do in almost all my articles, but of course every user, including myself, could always do better. As to the preview button: I'm not especially concerned with the preview button and its usage. I think the question here, though, is what must sysops be subservient to? Obviously, Andy is the final authority, but regulating every sysops behavior would be a waste of time on his part. So I think what we all are trying to accomplish is some sort of explicit guidelines that will allow users to know what to expect from sysops, as well as allow sysops to police each-other and point out if one has erred.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
::::::*We need clearly defined blockng policy.
::::::*We need clearly defined deletion policy.
::::::*We need a definition of vandalism.
::::::*We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
::::::*We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
::::::*We need a definition of good faith.
::::::*We need to end this hideous "member of a vandal site" cause for blocking, which I can find no precedent anywhere how it came into existence, other than TK invented it out of whole cloth.
::::::*We need to end blocking on sight. Some sysops must run traceroute before a user makes thier first edit. This is not showing good faith and a terrible example to set.
::::::*We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
::::::*We need a definition of consensus.
::::::*And a few other things. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Iduan, some of Conservapedia's biggest missteps have been the result of poor sourcing and poor research which inevitably lead to poor content in those instances and this has happened to all wikis and not just Conservapedia. Second, I had told RobS that I had wanted to attend to this matter at another time and frankly RobS knows it could have waited as I told him privately that I had wanted to tackle other non-wiki matters and would not be creating much content and be far less active at Conservapedia in the short term. Plus, I think some of his charges towards me are ill conceived and ill supported. This is what convinces me that RobS has a problem with throwing his weight around and showboating. Furthermore, his refusal to apologize for removing the protection of my talk page further adds to this assessment. Did I want to say this about RobS? Was I trying to undermine his efforts? No. I said I wished him the best and until today I had chosen to remain silent about my reservations in terms of the success of his initiative. Does this mean that I think the project is doomed and RobS cannot change his behavior. No and I hope he does. I would suggest he start showing more good faith towards me and stop pestering me. I have no problems with being cordial towards RobS and cooperating with his initiatives, but it has to be a two way street in terms of respecting each other and our efforts. If RobS chooses to repair things I think that would be great and I could be among his biggest supporters. If he continues to show bad faith that would be most unfortunate. The balls is in his court now. I am certainly not going to support someone who is pestering me though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, I would add that it would not surprise me if the content/allegations/tone of this portal has caused Mr. Schlafly not to participate in this portal. I would think that RobS would want Aschlafly as a big supporter and for him to participate in this community portal. That certainly would be a big boost to his efforts. Have I told Mr. Schlafly how wonderful this community portal is? No, I have not. I said that although some good points were raised, I certainly had some reservations on how things were being conducted. Again, I would suggest that RobS cease and desist his pesterfest as I would far prefer being a wholesale supporter of this initiative than being a skeptical detractor who hopes for the best, but has some open reservations as far its potential for success. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

I think the biggest concern about delaying the conversation is that it will be delayed indefinitely; obviously any contributions that you can add despite your schedule are extra-appreciated. Its certainly reasonable to have a small delay, but without a timeline that's hard to do. I can't serve as a medium between you/Rob, but I do think no user is purposely pestering another; I think any bluntness can be attributed to the supposed urgency of the moment that all wikis are subject to, and not to hostility.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:Iduan, I do thank you for your cordiality and reasonableness. Despite some inappropriate conduct, I do think some positive benefits have resulted from this portal. As far as RobS pestering me, I think it was the result of impatience and ego and not being particularly concerned about another editor. I don't think his main focus is to pester me at an importune time, but nonetheless that has been the result. I am usually fairly successful at getting key participants cooperation for things that are important to me as I can be pleasantly persistent. RobS has chosen to be unpleasant and pushy. I would prefer to be a supporter of RobS though and time will tell if this happens. I think it is fair to say that things are fairly frosty in terms of us having a working relationship at the present time and that is unfortunate. I do have a feeling though that I may have accomplished my objective of not having RobS pester me and he may finally see the light concerning this matter. It shouldn't have taken this long though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

====Proposal 1; re:blocking====
Perhaps we should create a block review panel? Users with blocking rights who are willing to be contacted in the case that a user feels a block was unfairly handed out. I feel as though having a specific block policy and this theoretical panel could circumvent the need to define "vandalism" - which in my experience can be amorphous. Obviously specifics could be drawn up later, but as I see it a panel member could, should the scenario call for it, reverse a block without any hard feelings, and perhaps as a general guideline (though not a rule) the unblocked user should - barring clear vandalism - under no circumstances be reblocked by the original blocking user. This is very similar to current policy, except users inexperienced with wikis might not know how to find users with blocking privileges to contact if they have a concern, and this would conveniently list willing, active users. This would at least partly address bullets 1, 3, 5 re: blocking, 6 and 9.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That may not be feasible. Every blocked person could ask for review as a result. It may have unintended consequences. I think a better solution in the meantime is to be choosier about who is given block rights. I should have been more vocal about Bugler and RodWeathers being phonies but at least I got RodWeathers to create content. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:14, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well presumably with a large enough pool of willing "admins" (I'm using that to mean people with blocking rights, but I do understand the difference) it shouldn't be hard to accommodate those requests. I think it's relatively easy to determine whether a user is completely bad faith or whether perhaps a second chance should be granted. Certainly well done on Rod!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:18, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need serious blocking policy reform; I tried to log in minutes ago from my local public library and the account was blocked because of "possible misuse of U.S. or other government computer system." Can anyone help me right now in locating these blocks so they can be undone? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need full articulation when and under what circumstances a Range block is applicable. We've probably blocked every Starbucks and McDonald's on the planet, infinitely, as well as every public library and college. Undoing 4 years of inappropriate blocking is a real chore. [[Conservapedia:New sysop training page]] needs updating. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:36, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can absolutely get behind that. I would offer to help with range blocks, but I'm not familiar at all with that area - I've never even issued a range block. I also agree the language should be toned down on the blocking section of the sysop training page. While it is important to "err on the side of caution", as the page suggests, block are a serious punishment, and should be handed out with careful consideration.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:07, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the page[[ Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]; it should be written primarily for sysops. Editors can get the idea from there what is expected from them if they aspire to be sysops. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Conservapedia:New_sysop_training_page#Blocking]] - which you already linked to - seems to be a much more detailed (longer, certainly) approach. I would almost go so far as to suggest that the content from that section literally be flipped with content from that guideline page, after the language is toned down. (I could work on doing that, if you'd like, although perhaps it'd be best coming from you)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:Yes please do. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is what I've come up with: [[User:Iduan/guidelinedraft#Blocking]]. I would suggest that the first point - which is applicable to all users with block rights - be moved to [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]], but the second two points - which involve using administrator tools like "checkuser" or "delete" - be kept on the sysop page. If you could check over what I did it'd be greatly appreciated! (And obviously feel free to edit - I'm just using my userspace as a sandbox)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:43, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::(Just so you know - and you don't think I'm just being lazy - I'm actually unable to edit the new sysop guide page as its protected, hence the fork)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::Personally, I think that we should try working with ISPs before issuing rangeblocks. For ISPs that will not work with us, we should block those ISPs altogether, with a note that users should complain to their ISP or switch to another one to contribute to Conservapedia. This is what email administrators have been doing for quite some time, and although it isn't without flaw, it seems to have been somewhat effective for them. Since I have five years of experience dealing with ISPs, I'd be more than happy to help Conservapedia in doing this, and both Jpatt and Karajou can attest to my effectiveness.
::As for people desiring to appeal their block, Wikipedia and some other wikis allows blocked users to edit their own talk page and insert a template to challenge their block. They have an option to revoke this privilege if it is abused. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:44, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. I may have some questions on ISP and want to know more. Appealing a block presents some problems, namely manpower (or personpower to be politically correct) to handle it. This of course can be another source of efforts to just waste sysops time. If we had dozens of sysops with time on their hands to respond, and handle it responsibly, it wouldn't matter. Let's not put nthe cart before the horse. Let's hammer out a definition of "good faith user" and "vandalism", then if there's any misunderstanding in what that means, we could add an appeals process. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Hold on here. My thoughts are this. Disputing an administrator's block (unless you are an admin yourself) is disputing their judgement, which is uncalled for. I, for one, trust Andy's judgement in appointing his admins, and by extent trust the admins he appoints. I think, as editors, we should not question an sysop's decision. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:We need to identify and define grounds for blocking. Then we can review a sysop's actions. This means ''both'' sysops and editors can be held accountable. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Only discussions which are inactive for 7 days should be archived. Any discussion thread with a comment within the past 7 days should still be considered an active, ongoing discussion. This will give all users and interested parties an opportunity to review and participate. See [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Talk_pages_and_Archiving]] for more details. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Navigation box]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==

This is a follow-up to some [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884164&oldid=884024 points I made on Andy's talk page], which he said he agreed with completely.

First, I have to recognize and congratulate RobS for his work on bringing the rule of law to Conservapedia, and for lending his sysop influence to this.

The point I want to make is that "tweaking" the 90/10 rule (80/20, 70/30, whatever) requires that rules, and violations thereof, be logically connected with account blocks. This is simple logic. '''It does no good to lay out criteria for blockable misbehavior if sysops block people for whatever reason they please, with no regard for actual infractions''' (90/10, combative arguing, trolling, vandalism, lying, etc.)

Blocks '''must have verifiable reasons'''. But a look at the block log shows things like:
*By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki
*provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true
*Negative personal comments: The pigstie you require is down at Uncle Billy's farm.
*नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार (what???????)
*Multiple accounts; same IP(s) as existing/previous user(s): Need to change your socks, pardner...try washing them as well.
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: fake professors need not apply
*lack of machismo
*no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: I'm all for improvement too, stupid, which is why you're outta here.
*Broken arrow! (with a youtube page about the movie "We Were Soldiers") (what???????)
*I suggest going to Africa and searching for Mokele-mbembe. You have 5 years to do it now
*If only you were as nice as a pony, maybe women would love you
*probably an obese atheist with a thin skin!
*conservapedia obssessive compulsive disorder
*obesity

Blocking is serious business! It reflects upon the seriousness of Conservapedia. If you can't put in a cogent block reason, find some other sysop who can.

Now some of the cases above were probably well-founded, like the one with the comment with "try washing them as well", but sysops should be models of probity and levelheadedness, and should not have made that comment. Even if personally annoyed by someone's behavior, sysops should not let it get to them.

There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:

*Wanton deletion of pages, without VERY good reason. For example, deleting another user's user page or talk page. Even if it is swiftly recreated, and even if this is done without loss of information, there is simply no excuse for it.
*"Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
*Deletion of material from talk pages, unless it is truly libellous. Talk pages are a journal of discussions. There is almost never a reason to delete anything. Merely being peeved by something is not an excuse. If you are insulted by something, there should be a way to mark it with "personal attack removed" or something. I don't know the details.

Now I'm going to step on some toes. Take a deep breath, everybody.

The sysop guidelines / rules need to be '''enforceable'''. The Conservapedia community needs to know that they will be followed. Therefore, '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''. I see plenty of well-intentioned "junior" sysops who are doing an excellent job of keeping the site running smoothly. The removal of one or two sysops for flagraqnt violations will not harm Conservapedia. In fact, it may help immensely, by setting an example of expected behavior.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:17, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see why you're so upset over the block comments. Conservative is simply trying to add some humor. However regarding the Hindi/Thai/whatever block summary, this is an English wiki so everything should be in English. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 11:05, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::MeganH, you are a good guesser. It was Hindi. With that being said, SamHB's post has some merit as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:41, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Community input requested==
Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,

*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]

*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]

Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Block appeal? ==

A thought that just hit me: I'm genuinely not sure if this has been considered so far, but with internal e-mail now being disabled and the Zoho account not being listed on the Main Page, what is the current appeal process when you're blocked? I didn't check how many sysops list their e-mail address on their user page, but I'd be somewhat surprised if many do (since it attracts spam bots).

[[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] probably needs to be amended with a link to whatever appeal/contact policy is up to date, too. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:That link's hilarious. But seriously, we're looking into this. We'd like to get a good blocking policy everyone can get behind in place. I'm arguing CP should stop trying to re-invent the wheel, and look at how WP has learned to deal with sockpuppetry and vandalism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights? ==
:''Discussion moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]
Coming here to complete a registration and start writing about my topics of interest, I got deeply disappointed when I saw the message '''Only alphanumerical usernames are accepted'''. So how come that one isn't entitled to contribute here for the sole reason that they have an underscore or a gap in the desired username? I'm sure these restrictions have a strongly negative effect on the development of the Conservapedia, deterring a significant portion of contributors. Just look how many people work on Wikipedia, write popular pages on subject they now without bothering about admins imposing their views. Can you take a moment to imagine how many users, well, not only have been pressed to the wall next to the "open gate", but even compressed to death by the following crowd? It's way too surprising that the amount of users and articles is still important to you, as you state on the main page. If it's the case, I urge you to reconsider your policies and give more freedom to newcomers. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Just wait until you get to the part where you can't move pages, upload images or even edit at certain times. Assuming you won't be blocked to force you into registering again with a user name that follows the "first name, last initial" convention. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You talk about giving freedom to newcomers, but then dismiss me pointing out that newcomers indeed lack many freedoms they would expect to have? Well, have fun then. For what it's worth, I agree with the point about underscores in names. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Because instead of letting competent users respond to my claim you digress from the topic in an unconstructive manner, giving an outlet for your butthurt in a wrong place. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg Higher, higher :)] --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 15:30, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I could care less about the problems this section raises, I was pointing out that if your going to go around insulting people you aren't going to go anywhere here or anywhere--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservapedia is run strictly at the pleasure of [[Andy Schlafly]] as the founder, and to a lesser extent at that of the administrators. If you don't like their policies, then you have no business here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 17:17, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I always thought that this site was run in the interest of presenting items without the liberal bias that is prevalent through out the internet and the MSM. The opinions and whims of [[Andy Schlafly]] should have little to no bearing on the content of the site so long as the information set forth is well argued and is able to be backed up.
:::::::::If this site is run at the pleasure of Mr. Schlafly, than I'm afraid it is no better than wikipedia. For Conservapedia and the conservative movement to succeed, we must hold ourselves to higher standards than those of wikipedia and the MSM.--[[User:MrLCharms|MrLCharms]] 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Talk:Evolution ==

On Monday, I made an edit to [[Talk:Evolution]] that removed the Student Panel Decision box. My reasoning (given in the same edit) was this:
{{quotebox|I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)}}
Today, Conservative bluntly reverted my edit without discussion, making my last line there extra hilarious. Can we maybe have some actual discussion about this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sid, if you truly wanted discussion, you didn't need to remove the panel's notice to do that. Nor did you need your friend Horace in Australia who is obsessed with evolution/atheism/Conservapedia/myself to try to revert my reversion of you. What you wanted was an atheist revision of Conservapedia history. Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism. More anti-evolution content is not a major change. Evolutionists adding pseudoscience which is what you are ultimately seeking to do is a major change. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Sure we can have a discussion. But as I understand it, the decision of the CP Panel still stands. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Please restore the edit history of the article to show that the article hasn't "changed in any major way". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:43, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sid wants to gut an article showing the folly of evolution because it gets a lot of web traffic. He would rather have a gutted article that gets little traffic. That is what this is about. If he really cared what the panel said, he would not have removed their notice. If Sid wants the panel or Andy to pare down the evolution article or do major revisions, then the frontal attack of removing the panel's notice while bold is very foolish from a human relations point of view. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
"Sid wants to gut an article..." He never asked for it to be unlocked, only for its full edit history to be restored. [[User:Lewis|Lewis]] 15:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Sid, your removing of the panel's notice betrayed you. You showed your true colors. Plus, there is the issue of {{personal remark removed}}. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I'm with Conservative here. Here it is our job to discuss, not censor. There seems to be no consensus at all to remove the student panel decision, and all the admins seem to disagree. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:06, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism." That's an interesting claim considering it's directly contradicted by the notice you put back on the talk page. In fact, there's no evidence Mr. Schlafly or the student panel ever gave "Conservative" permission to do whatever he wanted to that article, nor is it an appropriate purpose for an encyclopedia article to communicate one's editorial position that "evolutionism" is "folly". So let's discuss whether "Conservative" taking the article over to the exclusion of every single other editor and in open defiance of the student panel's instructions not to change it in any "major way" and to submit proposed changes on the article talk page is going to be permitted. Some of the irrelevant nonsense "Conservative" has been stacking up in this article wouldn't be so bad if the article adequately explained the subject matter before attacking it, but it doesn't. I've asked Mr. Schlafly to clarify the editorial policy here regarding YEC vs. evolution, which he will not comment on, but I would eat my hat if the version of the article the student panel locked in 2007 was the same pro-YEC hit piece it is today. So sure, have a discussion about the student panel's notice but don't pretend it means anything anymore. Talk about revisionist history. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::It is certainly against the spirit that drives wiki projects. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:56, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, I'm not an atheist; and try to keep your little personal attacks to yourself. Please restore the history of the article so we can see what the April 2007 version looked like. Without the history, the Student Panel decision is pointless since it has no reference point to base itself on. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:(Side note: I see that Lewis just got a 2-year block by Conservative. Posting to the Community Portal is really a danger for one's wiki-health... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT))
::::Sid, I see you are fond of the exclusionary fallacy. Did Lewis have other edits as well? Second, if you think I am going to help a militant evolutionist, you are fooling yourself. By the way, your aforementioned frontal attack and your persistence in this matter remind me of Pickett's charge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your refusal to let us see the April 2007 version is quite telling. Just as telling as blocking a guy for two years right after he pointed out your error while claiming that the block was for comments the user made yesterday. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sid, I have decided to retire from this battle that you cannot win. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Both Please type in Englisch.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section break===
I've had a problem being able to review 2700+ deleted edits and am not familiar with the earlier wiki-battles over that entry. Perhaps you can encapsulate. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:33, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

:I have taken the liberty of moving this post to its own section because it may go on for a bit. The very rough overview is basically this:
:*Between February and March 2007, this article had been central to lots of editing back and forth.
:*Conservative was made sysop (on February 25, 2007) to make his changes to the article, and his intention to have this article locked forever became apparent. Note that I'm not exaggerating here. From [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1#Conservative_Please_Stop|Archive 1]], a post from the day he was sysop'd:
:*:Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. Conservative 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:*Since that had been the magical time before locking anything forever became the norm, Andy promised to ask the anonymous Student Panel for their ruling, and the article was frozen in a fairly anti-evolution version.
:*Some time later (weeks later, I think?), the panel announced the decision that is still visible on [[Talk:Evolution]]. Aside from infinite protection, the central part of the ruling was "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way."
:*There was a fair share of complaining about this (since having a mostly static article violates the wiki spirit), but the sysops (Conservative especially) held up the ruling as a shield against any further (pro-evolution) suggestions, so everybody kinda gave up and sighed.
:*However, Conservative kept editing the article as he pleased: Conservative's patrol log (which was only introduced on June 16, 2008 - more than a year after the ruling!) shows... 200+ edits for "Theory of evolution" and 950+ edits to "Evolution" (the article was moved in December 2008).
:*Between February 9, 2011 (first visible edit after Conservative erased the article history) and last week alone, the article gained roughly ten thousand characters. That's roughly the length of articles like [[Radiometric dating]] or [[Date of the Exodus]]. And this is just what happened during the last five to six months.
:*I am arguing that the Student Panel decision is utterly outdated and pointless: Locking forever is the norm for many articles anyway, nobody doubts that Conservative completely owns the article, and the "no major changes" clause is doubly absurd because the article has been constantly edited since then, and the point of reference (a version from March/April 2007) is unavailable.
:*That is why I removed the Student Panel decision and gave my reasoning in the form of the post I quoted up there.
:So the problem is not one of the many deleted edits, but rather the fact that there are so many edits and that they were deleted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:06, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. Now I see the point more clearly. I do recall peripherally being aware of those happenings back then, but never was involved. The 2700+ edits maybe unrecoverable-I don't know. The overriding question is similar to the question of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (WP:OWN); also, it may be fair to assume much of the Student Panel of 2007 has graduated, and a new Student Panel may have to be asked to look at this version, if that overall policy remains in place. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== CAPTCHA Whitelist ==

I finally remembered to make this request while I was busy making a minor point: Could we add a few entries to [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|the CAPTCHA whitelist]]?

Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the [[Essay:Best News Sources|best news sources]], [[conservative blogs]], and the various [[conservative links]] (especially sections such as "Conservative Organizations" or "Creation Study"). Adding those sites to the whitelist would allow us to insert such links without hassle. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Everyone, please... ==

Come on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=894414 terms like treacherous backstabber] ARE personal remarks themselves. Are we not supposed to kind and considered? Please pay heed: ''Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.'' (Epehsians 4:32). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS has turned on [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in particular and Conservapedia in general. I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Edit to add: And may I suggest you read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== User: RobS ==

At [[User talk:RobSmith]] I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:My modest proposal: Make Conservative a Bureaucrat so he can protect his talk page even from sysops and demote troublemakers who urge him to cooperate instead of treating this site as his personal property where he can do as he pleases. I believe it's the only logical step after tolerating his current behavior. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I fully support this. I am a great fan of [[User:Conservative]] having been brought here by his many irrefutable evidences and amusing essays. If it were not for him I would not be here to contribute and I am sure it is the same for many other users.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You obviously misunderstood Sid. Conservative, your blocking policy is that of an iron-fisted dictator. You have no credibility. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Unless your comment is a joke, Terry, you leave me with no option but to declare you a calumny-loving buffoon. [[User:Conservative]]'s content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::: "You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&curid=11675&diff=893483&oldid=893477]]. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 09:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Whatever it takes to prevent RobS and his inflated ego to stop having a forum at my talk page, I am generally for. In his current "RobScentric" world, he appears to have no respect for polite and reasonable requests. I do not care if RobS is a Sysop/Admin or not, but if it takes removing his Sysop powers for him to no longer have a forum at my talk page for his inordinately sized ego, I am for it. As far as becoming a Bureaucrat at this point: If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Lastly, barring RobS losing his Sysop powers, I have a feeling that over the coming days, weeks or months that Karajou and RobS will continue to have differences over blocking policy and that a blocking policy will be worked out. Given the current demands and priorities in my life, if a refinement of blocking policy were developed rather than a certain person or persons losing their Sysop or blocking powers, I would prefer that blocking policy be worked out by others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sysops not communicating violates the spirit of the wiki. Perhaps if you allowed other sysops the courtousy of communicating with you, there would not be misunderstandings, such as in the case of User:BobSherman. But I am appreciative of you allowing me 5 minutes of your time, per your e-mail, this September, or is it next September? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have communicated with you RobS. I have also communicated to you that I have a lot on my plate right for the short term and I don't want to be pestered by an unreasonable person such as yourself who apparently likes to showboat on my talk page and mire me in needless and inane contention at this point. Barring you seeing the light on this matter and apparently still believing that your posts to me have any importance to me (which they do not), I will recommend that you lose your Sysop status if you continue your behavior which another Sysop believes should happen as well. In the meantime, I suggest that you post your supposed matters of great importance and urgency to me on Aschlafly's talk page and if he feels they are important and urgent, I am sure he will relay them to me. Thank you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please, no incivility and personal attacks; those are blockable offenses. And Sysops need to be held to the same standard other members of the Conservapedia Community are held. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, by the way, as you probably know, I did more than offer you 5 minutes of my time in September as I suggested via email a September meeting with you, Karajou and possibly Aschlafy to help resolve the blocking conflicts which have arisen as of late. I received no reply which is no great tragedy to me. Given your most recent behavior, I have since rescinded my offer for such a September meeting. Perhaps, your statement above is just a matter of sloppy reading on your part, but I believe your statement on this matter reflects why I believe you are often an unreasonable person. I know it still may amaze you that I am no longer interested in what you have to say, but I would start believing it and reflecting on why this has happened. I have nothing further to say on this matter to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, I'm just having a very difficult time understanding any of this. I can not communicate with (or for that matter, nobody can) on your user page. I can not email you cause you've spam blocked me; no wait, you un-spma blocked me. I cannot discuss with you (or for that matter, no one can) on regular Conservapedia project pages because you delete and oversight the discussions. You come to Andy's page with charges, yet have no diffs or evidence, cause you deleted and oversighted it. How is that not (a) misues of sysop priveleges; (b) trolling? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Did you send an email that reads,
::::*''Here are my conditions for such a meeting:
:::::''3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, '''RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month. ''' ''
::::This is not conducive to collaborative content. This is not cooperative editing or helping to build an internet community. You have done nothing in four years to help define [[Conservapedia:Vandalism]], yet how many editors have you arbitrarily blocked on site for that offense? Stop trolling me and wasting my time. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Rob, I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but I urge you to read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. "Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye." Leave [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] alone.--[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Arbitrary and unfair blocking===
Let me explain at some length, from personal experience, why I feel strongly about arbitrary and unfair blocking. I hesitate bringing it up, because of the personal emotional torment it wreaked on me, unfairly, all the result of overzealous ideological partisans, too quick on the banhammer, and determined to take revenge on their enemies.

I was working on an anti-communism series in Wikipedia, and because of the specialized nature of it, [[Chip Berlet]] <ref>Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President, which a Congressional Committee has described as "The Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party".</ref> was recruited to vet, verify, and challenge the information for NPOV purposes. Unbeknownst to me and prior to my arrival in Wikipedia, Berlet had for many years studied the Lyndon LarRouche movement and successfully obtained Arbitration sanctions (banning and blocking) against several "Larouche editors" in several Wikipedia Arbitration cases.<ref>At the time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA/HK WP:RfA Lyndon LaRouche 1 & Lyndon LaRouche 2]; a third and other cases have since been added.</ref> The sanctioned users become notorious sockpuppets, hunted by overzealous sysops, and in constant conflict with Chip Berlet. As Berlet and my Mediation over anti-communism broke down, Berlet labeled me the head of a cabal of "Larouche editors" and being "the most problematic."

In dealing with Berlet, I had crossed paths with some of his old enemies. Berlet seized on these open-wiki communications to drag me before the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee under the pretext that "Nobs and others acting in concert"<ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Arbitration_filed_naming_you Nobs and others acting in concert]</ref> were harassing him. Needless to say, the "others" were sanctioned "LaRouche editors" and this guilt by association prompted the Arbitration Committee to accept a hearing on the case. But I had no knowledge of this ongoing wiki-battle between Wikipedia and the Lyndon LaRouche organization, of which now I was at the center. In the process, my real life identity became known, and I was now being seriously defamed as a "LaRouchie" in an open forum, accessible to Google Search engines. No less than three times did I make motions to separate and remove my name from the LaRouche editors, all denied.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Motion_2_by_Nobs01_on_.22acting_in_concert.22</ref> In frustration, I made incivil comments and was banned, with no immediate recourse to clear my name from slanders.

The idea of me being a sympathizer to Lyndon LaRouche is ludicrous, as is commonly known now. Yet it took me years to clear my name over several forums, gaining public statements from Arbitrators and others connected with the case, that I had indeed been unfairly slandered. See for example, a template in Wikipedia to keep track of the abuses and rulings against "LaRouche editiors", if you scroll down to the "Arbiration 2005", the first case reads "N__and others"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaRouchetalk</ref>, what it took me to get the "acting in concert" removed, and no direct reference to my username, "Nobs", was a nightmare. But I still regard the emotional stress and damage done, by overzealous, ideological sysops, hell bent on stamping out the wiki's enemies, as troublesome.

Then a younger generation of sysops comes along, taking their cue from others, and all they see is "ratvandal", or "larouchie", and a real life identity or username connected to it, and the Terminator mentality takes over. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, no compromise, pity or remorse. Nevermind facts, or misunderstandings. They just have it set in their minds they are doing right, and good, by wielding the banhammer. Never thinking for a moment those are real people out there, with hopes and dreams, and real lives. These sysops are just on autopilot, kill kill kill, destroy destroy destroy.

This may seem harsh, but reliving some of this reminds me why I've tried to learn to be civil and patient, and understanding, even to those I disagree with. I made it my lot to try and be a model of interaction, even in the toughest, most controversial, and emotional disputes. This dispute we're having here, is not really between two sysops -- I actually like the guy/gal/other making these charges. He just needs to lighten up with people. If he has such strong ideological convictions, he should at a minimum be able to defend them. And a locked user page, or redirects on article talk pages, is just pointless. This discussion is simply about being fair with users and demanding the same standards of civility from sysops we expect from editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

== New proposal regarding the ban policy ==

I would like to propose a procedure with regards to the banning policy here at CP. This would apply to situations where people are suspected of being parodists, or other situations that are not as clear-cut as blatant vandalism such as inserting pure gibberish, blanking pages, etc.

We all have bad days sometimes.

We sometimes write things on the internet that comes across to other people as sounding harsh or incoherent, or that doesn't quite get the point across we're trying to make.

We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.

We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.

Instead of one person being responsible for the decision whether or not a person is a parodist, etc., how about a procedure where that person is brought before a committee. The person nominating the possible offender must present his case, complete with '''hard evidence''' that proves the accusations, not just state that "I believe this, thus it's true." Other editors should be allowed to submit evidence, either pro or con, for a certain length of time before a decision is reached.

This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.

I also propose that the committee consist of both sysops and regular editors, thus providing a greater range of opinions. If an editor (either regular or a sysop) is directly involved with the situation, they should not be allowed to be a member of the committee.

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning". Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::*'' RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP''
:::::How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
:::::The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all? I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

How many casual or part-time editors have ceased contributing to the wiki because of uncertainty over the banning policy? Right now, banning often seems arbitrary and uneven – sometimes as though it depends on the mood of the banning editor. I know personally I have stopped myself from offering my opinion and/or edits on different articles because I see things from a different angle or have different information.

What's the harm in making the less obvious banning situations a consensus of opinion, and transparent to all as well? What's the harm in allowing the accused editor to make his/her case in the open, and to allow different editors to give their opinion on the situation? It might not change the ultimate decision, but it's a more democratic process. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ed says,
:*''If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this.''
:*Here's the problem: 40,000 registered users have been blocked for vandalism, and 10,000,000 + IP's, affecting an estimated 30,000,000 potential users. These blocks were handed out for vandalism, yet here ([[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]) is the Guideline blocking Sysops have to guide them after four years.
:*If there were any potental good faith editors who wanted to be helpful in defining vandalism, they probably were blocked years ago as a suspected sock of lcewedge or horace. Them and the whole state or province they live in.
:*Now the Range blocks are undone, yet Old Guard sysops ''still'' block on sight for anything they don't like, despite the floodgates being opened. Conservapedia Sysops have learned nothing from their colossal errors in dealing with vandalism, have yet to even define it, nor hold themselves to the same standards of editing conduct they require of others.
:*Establishing a Commitee won't work, at least not yet; there just aren't enough editors allowed to participate at any level.
:*Blocking policy is in serious need of overhaul, if Conservapedia is serious at all about building an online collaborative wiki community.
:*Sysops need to understand they are not God, and can and will be held accountable to the extent of losing their sysop powers for failing to abide CP's own rules and standards of conduct it requires of others (the few we have).
:*Some editors were punished with blocks just for daring to interject into this important discussion. This kind of arbitrary blocking has got to stop.
:*CP needs a serious reform movement; it's not about personality disputes between sysops, or payback, or roasting an abusive sysop. It's about building a collaborative community which includes atheists, liars, homosexuals, sinners, drunks, drug addicts, felons, ex-cons, university professors, doctors, lawyers, hollywood starlets and anyone else who wants to register an account, abide by CP's Commandments & Guidelines and contribute constructive content without an ideological litmus test for the user. That has always been CP's mission. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I have stayed out of this debate because I don't find it relevant to my goals on/with Conservapedia but i must say these proposals by Rob sound reasonable (although we can probably do without drunks and liars). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:37, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::MRellek, if you want to attempt to further refine CP's blocking guidelines/policies I would not be against that. I would be against RobS writing any blocking policy on parodist since he cannot spot parodist material when he sees it and/or is unwilling to ban parodists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fortunately for site users, you don't own this website, neither do you single-handedly make policy. Should we take a poll of site users who want to see you head up a policy reform committee? or do you think they may be terrorized to even participate, for fear of reprisal block, given the unhealthy editing atmosphere you help create for several years now? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::If anyone has any useful suggestions concerning refining blocking policy, I don't see why they couldn't be suggested and incorporated into our current policy. And there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas concerning this matter. That could start immediately. Of course, given the current authority structure of Conservapedia for any policies to be binding, they would have to be approved by Aschafly or a committee authorized by Andy to make binding policy. Absent of a parodist defining policy being written for encyclopedia articles by September, I am considering writing one. If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up [[Straw man fallacy|strawman arguments]] and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::*''there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas ''
::::::Oh yes, two were blocked just for posting to the above thread. Does that aid in encouraging others to contribute? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I helped formulate our policies, four years ago, shortly after I joined. I was made a sysop much more quickly than I expected (in a mere 8 days), possibly because of my extensive Wikipedia experience: developer rights to the database, the first electeed "bureaucrat", etc.

If there have been 40,000 blocks that is because our project has suffered an unprecedented onslaught of vandals, particularly of the "stealth" kind who plant ridiculous errors so that they can undermine the project by blaming us for those errors.

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS. I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 this warrant a one day block] in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 intemperate vindictive attitude] of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

::I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
::First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned. Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
::Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact? I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree. There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal. Why give him a chance to do more damage?"
::That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions. The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.
::Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably. I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung. What's the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy?" Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
::I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this. Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
::Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
::Respectfully, --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Ben, you make some ''very'' good points, some discussion-worthy points, and one time, you utterly missed the point.
:::The bad news first: Sharon's proposal isn't about ''vandals'', but rather about ''parodists''. Nobody is suggesting to hold a meeting when some idiot is running across the wiki, replacing articles with [http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tits.gif "BOUNCING TITS!!!"] or something like that. This is only about parodists.
::::[tangent]
::::Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written [[Conservapedia:Parody|policy-definition of "parody"]] on this isn't really hitting the nail on the head. It's ''a'' definition of "parody", but not ''the'' definition we're implicitly using here. We're talking about people whose edits are over-the-top by normal standards, but well within the accepted limits of Conservapedia. If you go pretty much anywhere and argue that the Bible needs to be retranslated because it's too liberal, or that Jesus disproved General Relativity and proved Quantum Mechanics, you will be thrown out for being an obvious parodist (as per the definition we currently got written down). On this site, however, all of these things have been established as insights by the site founder. If I suddenly started agreeing with Andy that the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution, would I be a parodist?
::::An effective approach to parody is difficult because Conservapedia's baseline for "normal and acceptable" is not quite where even most other conservatives would place it - both for content and conduct. This is why parodists like Bugler managed to become so successful: They imitated the worst traits of certain sysops, thus blending in perfectly from the POV of most sysops. Just to remind people of an uncomfortable truth: Bugler was one of the nastiest people imaginable and drove out several people who might have helped the site and pretty much got away with it to the point of ''almost becoming a sysop''. (He was only "caught" because of technicalities, not because of his behavior.)
::::The solution lies less in worrying about whether somebody genuinely believes what he's writing and more in reforming this wiki from the top so abusive idiots who make absurd edits stand out properly again. As long as parody is indistinguishable from normal behavior of our supposed role models, it's hard to really justify a ban.
::::[/tangent]
:::The point I kinda disagree with, but which I still find a valid question: Should we do all this bickering here in public? I agree that especially the huge discussions on this page are not CP's finest hour. But that doesn't mean that we should drag mindless bickering behind the stage, and it also doesn't mean that we should simply stop. It means that we should ''do better''. Not just in discussions, but also as a whole. We need to make CP as a community a better and more inviting place. I agree with Rob that we need to rework consistent policies (that aren't scattered all over the place) and that we need to actually enforce them, no matter what rank the offender has.
:::Your very good points are about the current tension (eggshells, landmines, etc.) and that it's ''hard'' at times to be fair and just. Because yes, it is. Of course it is. Having the banhammer is great power. And to echo a terribly overused Spider-Man quote: With great power comes great responsibility. The people wielding it need to be able to handle it. If sysops start using it to retaliate against people they don't like, or if they get twitchy and start banning people who haven't done anything simply because they happened to register around the same time as a vandal, they should either take a voluntary time-out to cool off or give the hammer back. Bringing back something from my tangent: Sysops are supposed to be the ''role models'', and they ''will'' lead by example. They ''need'' to have a cooler head than the regular users, and they ''mustn't'' let their raw emotions guide their actions. That is one of the keys to building a healthy community: Be a good leader, and people will start following you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Please revoke Conservative's Sysop, Block, and Administrator Rights ==

Please revoke conservative's sysop, block, and administrator rights, for flagrant and repeated violations of expected standards for sysops.

You may recall that I wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Enforceable_rules_for_sysop_conduct this], which was a logical consequence of things that you said you agreed with fully. Now I am not a sysop, and therefore don't have much voice in such matters, but the fact is that what I wrote is still present on the Community Portal page. Furthermore, user Conservative said that "[my] post has some merit."

In that section, I said that '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''.

Furthermore, quite a bit of policy material has come into existence, pointing out that it is improper for someone with blocking powers to use those powers frivolously, or for a person with deletion or oversight powers to use those powers unless the material being deleted is libelous.

User Conservative has, as is well known to everyone, engaged in repeated and flagrant violations of the standards for sysops. The repeated deletion of BobSherman's user and talk pages are examples, but there are many more.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SamHB, very melodramatic. Your bold text suggest you are very angry. I suspect that is because I asked you to show me how its done and create outstanding content that would gain a following and I also asked you if you currently have a following. By the way, I am flattered that you have followed my content for several years now. :) Best wishes in your off wiki pursuits because I don't think your crusade to remove my administrator rights is going to give you a sense of accomplishment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:The bold text was copied directly from the other edit, where it had been placed for emphasis, not due to anger. You also seem to be referring to a discussion taking place at [[Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Christian_lady_dancers]]. Please continue the discussion there, if you wish. You will see that I already responded to you. Or continue it on your talk page, if you wish. Or mine. By the way, I already have quite a sense of accomplishment. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:27, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::SamHB, I still think your quest is quixotic. By the way, given your liberal leanings, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to you that in the [[Western World]], the left in many cases is running out other peoples money to spend on their misadventures so your in good company in terms of pursuing quixotic quests. I have two parting words for you: "Austerity budget". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website ==

RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.

I think RobS is at heart an unstable egotist who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him. Although he did do a service in unblocking all of those IPs and I think clarifying block policy and not having an overly aggressive block policy is good, I do think now that RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call [http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot "a useful idiot"] and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist website.

If he continues down his present path, I see him losing his Admin rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative - you and I have discussed this in an entirely civil manner to this point, and my opinion of you has not changed with this section, but I am requesting that you remove this section on your own accord (but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am sending an email to Andy); even in quotes, "useful idiot" is a personal attack - and I am convinced that this type of name calling is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The term "useful idiot" is political term and I have also heard it used outside of politics as well. Here is a definition: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot I see no reason retract this information and I am very positive that RobS doesn't want me to oversight it given his previous statements. In short, I think the shoe fits and I am giving others a warning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Conservative, I quote from your source: "The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial" - I maintain its not keeping with site decorum to call an established editor any of these things (certainly at least calling an editor either of the first two - "naive" or "foolish" - would constitute a personal attack).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:I also see Rob losing his sysop rights soon. After all, he is trying to do three things: (1) Make the rules clearer so people have a clear idea what can get them blocked and don't have to live in constant fear of breaking some obscure rule interpretation. (2) Apply the rules also to sysops. (3) Generally hold sysops accountable for their actions and limit abuse of powers.
:The last person who tried to drag the site down this absolutely horrible path was some liberal... what was his name... oof... oh yeah, ''Philip J. Rayment''. You know, the guy who tried to stop Bugler and TK from driving out everybody? The guy who actually dared to ask ''why'' some people were banned and wanted to see ''evidence''? Yeah, that went well, didn't it?
:Because we all know that a community will grow if a group of people can waltz all over the place with editorial authority, no pressure to follow the rules, and the power to block anybody for any reason.
:It's a true tragedy that Andy is looking away as Rob is trying to salvage and help this community. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sid, you are trying to cloud the central issue. I clearly said I was not against clarifying block policy. It's RobS's other behavior that I have a problem with. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::But wasn't the central issue to start with your own behavior Conservative? It seems to me you dislike having your own behavior called into question so believe it is Rob causing trouble. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I say both of them are causing trouble. Conservative is doing things people find wrong, People state this, Rob backs them up, which from Conservatives point of view is wrong, they argue, Conservative/Rob takes it to pages across the wiki while others either side with or against Rob/Conservative, pushing the fight to multiple fronts and spamming andy with "new message!". So both are to blame for exasperating the situation. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::::::::The central issue is indeed Conservative's behaviour. Years ago when Conservapedia had an abuse page it was almost entirely filled with complaints about Conservative. I don't understand why he has been allowed to run amok for so long. All Rob is doing is trying to introduce the rule of law to the site. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::No, the central issue is the power structure on this site being so screwed up that sysops have all the rights while regular editors have pretty much none (while conversely the sysops don't have to follow the rules while editors have to follow all of them and then some). Conservative's behavior (rapid and frequent deletion of articles or talk pages, oversighting of edits, refusal to communicate constructively, etc.) is simply the most noticeable symptom. Rob's attempts to start a sweeping policy reform and to, as you said, introduce the rule of the law to the site, would indeed restrict Conservative's power abuse, but it would also be a solid step to fix the structural issues the site has. (Which also nicely explains why no other sysop is actually siding with Rob.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::JarradD, I have never been popular among atheist/evolutionist whiners. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::No. You are not popular among editors who wish to be treated with respect and according to the rules. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your Fairly well-acquainted with the anti-conservtive viewpoint for somebody who made an account 20 minutes ago. You reek of sock-puppetry/ill-intentions. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:31, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Why do I reek of ill intent? I want to see this site succeed. Which is why I want properly enforced rules rather than bullying and arbitrary authority. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Because you seem to know a lot about this situation despite only having just made your account, which either means you pointlessly lurked for a while or your a parodist. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Somewhat fitting, given that part of the problem is that various people who made good points in the past have been banned because the sysops don't like people who dare to speak up. And Sean, PLEASE don't throw around "parodist" so easily. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have sided with neither Rob or Conservative. I am pointing out that a new user who suddenly comes into a debate speaking with knowledge of the situation is going to appear suspicious. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::A parodist is someone who pretends to be something they are not. There is no evidence JarradD is a parodist. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anything I have written could be regarded as parody. You have successfully derailed this discussion. Congratulations Sean. How about getting back on topic. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. As it stands, he brings more doubt and distrust by getting involved in a dispute between Senior Admins despite having no reason to fully understand the situation. The fact his first edits were to get involved raise even more doubts to his intentions--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::*''If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more.''
::::::::::::::How is that possible? they all get banhammered at the door. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::If anyone's intentions are suspect, it is you. You have totally derailed this discussion. It was a discussion on a vitally important topic and you have made it all about me. Could you please attempt to get back on topic? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:50, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I would like to return this discussion to matters of significance. The feeling among a number of editors is that there is a lack of uniformity in enforcement of rules and that some sysops act in an arbitrary and, sometimes, capricious manner. What is sought is, in essence, the rule of law. A system wherein all editors know where they stand and are not subject to whim. In my view this is a hugely important issue for this site. In any venture these issues are important, but in a co-operative venture such as a wiki they are absolutely vital. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
: If I recall correctly, haven't people been banned from Conservapedia for being a member of an atheistic site before? If we do want consistency of rules/sysop accountability and if Rob is indeed a member of said site, then shouldn't he face a penalty? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::How cute of you to start enforcing the most idiotic "rule" ever that was likely introduced by a troll who wanted CP to fail. But hey, sure, all for it. I'm sure Ed Poor will agree; after all, he has no account on-... oh, wait. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::In his/her world, there is no evidence at all unless he/she personally admits anything, such as his/her gender or his/her name. So what makes you think he/she would admit his/her username on any site? Give it up, liberals! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Indeed. We seek him/her/it here. We seek him/her/it there. Those Frenchies seek him/her/it everywhere. Is he/she/it in heaven? Is he/she/it in hell? That d****d elusive Pimpernel. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::: Obviously Conservative is not a member of that atheist website because it would be really stupid of him to complain about Rob's association with it while simultaneously holding an account there. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, it would. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Gentlemen, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. Schlafly's talk page is not the place to hold such debates? And that it would be both prudent and considerate to move this discussion to another forum? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Seeing how Andy seems determined not to chime in, this may be for the best. I'd support a mass move of the last few sections (starting with "User: RobS") to [[Conservapedia:Community Portal‎]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Let me explain Conservapedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology Kremlinology] (tea leaf reading): If the site owner likes the idea, he'll speak up. If he's neutral or negative, silence. That's traditoinally how Senior CP Sysops read the tea leaves. Conclusion:
::::*neither RobS nor User: Conservative desysoped;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed] has been repealed;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=894017&oldid=892763 Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interfact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors] is added;
::::*and moving forward with other initiatives has been endorsed.
::::Now, somebody want to go around with a mop bucket after [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism_and_obesity&action=historysubmit&diff=893866&oldid=893394 User:Conservative's incivility here] and hang the {{[[Template:personal remark removed|personal remark removed]]}}, per [[CP:Guidelines#Civility]]? I'd do it, but I have a COI. Let's help this man/woman/other become a better editor. He/she/it needs to learn how to play nice with others. Please treat him/her/other respectfully. But remember, his/her/other days of being an ''allegedly'' abusive sysop are over. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:23, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It would be nice if we didn't have to give a PC-esque list of pronouns for him. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I wouldn't suggest trying to sweep this discussion under the rug. I believe Admin Karajou wants to give his thoughts to Ashlafly on this matter. And of course, I can certainly consider asking other Sysops to weigh in as well. I would suggest that RobS not thrash around in this tar pit he has jumped in. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::RobS, I have been asked if I felt you should lose your Admin privileges and if the benefits you bring outweigh your costs. So far, I have said that you should not lose your Admin status. You most recent behavior which I mentioned above, is tipping the scale in the wrong direction. I suggest making some changes and avoid trying to dodge issues. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I certainly don't think the discussion should be swept under the rug, but I do feel that consideration for Andy merits moving it to a more appropriate venue. I support the idea of moving the discussion to Community Portal. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If this discussion is attempted to be pushed under the rug and RobS chooses not to address matters. This certainly would be another sign that RobS should lose his Admin status. If a an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion, this certainly does not work in his favor. I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not willing to give RobS infinite second chances in terms of how I feel about his behavior. I have also been told that Karajou wants to join the discussion on Ashlafly's talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::RobS, I can live with you being an egotistical blowhard. On the other hand, a backstabbing untrustworthy egotistical blowhard is a problem. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::"If a (sic) an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion..." I'm sorry. Who were we talking about Pot? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
*''play power games and '''try stifle discussion'''''
:My friend, User:Conservative, seriously, who stifles discussion by locking their user page? who stifles discussion by placing redirects on article talk pages? who stifles discussion by deleting other Sysops comments? who stifles discussion by oversighting other sysop's comments? Need I remind you, you started these threads claiming I wanted to discuss things with you and you want no discussion on your talk page. Then, you came here, claiming some offense, but deleted and oversighted the evidence. Do I have to point out to you, what other's see, extremely erratic behavior? I'm sorry, but this really borders on trolling. If it wasn't for the fact Conservapedia can be improved from discussing some of these problems, I'd really rather remain silent. I'm sorry, but this is not an issue of personalities, it regards the future of this project. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have untrustworthy backstabbers as my friends. Second, people are free to leave me messages to me. I know you like to whine about my talk page, but please restrain yourself because a user's talk page is still his/her castle. Next, I am certainly amenable to admitting where I can make improvements and the talk pages on comedy/satires on now open. On the other hand, I have yet to see you apologize for your backstabbing behavior. And your poor behavior in terms of altering my talk page was also never apologized for. Of course, your modus operandi is avoiding taking responsibility for your bad behavior. This does not work in your favor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Am I the only who thinks all Admins should have their talkpages left unlocked so people can ask them things? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Right now I am neutral however. I see Conservative's points on this, but Rob has done a lot of good work for this wiki too. I think it is best of we leave to to Andy to decide. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
'''RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication.''' Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. '''Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Hold on. Why is RobS even a member of an Atheist website. Surely he of all people knows that they will not accept the logic of conservatism and that it is a hopeless cause to try to convert them that way. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There is converting going on. I just received an email saying RobS is becoming more and more like the members of a atheist vandal website. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::In that case I am not sure RobS should be given this much power, if he has such close affiliations with sites that support such illogical viewpoints. RobS, you are a good contributor, but I'm sorry; if what Conservative says is true, then it is better safe than sorry. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:45, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::If this atheist vandal website is wikipedia, than I should admit that I have an account there. However I have not used it for quite a few months now. I think it would be wrong to punish people like me, who only were trying to help when they made Wikipedia accounts but have since moved on. [[User:MorrisF]]
:::::::::I have an account at just about every "wiki" type site. I was an active member of "the trio of wiki" (Cpedia, <s>censored</s>, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 08:09, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section Break===
Wait a minute. Why were Conservative's posts replaced with "Personal attacks removed"? He never personally attacked anyone. Plus, many of his key points were removed. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=894161&oldid=894159 this user did it.] ive since reverted it.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::SeanS, that's a diff, not a user. I replaced Conservative's several personal attacks with the template that is prescribed at [[Guidelines#Civility]]. NickP, I cannot tell if you are being serious. Conservative's post in this section are full of personal attacks against another user, that user has been conscientiously polite in response. If the personal attacks that I removed are the key points then that merely shows them to be invalid points in the first place. SeanS, you have now reinstated the personal attacks, in clear contravention of site policy. Please read the policy, and replace the templates. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know what they are. IF you notice, the Diff has your username in it, therefor, I can say who did what. And if it is indeed a personal attack, why make it harder for an admin to see what it is and judge accordingly? --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 23:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Also note that a lot of the comments you removed were not really personal attacks. When Conservative said that RobS was a "useful idiot", he wasn't actually calling RobS stupid. "Useful Idiot" is actually someone who sympathizes with the enemy, as Conservative was accusing RobS. "Egotistical" is not a personal attack; it is a critique (though arguably impolite) on a user's behavior, not an attack on the person. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::In the same way that "Sleazy Nazi", for example, is really just an assessment of a person's moral fibre and political views, not a personal attack. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his Administrator rights ==

I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his administrator rights. I regret to say that RobS is engaging in inexcusable behavior which was previously described on this talk page, but has now been whitewashed from this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am considering lobbying harder for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I know I am a new poster ==
But I have been registered for some time and I have to say one of the main reasons I have not tried to contribute here is because of the behaviour of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. His childish 'satire' articles have done more to make me re-consider than anything else on here, and I have already spoted several parody entries in articles such as the article on Motorcycles. About the only thing that would make me become a regular contributor would be if [[User:RobS|RobS]] were able to succeed in his attempts to reign in the more idiotic 'contributions' of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. But no doubt I will now be blocked for daring to voice this opinion, despite Aschlafly having said previously that dissenting opinions are not censored on Conservapedia. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Davidspemcer, If you do choose to contribute in the future, I would suggest using the Firefox browser as it would enable you find your spelling mistakes (behavior and spotted). Second, if you want to show you are a good faith editor and not merely a member of a vandal website, I would suggest further expanding the article [[Soviet atheism]] and please cite reputable sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Oh the irony. Myusername is DavidspeNcer and not M. And I do use the firefox browser, 3.6.3 to be precise with greasemonkey, no script and IE View installed.
:::::And I am British so the word is spelt behaviour as far as I am concerned and seeing as we created the English language I will use that version if that is ok with you. And this is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that I mean. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Sid and David, the [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] and the reactions of atheists with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] reminds me of the movies when "holy water" is sprinkled on the demon possessed.

Obsessed atheist: What's that?

Conservapedian: One of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|satires concerning atheism and evolution]].

Obsessed atheist: Keep it away! Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Concerning the article [[Soviet atheism]], how can I improve on what is evidently perfection. Concerning your articles such as [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] most of them can not be improved on can they, hence them being locked. However I will see what I can do to improve the already good article concerning [[Soviet atheism]]. Now I will refrain from commenting again for a while as I do not wish to violate the 90/10 rule which, as Aschlafly said, is only a guidleine anyway. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Without wanting to pronounce on the rights and wrongs of the situation under discussion, is it quite seemly for a user to weigh in and reply to complaints made to a third party about his own conduct? Monkeys and organ grinders spring to mind.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
CPalmer, because you are an atheist and an evolutionists, I humbly defer to your superior atheist intellect and your superior knowledge of monkeys. "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, why do you think that I am an atheist and an evolutionist(s)? I am just questioning whether your hasty butting in on people's overtures to Mr Schlafly can be considered polite. From a practical point of view, I would think it would also tend to prolong or inflame disputes (wasting more of your time and others'), rather than speeding their resolution. We know what your position is, so you do not need to restate it here until the discussion is furthered by a response from Aschlafly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::CPalmer, my apologies. The was a former user with a similar username as you who had a habit of being unreasonable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Proposed blocking reform framework ==

Setting aside the current disputes about blocking and whether CP's current blockers/Sysops do or have ever done an unwarranted block or whether Sysops should undo another Sysops block, I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks. I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking.

Absent of such a policy being developed using the framework I am about to suggest, I would be willing to assist in the creation of such a policy sometime in the fall of 2011.

Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting:

1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable.

2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.

3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board that could meet either bi-monthly or monthly or every two months (or perhaps quarterly). The CP community can offer up suggestions on whose blocks should be reviewed, but each CP editor can only offer so many candidates lest a cumbersome list be created of past blocks (CP has been around for 3 plus years. Perhaps, the blocking review board will only look at blocks for a given period). The blocking review panel could be made up of Sysops and non-Sysops and a certain amount of blocks per blocking period (which will be decided by this proposed framework} will be reviewed. For example, say the blocking review board meets one a month. It could be decided that 5 blocks per month could be reviewed by the board. Perhaps, Andy could choose to review the boards decision for any given period that the board meets. Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board.

I am not saying my framework couldn't be adjusted as time goes by (how often they meet, how many candidates are reviewed, etc.), but I do think that my proposed blocking reform provides adequate protection, but is not overly complex or burdensome given any blocking periods blocking volume. I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board. I would suggest that RobS not be a part of such a blocking review board because including myself 3 Sysops that I am aware of now think he should lose his Admin rights.

I was told by a pessimist that a workable blocking reform couldn't possibly be developed in 30 minutes or less. However, I believe I just created one. :) I welcome other editors comments on my blocking reform framework lest I am being overly optimistic about the viability of my suggested reform. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:I like it. Although I would say, if Rob doesn't lose admin rights he should be allowed on the review board. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::If such a board is created, I will suggest to Andy and my fellow Admins (including the two who think he should no longer have Admin rights) that RobS not be allowed to serve on the board. Perhaps, after a considerable amount of time and evidence that RobS has changed, I would no longer oppose him being on such a board. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:02, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== 3 Sysops now agree that RobS should lose his Admin rights ==

Including myself, 3 Sysops now think RobS should lose his Admin rights. Sysop TerryH said I could list his name. I have not yet strongly lobbied for RobS to lose his Admin rights among my fellow Sysops and editors. I am giving RobS a chance to apologize for his recent behavior including among other things, the behavior I mentioned on this talk page but was whitewashed off this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
: There are more users that have come forth believing you should lose your Admin rights. RobS has pushed for accountability for sysops and clear banning rules. It speaks volumes about you three. The one person calling for user friendly changes should lose his rights, while the man/woman/man-child/eunuch who bans the dissenters, burns evidence of dissent, and writes asinine articles on casual relationships present in any demographic, should continue unabated? No, you are a large factor in the farce that is Conservapedia.

:Conservapedia has yet to gain any large-scale positive attention. No high-profile conservatives have endorsed Conservapedia. This project can't even attract many good faith editors. Many who come in get banned at the door. Those who make it through are immediately suspected parodists. Those who toe the CP line too hard are branded as parodists and banned. Those who deviate from the CP line are vandals and banned. When a user disagrees with a sysop they are banned. If they disagree with you in particular, they are banned and the relevant talk page is burned. CP bans for ideological differences and censors dissent. As long as this behavior continues CP will never be a respectful source. RobS is pushing to change this. His proposed changes won't end the problem, but it is certainly a large step forward from the current system.

:User:Conservative, you are the one who needs to lose admin rights for your obvious abuse of power, not RobS. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::While I do not agree with all of CP's material, Concerned women of America (CWA), Human Events, Patriot Update (PU) and other conservative websites have linked to CP in a positive way (CWA and PU linked to material I had a substantial hand in if memory serves). Please try to have an informed opinion rather than merely an opinion. Second, I am not of the opinion that the number of people advocating a position is paramount. Neither did America's Founding Fathers who set up a republic and not a democracy. While I do not agree with all of Ann Coulter's political positions (the military, etc.), I am considering reading my first Ann Coulter book which focuses on how liberals love mob rule. Third, you certainly did prove your claim that anyone or anyone who disagrees with me, I ban or that I oversight all those disagree with me. I would also point out that RobS banned me and I never never banned him. It could be argued that in many ways I have shown more tolerance of him than he has afforded me. And all of this could have been avoided. All RobS had to do was stop pestering concerning inane and non-urgent matters. I wonder if RobS likes to poke sleeping dogs over and over and then complain when they bite him. And lately, RobS's poor behavior has gone significantly beyond merely pestering me which I mentioned on this talk page before it was whitewashed away (RobS recommended doing the whitewashing). As a result, I said enough is enough and sided with those who think he should lose his Admin rights. I do think he should be able to earn back his Admin if he admits his wrongdoing and behaves in a more positive manner for a period of time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I specified high profile conservatives, I said nothing of websites. Either way, [http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1350/comparisonv.png this link compares Conservapedia, the three websites you mentioned, and a comic strip.] As you can see, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is bigger than all of them. So I feel safe saying CP has no large scale positive support. Furthermore, there are no Congressmen or Senators that have endorsed CP. To my knowledge there are no candidates that have endorsed CP either.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of open discussion of problems. They did not stifle discussion by suddenly becoming busy when challenged, or by doing whatever the 18th century equivalent of locking their talk pages was. The Founding Fathers also had a large problem with men abusing their power.

That's where you come in. Let's look at your block reasons. Of course, I can only provide the diff logs for a few of these, you've burned most of the pages:

''15:45, 6 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Soxwon04 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (having a sentence with an unsupported clause followed by a question. waste someone else's time)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''04:10, 7 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked XavierC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki)'' [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/XavierC Here] is his contribs. He called you out for locking your talk page and stifling debate, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=886852 here.] Yes, he called you a coward, but this is extremely common for you to do other people.

''16:49, 29 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Haggger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo)'' Burned diff logs. How can we evaluate his actions?
''02:00, 2 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked SNg (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार [Masculinity is not behaving])'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''21:55, 25 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Sasayaki (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize )'' Contribs is blank, I remember this one. User answered the Question Evolution Campaign and asked own questions to you. Oh, boo-hoo he linked to RW. He disagreed with you, took up your debate, and you deleted the evidence.

''02:41, 24 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Atheistlogic1995 (Talk | contribs) wit''h an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (oxymoron)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''18:25, 1 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked PapaBear (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (too much talk, talk not enough serious enditing)'' User made three posts, two of them talk pages, one of which was remember to add his sig. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=873210 Offending post here.] Criticizes gossip in the BHO article.

''00:34, 28 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Jclough (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''22:54, 15 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aleksyevt (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Yeah, he talked a lot. You know what else he did? Ask for more sources, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Agnosticism&diff=prev&oldid=869530 here.]

Ten examples within you're last 120 blocks: 8.3% Seven of these had blank contribs pages. How can we even analyze this? You are showing no accountability in your position of power on this wiki. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 16:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::JonS, you are still wrong. [[Matt Barber]] and [[William Dembski]] linked to Conservapedia in a positive light as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia|HERE]]. I personally know that a leader in a extremely well known Christian organization linked to CP's atheism and evolution articles which I largely wrote (Please do not forget the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don't know about various links does not mean they do not exist. :) ). Second, please feel free to have your liberal/evolutionists/atheists bean counter friends scour through my blocks and tabulate and examine them. I would hope they have bigger fish to fry in their lives, but I am not particularly concerned if they do. The truth is that those who whine and kvetch about me in the vast majority of cases do so because of the atheism/evolution articles I largely created at CP. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Please provide a link to this "extremely well known Christian organization." You should also acknowledge your wanton abuse of power. You can spin a quick look into your block log however you like, but that does not change you ban people for disagreeing with you, and that you burn the evidence of it. You are complained about for two reasons: 1) you abuse your sysop powers. 2) Your atheist/evolution articles are non-encyclopedic. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ha! Demski links to Conservapedia in a "positive light"? The best that he says is that a part of the Conservapedia [[Climategate]] article "...does not sound entirely far fetched". A ringing endorsement! As for Matt Barber, no link is provided and a search of the CWA website (that you refer to in reference to him) for "Conservapedia" comes up with no results. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would like to note something here. Just because a user's contributions are blank does not mean that they didn't make contributions. I assume that they made inappropriate articles, or in some cases, did not follow the proper username policies. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
The userpages are left blank because Conservative has oversighted the pages they contributed to. There are two people who have names technically in violation of the rules on the list. Neither of them are said to be blocked for that reason. Given the people who have been blocked for 90/10 violations, I assume they disagreed with Conservative, he seems to block for that (Aleksyevt, PapaBear, and Sasayaki all criticized him). Even if they made inappropriate articles, Conservative should only delete them, rather than burn them, then we can be aware of these blocks, and he can be accountable, a concept he seems unfamiliar with. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 19:20, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== In an effort to end this continued and protracted debate ==

This has gone one for long enough. Both editors, RobS and Conservative, have used personal comments against each other and both have argued from opposite corners but to no avail. Why don't they '''both''' lose their sysop rights for a time - then they can prove themselves once more. I know I am just a new user but still, this is going on and on without resolution. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, in the absence of RobS pestering me again or engaging in additional very egregious behavior, I have spoken my piece on this matter. I have a feeling that RobS will either lose his Admin rights in the next 1-5 days or keep shooting himself in the foot through his poor behavior and cause his own demise or he will alter his course. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I feel, and I am sure that many other observers would agree, that you are both guilty of poor behaviour, personal attacks and actions unbecoming of someone in a position of power. I am a mere observer and carry no weight of course but it is people like me who come to conservapedia to contribute and who'll be turned off by protracted arguments, reverting and disappearing of editors comments, accusations and poorly thought out essays and ongoing in fighting. Which you are both guilty of (one in more areas than the other). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, if your words carry no weight, then why offer them? Frankly, given the substance of your recent post to me I have to agree with you on this point. Now that we both agree that your words carry no weight, I won't feel bad ignoring you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::carry no weight as in no authority not because of lack of substance. All I was trying to do was be even handed, rational and end the pointed bickering. But since you have insulted me, and not for the first time, I leave you to ignore me. Frankly for someone that calls atheist quarrelsome and socially challenged you certainly seem to be showing similar traits yourself. As a Christian I avoid insults and try to be polite and fair and as I don't feel I can continue to be so I'll have to end my response here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You end your comments by calling him a hypocrite, then claim to avoid insults?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:19, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I think that Max is selling himself short. He has shown himself to be a calm and considered editor. His input should be valued and I would ask that he continue to participate in this discussion. SeanS, on the other hand, has shown himself incapable of staying on topic. In the section [[User_talk:Aschlafly#RobS_becoming_a_pawn_and_a_.22useful_idiot.22_of_an_atheist_website|above]] he totally derailed the discussion in an attempt to attack me. However, his input is also welcome if he can stay on topic and avoid irrelevant personal attacks.

I would like to voice my view of Max's original post in this section. I do not see why Rob should lose any rights. So far as I can see he has worked hard to improve this site and introduce reform that would only benefit the site. He has been met by a series of largely unreferenced slurs by Conservative who clearly regards his own position as under threat. If Rob were to lose rights it would send out the message that anyone who seeks to improve the site is putting their own position at risk. I do not regard that as a positive message. On the other hand I have no difficulty with Conservative losing admin rights. His history is one of abuse and failure to co-operate as has been demonstrated above and elsewhere again and again. I have no personal animosity towards him/her but he/she stands in the way of this site ever becoming a serious educational tool. That is regrettable but it is also an unavoidable conclusion. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:59, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
===One second...===
This is Andy Schlafly's talk page, so shouldn't he be the one to decide on this? He has not posted anything yet, so I assume he is busy. Perhaps we should wait until his decision? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 19:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Amen. Can we please show the man a little respect by giving him a chance to respond? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::If andy wanted to reply, he could have by now. If he is going to, he will when he considers it best. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:18, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:::It's no secret that Andy has quite a number of projects on his plate, Sean. He's a busy man with a lot of demands on his time. It's entirely possible that he hasn't had a chance to look at any of this yet. Whether he has or not, though, the point remains: this is his talk page. It is a place to communicate with him, not to carry on general debates with all and sundry. In the interest of putting my money where my mouth is, I will be refraining from further posts here. I urge others to do the same. Both Conservative and RobS have said their piece; Andy will respond as he chooses and in his own time, as is his perogative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::: ''If he is going to, he will when he considers it best.''--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

==My two cents for Mr Schlafly==

I have been reading conservapedia for several months now, and I am pleased to say that my kids (11 and 14) also use it as their first point of call when needing encyclopedic information for homework assignments etc). I have not signed up an account as I do not feel knowledgeable (or tech-savvy) enough to contribute anything meaningful. However I fell compelled to chime in here regarding the ongoing discussion regarding the direction of this website. Cards on the table now: I am a conservative Christian and I read and encourage my kids to read this website because it promotes true American values. The main page is my "go to point" for the latest news, as the administrators here seem to have an uncanny knack of highlighting exactly the kind of stories I am interested in, I am also pleased to say that the article evolution has given my kids plenty of knowledge that is censored from them in school (and the satires have brought us all many hearty chuckles! :) ). From what little I know of this website, User:Conservative has contributed a huge amount of first-rate material and wishes to maintain the integrity of this site as a reliable conservative Christian resource, whilst User:Rob Smith (maybe with a view to enlarging the target audience?) wishes to make the site more liberal and cater to atheistic views. There are plenty of liberal atheistic sites out there, I choose not to read them. I choose to read conservapedia. Please don't change that Mr Schlafly. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 20:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy) ==

Deep breath and here we go...

These are my thoughts on the blocking policy, somewhat directed at Conservative's proposals.

1) Blocking for obvious vandals is, well, obvious. Blanking pages, filling pages with gibberish, vulgar or stupid names, etc. is just childish and such children should have a time out - a long time out. I don't believe a lot of time or effort needs to be spent establishing rules for those cases.

2) Parody, as noted elsewhere on this page, is much harder to discern. I have noticed recent blocks (and no, I'm not going to go search for them - I'm not here to point fingers) that have been questionable, in my opinion. There needs to be a set and fairly easy procedure where a blocked editor who feels their block was unfair can present his/her/its case. Chances are that most blocks are good, but in cases where there was a misunderstanding, or a personality clash, a ''disinterested'' admin needs to step in.

3) I've already suggested a board of some type, consisting of both admins and regular editors. Given the number of appeals can't be known ahead of time, setting a regular schedule might not be warranted. The board could meet when a certain number (4 or 5?) appeals have been presented and make their decision, with Andy possibly reviewing it and putting his seal of approval on it. Notifications of the board meeting should be posted prominently on the front page. A talk page could be provided with a list of editors who are appealing their block. This would allow others who are not on the board but who might have a direct interest could express their opinion. There might also be a rule with regards to a blocked editor who has been restored and their subsequent behavior.

4) As for the makeup of the board – right now I feel that should be decided later, when tempers have cooled a bit. One possible idea is to make it a rotating membership, with say, a six-month tenure. This would prevent the board duties from becoming too onerous a task for the individual members.

On a personal note, I would like to request that the editors here at CP remember that debates and discussions about articles, essays and even questionable editors should be about the actual ''edits'' that have been made, not about the editors' personalities. I realize it can be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!)
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, if you eventually gain Sysop status, I would work on getting a blocking review board going. Putting notices of the board meeting on the front page will never realistically happen though. I would also suggest having the meetings occur according to a specified time period for predictability (bi-monthly, monthly, every two months, etc. ) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:29, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== My proposed solution to the current crisis ==
My understanding is that the the [[User:CPanel|Student Panel]] has the final word on all matters related to the site. Why don't we put the following questions to them?

* Who is wrong here? Conservative, RobS, neither or both?
* In the event that they determine that one or both of them has acted inappropriately, what should happen to them? (Temporary block, permanent block, demotion, etc)
* Is the current block policy sufficient and appropriate?
* If not, what policy would be?

I feel this is the only solution left. God Bless. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 00:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

::'''''We''''' shouldn't present it to them - it should be either Conservative or Rob who bring the case before the panel, since it involves them. Andy could, if he prefers to remain neutral in this case, have the panel look over the situation. If there are any other editors who are ''directly'' involved, then they too might have a reason to take it before the panel. The rest of us are onlookers and we should all cease involving ourselves into the matter. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I appreciate the concern SharonW. I should have asked Aschlafly intervene earlier as far as RobS as it would have been a better use of time. He would have been glad to do it. As far as a blocking policy, I put together what I thought was a workable block review policy framework and maybe someone will pick up that ball and run with it. I said I may help develop a blocking review policy in the fall, but the more I think about it that was wishful thinking. I have decided to pursue other matters. As far as the RobS matter, from what I have been told Aschalfly is going to review matters in the very near future and decide what to do. I have said my piece on the matter and have decided to move on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:37, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Does the Panel still exist?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 01:18, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::[[User:SharonW|SharonW]], I respectfully disagree. RobS and Conservative are creating a problem for the whole community and it is therefore the responsibility of the whole community to see that it gets solved. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 02:21, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The point is moot, anyway; the Student Panel's [[User Talk:CPanel|talk page]] is locked. If they're watching, or if someone has the ability to bring this issue to them, I urge that person to do so. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:55, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking review ==

I strongly believe the only true way to have a fair blocking policy is to have users who are willing to review blocks. I've been worried about the implications of what amounts to block-reverting, but I'm confident enough in the sysop community that I don't think any user would object to having a second pair of eyes look at a block; I also think it's important that users who really think they've been unfairly blocked be able to make their case and in some cases be given a second chance. It's been said we don't have the manpower for such reviews, but I think we're overestimating the number of users who would take the time to ask for review on a block. I've publicly listed my email on my [[User:Iduan|userpage]] for users who do wish to do so.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:58, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Policies that need to die: Editorial Authority ==

*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=893605&oldid=893603 DouglasA removes a list of games from a game franchise article]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto&diff=894046&oldid=893605 SeanS reverts this (IMHO senseless) deletion]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASeanS&year=&month=-1 DouglasA blocks SeanS for two weeks: "Reverting admin"]
Anybody see what is wrong in this picture? Anybody? You, the man in the top hat! What was that? "It's sysop abuse to block somebody for a simple revert?" BZZZZZZZZZZZT! WRONG! DouglasA is absolutely in the right here.

''It's the rules that are messed up.''

I feel it's time we take a closer look at one of the more silent policies of Conservapedia: Editorial authority!

So what is Editorial Authority? Let's take a look at [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]]:
*'''Do not revert an Administrator's changes without first discussing it with them, and gaining their permission. Administrators are in charge of deciding the editorial policy of Conservapedia. Their instruction(s) on such matters are always to be followed.'''

In other words: If an administrator edits a mainspace article to read "General Relativity causes breast cancer", then normal editors are not allowed to remove that without asking for permission. If said permission doesn't come, then tough luck, go edit something else, liberal.

This is why this block is perfectly within the rules. And even a five-year block would have been fine - after all, we don't have any guidelines about block durations.

It's also an ''excellent'' illustration that something is deeply wrong here.

Can we ''please'' get rid of this obscure rule? It's one of the worst policies ever introduced and completely kills off the wiki spirit through the most literal form of "Might makes right". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:I absolutely and completely agree with you, Sid 3050. This rule needs a '''''lot''''' of clarification. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:15, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-29T06:21:21Z

FergusE: /* My proposed solution to the current crisis */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires ==

I thought about RobS wanting to make it a more open wiki and so I decided to remove the talk page protection for the comedy/satire pages on atheism and evolution

I put the redirects and page protection to add to the humor of the comedy/satire pages. Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see: [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]] ). The thought of quarrelsome militant atheists hitting the talk page buttons of those comedy/satire pieces and getting redirected to another page had a element of humor to me. Like getting the last laugh to often humorless persons in humorous way. Plus, I just don't see the point of it. I don't foresee me participating in the talk pages of these comedy/satire pages in the future. The idea of debating comedy/satire/humor does not hold any interest to me. If any liberals want to debate humor, I suggest they contact their locale papers about their political satires or send any angry letter to some stand up comics. In addition, I don't see the point of bothering with the posts of whiny atheists with thin skins who want to make picayune and inane comments.

With the above said, obviously there are cost and benefits to decisions and I wanted to assist RobS in his aforementioned effort.

However, I don't want anyone unlocking the comedy/satire pages themselves. Some have a lot of viewership and if they are not broke, I don't want them "fixed" - especially by atheists/evolutionists. Within reason, I personally think essay pages should be like a person's talk page and be their castles. The thought of someone altering essays seems odd to me except for minor proofreading. Of course, I would be against the essays promoting immorality such as engaging in bank robberies, etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:53, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I returned to tie up a loose end with editor Nate. With that being said, I just wanted to say that if atheists in the future wish to fill those talk pages with whiny comments, it will of course confirm atheists are often proud people who have thin skins so I welcome them to squeal like stuck pigs on the comedy/satire talk pages. :) I won't be reading their whiny comments, but I am guessing that others might enjoy seeing them whelp on the talk pages of the comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

My conversation with "Conservative" was removed after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review it. What is the meaning of this outrageous behavior? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::It was in the section above this one. The posts are from yesterday. "Conservative" deleted the whole section after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review "Conservative's" insulting behavior and state whether the editorial policy here is YEC as to articles like evolution. I don't know how to find the posts. Can administrators look at the history? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=887044&oldid=887012 this] part of what you're talking about? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes, thank you. That's the last post in the section "Conservative" deleted. How do you find pages like that? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:21, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There's a little tab at the top of the page labeled 'history'; click on that and you get a list of changes starting with the most recent. Hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:23, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Very much, thank you. I knew abut my contributions button but didn't know about history. I now see that entire discussions that took place in December between "Conservative" and various users challenging the absolute lack of evidence of any correlation between atheism and obesity have completely disappeared. What is going on on this site?! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:38, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Now that's something one does need to be an administrator to answer. I try to stay out of these things. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Nate, the comment was never deleted, or reverted. It was Archived. I would be supportive of a guideline on Archiving that gives a 7 day waiting period since the last posting before Archiving. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I didn't know what an archive is. Thank you for showing me, RobS. All I saw was that the conversation was suddenly missing. It was archived around 11:30 Central time and I had to get to bed so I never had a chance to see "Conservative's" last post ending the conversation by "stating the obvious" and further denigrating the Catholic Church as "not the most Bible loving institution" and saying "I really think it is hard to deny that much of the Catholic leadership and a significant amount of RCC scholars fail to take a high view of Scripture." I deny it. I deny it up and down and am getting and more offended as "Conservative" continues slandering the Catholic Church. It may surprise "Conservative" to know that people just like me read the Bible (there are a LOT of us) literally where the context indicates it should be read literally. People can obviously come to different conclusions based on ''how'' they decide what is to be read literally. Young Earth Creationists like "Conservative" treat the first chapters of Genesis as history. I was taught and accept the "Framework View". Our disagreement should not entitle "Conservative" to slander an entire Church and an enormous group of people who walk the walk everyday. Will someone please help get this person under control and stop the sneering anti-Catholic jabs and clarify whether YEC is the editorial policy here? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:32, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Nate, you never addressed information like this that I provided from the online version of Roman Catholic New American Bible: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm which gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture. The website http://www.usccb.org is maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I suggest you cease your denialism. You can cry slander day and night, but unless you demonstrate it, you are not particularly convincing. By the way, it appears things are not looking good for evolutionism in the key biology textbook state of Texas as can be seen [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html HERE] Have a nice day! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::What's to address? You're laughably wrong. You gave a link to the introduction to Second Peter in an edition of the Bible but haven't even bothered to justify your offensive claim that it "gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture." These men are bishops of the Catholics Church. What do you think they're doing if they're not devoting their lives in service of a "high view of scripture"? You also haven't demonstrated why scholarship questioning the provenance of Second Peter is wrong. So you've failed altogether to do anything more than argue by assertion based on an absurdly erroneous misreading of the source. And I'm in denial? You can't even accurately cite sources in order to prop up your vendetta against "liberals", atheists, "evolutionists" now Catholics. I looked at this shockofgod stuff you keep spamming. The guy looks like a Youtube crank running his mouth about an ambitious campaign that's having little or no effect. Good luck with that. I'll ignore him like everyone else seems to be doing. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I see that you can safely be ignored. How is your request for Andy's input going? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy's refusal to intervene to stop your abuses is disappointing. The smiley face and your insulting non response just prove my point that you're an awful debater who refuses to address things on the level or cooperate. I'm very sorry for this site that no other admin except this sneering creature chose to intervene. Please close my account if no other admin is willing to assist with controlling this person. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 02:44, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Well geez, what are you asking? Pardon me, but your complaints seem to be all over the map. First you complain about a possible anti-Catholic bias because the assertion is made the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as arbiter of God's Word and not scripture; then you make complaints about the user your in dispute with; then you complain about the sites owner; then you complain nobody's willing to help; then you complain about the site. Now you wanna take your ball and go home cause others can't debate whatever you are driving at.
:Let's address the complaint of anti-Catholic bias: other sites, devoted to athiesm and rational science, I'm sure are much less sympathetic to Catholicism than the devotion and respect it recieves here. Have you tried defending the Catholic faith at those sites? If so, gimme a link so we can see your bona fidas. Maybe then your complaints would be taken more seriously. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Resolution of matters ==

[[User:Conservative]] wrote: ''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved, CP not becoming a pro-evolution website''. My proposal: when a matter is resolved, a short (but highlighted) statement should be added under the respective discussion, summarizing the achieved consensus. After this, the discussion can be archived.

[[User:Conservative]] stated that [[Gender-neutral|he]] won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has [[Gender-neutral|he]] said something about them?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative said so above, "''''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved''". I'm not certain restoring all, or certain, talk page deletions are possible. And mainspace, such as the link you provided, are simple reversions or edit wars. Am I understanding your question properly? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:28, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will use more discretion as far as the delete button so as not to remove credit to other contributions. Including this time, I have said this three times now. I suggest you stop beating this dead horse and let it rest in peace. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

:::@RobSmith: I thought that Conservative's comment indicated that some issues had been resolved. And that's my point: After having a problem resolved, there should be an easily readable short resolution, perhaps a template which states in which way the matter was solved. After this, the topic could be archived. This would help to avoid repeating the same discussions over and over again - one could link to the already resolved project. Just an idea for the future...
:::BTW: I linked each occurence of ''he'' to the article on [[gender-neutral|gender-neutrality]], as I wanted to explain why I won't address [[User:Conservative]] as ''(s)he''.
:::@Conservative: it's nice that you'll ''"use more discretion as far as the delete button"'' is concerned. What's about using the ''preview-button'' - as taken into consideration by you [[User talk:AugustO# You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration|here]]?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::AugustO, thanks for the input. A person I invited to this wiki who created a very popular article at Conservapedia told me he created his material on a word processor first and then transferred that material to Conservapedia. I can use this same approach. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Perhaps user:conservative would like to tell us why he has taken to summarily deleting other users' user and talk pages. This would appear to be in contravention of the spirit of free speech that Mr Schlafly [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=887947&oldid=887941 encourages] on this wiki.

Sadly, this is yet another indication of user:conservative's complete lack of interest in the protocols of this wiki, nor is he interested in anything but himself and his own agenda, even if it means insulting Catholics like NKeaton and Mr. Schlafly. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:54, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::TracyS, I don't think you are a sincere person and your most recent instance of trying to pick a fight with me over a complete trivial non-issue. Please find something productive to do rather than making baseless charges and trying to waste other peoples time. Also, if you truly felt I have insulted Mr. Schlafly I would think you would have contacted him about this matter. Unsurprisingly, I have no indication you did. My guess is that if you did try to make this allegation with Mr. Schlafly you would get the same non-response as NKeaton. I have nothing further to say about deleting a person's page who indicated they no longer wanted to edit. I also have nothing further to say about recently deleting another profile with nonsensical and contradictory material created by an inane provocateur. If you think I am going to waste a lot of my time dealing with your melodramatic and phony posts to me, guess again. I am not. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::User:Conservative has in the past several hours reverted talk page comment from Aschlafly's page. Stop. Please stop. You are not Aschlafly. This is a violation of another's user space. You are not free to remove comments from other users space. If Mr. Schlafly wanted those comments removed he would do it himself or ask someone to do it. Mr. Schlafly removed personal information from that same thread; if Mr. Schalfly wanted that thread removed he would have done it there and then. User:Conservativis action is disrespectful to another users talk page, and all CP editors.
:::User:Conservative has gained quite the reputation for information destruction. This wiki has survived some battles, and now is the time to demand accountability from Sysop. Sysops are to be models of interaction for junior editors, but they are not whenthey feel they can violate and ignore CP's core principles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside your allegation about my reputation information destruction (A claim which I find odd given my 63 page article on [[atheism]] which I largely wrote, 46 written page article on [[evolution]] which I largely wrote and a 62 written page article [[homosexuality]] which I largely wrote. Perhaps, I have a reputation for information dissemination? ), I will briefly say that you raise a good point in this instance. A person's talk page is their castle. Although I decided to remove my own post, I do think it would have been better if I had asked Mr. Schlafly first. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and changing the way I do things. RobS, can the same be said of you? I have yet to receive an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page. You may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle. Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter? You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that. But I would at ask you to be consistent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is not your talk page. It is Mr. Schalfly's. Your talk page is your castle, do what you want with it. But other's talk pages must be respected. If the comment was innapropriate, it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. And users who troll other's talk pages generally get blocked. Both are blockable offenses, and edit warring over it is another. You need to be an example for sysop wannabe's, both (a) how to interact with other editors, and (b) how ''not'' to misuse sysop powers. There is entirely too much shoot-from-the-hip with you in all of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:31, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm concerned that the focus here isn't necessarily in the right spot, and I apologize for not having contributed to the community portal earlier - I'd been on a series of summer vacations visiting family up and down the East Coast. Frankly, I think it's acceptable if some leeway is given to comments written by the user, even if on another user's talk page. Do I think it's ideal to post a comment and then remove it? No, but the wiki doesn't break down if it happens. In the same sense that it's acceptable to fix typos in your posts, I think it's acceptable - though again, not ideal - for a user to determine that his post might no longer be relevant, or perhaps was redundant, and take it upon himself to delete said post (assuming no other users have contributed to the discussion).

I must admit I was previously more concerned with the wholesale deletion and recreation of pages, but I think that a lot of progress has been made on that issue thanks in large part to Rob, so my commenting would serve no real purpose.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, if you want to lead in this area, you need to lead by example. I still not have received an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page.
::::And you're not gonna get one.
:::Again, you may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle.
::::Then leave other people's castle alone.
:::Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter?
::::Am I gonna recieve an apology from you for your rudeness? Stop reverting, deleting, and oversighting discussions I am involved in.
:::You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that.
::::Thanks, I didn't know I needed your approval.
:::But I would at ask you to be consistent.
::::Here's consistancy: STOP ABUSING YOUR SYSOP POWERS!
:::I have a feeling that no apology will be forthcoming.
::::It ain't.
:::Regrettably, I have to say that I have downgraded my expectations for your success with your project in instituting new rules and getting their requisite enforcement.
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
:::I feel it will be impeded by you wanting to throw your weight around and not showing a willingness to admit your own mistakes and to abide by existing rules. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Don’t lecture me on the rules, pal. You’ve never shown an interest in policy development or writing sysop rules. All you’ve done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilities of people trying to contribute, and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] 23:30, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:If "a person's talk page is their castle," why do you keep deleting and recreating other peoples' talk pages/castles? [[User:RodneyA|RodneyA]] 23:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have already address this matter. I will further add that unlike Aschafly I did have JPatt's and Karajou agreement to mess around with their castles. :) In addition, Aschlafly is not particularly upset with me and has not poured oil down upon me from his castle walls. :) Lastly, I standby my action with NKeaton and the person I blocked and have no further commentary! Adios! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::RobS, I just saw your post. I suggest if you have a good case as far as some of your allegations that you take it up with Mr. Schlafly and with all due haste. I suggest you do that right now. I don't think that is gong to happen and even if you tried, I don't think it would go anywhere. We both know this. I don't mind altering my behavior due to reasonable requests. I think you should take a good hard look at how Iduan and August is approaching matters as I think you will have far more success. I do find it sad that your oversized ego and hot temper are getting in the way of admitting you erred concerning violating policy on my talk page.
:::Admit you erred in reverting, deleting, archiving, and oversighting active discussions I was involved in, blocking some participants without cause, and deleting their user pages. And let's understand this straight out -- this discussion is not about roasting User:Conservative, it is about developing guidleines and policies for editor and sysop conduct. You my good man, are simply the posterboy for abuse because of your unresponsiveness to other editors.
:::So you can cease right here and now with personal attacks about others ego, etc. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:40, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::Good luck with pushing your reforms with your present attitude and inconsistency. Next, I will certainly admit that with TK around I wasn't exactly an eager beaver as far as developing policies. I have from day one had my primary focus be content creation and related matters. I don't regret my decision. I think at this point, we should just avoid needlessly butting heads and get along as much as possible. I think I have clarified my position sufficiently and responded to other comments sufficiently. Despite your personal shortcomings and your recent behavior towards me, I have no ill will towards you and I hope your initiative bears fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. Let's work together to improve the wiki. I too, was always focused on content, but now we have the opportunity to overcome earlier mistakes the CP project made in ''not'' providing adequate guidelines and development support for sysops and editors. Registered users should be ''encouraged'' to contribute, and worked with to help develop their talents, not suspected as trolls from the minute they register, hounded, stalked, and blocked before they perform their first edit. The sysops that remain in this project must seriously review our shortcomings and recognize much of what we've tried has failed. I propose we overhaul our existing written policies and guidelines, and present them to the site's owner for input and ratification. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Thanks for the cordial response. A pointless wiki battle doesn't serve anyone. I am working on making some changes as well which I believe could make a big change if they were implemented. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

===Reform movement===

:::<s>User:Conservative ... firstly I can't find what you accuse RobS of doing in your page log - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AConservative - there's no record of an "unprotection".</s> ('''update''': I was mistaken - an unprotection did occur; I stand by my second point. Apologies for the mistake.) Secondly, I think the notion that, without an apology for a, <s>presumably</s>, one-time mistake, Rob's efforts have no legitimacy, is an absurd one - and so is the notion that this is only Rob's crusade. Rob started an attempt at reform, and I think we'd all say he deserves many kudos for doing so, but it's on all of us to build a better encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Iduan, I had asked RobS for clarification and received no response. Regardless, RobS's recent behavior towards me still has caused me to downgrade my expectations. Frankly, my expectations were not that high to begin with, but I had hoped for the best. Personally, I think the first order of business is to enforce existing core rules such as citing your sources which is given in the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia commandments]]. The people I requested to create content Conservapedia cited their sources and those articles are among the most popular articles at Conservapedia. However, most if not all wikis, are under sourced. I do think Conservapedia could do better in this area and I think the Admin group could do better in this department and lead by example. I may have ignored the preview button for various reasons and I am not against altering my behavior at this stage, but giving my sources has been a strong point of my content. Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time. Higher quality content, on the other hand, often gets ranked at the search engines and is more apt to bring in new readers and new editors. Non-quality content serves as a deterrent to gaining new editors. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:56, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I absolutely agree that citing sources is important - I think that's something that I've certainly been very careful to do in almost all my articles, but of course every user, including myself, could always do better. As to the preview button: I'm not especially concerned with the preview button and its usage. I think the question here, though, is what must sysops be subservient to? Obviously, Andy is the final authority, but regulating every sysops behavior would be a waste of time on his part. So I think what we all are trying to accomplish is some sort of explicit guidelines that will allow users to know what to expect from sysops, as well as allow sysops to police each-other and point out if one has erred.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
::::::*We need clearly defined blockng policy.
::::::*We need clearly defined deletion policy.
::::::*We need a definition of vandalism.
::::::*We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
::::::*We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
::::::*We need a definition of good faith.
::::::*We need to end this hideous "member of a vandal site" cause for blocking, which I can find no precedent anywhere how it came into existence, other than TK invented it out of whole cloth.
::::::*We need to end blocking on sight. Some sysops must run traceroute before a user makes thier first edit. This is not showing good faith and a terrible example to set.
::::::*We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
::::::*We need a definition of consensus.
::::::*And a few other things. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Iduan, some of Conservapedia's biggest missteps have been the result of poor sourcing and poor research which inevitably lead to poor content in those instances and this has happened to all wikis and not just Conservapedia. Second, I had told RobS that I had wanted to attend to this matter at another time and frankly RobS knows it could have waited as I told him privately that I had wanted to tackle other non-wiki matters and would not be creating much content and be far less active at Conservapedia in the short term. Plus, I think some of his charges towards me are ill conceived and ill supported. This is what convinces me that RobS has a problem with throwing his weight around and showboating. Furthermore, his refusal to apologize for removing the protection of my talk page further adds to this assessment. Did I want to say this about RobS? Was I trying to undermine his efforts? No. I said I wished him the best and until today I had chosen to remain silent about my reservations in terms of the success of his initiative. Does this mean that I think the project is doomed and RobS cannot change his behavior. No and I hope he does. I would suggest he start showing more good faith towards me and stop pestering me. I have no problems with being cordial towards RobS and cooperating with his initiatives, but it has to be a two way street in terms of respecting each other and our efforts. If RobS chooses to repair things I think that would be great and I could be among his biggest supporters. If he continues to show bad faith that would be most unfortunate. The balls is in his court now. I am certainly not going to support someone who is pestering me though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, I would add that it would not surprise me if the content/allegations/tone of this portal has caused Mr. Schlafly not to participate in this portal. I would think that RobS would want Aschlafly as a big supporter and for him to participate in this community portal. That certainly would be a big boost to his efforts. Have I told Mr. Schlafly how wonderful this community portal is? No, I have not. I said that although some good points were raised, I certainly had some reservations on how things were being conducted. Again, I would suggest that RobS cease and desist his pesterfest as I would far prefer being a wholesale supporter of this initiative than being a skeptical detractor who hopes for the best, but has some open reservations as far its potential for success. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

I think the biggest concern about delaying the conversation is that it will be delayed indefinitely; obviously any contributions that you can add despite your schedule are extra-appreciated. Its certainly reasonable to have a small delay, but without a timeline that's hard to do. I can't serve as a medium between you/Rob, but I do think no user is purposely pestering another; I think any bluntness can be attributed to the supposed urgency of the moment that all wikis are subject to, and not to hostility.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:Iduan, I do thank you for your cordiality and reasonableness. Despite some inappropriate conduct, I do think some positive benefits have resulted from this portal. As far as RobS pestering me, I think it was the result of impatience and ego and not being particularly concerned about another editor. I don't think his main focus is to pester me at an importune time, but nonetheless that has been the result. I am usually fairly successful at getting key participants cooperation for things that are important to me as I can be pleasantly persistent. RobS has chosen to be unpleasant and pushy. I would prefer to be a supporter of RobS though and time will tell if this happens. I think it is fair to say that things are fairly frosty in terms of us having a working relationship at the present time and that is unfortunate. I do have a feeling though that I may have accomplished my objective of not having RobS pester me and he may finally see the light concerning this matter. It shouldn't have taken this long though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

====Proposal 1; re:blocking====
Perhaps we should create a block review panel? Users with blocking rights who are willing to be contacted in the case that a user feels a block was unfairly handed out. I feel as though having a specific block policy and this theoretical panel could circumvent the need to define "vandalism" - which in my experience can be amorphous. Obviously specifics could be drawn up later, but as I see it a panel member could, should the scenario call for it, reverse a block without any hard feelings, and perhaps as a general guideline (though not a rule) the unblocked user should - barring clear vandalism - under no circumstances be reblocked by the original blocking user. This is very similar to current policy, except users inexperienced with wikis might not know how to find users with blocking privileges to contact if they have a concern, and this would conveniently list willing, active users. This would at least partly address bullets 1, 3, 5 re: blocking, 6 and 9.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That may not be feasible. Every blocked person could ask for review as a result. It may have unintended consequences. I think a better solution in the meantime is to be choosier about who is given block rights. I should have been more vocal about Bugler and RodWeathers being phonies but at least I got RodWeathers to create content. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:14, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well presumably with a large enough pool of willing "admins" (I'm using that to mean people with blocking rights, but I do understand the difference) it shouldn't be hard to accommodate those requests. I think it's relatively easy to determine whether a user is completely bad faith or whether perhaps a second chance should be granted. Certainly well done on Rod!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:18, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need serious blocking policy reform; I tried to log in minutes ago from my local public library and the account was blocked because of "possible misuse of U.S. or other government computer system." Can anyone help me right now in locating these blocks so they can be undone? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need full articulation when and under what circumstances a Range block is applicable. We've probably blocked every Starbucks and McDonald's on the planet, infinitely, as well as every public library and college. Undoing 4 years of inappropriate blocking is a real chore. [[Conservapedia:New sysop training page]] needs updating. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:36, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can absolutely get behind that. I would offer to help with range blocks, but I'm not familiar at all with that area - I've never even issued a range block. I also agree the language should be toned down on the blocking section of the sysop training page. While it is important to "err on the side of caution", as the page suggests, block are a serious punishment, and should be handed out with careful consideration.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:07, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the page[[ Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]; it should be written primarily for sysops. Editors can get the idea from there what is expected from them if they aspire to be sysops. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Conservapedia:New_sysop_training_page#Blocking]] - which you already linked to - seems to be a much more detailed (longer, certainly) approach. I would almost go so far as to suggest that the content from that section literally be flipped with content from that guideline page, after the language is toned down. (I could work on doing that, if you'd like, although perhaps it'd be best coming from you)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:Yes please do. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is what I've come up with: [[User:Iduan/guidelinedraft#Blocking]]. I would suggest that the first point - which is applicable to all users with block rights - be moved to [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]], but the second two points - which involve using administrator tools like "checkuser" or "delete" - be kept on the sysop page. If you could check over what I did it'd be greatly appreciated! (And obviously feel free to edit - I'm just using my userspace as a sandbox)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:43, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::(Just so you know - and you don't think I'm just being lazy - I'm actually unable to edit the new sysop guide page as its protected, hence the fork)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::Personally, I think that we should try working with ISPs before issuing rangeblocks. For ISPs that will not work with us, we should block those ISPs altogether, with a note that users should complain to their ISP or switch to another one to contribute to Conservapedia. This is what email administrators have been doing for quite some time, and although it isn't without flaw, it seems to have been somewhat effective for them. Since I have five years of experience dealing with ISPs, I'd be more than happy to help Conservapedia in doing this, and both Jpatt and Karajou can attest to my effectiveness.
::As for people desiring to appeal their block, Wikipedia and some other wikis allows blocked users to edit their own talk page and insert a template to challenge their block. They have an option to revoke this privilege if it is abused. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:44, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. I may have some questions on ISP and want to know more. Appealing a block presents some problems, namely manpower (or personpower to be politically correct) to handle it. This of course can be another source of efforts to just waste sysops time. If we had dozens of sysops with time on their hands to respond, and handle it responsibly, it wouldn't matter. Let's not put nthe cart before the horse. Let's hammer out a definition of "good faith user" and "vandalism", then if there's any misunderstanding in what that means, we could add an appeals process. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Hold on here. My thoughts are this. Disputing an administrator's block (unless you are an admin yourself) is disputing their judgement, which is uncalled for. I, for one, trust Andy's judgement in appointing his admins, and by extent trust the admins he appoints. I think, as editors, we should not question an sysop's decision. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:We need to identify and define grounds for blocking. Then we can review a sysop's actions. This means ''both'' sysops and editors can be held accountable. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Only discussions which are inactive for 7 days should be archived. Any discussion thread with a comment within the past 7 days should still be considered an active, ongoing discussion. This will give all users and interested parties an opportunity to review and participate. See [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Talk_pages_and_Archiving]] for more details. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Navigation box]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==

This is a follow-up to some [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884164&oldid=884024 points I made on Andy's talk page], which he said he agreed with completely.

First, I have to recognize and congratulate RobS for his work on bringing the rule of law to Conservapedia, and for lending his sysop influence to this.

The point I want to make is that "tweaking" the 90/10 rule (80/20, 70/30, whatever) requires that rules, and violations thereof, be logically connected with account blocks. This is simple logic. '''It does no good to lay out criteria for blockable misbehavior if sysops block people for whatever reason they please, with no regard for actual infractions''' (90/10, combative arguing, trolling, vandalism, lying, etc.)

Blocks '''must have verifiable reasons'''. But a look at the block log shows things like:
*By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki
*provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true
*Negative personal comments: The pigstie you require is down at Uncle Billy's farm.
*नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार (what???????)
*Multiple accounts; same IP(s) as existing/previous user(s): Need to change your socks, pardner...try washing them as well.
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: fake professors need not apply
*lack of machismo
*no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: I'm all for improvement too, stupid, which is why you're outta here.
*Broken arrow! (with a youtube page about the movie "We Were Soldiers") (what???????)
*I suggest going to Africa and searching for Mokele-mbembe. You have 5 years to do it now
*If only you were as nice as a pony, maybe women would love you
*probably an obese atheist with a thin skin!
*conservapedia obssessive compulsive disorder
*obesity

Blocking is serious business! It reflects upon the seriousness of Conservapedia. If you can't put in a cogent block reason, find some other sysop who can.

Now some of the cases above were probably well-founded, like the one with the comment with "try washing them as well", but sysops should be models of probity and levelheadedness, and should not have made that comment. Even if personally annoyed by someone's behavior, sysops should not let it get to them.

There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:

*Wanton deletion of pages, without VERY good reason. For example, deleting another user's user page or talk page. Even if it is swiftly recreated, and even if this is done without loss of information, there is simply no excuse for it.
*"Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
*Deletion of material from talk pages, unless it is truly libellous. Talk pages are a journal of discussions. There is almost never a reason to delete anything. Merely being peeved by something is not an excuse. If you are insulted by something, there should be a way to mark it with "personal attack removed" or something. I don't know the details.

Now I'm going to step on some toes. Take a deep breath, everybody.

The sysop guidelines / rules need to be '''enforceable'''. The Conservapedia community needs to know that they will be followed. Therefore, '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''. I see plenty of well-intentioned "junior" sysops who are doing an excellent job of keeping the site running smoothly. The removal of one or two sysops for flagraqnt violations will not harm Conservapedia. In fact, it may help immensely, by setting an example of expected behavior.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:17, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see why you're so upset over the block comments. Conservative is simply trying to add some humor. However regarding the Hindi/Thai/whatever block summary, this is an English wiki so everything should be in English. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 11:05, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::MeganH, you are a good guesser. It was Hindi. With that being said, SamHB's post has some merit as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:41, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Community input requested==
Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,

*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]

*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]

Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Block appeal? ==

A thought that just hit me: I'm genuinely not sure if this has been considered so far, but with internal e-mail now being disabled and the Zoho account not being listed on the Main Page, what is the current appeal process when you're blocked? I didn't check how many sysops list their e-mail address on their user page, but I'd be somewhat surprised if many do (since it attracts spam bots).

[[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] probably needs to be amended with a link to whatever appeal/contact policy is up to date, too. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:That link's hilarious. But seriously, we're looking into this. We'd like to get a good blocking policy everyone can get behind in place. I'm arguing CP should stop trying to re-invent the wheel, and look at how WP has learned to deal with sockpuppetry and vandalism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights? ==
:''Discussion moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]
Coming here to complete a registration and start writing about my topics of interest, I got deeply disappointed when I saw the message '''Only alphanumerical usernames are accepted'''. So how come that one isn't entitled to contribute here for the sole reason that they have an underscore or a gap in the desired username? I'm sure these restrictions have a strongly negative effect on the development of the Conservapedia, deterring a significant portion of contributors. Just look how many people work on Wikipedia, write popular pages on subject they now without bothering about admins imposing their views. Can you take a moment to imagine how many users, well, not only have been pressed to the wall next to the "open gate", but even compressed to death by the following crowd? It's way too surprising that the amount of users and articles is still important to you, as you state on the main page. If it's the case, I urge you to reconsider your policies and give more freedom to newcomers. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Just wait until you get to the part where you can't move pages, upload images or even edit at certain times. Assuming you won't be blocked to force you into registering again with a user name that follows the "first name, last initial" convention. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You talk about giving freedom to newcomers, but then dismiss me pointing out that newcomers indeed lack many freedoms they would expect to have? Well, have fun then. For what it's worth, I agree with the point about underscores in names. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Because instead of letting competent users respond to my claim you digress from the topic in an unconstructive manner, giving an outlet for your butthurt in a wrong place. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg Higher, higher :)] --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 15:30, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I could care less about the problems this section raises, I was pointing out that if your going to go around insulting people you aren't going to go anywhere here or anywhere--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservapedia is run strictly at the pleasure of [[Andy Schlafly]] as the founder, and to a lesser extent at that of the administrators. If you don't like their policies, then you have no business here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 17:17, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I always thought that this site was run in the interest of presenting items without the liberal bias that is prevalent through out the internet and the MSM. The opinions and whims of [[Andy Schlafly]] should have little to no bearing on the content of the site so long as the information set forth is well argued and is able to be backed up.
:::::::::If this site is run at the pleasure of Mr. Schlafly, than I'm afraid it is no better than wikipedia. For Conservapedia and the conservative movement to succeed, we must hold ourselves to higher standards than those of wikipedia and the MSM.--[[User:MrLCharms|MrLCharms]] 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Talk:Evolution ==

On Monday, I made an edit to [[Talk:Evolution]] that removed the Student Panel Decision box. My reasoning (given in the same edit) was this:
{{quotebox|I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)}}
Today, Conservative bluntly reverted my edit without discussion, making my last line there extra hilarious. Can we maybe have some actual discussion about this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sid, if you truly wanted discussion, you didn't need to remove the panel's notice to do that. Nor did you need your friend Horace in Australia who is obsessed with evolution/atheism/Conservapedia/myself to try to revert my reversion of you. What you wanted was an atheist revision of Conservapedia history. Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism. More anti-evolution content is not a major change. Evolutionists adding pseudoscience which is what you are ultimately seeking to do is a major change. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Sure we can have a discussion. But as I understand it, the decision of the CP Panel still stands. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Please restore the edit history of the article to show that the article hasn't "changed in any major way". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:43, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sid wants to gut an article showing the folly of evolution because it gets a lot of web traffic. He would rather have a gutted article that gets little traffic. That is what this is about. If he really cared what the panel said, he would not have removed their notice. If Sid wants the panel or Andy to pare down the evolution article or do major revisions, then the frontal attack of removing the panel's notice while bold is very foolish from a human relations point of view. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
"Sid wants to gut an article..." He never asked for it to be unlocked, only for its full edit history to be restored. [[User:Lewis|Lewis]] 15:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Sid, your removing of the panel's notice betrayed you. You showed your true colors. Plus, there is the issue of {{personal remark removed}}. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I'm with Conservative here. Here it is our job to discuss, not censor. There seems to be no consensus at all to remove the student panel decision, and all the admins seem to disagree. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:06, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism." That's an interesting claim considering it's directly contradicted by the notice you put back on the talk page. In fact, there's no evidence Mr. Schlafly or the student panel ever gave "Conservative" permission to do whatever he wanted to that article, nor is it an appropriate purpose for an encyclopedia article to communicate one's editorial position that "evolutionism" is "folly". So let's discuss whether "Conservative" taking the article over to the exclusion of every single other editor and in open defiance of the student panel's instructions not to change it in any "major way" and to submit proposed changes on the article talk page is going to be permitted. Some of the irrelevant nonsense "Conservative" has been stacking up in this article wouldn't be so bad if the article adequately explained the subject matter before attacking it, but it doesn't. I've asked Mr. Schlafly to clarify the editorial policy here regarding YEC vs. evolution, which he will not comment on, but I would eat my hat if the version of the article the student panel locked in 2007 was the same pro-YEC hit piece it is today. So sure, have a discussion about the student panel's notice but don't pretend it means anything anymore. Talk about revisionist history. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::It is certainly against the spirit that drives wiki projects. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:56, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, I'm not an atheist; and try to keep your little personal attacks to yourself. Please restore the history of the article so we can see what the April 2007 version looked like. Without the history, the Student Panel decision is pointless since it has no reference point to base itself on. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:(Side note: I see that Lewis just got a 2-year block by Conservative. Posting to the Community Portal is really a danger for one's wiki-health... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT))
::::Sid, I see you are fond of the exclusionary fallacy. Did Lewis have other edits as well? Second, if you think I am going to help a militant evolutionist, you are fooling yourself. By the way, your aforementioned frontal attack and your persistence in this matter remind me of Pickett's charge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your refusal to let us see the April 2007 version is quite telling. Just as telling as blocking a guy for two years right after he pointed out your error while claiming that the block was for comments the user made yesterday. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sid, I have decided to retire from this battle that you cannot win. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Both Please type in Englisch.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section break===
I've had a problem being able to review 2700+ deleted edits and am not familiar with the earlier wiki-battles over that entry. Perhaps you can encapsulate. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:33, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

:I have taken the liberty of moving this post to its own section because it may go on for a bit. The very rough overview is basically this:
:*Between February and March 2007, this article had been central to lots of editing back and forth.
:*Conservative was made sysop (on February 25, 2007) to make his changes to the article, and his intention to have this article locked forever became apparent. Note that I'm not exaggerating here. From [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1#Conservative_Please_Stop|Archive 1]], a post from the day he was sysop'd:
:*:Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. Conservative 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:*Since that had been the magical time before locking anything forever became the norm, Andy promised to ask the anonymous Student Panel for their ruling, and the article was frozen in a fairly anti-evolution version.
:*Some time later (weeks later, I think?), the panel announced the decision that is still visible on [[Talk:Evolution]]. Aside from infinite protection, the central part of the ruling was "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way."
:*There was a fair share of complaining about this (since having a mostly static article violates the wiki spirit), but the sysops (Conservative especially) held up the ruling as a shield against any further (pro-evolution) suggestions, so everybody kinda gave up and sighed.
:*However, Conservative kept editing the article as he pleased: Conservative's patrol log (which was only introduced on June 16, 2008 - more than a year after the ruling!) shows... 200+ edits for "Theory of evolution" and 950+ edits to "Evolution" (the article was moved in December 2008).
:*Between February 9, 2011 (first visible edit after Conservative erased the article history) and last week alone, the article gained roughly ten thousand characters. That's roughly the length of articles like [[Radiometric dating]] or [[Date of the Exodus]]. And this is just what happened during the last five to six months.
:*I am arguing that the Student Panel decision is utterly outdated and pointless: Locking forever is the norm for many articles anyway, nobody doubts that Conservative completely owns the article, and the "no major changes" clause is doubly absurd because the article has been constantly edited since then, and the point of reference (a version from March/April 2007) is unavailable.
:*That is why I removed the Student Panel decision and gave my reasoning in the form of the post I quoted up there.
:So the problem is not one of the many deleted edits, but rather the fact that there are so many edits and that they were deleted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:06, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. Now I see the point more clearly. I do recall peripherally being aware of those happenings back then, but never was involved. The 2700+ edits maybe unrecoverable-I don't know. The overriding question is similar to the question of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (WP:OWN); also, it may be fair to assume much of the Student Panel of 2007 has graduated, and a new Student Panel may have to be asked to look at this version, if that overall policy remains in place. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== CAPTCHA Whitelist ==

I finally remembered to make this request while I was busy making a minor point: Could we add a few entries to [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|the CAPTCHA whitelist]]?

Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the [[Essay:Best News Sources|best news sources]], [[conservative blogs]], and the various [[conservative links]] (especially sections such as "Conservative Organizations" or "Creation Study"). Adding those sites to the whitelist would allow us to insert such links without hassle. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Everyone, please... ==

Come on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=894414 terms like treacherous backstabber] ARE personal remarks themselves. Are we not supposed to kind and considered? Please pay heed: ''Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.'' (Epehsians 4:32). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS has turned on [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in particular and Conservapedia in general. I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Edit to add: And may I suggest you read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== User: RobS ==

At [[User talk:RobSmith]] I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:My modest proposal: Make Conservative a Bureaucrat so he can protect his talk page even from sysops and demote troublemakers who urge him to cooperate instead of treating this site as his personal property where he can do as he pleases. I believe it's the only logical step after tolerating his current behavior. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I fully support this. I am a great fan of [[User:Conservative]] having been brought here by his many irrefutable evidences and amusing essays. If it were not for him I would not be here to contribute and I am sure it is the same for many other users.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You obviously misunderstood Sid. Conservative, your blocking policy is that of an iron-fisted dictator. You have no credibility. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Unless your comment is a joke, Terry, you leave me with no option but to declare you a calumny-loving buffoon. [[User:Conservative]]'s content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::: "You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&curid=11675&diff=893483&oldid=893477]]. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 09:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Whatever it takes to prevent RobS and his inflated ego to stop having a forum at my talk page, I am generally for. In his current "RobScentric" world, he appears to have no respect for polite and reasonable requests. I do not care if RobS is a Sysop/Admin or not, but if it takes removing his Sysop powers for him to no longer have a forum at my talk page for his inordinately sized ego, I am for it. As far as becoming a Bureaucrat at this point: If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Lastly, barring RobS losing his Sysop powers, I have a feeling that over the coming days, weeks or months that Karajou and RobS will continue to have differences over blocking policy and that a blocking policy will be worked out. Given the current demands and priorities in my life, if a refinement of blocking policy were developed rather than a certain person or persons losing their Sysop or blocking powers, I would prefer that blocking policy be worked out by others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sysops not communicating violates the spirit of the wiki. Perhaps if you allowed other sysops the courtousy of communicating with you, there would not be misunderstandings, such as in the case of User:BobSherman. But I am appreciative of you allowing me 5 minutes of your time, per your e-mail, this September, or is it next September? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have communicated with you RobS. I have also communicated to you that I have a lot on my plate right for the short term and I don't want to be pestered by an unreasonable person such as yourself who apparently likes to showboat on my talk page and mire me in needless and inane contention at this point. Barring you seeing the light on this matter and apparently still believing that your posts to me have any importance to me (which they do not), I will recommend that you lose your Sysop status if you continue your behavior which another Sysop believes should happen as well. In the meantime, I suggest that you post your supposed matters of great importance and urgency to me on Aschlafly's talk page and if he feels they are important and urgent, I am sure he will relay them to me. Thank you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please, no incivility and personal attacks; those are blockable offenses. And Sysops need to be held to the same standard other members of the Conservapedia Community are held. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, by the way, as you probably know, I did more than offer you 5 minutes of my time in September as I suggested via email a September meeting with you, Karajou and possibly Aschlafy to help resolve the blocking conflicts which have arisen as of late. I received no reply which is no great tragedy to me. Given your most recent behavior, I have since rescinded my offer for such a September meeting. Perhaps, your statement above is just a matter of sloppy reading on your part, but I believe your statement on this matter reflects why I believe you are often an unreasonable person. I know it still may amaze you that I am no longer interested in what you have to say, but I would start believing it and reflecting on why this has happened. I have nothing further to say on this matter to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, I'm just having a very difficult time understanding any of this. I can not communicate with (or for that matter, nobody can) on your user page. I can not email you cause you've spam blocked me; no wait, you un-spma blocked me. I cannot discuss with you (or for that matter, no one can) on regular Conservapedia project pages because you delete and oversight the discussions. You come to Andy's page with charges, yet have no diffs or evidence, cause you deleted and oversighted it. How is that not (a) misues of sysop priveleges; (b) trolling? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Did you send an email that reads,
::::*''Here are my conditions for such a meeting:
:::::''3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, '''RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month. ''' ''
::::This is not conducive to collaborative content. This is not cooperative editing or helping to build an internet community. You have done nothing in four years to help define [[Conservapedia:Vandalism]], yet how many editors have you arbitrarily blocked on site for that offense? Stop trolling me and wasting my time. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Rob, I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but I urge you to read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. "Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye." Leave [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] alone.--[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Arbitrary and unfair blocking===
Let me explain at some length, from personal experience, why I feel strongly about arbitrary and unfair blocking. I hesitate bringing it up, because of the personal emotional torment it wreaked on me, unfairly, all the result of overzealous ideological partisans, too quick on the banhammer, and determined to take revenge on their enemies.

I was working on an anti-communism series in Wikipedia, and because of the specialized nature of it, [[Chip Berlet]] <ref>Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President, which a Congressional Committee has described as "The Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party".</ref> was recruited to vet, verify, and challenge the information for NPOV purposes. Unbeknownst to me and prior to my arrival in Wikipedia, Berlet had for many years studied the Lyndon LarRouche movement and successfully obtained Arbitration sanctions (banning and blocking) against several "Larouche editors" in several Wikipedia Arbitration cases.<ref>At the time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA/HK WP:RfA Lyndon LaRouche 1 & Lyndon LaRouche 2]; a third and other cases have since been added.</ref> The sanctioned users become notorious sockpuppets, hunted by overzealous sysops, and in constant conflict with Chip Berlet. As Berlet and my Mediation over anti-communism broke down, Berlet labeled me the head of a cabal of "Larouche editors" and being "the most problematic."

In dealing with Berlet, I had crossed paths with some of his old enemies. Berlet seized on these open-wiki communications to drag me before the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee under the pretext that "Nobs and others acting in concert"<ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Arbitration_filed_naming_you Nobs and others acting in concert]</ref> were harassing him. Needless to say, the "others" were sanctioned "LaRouche editors" and this guilt by association prompted the Arbitration Committee to accept a hearing on the case. But I had no knowledge of this ongoing wiki-battle between Wikipedia and the Lyndon LaRouche organization, of which now I was at the center. In the process, my real life identity became known, and I was now being seriously defamed as a "LaRouchie" in an open forum, accessible to Google Search engines. No less than three times did I make motions to separate and remove my name from the LaRouche editors, all denied.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Motion_2_by_Nobs01_on_.22acting_in_concert.22</ref> In frustration, I made incivil comments and was banned, with no immediate recourse to clear my name from slanders.

The idea of me being a sympathizer to Lyndon LaRouche is ludicrous, as is commonly known now. Yet it took me years to clear my name over several forums, gaining public statements from Arbitrators and others connected with the case, that I had indeed been unfairly slandered. See for example, a template in Wikipedia to keep track of the abuses and rulings against "LaRouche editiors", if you scroll down to the "Arbiration 2005", the first case reads "N__and others"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaRouchetalk</ref>, what it took me to get the "acting in concert" removed, and no direct reference to my username, "Nobs", was a nightmare. But I still regard the emotional stress and damage done, by overzealous, ideological sysops, hell bent on stamping out the wiki's enemies, as troublesome.

Then a younger generation of sysops comes along, taking their cue from others, and all they see is "ratvandal", or "larouchie", and a real life identity or username connected to it, and the Terminator mentality takes over. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, no compromise, pity or remorse. Nevermind facts, or misunderstandings. They just have it set in their minds they are doing right, and good, by wielding the banhammer. Never thinking for a moment those are real people out there, with hopes and dreams, and real lives. These sysops are just on autopilot, kill kill kill, destroy destroy destroy.

This may seem harsh, but reliving some of this reminds me why I've tried to learn to be civil and patient, and understanding, even to those I disagree with. I made it my lot to try and be a model of interaction, even in the toughest, most controversial, and emotional disputes. This dispute we're having here, is not really between two sysops -- I actually like the guy/gal/other making these charges. He just needs to lighten up with people. If he has such strong ideological convictions, he should at a minimum be able to defend them. And a locked user page, or redirects on article talk pages, is just pointless. This discussion is simply about being fair with users and demanding the same standards of civility from sysops we expect from editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

== New proposal regarding the ban policy ==

I would like to propose a procedure with regards to the banning policy here at CP. This would apply to situations where people are suspected of being parodists, or other situations that are not as clear-cut as blatant vandalism such as inserting pure gibberish, blanking pages, etc.

We all have bad days sometimes.

We sometimes write things on the internet that comes across to other people as sounding harsh or incoherent, or that doesn't quite get the point across we're trying to make.

We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.

We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.

Instead of one person being responsible for the decision whether or not a person is a parodist, etc., how about a procedure where that person is brought before a committee. The person nominating the possible offender must present his case, complete with '''hard evidence''' that proves the accusations, not just state that "I believe this, thus it's true." Other editors should be allowed to submit evidence, either pro or con, for a certain length of time before a decision is reached.

This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.

I also propose that the committee consist of both sysops and regular editors, thus providing a greater range of opinions. If an editor (either regular or a sysop) is directly involved with the situation, they should not be allowed to be a member of the committee.

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning". Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::*'' RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP''
:::::How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
:::::The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all? I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

How many casual or part-time editors have ceased contributing to the wiki because of uncertainty over the banning policy? Right now, banning often seems arbitrary and uneven – sometimes as though it depends on the mood of the banning editor. I know personally I have stopped myself from offering my opinion and/or edits on different articles because I see things from a different angle or have different information.

What's the harm in making the less obvious banning situations a consensus of opinion, and transparent to all as well? What's the harm in allowing the accused editor to make his/her case in the open, and to allow different editors to give their opinion on the situation? It might not change the ultimate decision, but it's a more democratic process. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ed says,
:*''If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this.''
:*Here's the problem: 40,000 registered users have been blocked for vandalism, and 10,000,000 + IP's, affecting an estimated 30,000,000 potential users. These blocks were handed out for vandalism, yet here ([[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]) is the Guideline blocking Sysops have to guide them after four years.
:*If there were any potental good faith editors who wanted to be helpful in defining vandalism, they probably were blocked years ago as a suspected sock of lcewedge or horace. Them and the whole state or province they live in.
:*Now the Range blocks are undone, yet Old Guard sysops ''still'' block on sight for anything they don't like, despite the floodgates being opened. Conservapedia Sysops have learned nothing from their colossal errors in dealing with vandalism, have yet to even define it, nor hold themselves to the same standards of editing conduct they require of others.
:*Establishing a Commitee won't work, at least not yet; there just aren't enough editors allowed to participate at any level.
:*Blocking policy is in serious need of overhaul, if Conservapedia is serious at all about building an online collaborative wiki community.
:*Sysops need to understand they are not God, and can and will be held accountable to the extent of losing their sysop powers for failing to abide CP's own rules and standards of conduct it requires of others (the few we have).
:*Some editors were punished with blocks just for daring to interject into this important discussion. This kind of arbitrary blocking has got to stop.
:*CP needs a serious reform movement; it's not about personality disputes between sysops, or payback, or roasting an abusive sysop. It's about building a collaborative community which includes atheists, liars, homosexuals, sinners, drunks, drug addicts, felons, ex-cons, university professors, doctors, lawyers, hollywood starlets and anyone else who wants to register an account, abide by CP's Commandments & Guidelines and contribute constructive content without an ideological litmus test for the user. That has always been CP's mission. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I have stayed out of this debate because I don't find it relevant to my goals on/with Conservapedia but i must say these proposals by Rob sound reasonable (although we can probably do without drunks and liars). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:37, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::MRellek, if you want to attempt to further refine CP's blocking guidelines/policies I would not be against that. I would be against RobS writing any blocking policy on parodist since he cannot spot parodist material when he sees it and/or is unwilling to ban parodists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fortunately for site users, you don't own this website, neither do you single-handedly make policy. Should we take a poll of site users who want to see you head up a policy reform committee? or do you think they may be terrorized to even participate, for fear of reprisal block, given the unhealthy editing atmosphere you help create for several years now? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::If anyone has any useful suggestions concerning refining blocking policy, I don't see why they couldn't be suggested and incorporated into our current policy. And there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas concerning this matter. That could start immediately. Of course, given the current authority structure of Conservapedia for any policies to be binding, they would have to be approved by Aschafly or a committee authorized by Andy to make binding policy. Absent of a parodist defining policy being written for encyclopedia articles by September, I am considering writing one. If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up [[Straw man fallacy|strawman arguments]] and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::*''there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas ''
::::::Oh yes, two were blocked just for posting to the above thread. Does that aid in encouraging others to contribute? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I helped formulate our policies, four years ago, shortly after I joined. I was made a sysop much more quickly than I expected (in a mere 8 days), possibly because of my extensive Wikipedia experience: developer rights to the database, the first electeed "bureaucrat", etc.

If there have been 40,000 blocks that is because our project has suffered an unprecedented onslaught of vandals, particularly of the "stealth" kind who plant ridiculous errors so that they can undermine the project by blaming us for those errors.

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS. I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 this warrant a one day block] in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 intemperate vindictive attitude] of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

::I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
::First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned. Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
::Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact? I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree. There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal. Why give him a chance to do more damage?"
::That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions. The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.
::Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably. I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung. What's the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy?" Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
::I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this. Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
::Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
::Respectfully, --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Ben, you make some ''very'' good points, some discussion-worthy points, and one time, you utterly missed the point.
:::The bad news first: Sharon's proposal isn't about ''vandals'', but rather about ''parodists''. Nobody is suggesting to hold a meeting when some idiot is running across the wiki, replacing articles with [http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tits.gif "BOUNCING TITS!!!"] or something like that. This is only about parodists.
::::[tangent]
::::Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written [[Conservapedia:Parody|policy-definition of "parody"]] on this isn't really hitting the nail on the head. It's ''a'' definition of "parody", but not ''the'' definition we're implicitly using here. We're talking about people whose edits are over-the-top by normal standards, but well within the accepted limits of Conservapedia. If you go pretty much anywhere and argue that the Bible needs to be retranslated because it's too liberal, or that Jesus disproved General Relativity and proved Quantum Mechanics, you will be thrown out for being an obvious parodist (as per the definition we currently got written down). On this site, however, all of these things have been established as insights by the site founder. If I suddenly started agreeing with Andy that the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution, would I be a parodist?
::::An effective approach to parody is difficult because Conservapedia's baseline for "normal and acceptable" is not quite where even most other conservatives would place it - both for content and conduct. This is why parodists like Bugler managed to become so successful: They imitated the worst traits of certain sysops, thus blending in perfectly from the POV of most sysops. Just to remind people of an uncomfortable truth: Bugler was one of the nastiest people imaginable and drove out several people who might have helped the site and pretty much got away with it to the point of ''almost becoming a sysop''. (He was only "caught" because of technicalities, not because of his behavior.)
::::The solution lies less in worrying about whether somebody genuinely believes what he's writing and more in reforming this wiki from the top so abusive idiots who make absurd edits stand out properly again. As long as parody is indistinguishable from normal behavior of our supposed role models, it's hard to really justify a ban.
::::[/tangent]
:::The point I kinda disagree with, but which I still find a valid question: Should we do all this bickering here in public? I agree that especially the huge discussions on this page are not CP's finest hour. But that doesn't mean that we should drag mindless bickering behind the stage, and it also doesn't mean that we should simply stop. It means that we should ''do better''. Not just in discussions, but also as a whole. We need to make CP as a community a better and more inviting place. I agree with Rob that we need to rework consistent policies (that aren't scattered all over the place) and that we need to actually enforce them, no matter what rank the offender has.
:::Your very good points are about the current tension (eggshells, landmines, etc.) and that it's ''hard'' at times to be fair and just. Because yes, it is. Of course it is. Having the banhammer is great power. And to echo a terribly overused Spider-Man quote: With great power comes great responsibility. The people wielding it need to be able to handle it. If sysops start using it to retaliate against people they don't like, or if they get twitchy and start banning people who haven't done anything simply because they happened to register around the same time as a vandal, they should either take a voluntary time-out to cool off or give the hammer back. Bringing back something from my tangent: Sysops are supposed to be the ''role models'', and they ''will'' lead by example. They ''need'' to have a cooler head than the regular users, and they ''mustn't'' let their raw emotions guide their actions. That is one of the keys to building a healthy community: Be a good leader, and people will start following you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Please revoke Conservative's Sysop, Block, and Administrator Rights ==

Please revoke conservative's sysop, block, and administrator rights, for flagrant and repeated violations of expected standards for sysops.

You may recall that I wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Enforceable_rules_for_sysop_conduct this], which was a logical consequence of things that you said you agreed with fully. Now I am not a sysop, and therefore don't have much voice in such matters, but the fact is that what I wrote is still present on the Community Portal page. Furthermore, user Conservative said that "[my] post has some merit."

In that section, I said that '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''.

Furthermore, quite a bit of policy material has come into existence, pointing out that it is improper for someone with blocking powers to use those powers frivolously, or for a person with deletion or oversight powers to use those powers unless the material being deleted is libelous.

User Conservative has, as is well known to everyone, engaged in repeated and flagrant violations of the standards for sysops. The repeated deletion of BobSherman's user and talk pages are examples, but there are many more.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SamHB, very melodramatic. Your bold text suggest you are very angry. I suspect that is because I asked you to show me how its done and create outstanding content that would gain a following and I also asked you if you currently have a following. By the way, I am flattered that you have followed my content for several years now. :) Best wishes in your off wiki pursuits because I don't think your crusade to remove my administrator rights is going to give you a sense of accomplishment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:The bold text was copied directly from the other edit, where it had been placed for emphasis, not due to anger. You also seem to be referring to a discussion taking place at [[Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Christian_lady_dancers]]. Please continue the discussion there, if you wish. You will see that I already responded to you. Or continue it on your talk page, if you wish. Or mine. By the way, I already have quite a sense of accomplishment. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:27, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::SamHB, I still think your quest is quixotic. By the way, given your liberal leanings, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to you that in the [[Western World]], the left in many cases is running out other peoples money to spend on their misadventures so your in good company in terms of pursuing quixotic quests. I have two parting words for you: "Austerity budget". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website ==

RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.

I think RobS is at heart an unstable egotist who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him. Although he did do a service in unblocking all of those IPs and I think clarifying block policy and not having an overly aggressive block policy is good, I do think now that RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call [http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot "a useful idiot"] and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist website.

If he continues down his present path, I see him losing his Admin rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative - you and I have discussed this in an entirely civil manner to this point, and my opinion of you has not changed with this section, but I am requesting that you remove this section on your own accord (but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am sending an email to Andy); even in quotes, "useful idiot" is a personal attack - and I am convinced that this type of name calling is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The term "useful idiot" is political term and I have also heard it used outside of politics as well. Here is a definition: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot I see no reason retract this information and I am very positive that RobS doesn't want me to oversight it given his previous statements. In short, I think the shoe fits and I am giving others a warning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Conservative, I quote from your source: "The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial" - I maintain its not keeping with site decorum to call an established editor any of these things (certainly at least calling an editor either of the first two - "naive" or "foolish" - would constitute a personal attack).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:I also see Rob losing his sysop rights soon. After all, he is trying to do three things: (1) Make the rules clearer so people have a clear idea what can get them blocked and don't have to live in constant fear of breaking some obscure rule interpretation. (2) Apply the rules also to sysops. (3) Generally hold sysops accountable for their actions and limit abuse of powers.
:The last person who tried to drag the site down this absolutely horrible path was some liberal... what was his name... oof... oh yeah, ''Philip J. Rayment''. You know, the guy who tried to stop Bugler and TK from driving out everybody? The guy who actually dared to ask ''why'' some people were banned and wanted to see ''evidence''? Yeah, that went well, didn't it?
:Because we all know that a community will grow if a group of people can waltz all over the place with editorial authority, no pressure to follow the rules, and the power to block anybody for any reason.
:It's a true tragedy that Andy is looking away as Rob is trying to salvage and help this community. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sid, you are trying to cloud the central issue. I clearly said I was not against clarifying block policy. It's RobS's other behavior that I have a problem with. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::But wasn't the central issue to start with your own behavior Conservative? It seems to me you dislike having your own behavior called into question so believe it is Rob causing trouble. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I say both of them are causing trouble. Conservative is doing things people find wrong, People state this, Rob backs them up, which from Conservatives point of view is wrong, they argue, Conservative/Rob takes it to pages across the wiki while others either side with or against Rob/Conservative, pushing the fight to multiple fronts and spamming andy with "new message!". So both are to blame for exasperating the situation. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::::::::The central issue is indeed Conservative's behaviour. Years ago when Conservapedia had an abuse page it was almost entirely filled with complaints about Conservative. I don't understand why he has been allowed to run amok for so long. All Rob is doing is trying to introduce the rule of law to the site. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::No, the central issue is the power structure on this site being so screwed up that sysops have all the rights while regular editors have pretty much none (while conversely the sysops don't have to follow the rules while editors have to follow all of them and then some). Conservative's behavior (rapid and frequent deletion of articles or talk pages, oversighting of edits, refusal to communicate constructively, etc.) is simply the most noticeable symptom. Rob's attempts to start a sweeping policy reform and to, as you said, introduce the rule of the law to the site, would indeed restrict Conservative's power abuse, but it would also be a solid step to fix the structural issues the site has. (Which also nicely explains why no other sysop is actually siding with Rob.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::JarradD, I have never been popular among atheist/evolutionist whiners. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::No. You are not popular among editors who wish to be treated with respect and according to the rules. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your Fairly well-acquainted with the anti-conservtive viewpoint for somebody who made an account 20 minutes ago. You reek of sock-puppetry/ill-intentions. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:31, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Why do I reek of ill intent? I want to see this site succeed. Which is why I want properly enforced rules rather than bullying and arbitrary authority. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Because you seem to know a lot about this situation despite only having just made your account, which either means you pointlessly lurked for a while or your a parodist. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Somewhat fitting, given that part of the problem is that various people who made good points in the past have been banned because the sysops don't like people who dare to speak up. And Sean, PLEASE don't throw around "parodist" so easily. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have sided with neither Rob or Conservative. I am pointing out that a new user who suddenly comes into a debate speaking with knowledge of the situation is going to appear suspicious. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::A parodist is someone who pretends to be something they are not. There is no evidence JarradD is a parodist. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anything I have written could be regarded as parody. You have successfully derailed this discussion. Congratulations Sean. How about getting back on topic. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. As it stands, he brings more doubt and distrust by getting involved in a dispute between Senior Admins despite having no reason to fully understand the situation. The fact his first edits were to get involved raise even more doubts to his intentions--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::*''If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more.''
::::::::::::::How is that possible? they all get banhammered at the door. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::If anyone's intentions are suspect, it is you. You have totally derailed this discussion. It was a discussion on a vitally important topic and you have made it all about me. Could you please attempt to get back on topic? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:50, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I would like to return this discussion to matters of significance. The feeling among a number of editors is that there is a lack of uniformity in enforcement of rules and that some sysops act in an arbitrary and, sometimes, capricious manner. What is sought is, in essence, the rule of law. A system wherein all editors know where they stand and are not subject to whim. In my view this is a hugely important issue for this site. In any venture these issues are important, but in a co-operative venture such as a wiki they are absolutely vital. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
: If I recall correctly, haven't people been banned from Conservapedia for being a member of an atheistic site before? If we do want consistency of rules/sysop accountability and if Rob is indeed a member of said site, then shouldn't he face a penalty? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::How cute of you to start enforcing the most idiotic "rule" ever that was likely introduced by a troll who wanted CP to fail. But hey, sure, all for it. I'm sure Ed Poor will agree; after all, he has no account on-... oh, wait. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::In his/her world, there is no evidence at all unless he/she personally admits anything, such as his/her gender or his/her name. So what makes you think he/she would admit his/her username on any site? Give it up, liberals! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Indeed. We seek him/her/it here. We seek him/her/it there. Those Frenchies seek him/her/it everywhere. Is he/she/it in heaven? Is he/she/it in hell? That d****d elusive Pimpernel. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::: Obviously Conservative is not a member of that atheist website because it would be really stupid of him to complain about Rob's association with it while simultaneously holding an account there. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, it would. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Gentlemen, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. Schlafly's talk page is not the place to hold such debates? And that it would be both prudent and considerate to move this discussion to another forum? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Seeing how Andy seems determined not to chime in, this may be for the best. I'd support a mass move of the last few sections (starting with "User: RobS") to [[Conservapedia:Community Portal‎]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Let me explain Conservapedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology Kremlinology] (tea leaf reading): If the site owner likes the idea, he'll speak up. If he's neutral or negative, silence. That's traditoinally how Senior CP Sysops read the tea leaves. Conclusion:
::::*neither RobS nor User: Conservative desysoped;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed] has been repealed;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=894017&oldid=892763 Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interfact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors] is added;
::::*and moving forward with other initiatives has been endorsed.
::::Now, somebody want to go around with a mop bucket after [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism_and_obesity&action=historysubmit&diff=893866&oldid=893394 User:Conservative's incivility here] and hang the {{[[Template:personal remark removed|personal remark removed]]}}, per [[CP:Guidelines#Civility]]? I'd do it, but I have a COI. Let's help this man/woman/other become a better editor. He/she/it needs to learn how to play nice with others. Please treat him/her/other respectfully. But remember, his/her/other days of being an ''allegedly'' abusive sysop are over. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:23, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It would be nice if we didn't have to give a PC-esque list of pronouns for him. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I wouldn't suggest trying to sweep this discussion under the rug. I believe Admin Karajou wants to give his thoughts to Ashlafly on this matter. And of course, I can certainly consider asking other Sysops to weigh in as well. I would suggest that RobS not thrash around in this tar pit he has jumped in. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::RobS, I have been asked if I felt you should lose your Admin privileges and if the benefits you bring outweigh your costs. So far, I have said that you should not lose your Admin status. You most recent behavior which I mentioned above, is tipping the scale in the wrong direction. I suggest making some changes and avoid trying to dodge issues. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I certainly don't think the discussion should be swept under the rug, but I do feel that consideration for Andy merits moving it to a more appropriate venue. I support the idea of moving the discussion to Community Portal. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If this discussion is attempted to be pushed under the rug and RobS chooses not to address matters. This certainly would be another sign that RobS should lose his Admin status. If a an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion, this certainly does not work in his favor. I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not willing to give RobS infinite second chances in terms of how I feel about his behavior. I have also been told that Karajou wants to join the discussion on Ashlafly's talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::RobS, I can live with you being an egotistical blowhard. On the other hand, a backstabbing untrustworthy egotistical blowhard is a problem. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::"If a (sic) an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion..." I'm sorry. Who were we talking about Pot? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
*''play power games and '''try stifle discussion'''''
:My friend, User:Conservative, seriously, who stifles discussion by locking their user page? who stifles discussion by placing redirects on article talk pages? who stifles discussion by deleting other Sysops comments? who stifles discussion by oversighting other sysop's comments? Need I remind you, you started these threads claiming I wanted to discuss things with you and you want no discussion on your talk page. Then, you came here, claiming some offense, but deleted and oversighted the evidence. Do I have to point out to you, what other's see, extremely erratic behavior? I'm sorry, but this really borders on trolling. If it wasn't for the fact Conservapedia can be improved from discussing some of these problems, I'd really rather remain silent. I'm sorry, but this is not an issue of personalities, it regards the future of this project. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have untrustworthy backstabbers as my friends. Second, people are free to leave me messages to me. I know you like to whine about my talk page, but please restrain yourself because a user's talk page is still his/her castle. Next, I am certainly amenable to admitting where I can make improvements and the talk pages on comedy/satires on now open. On the other hand, I have yet to see you apologize for your backstabbing behavior. And your poor behavior in terms of altering my talk page was also never apologized for. Of course, your modus operandi is avoiding taking responsibility for your bad behavior. This does not work in your favor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Am I the only who thinks all Admins should have their talkpages left unlocked so people can ask them things? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Right now I am neutral however. I see Conservative's points on this, but Rob has done a lot of good work for this wiki too. I think it is best of we leave to to Andy to decide. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
'''RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication.''' Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. '''Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Hold on. Why is RobS even a member of an Atheist website. Surely he of all people knows that they will not accept the logic of conservatism and that it is a hopeless cause to try to convert them that way. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There is converting going on. I just received an email saying RobS is becoming more and more like the members of a atheist vandal website. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::In that case I am not sure RobS should be given this much power, if he has such close affiliations with sites that support such illogical viewpoints. RobS, you are a good contributor, but I'm sorry; if what Conservative says is true, then it is better safe than sorry. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:45, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::If this atheist vandal website is wikipedia, than I should admit that I have an account there. However I have not used it for quite a few months now. I think it would be wrong to punish people like me, who only were trying to help when they made Wikipedia accounts but have since moved on. [[User:MorrisF]]
:::::::::I have an account at just about every "wiki" type site. I was an active member of "the trio of wiki" (Cpedia, <s>censored</s>, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 08:09, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section Break===
Wait a minute. Why were Conservative's posts replaced with "Personal attacks removed"? He never personally attacked anyone. Plus, many of his key points were removed. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=894161&oldid=894159 this user did it.] ive since reverted it.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::SeanS, that's a diff, not a user. I replaced Conservative's several personal attacks with the template that is prescribed at [[Guidelines#Civility]]. NickP, I cannot tell if you are being serious. Conservative's post in this section are full of personal attacks against another user, that user has been conscientiously polite in response. If the personal attacks that I removed are the key points then that merely shows them to be invalid points in the first place. SeanS, you have now reinstated the personal attacks, in clear contravention of site policy. Please read the policy, and replace the templates. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know what they are. IF you notice, the Diff has your username in it, therefor, I can say who did what. And if it is indeed a personal attack, why make it harder for an admin to see what it is and judge accordingly? --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 23:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Also note that a lot of the comments you removed were not really personal attacks. When Conservative said that RobS was a "useful idiot", he wasn't actually calling RobS stupid. "Useful Idiot" is actually someone who sympathizes with the enemy, as Conservative was accusing RobS. "Egotistical" is not a personal attack; it is a critique (though arguably impolite) on a user's behavior, not an attack on the person. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::In the same way that "Sleazy Nazi", for example, is really just an assessment of a person's moral fibre and political views, not a personal attack. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his Administrator rights ==

I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his administrator rights. I regret to say that RobS is engaging in inexcusable behavior which was previously described on this talk page, but has now been whitewashed from this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am considering lobbying harder for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I know I am a new poster ==
But I have been registered for some time and I have to say one of the main reasons I have not tried to contribute here is because of the behaviour of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. His childish 'satire' articles have done more to make me re-consider than anything else on here, and I have already spoted several parody entries in articles such as the article on Motorcycles. About the only thing that would make me become a regular contributor would be if [[User:RobS|RobS]] were able to succeed in his attempts to reign in the more idiotic 'contributions' of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. But no doubt I will now be blocked for daring to voice this opinion, despite Aschlafly having said previously that dissenting opinions are not censored on Conservapedia. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Davidspemcer, If you do choose to contribute in the future, I would suggest using the Firefox browser as it would enable you find your spelling mistakes (behavior and spotted). Second, if you want to show you are a good faith editor and not merely a member of a vandal website, I would suggest further expanding the article [[Soviet atheism]] and please cite reputable sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Oh the irony. Myusername is DavidspeNcer and not M. And I do use the firefox browser, 3.6.3 to be precise with greasemonkey, no script and IE View installed.
:::::And I am British so the word is spelt behaviour as far as I am concerned and seeing as we created the English language I will use that version if that is ok with you. And this is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that I mean. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Sid and David, the [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] and the reactions of atheists with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] reminds me of the movies when "holy water" is sprinkled on the demon possessed.

Obsessed atheist: What's that?

Conservapedian: One of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|satires concerning atheism and evolution]].

Obsessed atheist: Keep it away! Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Concerning the article [[Soviet atheism]], how can I improve on what is evidently perfection. Concerning your articles such as [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] most of them can not be improved on can they, hence them being locked. However I will see what I can do to improve the already good article concerning [[Soviet atheism]]. Now I will refrain from commenting again for a while as I do not wish to violate the 90/10 rule which, as Aschlafly said, is only a guidleine anyway. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Without wanting to pronounce on the rights and wrongs of the situation under discussion, is it quite seemly for a user to weigh in and reply to complaints made to a third party about his own conduct? Monkeys and organ grinders spring to mind.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
CPalmer, because you are an atheist and an evolutionists, I humbly defer to your superior atheist intellect and your superior knowledge of monkeys. "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, why do you think that I am an atheist and an evolutionist(s)? I am just questioning whether your hasty butting in on people's overtures to Mr Schlafly can be considered polite. From a practical point of view, I would think it would also tend to prolong or inflame disputes (wasting more of your time and others'), rather than speeding their resolution. We know what your position is, so you do not need to restate it here until the discussion is furthered by a response from Aschlafly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::CPalmer, my apologies. The was a former user with a similar username as you who had a habit of being unreasonable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Proposed blocking reform framework ==

Setting aside the current disputes about blocking and whether CP's current blockers/Sysops do or have ever done an unwarranted block or whether Sysops should undo another Sysops block, I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks. I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking.

Absent of such a policy being developed using the framework I am about to suggest, I would be willing to assist in the creation of such a policy sometime in the fall of 2011.

Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting:

1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable.

2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.

3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board that could meet either bi-monthly or monthly or every two months (or perhaps quarterly). The CP community can offer up suggestions on whose blocks should be reviewed, but each CP editor can only offer so many candidates lest a cumbersome list be created of past blocks (CP has been around for 3 plus years. Perhaps, the blocking review board will only look at blocks for a given period). The blocking review panel could be made up of Sysops and non-Sysops and a certain amount of blocks per blocking period (which will be decided by this proposed framework} will be reviewed. For example, say the blocking review board meets one a month. It could be decided that 5 blocks per month could be reviewed by the board. Perhaps, Andy could choose to review the boards decision for any given period that the board meets. Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board.

I am not saying my framework couldn't be adjusted as time goes by (how often they meet, how many candidates are reviewed, etc.), but I do think that my proposed blocking reform provides adequate protection, but is not overly complex or burdensome given any blocking periods blocking volume. I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board. I would suggest that RobS not be a part of such a blocking review board because including myself 3 Sysops that I am aware of now think he should lose his Admin rights.

I was told by a pessimist that a workable blocking reform couldn't possibly be developed in 30 minutes or less. However, I believe I just created one. :) I welcome other editors comments on my blocking reform framework lest I am being overly optimistic about the viability of my suggested reform. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:I like it. Although I would say, if Rob doesn't lose admin rights he should be allowed on the review board. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::If such a board is created, I will suggest to Andy and my fellow Admins (including the two who think he should no longer have Admin rights) that RobS not be allowed to serve on the board. Perhaps, after a considerable amount of time and evidence that RobS has changed, I would no longer oppose him being on such a board. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:02, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== 3 Sysops now agree that RobS should lose his Admin rights ==

Including myself, 3 Sysops now think RobS should lose his Admin rights. Sysop TerryH said I could list his name. I have not yet strongly lobbied for RobS to lose his Admin rights among my fellow Sysops and editors. I am giving RobS a chance to apologize for his recent behavior including among other things, the behavior I mentioned on this talk page but was whitewashed off this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
: There are more users that have come forth believing you should lose your Admin rights. RobS has pushed for accountability for sysops and clear banning rules. It speaks volumes about you three. The one person calling for user friendly changes should lose his rights, while the man/woman/man-child/eunuch who bans the dissenters, burns evidence of dissent, and writes asinine articles on casual relationships present in any demographic, should continue unabated? No, you are a large factor in the farce that is Conservapedia.

:Conservapedia has yet to gain any large-scale positive attention. No high-profile conservatives have endorsed Conservapedia. This project can't even attract many good faith editors. Many who come in get banned at the door. Those who make it through are immediately suspected parodists. Those who toe the CP line too hard are branded as parodists and banned. Those who deviate from the CP line are vandals and banned. When a user disagrees with a sysop they are banned. If they disagree with you in particular, they are banned and the relevant talk page is burned. CP bans for ideological differences and censors dissent. As long as this behavior continues CP will never be a respectful source. RobS is pushing to change this. His proposed changes won't end the problem, but it is certainly a large step forward from the current system.

:User:Conservative, you are the one who needs to lose admin rights for your obvious abuse of power, not RobS. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::While I do not agree with all of CP's material, Concerned women of America (CWA), Human Events, Patriot Update (PU) and other conservative websites have linked to CP in a positive way (CWA and PU linked to material I had a substantial hand in if memory serves). Please try to have an informed opinion rather than merely an opinion. Second, I am not of the opinion that the number of people advocating a position is paramount. Neither did America's Founding Fathers who set up a republic and not a democracy. While I do not agree with all of Ann Coulter's political positions (the military, etc.), I am considering reading my first Ann Coulter book which focuses on how liberals love mob rule. Third, you certainly did prove your claim that anyone or anyone who disagrees with me, I ban or that I oversight all those disagree with me. I would also point out that RobS banned me and I never never banned him. It could be argued that in many ways I have shown more tolerance of him than he has afforded me. And all of this could have been avoided. All RobS had to do was stop pestering concerning inane and non-urgent matters. I wonder if RobS likes to poke sleeping dogs over and over and then complain when they bite him. And lately, RobS's poor behavior has gone significantly beyond merely pestering me which I mentioned on this talk page before it was whitewashed away (RobS recommended doing the whitewashing). As a result, I said enough is enough and sided with those who think he should lose his Admin rights. I do think he should be able to earn back his Admin if he admits his wrongdoing and behaves in a more positive manner for a period of time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I specified high profile conservatives, I said nothing of websites. Either way, [http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1350/comparisonv.png this link compares Conservapedia, the three websites you mentioned, and a comic strip.] As you can see, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is bigger than all of them. So I feel safe saying CP has no large scale positive support. Furthermore, there are no Congressmen or Senators that have endorsed CP. To my knowledge there are no candidates that have endorsed CP either.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of open discussion of problems. They did not stifle discussion by suddenly becoming busy when challenged, or by doing whatever the 18th century equivalent of locking their talk pages was. The Founding Fathers also had a large problem with men abusing their power.

That's where you come in. Let's look at your block reasons. Of course, I can only provide the diff logs for a few of these, you've burned most of the pages:

''15:45, 6 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Soxwon04 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (having a sentence with an unsupported clause followed by a question. waste someone else's time)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''04:10, 7 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked XavierC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki)'' [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/XavierC Here] is his contribs. He called you out for locking your talk page and stifling debate, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=886852 here.] Yes, he called you a coward, but this is extremely common for you to do other people.

''16:49, 29 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Haggger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo)'' Burned diff logs. How can we evaluate his actions?
''02:00, 2 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked SNg (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार [Masculinity is not behaving])'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''21:55, 25 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Sasayaki (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize )'' Contribs is blank, I remember this one. User answered the Question Evolution Campaign and asked own questions to you. Oh, boo-hoo he linked to RW. He disagreed with you, took up your debate, and you deleted the evidence.

''02:41, 24 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Atheistlogic1995 (Talk | contribs) wit''h an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (oxymoron)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''18:25, 1 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked PapaBear (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (too much talk, talk not enough serious enditing)'' User made three posts, two of them talk pages, one of which was remember to add his sig. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=873210 Offending post here.] Criticizes gossip in the BHO article.

''00:34, 28 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Jclough (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''22:54, 15 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aleksyevt (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Yeah, he talked a lot. You know what else he did? Ask for more sources, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Agnosticism&diff=prev&oldid=869530 here.]

Ten examples within you're last 120 blocks: 8.3% Seven of these had blank contribs pages. How can we even analyze this? You are showing no accountability in your position of power on this wiki. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 16:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::JonS, you are still wrong. [[Matt Barber]] and [[William Dembski]] linked to Conservapedia in a positive light as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia|HERE]]. I personally know that a leader in a extremely well known Christian organization linked to CP's atheism and evolution articles which I largely wrote (Please do not forget the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don't know about various links does not mean they do not exist. :) ). Second, please feel free to have your liberal/evolutionists/atheists bean counter friends scour through my blocks and tabulate and examine them. I would hope they have bigger fish to fry in their lives, but I am not particularly concerned if they do. The truth is that those who whine and kvetch about me in the vast majority of cases do so because of the atheism/evolution articles I largely created at CP. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Please provide a link to this "extremely well known Christian organization." You should also acknowledge your wanton abuse of power. You can spin a quick look into your block log however you like, but that does not change you ban people for disagreeing with you, and that you burn the evidence of it. You are complained about for two reasons: 1) you abuse your sysop powers. 2) Your atheist/evolution articles are non-encyclopedic. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ha! Demski links to Conservapedia in a "positive light"? The best that he says is that a part of the Conservapedia [[Climategate]] article "...does not sound entirely far fetched". A ringing endorsement! As for Matt Barber, no link is provided and a search of the CWA website (that you refer to in reference to him) for "Conservapedia" comes up with no results. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would like to note something here. Just because a user's contributions are blank does not mean that they didn't make contributions. I assume that they made inappropriate articles, or in some cases, did not follow the proper username policies. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
The userpages are left blank because Conservative has oversighted the pages they contributed to. There are two people who have names technically in violation of the rules on the list. Neither of them are said to be blocked for that reason. Given the people who have been blocked for 90/10 violations, I assume they disagreed with Conservative, he seems to block for that (Aleksyevt, PapaBear, and Sasayaki all criticized him). Even if they made inappropriate articles, Conservative should only delete them, rather than burn them, then we can be aware of these blocks, and he can be accountable, a concept he seems unfamiliar with. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 19:20, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== In an effort to end this continued and protracted debate ==

This has gone one for long enough. Both editors, RobS and Conservative, have used personal comments against each other and both have argued from opposite corners but to no avail. Why don't they '''both''' lose their sysop rights for a time - then they can prove themselves once more. I know I am just a new user but still, this is going on and on without resolution. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, in the absence of RobS pestering me again or engaging in additional very egregious behavior, I have spoken my piece on this matter. I have a feeling that RobS will either lose his Admin rights in the next 1-5 days or keep shooting himself in the foot through his poor behavior and cause his own demise or he will alter his course. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I feel, and I am sure that many other observers would agree, that you are both guilty of poor behaviour, personal attacks and actions unbecoming of someone in a position of power. I am a mere observer and carry no weight of course but it is people like me who come to conservapedia to contribute and who'll be turned off by protracted arguments, reverting and disappearing of editors comments, accusations and poorly thought out essays and ongoing in fighting. Which you are both guilty of (one in more areas than the other). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, if your words carry no weight, then why offer them? Frankly, given the substance of your recent post to me I have to agree with you on this point. Now that we both agree that your words carry no weight, I won't feel bad ignoring you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::carry no weight as in no authority not because of lack of substance. All I was trying to do was be even handed, rational and end the pointed bickering. But since you have insulted me, and not for the first time, I leave you to ignore me. Frankly for someone that calls atheist quarrelsome and socially challenged you certainly seem to be showing similar traits yourself. As a Christian I avoid insults and try to be polite and fair and as I don't feel I can continue to be so I'll have to end my response here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You end your comments by calling him a hypocrite, then claim to avoid insults?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:19, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I think that Max is selling himself short. He has shown himself to be a calm and considered editor. His input should be valued and I would ask that he continue to participate in this discussion. SeanS, on the other hand, has shown himself incapable of staying on topic. In the section [[User_talk:Aschlafly#RobS_becoming_a_pawn_and_a_.22useful_idiot.22_of_an_atheist_website|above]] he totally derailed the discussion in an attempt to attack me. However, his input is also welcome if he can stay on topic and avoid irrelevant personal attacks.

I would like to voice my view of Max's original post in this section. I do not see why Rob should lose any rights. So far as I can see he has worked hard to improve this site and introduce reform that would only benefit the site. He has been met by a series of largely unreferenced slurs by Conservative who clearly regards his own position as under threat. If Rob were to lose rights it would send out the message that anyone who seeks to improve the site is putting their own position at risk. I do not regard that as a positive message. On the other hand I have no difficulty with Conservative losing admin rights. His history is one of abuse and failure to co-operate as has been demonstrated above and elsewhere again and again. I have no personal animosity towards him/her but he/she stands in the way of this site ever becoming a serious educational tool. That is regrettable but it is also an unavoidable conclusion. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:59, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
===One second...===
This is Andy Schlafly's talk page, so shouldn't he be the one to decide on this? He has not posted anything yet, so I assume he is busy. Perhaps we should wait until his decision? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 19:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Amen. Can we please show the man a little respect by giving him a chance to respond? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::If andy wanted to reply, he could have by now. If he is going to, he will when he considers it best. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:18, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:::It's no secret that Andy has quite a number of projects on his plate, Sean. He's a busy man with a lot of demands on his time. It's entirely possible that he hasn't had a chance to look at any of this yet. Whether he has or not, though, the point remains: this is his talk page. It is a place to communicate with him, not to carry on general debates with all and sundry. In the interest of putting my money where my mouth is, I will be refraining from further posts here. I urge others to do the same. Both Conservative and RobS have said their piece; Andy will respond as he chooses and in his own time, as is his perogative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::: ''If he is going to, he will when he considers it best.''--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

==My two cents for Mr Schlafly==

I have been reading conservapedia for several months now, and I am pleased to say that my kids (11 and 14) also use it as their first point of call when needing encyclopedic information for homework assignments etc). I have not signed up an account as I do not feel knowledgeable (or tech-savvy) enough to contribute anything meaningful. However I fell compelled to chime in here regarding the ongoing discussion regarding the direction of this website. Cards on the table now: I am a conservative Christian and I read and encourage my kids to read this website because it promotes true American values. The main page is my "go to point" for the latest news, as the administrators here seem to have an uncanny knack of highlighting exactly the kind of stories I am interested in, I am also pleased to say that the article evolution has given my kids plenty of knowledge that is censored from them in school (and the satires have brought us all many hearty chuckles! :) ). From what little I know of this website, User:Conservative has contributed a huge amount of first-rate material and wishes to maintain the integrity of this site as a reliable conservative Christian resource, whilst User:Rob Smith (maybe with a view to enlarging the target audience?) wishes to make the site more liberal and cater to atheistic views. There are plenty of liberal atheistic sites out there, I choose not to read them. I choose to read conservapedia. Please don't change that Mr Schlafly. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 20:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy) ==

Deep breath and here we go...

These are my thoughts on the blocking policy, somewhat directed at Conservative's proposals.

1) Blocking for obvious vandals is, well, obvious. Blanking pages, filling pages with gibberish, vulgar or stupid names, etc. is just childish and such children should have a time out - a long time out. I don't believe a lot of time or effort needs to be spent establishing rules for those cases.

2) Parody, as noted elsewhere on this page, is much harder to discern. I have noticed recent blocks (and no, I'm not going to go search for them - I'm not here to point fingers) that have been questionable, in my opinion. There needs to be a set and fairly easy procedure where a blocked editor who feels their block was unfair can present his/her/its case. Chances are that most blocks are good, but in cases where there was a misunderstanding, or a personality clash, a ''disinterested'' admin needs to step in.

3) I've already suggested a board of some type, consisting of both admins and regular editors. Given the number of appeals can't be known ahead of time, setting a regular schedule might not be warranted. The board could meet when a certain number (4 or 5?) appeals have been presented and make their decision, with Andy possibly reviewing it and putting his seal of approval on it. Notifications of the board meeting should be posted prominently on the front page. A talk page could be provided with a list of editors who are appealing their block. This would allow others who are not on the board but who might have a direct interest could express their opinion. There might also be a rule with regards to a blocked editor who has been restored and their subsequent behavior.

4) As for the makeup of the board – right now I feel that should be decided later, when tempers have cooled a bit. One possible idea is to make it a rotating membership, with say, a six-month tenure. This would prevent the board duties from becoming too onerous a task for the individual members.

On a personal note, I would like to request that the editors here at CP remember that debates and discussions about articles, essays and even questionable editors should be about the actual ''edits'' that have been made, not about the editors' personalities. I realize it can be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!)
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== My proposed solution to the current crisis ==
My understanding is that the the [[User:CPanel|Student Panel]] has the final word on all matters related to the site. Why don't we put the following questions to them?

* Who is wrong here? Conservative, RobS, neither or both?
* In the event that they determine that one or both of them has acted inappropriately, what should happen to them? (Temporary block, permanent block, demotion, etc)
* Is the current block policy sufficient and appropriate?
* If not, what policy would be?

I feel this is the only solution left. God Bless. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 00:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

::'''''We''''' shouldn't present it to them - it should be either Conservative or Rob who bring the case before the panel, since it involves them. Andy could, if he prefers to remain neutral in this case, have the panel look over the situation. If there are any other editors who are ''directly'' involved, then they too might have a reason to take it before the panel. The rest of us are onlookers and we should all cease involving ourselves into the matter. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I appreciate the concern SharonW. I should have asked Aschlafly intervene earlier as far as RobS as it would have been a better use of time. He would have been glad to do it. As far as a blocking policy, I put together what I thought was a workable block review policy framework and maybe someone will pick up that ball and run with it. I said I may help develop a blocking review policy in the fall, but the more I think about it that was wishful thinking. I have decided to pursue other matters. As far as the RobS matter, from what I have been told Aschalfly is going to review matters in the very near future and decide what to do. I have said my piece on the matter and have decided to move on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:37, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Does the Panel still exist?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 01:18, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::[[User:SharonW|SharonW]], I respectfully disagree. RobS and Conservative are creating a problem for the whole community and it is therefore the responsibility of the whole community to see that it gets solved. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 02:21, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Community Portal

2011-07-29T05:44:33Z

FergusE: Redirected page to Conservapedia:Community Portal

#REDIRECT
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-29T04:05:44Z

FergusE: /* Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy) */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires ==

I thought about RobS wanting to make it a more open wiki and so I decided to remove the talk page protection for the comedy/satire pages on atheism and evolution

I put the redirects and page protection to add to the humor of the comedy/satire pages. Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see: [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]] ). The thought of quarrelsome militant atheists hitting the talk page buttons of those comedy/satire pieces and getting redirected to another page had a element of humor to me. Like getting the last laugh to often humorless persons in humorous way. Plus, I just don't see the point of it. I don't foresee me participating in the talk pages of these comedy/satire pages in the future. The idea of debating comedy/satire/humor does not hold any interest to me. If any liberals want to debate humor, I suggest they contact their locale papers about their political satires or send any angry letter to some stand up comics. In addition, I don't see the point of bothering with the posts of whiny atheists with thin skins who want to make picayune and inane comments.

With the above said, obviously there are cost and benefits to decisions and I wanted to assist RobS in his aforementioned effort.

However, I don't want anyone unlocking the comedy/satire pages themselves. Some have a lot of viewership and if they are not broke, I don't want them "fixed" - especially by atheists/evolutionists. Within reason, I personally think essay pages should be like a person's talk page and be their castles. The thought of someone altering essays seems odd to me except for minor proofreading. Of course, I would be against the essays promoting immorality such as engaging in bank robberies, etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:53, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I returned to tie up a loose end with editor Nate. With that being said, I just wanted to say that if atheists in the future wish to fill those talk pages with whiny comments, it will of course confirm atheists are often proud people who have thin skins so I welcome them to squeal like stuck pigs on the comedy/satire talk pages. :) I won't be reading their whiny comments, but I am guessing that others might enjoy seeing them whelp on the talk pages of the comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

My conversation with "Conservative" was removed after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review it. What is the meaning of this outrageous behavior? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::It was in the section above this one. The posts are from yesterday. "Conservative" deleted the whole section after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review "Conservative's" insulting behavior and state whether the editorial policy here is YEC as to articles like evolution. I don't know how to find the posts. Can administrators look at the history? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=887044&oldid=887012 this] part of what you're talking about? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes, thank you. That's the last post in the section "Conservative" deleted. How do you find pages like that? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:21, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There's a little tab at the top of the page labeled 'history'; click on that and you get a list of changes starting with the most recent. Hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:23, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Very much, thank you. I knew abut my contributions button but didn't know about history. I now see that entire discussions that took place in December between "Conservative" and various users challenging the absolute lack of evidence of any correlation between atheism and obesity have completely disappeared. What is going on on this site?! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:38, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Now that's something one does need to be an administrator to answer. I try to stay out of these things. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Nate, the comment was never deleted, or reverted. It was Archived. I would be supportive of a guideline on Archiving that gives a 7 day waiting period since the last posting before Archiving. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I didn't know what an archive is. Thank you for showing me, RobS. All I saw was that the conversation was suddenly missing. It was archived around 11:30 Central time and I had to get to bed so I never had a chance to see "Conservative's" last post ending the conversation by "stating the obvious" and further denigrating the Catholic Church as "not the most Bible loving institution" and saying "I really think it is hard to deny that much of the Catholic leadership and a significant amount of RCC scholars fail to take a high view of Scripture." I deny it. I deny it up and down and am getting and more offended as "Conservative" continues slandering the Catholic Church. It may surprise "Conservative" to know that people just like me read the Bible (there are a LOT of us) literally where the context indicates it should be read literally. People can obviously come to different conclusions based on ''how'' they decide what is to be read literally. Young Earth Creationists like "Conservative" treat the first chapters of Genesis as history. I was taught and accept the "Framework View". Our disagreement should not entitle "Conservative" to slander an entire Church and an enormous group of people who walk the walk everyday. Will someone please help get this person under control and stop the sneering anti-Catholic jabs and clarify whether YEC is the editorial policy here? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:32, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Nate, you never addressed information like this that I provided from the online version of Roman Catholic New American Bible: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm which gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture. The website http://www.usccb.org is maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I suggest you cease your denialism. You can cry slander day and night, but unless you demonstrate it, you are not particularly convincing. By the way, it appears things are not looking good for evolutionism in the key biology textbook state of Texas as can be seen [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html HERE] Have a nice day! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::What's to address? You're laughably wrong. You gave a link to the introduction to Second Peter in an edition of the Bible but haven't even bothered to justify your offensive claim that it "gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture." These men are bishops of the Catholics Church. What do you think they're doing if they're not devoting their lives in service of a "high view of scripture"? You also haven't demonstrated why scholarship questioning the provenance of Second Peter is wrong. So you've failed altogether to do anything more than argue by assertion based on an absurdly erroneous misreading of the source. And I'm in denial? You can't even accurately cite sources in order to prop up your vendetta against "liberals", atheists, "evolutionists" now Catholics. I looked at this shockofgod stuff you keep spamming. The guy looks like a Youtube crank running his mouth about an ambitious campaign that's having little or no effect. Good luck with that. I'll ignore him like everyone else seems to be doing. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I see that you can safely be ignored. How is your request for Andy's input going? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy's refusal to intervene to stop your abuses is disappointing. The smiley face and your insulting non response just prove my point that you're an awful debater who refuses to address things on the level or cooperate. I'm very sorry for this site that no other admin except this sneering creature chose to intervene. Please close my account if no other admin is willing to assist with controlling this person. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 02:44, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Well geez, what are you asking? Pardon me, but your complaints seem to be all over the map. First you complain about a possible anti-Catholic bias because the assertion is made the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as arbiter of God's Word and not scripture; then you make complaints about the user your in dispute with; then you complain about the sites owner; then you complain nobody's willing to help; then you complain about the site. Now you wanna take your ball and go home cause others can't debate whatever you are driving at.
:Let's address the complaint of anti-Catholic bias: other sites, devoted to athiesm and rational science, I'm sure are much less sympathetic to Catholicism than the devotion and respect it recieves here. Have you tried defending the Catholic faith at those sites? If so, gimme a link so we can see your bona fidas. Maybe then your complaints would be taken more seriously. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Resolution of matters ==

[[User:Conservative]] wrote: ''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved, CP not becoming a pro-evolution website''. My proposal: when a matter is resolved, a short (but highlighted) statement should be added under the respective discussion, summarizing the achieved consensus. After this, the discussion can be archived.

[[User:Conservative]] stated that [[Gender-neutral|he]] won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has [[Gender-neutral|he]] said something about them?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative said so above, "''''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved''". I'm not certain restoring all, or certain, talk page deletions are possible. And mainspace, such as the link you provided, are simple reversions or edit wars. Am I understanding your question properly? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:28, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will use more discretion as far as the delete button so as not to remove credit to other contributions. Including this time, I have said this three times now. I suggest you stop beating this dead horse and let it rest in peace. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

:::@RobSmith: I thought that Conservative's comment indicated that some issues had been resolved. And that's my point: After having a problem resolved, there should be an easily readable short resolution, perhaps a template which states in which way the matter was solved. After this, the topic could be archived. This would help to avoid repeating the same discussions over and over again - one could link to the already resolved project. Just an idea for the future...
:::BTW: I linked each occurence of ''he'' to the article on [[gender-neutral|gender-neutrality]], as I wanted to explain why I won't address [[User:Conservative]] as ''(s)he''.
:::@Conservative: it's nice that you'll ''"use more discretion as far as the delete button"'' is concerned. What's about using the ''preview-button'' - as taken into consideration by you [[User talk:AugustO# You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration|here]]?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::AugustO, thanks for the input. A person I invited to this wiki who created a very popular article at Conservapedia told me he created his material on a word processor first and then transferred that material to Conservapedia. I can use this same approach. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Perhaps user:conservative would like to tell us why he has taken to summarily deleting other users' user and talk pages. This would appear to be in contravention of the spirit of free speech that Mr Schlafly [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=887947&oldid=887941 encourages] on this wiki.

Sadly, this is yet another indication of user:conservative's complete lack of interest in the protocols of this wiki, nor is he interested in anything but himself and his own agenda, even if it means insulting Catholics like NKeaton and Mr. Schlafly. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:54, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::TracyS, I don't think you are a sincere person and your most recent instance of trying to pick a fight with me over a complete trivial non-issue. Please find something productive to do rather than making baseless charges and trying to waste other peoples time. Also, if you truly felt I have insulted Mr. Schlafly I would think you would have contacted him about this matter. Unsurprisingly, I have no indication you did. My guess is that if you did try to make this allegation with Mr. Schlafly you would get the same non-response as NKeaton. I have nothing further to say about deleting a person's page who indicated they no longer wanted to edit. I also have nothing further to say about recently deleting another profile with nonsensical and contradictory material created by an inane provocateur. If you think I am going to waste a lot of my time dealing with your melodramatic and phony posts to me, guess again. I am not. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::User:Conservative has in the past several hours reverted talk page comment from Aschlafly's page. Stop. Please stop. You are not Aschlafly. This is a violation of another's user space. You are not free to remove comments from other users space. If Mr. Schlafly wanted those comments removed he would do it himself or ask someone to do it. Mr. Schlafly removed personal information from that same thread; if Mr. Schalfly wanted that thread removed he would have done it there and then. User:Conservativis action is disrespectful to another users talk page, and all CP editors.
:::User:Conservative has gained quite the reputation for information destruction. This wiki has survived some battles, and now is the time to demand accountability from Sysop. Sysops are to be models of interaction for junior editors, but they are not whenthey feel they can violate and ignore CP's core principles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside your allegation about my reputation information destruction (A claim which I find odd given my 63 page article on [[atheism]] which I largely wrote, 46 written page article on [[evolution]] which I largely wrote and a 62 written page article [[homosexuality]] which I largely wrote. Perhaps, I have a reputation for information dissemination? ), I will briefly say that you raise a good point in this instance. A person's talk page is their castle. Although I decided to remove my own post, I do think it would have been better if I had asked Mr. Schlafly first. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and changing the way I do things. RobS, can the same be said of you? I have yet to receive an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page. You may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle. Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter? You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that. But I would at ask you to be consistent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is not your talk page. It is Mr. Schalfly's. Your talk page is your castle, do what you want with it. But other's talk pages must be respected. If the comment was innapropriate, it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. And users who troll other's talk pages generally get blocked. Both are blockable offenses, and edit warring over it is another. You need to be an example for sysop wannabe's, both (a) how to interact with other editors, and (b) how ''not'' to misuse sysop powers. There is entirely too much shoot-from-the-hip with you in all of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:31, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm concerned that the focus here isn't necessarily in the right spot, and I apologize for not having contributed to the community portal earlier - I'd been on a series of summer vacations visiting family up and down the East Coast. Frankly, I think it's acceptable if some leeway is given to comments written by the user, even if on another user's talk page. Do I think it's ideal to post a comment and then remove it? No, but the wiki doesn't break down if it happens. In the same sense that it's acceptable to fix typos in your posts, I think it's acceptable - though again, not ideal - for a user to determine that his post might no longer be relevant, or perhaps was redundant, and take it upon himself to delete said post (assuming no other users have contributed to the discussion).

I must admit I was previously more concerned with the wholesale deletion and recreation of pages, but I think that a lot of progress has been made on that issue thanks in large part to Rob, so my commenting would serve no real purpose.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, if you want to lead in this area, you need to lead by example. I still not have received an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page.
::::And you're not gonna get one.
:::Again, you may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle.
::::Then leave other people's castle alone.
:::Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter?
::::Am I gonna recieve an apology from you for your rudeness? Stop reverting, deleting, and oversighting discussions I am involved in.
:::You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that.
::::Thanks, I didn't know I needed your approval.
:::But I would at ask you to be consistent.
::::Here's consistancy: STOP ABUSING YOUR SYSOP POWERS!
:::I have a feeling that no apology will be forthcoming.
::::It ain't.
:::Regrettably, I have to say that I have downgraded my expectations for your success with your project in instituting new rules and getting their requisite enforcement.
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
:::I feel it will be impeded by you wanting to throw your weight around and not showing a willingness to admit your own mistakes and to abide by existing rules. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Don’t lecture me on the rules, pal. You’ve never shown an interest in policy development or writing sysop rules. All you’ve done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilities of people trying to contribute, and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] 23:30, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:If "a person's talk page is their castle," why do you keep deleting and recreating other peoples' talk pages/castles? [[User:RodneyA|RodneyA]] 23:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have already address this matter. I will further add that unlike Aschafly I did have JPatt's and Karajou agreement to mess around with their castles. :) In addition, Aschlafly is not particularly upset with me and has not poured oil down upon me from his castle walls. :) Lastly, I standby my action with NKeaton and the person I blocked and have no further commentary! Adios! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::RobS, I just saw your post. I suggest if you have a good case as far as some of your allegations that you take it up with Mr. Schlafly and with all due haste. I suggest you do that right now. I don't think that is gong to happen and even if you tried, I don't think it would go anywhere. We both know this. I don't mind altering my behavior due to reasonable requests. I think you should take a good hard look at how Iduan and August is approaching matters as I think you will have far more success. I do find it sad that your oversized ego and hot temper are getting in the way of admitting you erred concerning violating policy on my talk page.
:::Admit you erred in reverting, deleting, archiving, and oversighting active discussions I was involved in, blocking some participants without cause, and deleting their user pages. And let's understand this straight out -- this discussion is not about roasting User:Conservative, it is about developing guidleines and policies for editor and sysop conduct. You my good man, are simply the posterboy for abuse because of your unresponsiveness to other editors.
:::So you can cease right here and now with personal attacks about others ego, etc. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:40, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::Good luck with pushing your reforms with your present attitude and inconsistency. Next, I will certainly admit that with TK around I wasn't exactly an eager beaver as far as developing policies. I have from day one had my primary focus be content creation and related matters. I don't regret my decision. I think at this point, we should just avoid needlessly butting heads and get along as much as possible. I think I have clarified my position sufficiently and responded to other comments sufficiently. Despite your personal shortcomings and your recent behavior towards me, I have no ill will towards you and I hope your initiative bears fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. Let's work together to improve the wiki. I too, was always focused on content, but now we have the opportunity to overcome earlier mistakes the CP project made in ''not'' providing adequate guidelines and development support for sysops and editors. Registered users should be ''encouraged'' to contribute, and worked with to help develop their talents, not suspected as trolls from the minute they register, hounded, stalked, and blocked before they perform their first edit. The sysops that remain in this project must seriously review our shortcomings and recognize much of what we've tried has failed. I propose we overhaul our existing written policies and guidelines, and present them to the site's owner for input and ratification. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Thanks for the cordial response. A pointless wiki battle doesn't serve anyone. I am working on making some changes as well which I believe could make a big change if they were implemented. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

===Reform movement===

:::<s>User:Conservative ... firstly I can't find what you accuse RobS of doing in your page log - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AConservative - there's no record of an "unprotection".</s> ('''update''': I was mistaken - an unprotection did occur; I stand by my second point. Apologies for the mistake.) Secondly, I think the notion that, without an apology for a, <s>presumably</s>, one-time mistake, Rob's efforts have no legitimacy, is an absurd one - and so is the notion that this is only Rob's crusade. Rob started an attempt at reform, and I think we'd all say he deserves many kudos for doing so, but it's on all of us to build a better encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Iduan, I had asked RobS for clarification and received no response. Regardless, RobS's recent behavior towards me still has caused me to downgrade my expectations. Frankly, my expectations were not that high to begin with, but I had hoped for the best. Personally, I think the first order of business is to enforce existing core rules such as citing your sources which is given in the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia commandments]]. The people I requested to create content Conservapedia cited their sources and those articles are among the most popular articles at Conservapedia. However, most if not all wikis, are under sourced. I do think Conservapedia could do better in this area and I think the Admin group could do better in this department and lead by example. I may have ignored the preview button for various reasons and I am not against altering my behavior at this stage, but giving my sources has been a strong point of my content. Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time. Higher quality content, on the other hand, often gets ranked at the search engines and is more apt to bring in new readers and new editors. Non-quality content serves as a deterrent to gaining new editors. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:56, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I absolutely agree that citing sources is important - I think that's something that I've certainly been very careful to do in almost all my articles, but of course every user, including myself, could always do better. As to the preview button: I'm not especially concerned with the preview button and its usage. I think the question here, though, is what must sysops be subservient to? Obviously, Andy is the final authority, but regulating every sysops behavior would be a waste of time on his part. So I think what we all are trying to accomplish is some sort of explicit guidelines that will allow users to know what to expect from sysops, as well as allow sysops to police each-other and point out if one has erred.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
::::::*We need clearly defined blockng policy.
::::::*We need clearly defined deletion policy.
::::::*We need a definition of vandalism.
::::::*We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
::::::*We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
::::::*We need a definition of good faith.
::::::*We need to end this hideous "member of a vandal site" cause for blocking, which I can find no precedent anywhere how it came into existence, other than TK invented it out of whole cloth.
::::::*We need to end blocking on sight. Some sysops must run traceroute before a user makes thier first edit. This is not showing good faith and a terrible example to set.
::::::*We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
::::::*We need a definition of consensus.
::::::*And a few other things. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Iduan, some of Conservapedia's biggest missteps have been the result of poor sourcing and poor research which inevitably lead to poor content in those instances and this has happened to all wikis and not just Conservapedia. Second, I had told RobS that I had wanted to attend to this matter at another time and frankly RobS knows it could have waited as I told him privately that I had wanted to tackle other non-wiki matters and would not be creating much content and be far less active at Conservapedia in the short term. Plus, I think some of his charges towards me are ill conceived and ill supported. This is what convinces me that RobS has a problem with throwing his weight around and showboating. Furthermore, his refusal to apologize for removing the protection of my talk page further adds to this assessment. Did I want to say this about RobS? Was I trying to undermine his efforts? No. I said I wished him the best and until today I had chosen to remain silent about my reservations in terms of the success of his initiative. Does this mean that I think the project is doomed and RobS cannot change his behavior. No and I hope he does. I would suggest he start showing more good faith towards me and stop pestering me. I have no problems with being cordial towards RobS and cooperating with his initiatives, but it has to be a two way street in terms of respecting each other and our efforts. If RobS chooses to repair things I think that would be great and I could be among his biggest supporters. If he continues to show bad faith that would be most unfortunate. The balls is in his court now. I am certainly not going to support someone who is pestering me though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, I would add that it would not surprise me if the content/allegations/tone of this portal has caused Mr. Schlafly not to participate in this portal. I would think that RobS would want Aschlafly as a big supporter and for him to participate in this community portal. That certainly would be a big boost to his efforts. Have I told Mr. Schlafly how wonderful this community portal is? No, I have not. I said that although some good points were raised, I certainly had some reservations on how things were being conducted. Again, I would suggest that RobS cease and desist his pesterfest as I would far prefer being a wholesale supporter of this initiative than being a skeptical detractor who hopes for the best, but has some open reservations as far its potential for success. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

I think the biggest concern about delaying the conversation is that it will be delayed indefinitely; obviously any contributions that you can add despite your schedule are extra-appreciated. Its certainly reasonable to have a small delay, but without a timeline that's hard to do. I can't serve as a medium between you/Rob, but I do think no user is purposely pestering another; I think any bluntness can be attributed to the supposed urgency of the moment that all wikis are subject to, and not to hostility.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:Iduan, I do thank you for your cordiality and reasonableness. Despite some inappropriate conduct, I do think some positive benefits have resulted from this portal. As far as RobS pestering me, I think it was the result of impatience and ego and not being particularly concerned about another editor. I don't think his main focus is to pester me at an importune time, but nonetheless that has been the result. I am usually fairly successful at getting key participants cooperation for things that are important to me as I can be pleasantly persistent. RobS has chosen to be unpleasant and pushy. I would prefer to be a supporter of RobS though and time will tell if this happens. I think it is fair to say that things are fairly frosty in terms of us having a working relationship at the present time and that is unfortunate. I do have a feeling though that I may have accomplished my objective of not having RobS pester me and he may finally see the light concerning this matter. It shouldn't have taken this long though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

====Proposal 1; re:blocking====
Perhaps we should create a block review panel? Users with blocking rights who are willing to be contacted in the case that a user feels a block was unfairly handed out. I feel as though having a specific block policy and this theoretical panel could circumvent the need to define "vandalism" - which in my experience can be amorphous. Obviously specifics could be drawn up later, but as I see it a panel member could, should the scenario call for it, reverse a block without any hard feelings, and perhaps as a general guideline (though not a rule) the unblocked user should - barring clear vandalism - under no circumstances be reblocked by the original blocking user. This is very similar to current policy, except users inexperienced with wikis might not know how to find users with blocking privileges to contact if they have a concern, and this would conveniently list willing, active users. This would at least partly address bullets 1, 3, 5 re: blocking, 6 and 9.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That may not be feasible. Every blocked person could ask for review as a result. It may have unintended consequences. I think a better solution in the meantime is to be choosier about who is given block rights. I should have been more vocal about Bugler and RodWeathers being phonies but at least I got RodWeathers to create content. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:14, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well presumably with a large enough pool of willing "admins" (I'm using that to mean people with blocking rights, but I do understand the difference) it shouldn't be hard to accommodate those requests. I think it's relatively easy to determine whether a user is completely bad faith or whether perhaps a second chance should be granted. Certainly well done on Rod!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:18, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need serious blocking policy reform; I tried to log in minutes ago from my local public library and the account was blocked because of "possible misuse of U.S. or other government computer system." Can anyone help me right now in locating these blocks so they can be undone? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need full articulation when and under what circumstances a Range block is applicable. We've probably blocked every Starbucks and McDonald's on the planet, infinitely, as well as every public library and college. Undoing 4 years of inappropriate blocking is a real chore. [[Conservapedia:New sysop training page]] needs updating. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:36, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can absolutely get behind that. I would offer to help with range blocks, but I'm not familiar at all with that area - I've never even issued a range block. I also agree the language should be toned down on the blocking section of the sysop training page. While it is important to "err on the side of caution", as the page suggests, block are a serious punishment, and should be handed out with careful consideration.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:07, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the page[[ Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]; it should be written primarily for sysops. Editors can get the idea from there what is expected from them if they aspire to be sysops. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Conservapedia:New_sysop_training_page#Blocking]] - which you already linked to - seems to be a much more detailed (longer, certainly) approach. I would almost go so far as to suggest that the content from that section literally be flipped with content from that guideline page, after the language is toned down. (I could work on doing that, if you'd like, although perhaps it'd be best coming from you)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:Yes please do. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is what I've come up with: [[User:Iduan/guidelinedraft#Blocking]]. I would suggest that the first point - which is applicable to all users with block rights - be moved to [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]], but the second two points - which involve using administrator tools like "checkuser" or "delete" - be kept on the sysop page. If you could check over what I did it'd be greatly appreciated! (And obviously feel free to edit - I'm just using my userspace as a sandbox)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:43, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::(Just so you know - and you don't think I'm just being lazy - I'm actually unable to edit the new sysop guide page as its protected, hence the fork)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::Personally, I think that we should try working with ISPs before issuing rangeblocks. For ISPs that will not work with us, we should block those ISPs altogether, with a note that users should complain to their ISP or switch to another one to contribute to Conservapedia. This is what email administrators have been doing for quite some time, and although it isn't without flaw, it seems to have been somewhat effective for them. Since I have five years of experience dealing with ISPs, I'd be more than happy to help Conservapedia in doing this, and both Jpatt and Karajou can attest to my effectiveness.
::As for people desiring to appeal their block, Wikipedia and some other wikis allows blocked users to edit their own talk page and insert a template to challenge their block. They have an option to revoke this privilege if it is abused. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:44, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. I may have some questions on ISP and want to know more. Appealing a block presents some problems, namely manpower (or personpower to be politically correct) to handle it. This of course can be another source of efforts to just waste sysops time. If we had dozens of sysops with time on their hands to respond, and handle it responsibly, it wouldn't matter. Let's not put nthe cart before the horse. Let's hammer out a definition of "good faith user" and "vandalism", then if there's any misunderstanding in what that means, we could add an appeals process. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Hold on here. My thoughts are this. Disputing an administrator's block (unless you are an admin yourself) is disputing their judgement, which is uncalled for. I, for one, trust Andy's judgement in appointing his admins, and by extent trust the admins he appoints. I think, as editors, we should not question an sysop's decision. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:We need to identify and define grounds for blocking. Then we can review a sysop's actions. This means ''both'' sysops and editors can be held accountable. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Only discussions which are inactive for 7 days should be archived. Any discussion thread with a comment within the past 7 days should still be considered an active, ongoing discussion. This will give all users and interested parties an opportunity to review and participate. See [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Talk_pages_and_Archiving]] for more details. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Navigation box]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==

This is a follow-up to some [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884164&oldid=884024 points I made on Andy's talk page], which he said he agreed with completely.

First, I have to recognize and congratulate RobS for his work on bringing the rule of law to Conservapedia, and for lending his sysop influence to this.

The point I want to make is that "tweaking" the 90/10 rule (80/20, 70/30, whatever) requires that rules, and violations thereof, be logically connected with account blocks. This is simple logic. '''It does no good to lay out criteria for blockable misbehavior if sysops block people for whatever reason they please, with no regard for actual infractions''' (90/10, combative arguing, trolling, vandalism, lying, etc.)

Blocks '''must have verifiable reasons'''. But a look at the block log shows things like:
*By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki
*provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true
*Negative personal comments: The pigstie you require is down at Uncle Billy's farm.
*नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार (what???????)
*Multiple accounts; same IP(s) as existing/previous user(s): Need to change your socks, pardner...try washing them as well.
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: fake professors need not apply
*lack of machismo
*no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: I'm all for improvement too, stupid, which is why you're outta here.
*Broken arrow! (with a youtube page about the movie "We Were Soldiers") (what???????)
*I suggest going to Africa and searching for Mokele-mbembe. You have 5 years to do it now
*If only you were as nice as a pony, maybe women would love you
*probably an obese atheist with a thin skin!
*conservapedia obssessive compulsive disorder
*obesity

Blocking is serious business! It reflects upon the seriousness of Conservapedia. If you can't put in a cogent block reason, find some other sysop who can.

Now some of the cases above were probably well-founded, like the one with the comment with "try washing them as well", but sysops should be models of probity and levelheadedness, and should not have made that comment. Even if personally annoyed by someone's behavior, sysops should not let it get to them.

There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:

*Wanton deletion of pages, without VERY good reason. For example, deleting another user's user page or talk page. Even if it is swiftly recreated, and even if this is done without loss of information, there is simply no excuse for it.
*"Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
*Deletion of material from talk pages, unless it is truly libellous. Talk pages are a journal of discussions. There is almost never a reason to delete anything. Merely being peeved by something is not an excuse. If you are insulted by something, there should be a way to mark it with "personal attack removed" or something. I don't know the details.

Now I'm going to step on some toes. Take a deep breath, everybody.

The sysop guidelines / rules need to be '''enforceable'''. The Conservapedia community needs to know that they will be followed. Therefore, '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''. I see plenty of well-intentioned "junior" sysops who are doing an excellent job of keeping the site running smoothly. The removal of one or two sysops for flagraqnt violations will not harm Conservapedia. In fact, it may help immensely, by setting an example of expected behavior.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:17, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see why you're so upset over the block comments. Conservative is simply trying to add some humor. However regarding the Hindi/Thai/whatever block summary, this is an English wiki so everything should be in English. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 11:05, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::MeganH, you are a good guesser. It was Hindi. With that being said, SamHB's post has some merit as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:41, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Community input requested==
Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,

*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]

*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]

Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Block appeal? ==

A thought that just hit me: I'm genuinely not sure if this has been considered so far, but with internal e-mail now being disabled and the Zoho account not being listed on the Main Page, what is the current appeal process when you're blocked? I didn't check how many sysops list their e-mail address on their user page, but I'd be somewhat surprised if many do (since it attracts spam bots).

[[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] probably needs to be amended with a link to whatever appeal/contact policy is up to date, too. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:That link's hilarious. But seriously, we're looking into this. We'd like to get a good blocking policy everyone can get behind in place. I'm arguing CP should stop trying to re-invent the wheel, and look at how WP has learned to deal with sockpuppetry and vandalism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights? ==
:''Discussion moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]
Coming here to complete a registration and start writing about my topics of interest, I got deeply disappointed when I saw the message '''Only alphanumerical usernames are accepted'''. So how come that one isn't entitled to contribute here for the sole reason that they have an underscore or a gap in the desired username? I'm sure these restrictions have a strongly negative effect on the development of the Conservapedia, deterring a significant portion of contributors. Just look how many people work on Wikipedia, write popular pages on subject they now without bothering about admins imposing their views. Can you take a moment to imagine how many users, well, not only have been pressed to the wall next to the "open gate", but even compressed to death by the following crowd? It's way too surprising that the amount of users and articles is still important to you, as you state on the main page. If it's the case, I urge you to reconsider your policies and give more freedom to newcomers. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Just wait until you get to the part where you can't move pages, upload images or even edit at certain times. Assuming you won't be blocked to force you into registering again with a user name that follows the "first name, last initial" convention. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You talk about giving freedom to newcomers, but then dismiss me pointing out that newcomers indeed lack many freedoms they would expect to have? Well, have fun then. For what it's worth, I agree with the point about underscores in names. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Because instead of letting competent users respond to my claim you digress from the topic in an unconstructive manner, giving an outlet for your butthurt in a wrong place. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg Higher, higher :)] --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 15:30, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I could care less about the problems this section raises, I was pointing out that if your going to go around insulting people you aren't going to go anywhere here or anywhere--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservapedia is run strictly at the pleasure of [[Andy Schlafly]] as the founder, and to a lesser extent at that of the administrators. If you don't like their policies, then you have no business here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 17:17, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I always thought that this site was run in the interest of presenting items without the liberal bias that is prevalent through out the internet and the MSM. The opinions and whims of [[Andy Schlafly]] should have little to no bearing on the content of the site so long as the information set forth is well argued and is able to be backed up.
:::::::::If this site is run at the pleasure of Mr. Schlafly, than I'm afraid it is no better than wikipedia. For Conservapedia and the conservative movement to succeed, we must hold ourselves to higher standards than those of wikipedia and the MSM.--[[User:MrLCharms|MrLCharms]] 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Talk:Evolution ==

On Monday, I made an edit to [[Talk:Evolution]] that removed the Student Panel Decision box. My reasoning (given in the same edit) was this:
{{quotebox|I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)}}
Today, Conservative bluntly reverted my edit without discussion, making my last line there extra hilarious. Can we maybe have some actual discussion about this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sid, if you truly wanted discussion, you didn't need to remove the panel's notice to do that. Nor did you need your friend Horace in Australia who is obsessed with evolution/atheism/Conservapedia/myself to try to revert my reversion of you. What you wanted was an atheist revision of Conservapedia history. Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism. More anti-evolution content is not a major change. Evolutionists adding pseudoscience which is what you are ultimately seeking to do is a major change. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Sure we can have a discussion. But as I understand it, the decision of the CP Panel still stands. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Please restore the edit history of the article to show that the article hasn't "changed in any major way". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:43, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sid wants to gut an article showing the folly of evolution because it gets a lot of web traffic. He would rather have a gutted article that gets little traffic. That is what this is about. If he really cared what the panel said, he would not have removed their notice. If Sid wants the panel or Andy to pare down the evolution article or do major revisions, then the frontal attack of removing the panel's notice while bold is very foolish from a human relations point of view. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
"Sid wants to gut an article..." He never asked for it to be unlocked, only for its full edit history to be restored. [[User:Lewis|Lewis]] 15:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Sid, your removing of the panel's notice betrayed you. You showed your true colors. Plus, there is the issue of {{personal remark removed}}. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I'm with Conservative here. Here it is our job to discuss, not censor. There seems to be no consensus at all to remove the student panel decision, and all the admins seem to disagree. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:06, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism." That's an interesting claim considering it's directly contradicted by the notice you put back on the talk page. In fact, there's no evidence Mr. Schlafly or the student panel ever gave "Conservative" permission to do whatever he wanted to that article, nor is it an appropriate purpose for an encyclopedia article to communicate one's editorial position that "evolutionism" is "folly". So let's discuss whether "Conservative" taking the article over to the exclusion of every single other editor and in open defiance of the student panel's instructions not to change it in any "major way" and to submit proposed changes on the article talk page is going to be permitted. Some of the irrelevant nonsense "Conservative" has been stacking up in this article wouldn't be so bad if the article adequately explained the subject matter before attacking it, but it doesn't. I've asked Mr. Schlafly to clarify the editorial policy here regarding YEC vs. evolution, which he will not comment on, but I would eat my hat if the version of the article the student panel locked in 2007 was the same pro-YEC hit piece it is today. So sure, have a discussion about the student panel's notice but don't pretend it means anything anymore. Talk about revisionist history. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::It is certainly against the spirit that drives wiki projects. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:56, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, I'm not an atheist; and try to keep your little personal attacks to yourself. Please restore the history of the article so we can see what the April 2007 version looked like. Without the history, the Student Panel decision is pointless since it has no reference point to base itself on. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:(Side note: I see that Lewis just got a 2-year block by Conservative. Posting to the Community Portal is really a danger for one's wiki-health... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT))
::::Sid, I see you are fond of the exclusionary fallacy. Did Lewis have other edits as well? Second, if you think I am going to help a militant evolutionist, you are fooling yourself. By the way, your aforementioned frontal attack and your persistence in this matter remind me of Pickett's charge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your refusal to let us see the April 2007 version is quite telling. Just as telling as blocking a guy for two years right after he pointed out your error while claiming that the block was for comments the user made yesterday. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sid, I have decided to retire from this battle that you cannot win. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Both Please type in Englisch.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section break===
I've had a problem being able to review 2700+ deleted edits and am not familiar with the earlier wiki-battles over that entry. Perhaps you can encapsulate. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:33, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

:I have taken the liberty of moving this post to its own section because it may go on for a bit. The very rough overview is basically this:
:*Between February and March 2007, this article had been central to lots of editing back and forth.
:*Conservative was made sysop (on February 25, 2007) to make his changes to the article, and his intention to have this article locked forever became apparent. Note that I'm not exaggerating here. From [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1#Conservative_Please_Stop|Archive 1]], a post from the day he was sysop'd:
:*:Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. Conservative 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:*Since that had been the magical time before locking anything forever became the norm, Andy promised to ask the anonymous Student Panel for their ruling, and the article was frozen in a fairly anti-evolution version.
:*Some time later (weeks later, I think?), the panel announced the decision that is still visible on [[Talk:Evolution]]. Aside from infinite protection, the central part of the ruling was "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way."
:*There was a fair share of complaining about this (since having a mostly static article violates the wiki spirit), but the sysops (Conservative especially) held up the ruling as a shield against any further (pro-evolution) suggestions, so everybody kinda gave up and sighed.
:*However, Conservative kept editing the article as he pleased: Conservative's patrol log (which was only introduced on June 16, 2008 - more than a year after the ruling!) shows... 200+ edits for "Theory of evolution" and 950+ edits to "Evolution" (the article was moved in December 2008).
:*Between February 9, 2011 (first visible edit after Conservative erased the article history) and last week alone, the article gained roughly ten thousand characters. That's roughly the length of articles like [[Radiometric dating]] or [[Date of the Exodus]]. And this is just what happened during the last five to six months.
:*I am arguing that the Student Panel decision is utterly outdated and pointless: Locking forever is the norm for many articles anyway, nobody doubts that Conservative completely owns the article, and the "no major changes" clause is doubly absurd because the article has been constantly edited since then, and the point of reference (a version from March/April 2007) is unavailable.
:*That is why I removed the Student Panel decision and gave my reasoning in the form of the post I quoted up there.
:So the problem is not one of the many deleted edits, but rather the fact that there are so many edits and that they were deleted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:06, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. Now I see the point more clearly. I do recall peripherally being aware of those happenings back then, but never was involved. The 2700+ edits maybe unrecoverable-I don't know. The overriding question is similar to the question of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (WP:OWN); also, it may be fair to assume much of the Student Panel of 2007 has graduated, and a new Student Panel may have to be asked to look at this version, if that overall policy remains in place. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== CAPTCHA Whitelist ==

I finally remembered to make this request while I was busy making a minor point: Could we add a few entries to [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|the CAPTCHA whitelist]]?

Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the [[Essay:Best News Sources|best news sources]], [[conservative blogs]], and the various [[conservative links]] (especially sections such as "Conservative Organizations" or "Creation Study"). Adding those sites to the whitelist would allow us to insert such links without hassle. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Everyone, please... ==

Come on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=894414 terms like treacherous backstabber] ARE personal remarks themselves. Are we not supposed to kind and considered? Please pay heed: ''Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.'' (Epehsians 4:32). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS has turned on [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in particular and Conservapedia in general. I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Edit to add: And may I suggest you read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== User: RobS ==

At [[User talk:RobSmith]] I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:My modest proposal: Make Conservative a Bureaucrat so he can protect his talk page even from sysops and demote troublemakers who urge him to cooperate instead of treating this site as his personal property where he can do as he pleases. I believe it's the only logical step after tolerating his current behavior. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I fully support this. I am a great fan of [[User:Conservative]] having been brought here by his many irrefutable evidences and amusing essays. If it were not for him I would not be here to contribute and I am sure it is the same for many other users.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You obviously misunderstood Sid. Conservative, your blocking policy is that of an iron-fisted dictator. You have no credibility. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Unless your comment is a joke, Terry, you leave me with no option but to declare you a calumny-loving buffoon. [[User:Conservative]]'s content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::: "You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&curid=11675&diff=893483&oldid=893477]]. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 09:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Whatever it takes to prevent RobS and his inflated ego to stop having a forum at my talk page, I am generally for. In his current "RobScentric" world, he appears to have no respect for polite and reasonable requests. I do not care if RobS is a Sysop/Admin or not, but if it takes removing his Sysop powers for him to no longer have a forum at my talk page for his inordinately sized ego, I am for it. As far as becoming a Bureaucrat at this point: If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Lastly, barring RobS losing his Sysop powers, I have a feeling that over the coming days, weeks or months that Karajou and RobS will continue to have differences over blocking policy and that a blocking policy will be worked out. Given the current demands and priorities in my life, if a refinement of blocking policy were developed rather than a certain person or persons losing their Sysop or blocking powers, I would prefer that blocking policy be worked out by others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sysops not communicating violates the spirit of the wiki. Perhaps if you allowed other sysops the courtousy of communicating with you, there would not be misunderstandings, such as in the case of User:BobSherman. But I am appreciative of you allowing me 5 minutes of your time, per your e-mail, this September, or is it next September? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have communicated with you RobS. I have also communicated to you that I have a lot on my plate right for the short term and I don't want to be pestered by an unreasonable person such as yourself who apparently likes to showboat on my talk page and mire me in needless and inane contention at this point. Barring you seeing the light on this matter and apparently still believing that your posts to me have any importance to me (which they do not), I will recommend that you lose your Sysop status if you continue your behavior which another Sysop believes should happen as well. In the meantime, I suggest that you post your supposed matters of great importance and urgency to me on Aschlafly's talk page and if he feels they are important and urgent, I am sure he will relay them to me. Thank you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please, no incivility and personal attacks; those are blockable offenses. And Sysops need to be held to the same standard other members of the Conservapedia Community are held. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, by the way, as you probably know, I did more than offer you 5 minutes of my time in September as I suggested via email a September meeting with you, Karajou and possibly Aschlafy to help resolve the blocking conflicts which have arisen as of late. I received no reply which is no great tragedy to me. Given your most recent behavior, I have since rescinded my offer for such a September meeting. Perhaps, your statement above is just a matter of sloppy reading on your part, but I believe your statement on this matter reflects why I believe you are often an unreasonable person. I know it still may amaze you that I am no longer interested in what you have to say, but I would start believing it and reflecting on why this has happened. I have nothing further to say on this matter to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, I'm just having a very difficult time understanding any of this. I can not communicate with (or for that matter, nobody can) on your user page. I can not email you cause you've spam blocked me; no wait, you un-spma blocked me. I cannot discuss with you (or for that matter, no one can) on regular Conservapedia project pages because you delete and oversight the discussions. You come to Andy's page with charges, yet have no diffs or evidence, cause you deleted and oversighted it. How is that not (a) misues of sysop priveleges; (b) trolling? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Did you send an email that reads,
::::*''Here are my conditions for such a meeting:
:::::''3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, '''RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month. ''' ''
::::This is not conducive to collaborative content. This is not cooperative editing or helping to build an internet community. You have done nothing in four years to help define [[Conservapedia:Vandalism]], yet how many editors have you arbitrarily blocked on site for that offense? Stop trolling me and wasting my time. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Rob, I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but I urge you to read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. "Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye." Leave [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] alone.--[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Arbitrary and unfair blocking===
Let me explain at some length, from personal experience, why I feel strongly about arbitrary and unfair blocking. I hesitate bringing it up, because of the personal emotional torment it wreaked on me, unfairly, all the result of overzealous ideological partisans, too quick on the banhammer, and determined to take revenge on their enemies.

I was working on an anti-communism series in Wikipedia, and because of the specialized nature of it, [[Chip Berlet]] <ref>Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President, which a Congressional Committee has described as "The Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party".</ref> was recruited to vet, verify, and challenge the information for NPOV purposes. Unbeknownst to me and prior to my arrival in Wikipedia, Berlet had for many years studied the Lyndon LarRouche movement and successfully obtained Arbitration sanctions (banning and blocking) against several "Larouche editors" in several Wikipedia Arbitration cases.<ref>At the time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA/HK WP:RfA Lyndon LaRouche 1 & Lyndon LaRouche 2]; a third and other cases have since been added.</ref> The sanctioned users become notorious sockpuppets, hunted by overzealous sysops, and in constant conflict with Chip Berlet. As Berlet and my Mediation over anti-communism broke down, Berlet labeled me the head of a cabal of "Larouche editors" and being "the most problematic."

In dealing with Berlet, I had crossed paths with some of his old enemies. Berlet seized on these open-wiki communications to drag me before the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee under the pretext that "Nobs and others acting in concert"<ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Arbitration_filed_naming_you Nobs and others acting in concert]</ref> were harassing him. Needless to say, the "others" were sanctioned "LaRouche editors" and this guilt by association prompted the Arbitration Committee to accept a hearing on the case. But I had no knowledge of this ongoing wiki-battle between Wikipedia and the Lyndon LaRouche organization, of which now I was at the center. In the process, my real life identity became known, and I was now being seriously defamed as a "LaRouchie" in an open forum, accessible to Google Search engines. No less than three times did I make motions to separate and remove my name from the LaRouche editors, all denied.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Motion_2_by_Nobs01_on_.22acting_in_concert.22</ref> In frustration, I made incivil comments and was banned, with no immediate recourse to clear my name from slanders.

The idea of me being a sympathizer to Lyndon LaRouche is ludicrous, as is commonly known now. Yet it took me years to clear my name over several forums, gaining public statements from Arbitrators and others connected with the case, that I had indeed been unfairly slandered. See for example, a template in Wikipedia to keep track of the abuses and rulings against "LaRouche editiors", if you scroll down to the "Arbiration 2005", the first case reads "N__and others"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaRouchetalk</ref>, what it took me to get the "acting in concert" removed, and no direct reference to my username, "Nobs", was a nightmare. But I still regard the emotional stress and damage done, by overzealous, ideological sysops, hell bent on stamping out the wiki's enemies, as troublesome.

Then a younger generation of sysops comes along, taking their cue from others, and all they see is "ratvandal", or "larouchie", and a real life identity or username connected to it, and the Terminator mentality takes over. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, no compromise, pity or remorse. Nevermind facts, or misunderstandings. They just have it set in their minds they are doing right, and good, by wielding the banhammer. Never thinking for a moment those are real people out there, with hopes and dreams, and real lives. These sysops are just on autopilot, kill kill kill, destroy destroy destroy.

This may seem harsh, but reliving some of this reminds me why I've tried to learn to be civil and patient, and understanding, even to those I disagree with. I made it my lot to try and be a model of interaction, even in the toughest, most controversial, and emotional disputes. This dispute we're having here, is not really between two sysops -- I actually like the guy/gal/other making these charges. He just needs to lighten up with people. If he has such strong ideological convictions, he should at a minimum be able to defend them. And a locked user page, or redirects on article talk pages, is just pointless. This discussion is simply about being fair with users and demanding the same standards of civility from sysops we expect from editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

== New proposal regarding the ban policy ==

I would like to propose a procedure with regards to the banning policy here at CP. This would apply to situations where people are suspected of being parodists, or other situations that are not as clear-cut as blatant vandalism such as inserting pure gibberish, blanking pages, etc.

We all have bad days sometimes.

We sometimes write things on the internet that comes across to other people as sounding harsh or incoherent, or that doesn't quite get the point across we're trying to make.

We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.

We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.

Instead of one person being responsible for the decision whether or not a person is a parodist, etc., how about a procedure where that person is brought before a committee. The person nominating the possible offender must present his case, complete with '''hard evidence''' that proves the accusations, not just state that "I believe this, thus it's true." Other editors should be allowed to submit evidence, either pro or con, for a certain length of time before a decision is reached.

This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.

I also propose that the committee consist of both sysops and regular editors, thus providing a greater range of opinions. If an editor (either regular or a sysop) is directly involved with the situation, they should not be allowed to be a member of the committee.

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning". Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::*'' RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP''
:::::How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
:::::The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all? I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

How many casual or part-time editors have ceased contributing to the wiki because of uncertainty over the banning policy? Right now, banning often seems arbitrary and uneven – sometimes as though it depends on the mood of the banning editor. I know personally I have stopped myself from offering my opinion and/or edits on different articles because I see things from a different angle or have different information.

What's the harm in making the less obvious banning situations a consensus of opinion, and transparent to all as well? What's the harm in allowing the accused editor to make his/her case in the open, and to allow different editors to give their opinion on the situation? It might not change the ultimate decision, but it's a more democratic process. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ed says,
:*''If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this.''
:*Here's the problem: 40,000 registered users have been blocked for vandalism, and 10,000,000 + IP's, affecting an estimated 30,000,000 potential users. These blocks were handed out for vandalism, yet here ([[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]) is the Guideline blocking Sysops have to guide them after four years.
:*If there were any potental good faith editors who wanted to be helpful in defining vandalism, they probably were blocked years ago as a suspected sock of lcewedge or horace. Them and the whole state or province they live in.
:*Now the Range blocks are undone, yet Old Guard sysops ''still'' block on sight for anything they don't like, despite the floodgates being opened. Conservapedia Sysops have learned nothing from their colossal errors in dealing with vandalism, have yet to even define it, nor hold themselves to the same standards of editing conduct they require of others.
:*Establishing a Commitee won't work, at least not yet; there just aren't enough editors allowed to participate at any level.
:*Blocking policy is in serious need of overhaul, if Conservapedia is serious at all about building an online collaborative wiki community.
:*Sysops need to understand they are not God, and can and will be held accountable to the extent of losing their sysop powers for failing to abide CP's own rules and standards of conduct it requires of others (the few we have).
:*Some editors were punished with blocks just for daring to interject into this important discussion. This kind of arbitrary blocking has got to stop.
:*CP needs a serious reform movement; it's not about personality disputes between sysops, or payback, or roasting an abusive sysop. It's about building a collaborative community which includes atheists, liars, homosexuals, sinners, drunks, drug addicts, felons, ex-cons, university professors, doctors, lawyers, hollywood starlets and anyone else who wants to register an account, abide by CP's Commandments & Guidelines and contribute constructive content without an ideological litmus test for the user. That has always been CP's mission. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I have stayed out of this debate because I don't find it relevant to my goals on/with Conservapedia but i must say these proposals by Rob sound reasonable (although we can probably do without drunks and liars). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:37, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::MRellek, if you want to attempt to further refine CP's blocking guidelines/policies I would not be against that. I would be against RobS writing any blocking policy on parodist since he cannot spot parodist material when he sees it and/or is unwilling to ban parodists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fortunately for site users, you don't own this website, neither do you single-handedly make policy. Should we take a poll of site users who want to see you head up a policy reform committee? or do you think they may be terrorized to even participate, for fear of reprisal block, given the unhealthy editing atmosphere you help create for several years now? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::If anyone has any useful suggestions concerning refining blocking policy, I don't see why they couldn't be suggested and incorporated into our current policy. And there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas concerning this matter. That could start immediately. Of course, given the current authority structure of Conservapedia for any policies to be binding, they would have to be approved by Aschafly or a committee authorized by Andy to make binding policy. Absent of a parodist defining policy being written for encyclopedia articles by September, I am considering writing one. If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up [[Straw man fallacy|strawman arguments]] and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::*''there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas ''
::::::Oh yes, two were blocked just for posting to the above thread. Does that aid in encouraging others to contribute? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I helped formulate our policies, four years ago, shortly after I joined. I was made a sysop much more quickly than I expected (in a mere 8 days), possibly because of my extensive Wikipedia experience: developer rights to the database, the first electeed "bureaucrat", etc.

If there have been 40,000 blocks that is because our project has suffered an unprecedented onslaught of vandals, particularly of the "stealth" kind who plant ridiculous errors so that they can undermine the project by blaming us for those errors.

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS. I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 this warrant a one day block] in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 intemperate vindictive attitude] of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

::I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
::First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned. Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
::Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact? I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree. There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal. Why give him a chance to do more damage?"
::That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions. The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.
::Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably. I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung. What's the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy?" Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
::I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this. Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
::Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
::Respectfully, --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Ben, you make some ''very'' good points, some discussion-worthy points, and one time, you utterly missed the point.
:::The bad news first: Sharon's proposal isn't about ''vandals'', but rather about ''parodists''. Nobody is suggesting to hold a meeting when some idiot is running across the wiki, replacing articles with [http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tits.gif "BOUNCING TITS!!!"] or something like that. This is only about parodists.
::::[tangent]
::::Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written [[Conservapedia:Parody|policy-definition of "parody"]] on this isn't really hitting the nail on the head. It's ''a'' definition of "parody", but not ''the'' definition we're implicitly using here. We're talking about people whose edits are over-the-top by normal standards, but well within the accepted limits of Conservapedia. If you go pretty much anywhere and argue that the Bible needs to be retranslated because it's too liberal, or that Jesus disproved General Relativity and proved Quantum Mechanics, you will be thrown out for being an obvious parodist (as per the definition we currently got written down). On this site, however, all of these things have been established as insights by the site founder. If I suddenly started agreeing with Andy that the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution, would I be a parodist?
::::An effective approach to parody is difficult because Conservapedia's baseline for "normal and acceptable" is not quite where even most other conservatives would place it - both for content and conduct. This is why parodists like Bugler managed to become so successful: They imitated the worst traits of certain sysops, thus blending in perfectly from the POV of most sysops. Just to remind people of an uncomfortable truth: Bugler was one of the nastiest people imaginable and drove out several people who might have helped the site and pretty much got away with it to the point of ''almost becoming a sysop''. (He was only "caught" because of technicalities, not because of his behavior.)
::::The solution lies less in worrying about whether somebody genuinely believes what he's writing and more in reforming this wiki from the top so abusive idiots who make absurd edits stand out properly again. As long as parody is indistinguishable from normal behavior of our supposed role models, it's hard to really justify a ban.
::::[/tangent]
:::The point I kinda disagree with, but which I still find a valid question: Should we do all this bickering here in public? I agree that especially the huge discussions on this page are not CP's finest hour. But that doesn't mean that we should drag mindless bickering behind the stage, and it also doesn't mean that we should simply stop. It means that we should ''do better''. Not just in discussions, but also as a whole. We need to make CP as a community a better and more inviting place. I agree with Rob that we need to rework consistent policies (that aren't scattered all over the place) and that we need to actually enforce them, no matter what rank the offender has.
:::Your very good points are about the current tension (eggshells, landmines, etc.) and that it's ''hard'' at times to be fair and just. Because yes, it is. Of course it is. Having the banhammer is great power. And to echo a terribly overused Spider-Man quote: With great power comes great responsibility. The people wielding it need to be able to handle it. If sysops start using it to retaliate against people they don't like, or if they get twitchy and start banning people who haven't done anything simply because they happened to register around the same time as a vandal, they should either take a voluntary time-out to cool off or give the hammer back. Bringing back something from my tangent: Sysops are supposed to be the ''role models'', and they ''will'' lead by example. They ''need'' to have a cooler head than the regular users, and they ''mustn't'' let their raw emotions guide their actions. That is one of the keys to building a healthy community: Be a good leader, and people will start following you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Please revoke Conservative's Sysop, Block, and Administrator Rights ==

Please revoke conservative's sysop, block, and administrator rights, for flagrant and repeated violations of expected standards for sysops.

You may recall that I wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Enforceable_rules_for_sysop_conduct this], which was a logical consequence of things that you said you agreed with fully. Now I am not a sysop, and therefore don't have much voice in such matters, but the fact is that what I wrote is still present on the Community Portal page. Furthermore, user Conservative said that "[my] post has some merit."

In that section, I said that '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''.

Furthermore, quite a bit of policy material has come into existence, pointing out that it is improper for someone with blocking powers to use those powers frivolously, or for a person with deletion or oversight powers to use those powers unless the material being deleted is libelous.

User Conservative has, as is well known to everyone, engaged in repeated and flagrant violations of the standards for sysops. The repeated deletion of BobSherman's user and talk pages are examples, but there are many more.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SamHB, very melodramatic. Your bold text suggest you are very angry. I suspect that is because I asked you to show me how its done and create outstanding content that would gain a following and I also asked you if you currently have a following. By the way, I am flattered that you have followed my content for several years now. :) Best wishes in your off wiki pursuits because I don't think your crusade to remove my administrator rights is going to give you a sense of accomplishment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:The bold text was copied directly from the other edit, where it had been placed for emphasis, not due to anger. You also seem to be referring to a discussion taking place at [[Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Christian_lady_dancers]]. Please continue the discussion there, if you wish. You will see that I already responded to you. Or continue it on your talk page, if you wish. Or mine. By the way, I already have quite a sense of accomplishment. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:27, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::SamHB, I still think your quest is quixotic. By the way, given your liberal leanings, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to you that in the [[Western World]], the left in many cases is running out other peoples money to spend on their misadventures so your in good company in terms of pursuing quixotic quests. I have two parting words for you: "Austerity budget". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website ==

RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.

I think RobS is at heart an unstable egotist who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him. Although he did do a service in unblocking all of those IPs and I think clarifying block policy and not having an overly aggressive block policy is good, I do think now that RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call [http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot "a useful idiot"] and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist website.

If he continues down his present path, I see him losing his Admin rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative - you and I have discussed this in an entirely civil manner to this point, and my opinion of you has not changed with this section, but I am requesting that you remove this section on your own accord (but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am sending an email to Andy); even in quotes, "useful idiot" is a personal attack - and I am convinced that this type of name calling is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The term "useful idiot" is political term and I have also heard it used outside of politics as well. Here is a definition: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot I see no reason retract this information and I am very positive that RobS doesn't want me to oversight it given his previous statements. In short, I think the shoe fits and I am giving others a warning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Conservative, I quote from your source: "The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial" - I maintain its not keeping with site decorum to call an established editor any of these things (certainly at least calling an editor either of the first two - "naive" or "foolish" - would constitute a personal attack).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:I also see Rob losing his sysop rights soon. After all, he is trying to do three things: (1) Make the rules clearer so people have a clear idea what can get them blocked and don't have to live in constant fear of breaking some obscure rule interpretation. (2) Apply the rules also to sysops. (3) Generally hold sysops accountable for their actions and limit abuse of powers.
:The last person who tried to drag the site down this absolutely horrible path was some liberal... what was his name... oof... oh yeah, ''Philip J. Rayment''. You know, the guy who tried to stop Bugler and TK from driving out everybody? The guy who actually dared to ask ''why'' some people were banned and wanted to see ''evidence''? Yeah, that went well, didn't it?
:Because we all know that a community will grow if a group of people can waltz all over the place with editorial authority, no pressure to follow the rules, and the power to block anybody for any reason.
:It's a true tragedy that Andy is looking away as Rob is trying to salvage and help this community. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sid, you are trying to cloud the central issue. I clearly said I was not against clarifying block policy. It's RobS's other behavior that I have a problem with. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::But wasn't the central issue to start with your own behavior Conservative? It seems to me you dislike having your own behavior called into question so believe it is Rob causing trouble. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I say both of them are causing trouble. Conservative is doing things people find wrong, People state this, Rob backs them up, which from Conservatives point of view is wrong, they argue, Conservative/Rob takes it to pages across the wiki while others either side with or against Rob/Conservative, pushing the fight to multiple fronts and spamming andy with "new message!". So both are to blame for exasperating the situation. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::::::::The central issue is indeed Conservative's behaviour. Years ago when Conservapedia had an abuse page it was almost entirely filled with complaints about Conservative. I don't understand why he has been allowed to run amok for so long. All Rob is doing is trying to introduce the rule of law to the site. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::No, the central issue is the power structure on this site being so screwed up that sysops have all the rights while regular editors have pretty much none (while conversely the sysops don't have to follow the rules while editors have to follow all of them and then some). Conservative's behavior (rapid and frequent deletion of articles or talk pages, oversighting of edits, refusal to communicate constructively, etc.) is simply the most noticeable symptom. Rob's attempts to start a sweeping policy reform and to, as you said, introduce the rule of the law to the site, would indeed restrict Conservative's power abuse, but it would also be a solid step to fix the structural issues the site has. (Which also nicely explains why no other sysop is actually siding with Rob.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::JarradD, I have never been popular among atheist/evolutionist whiners. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::No. You are not popular among editors who wish to be treated with respect and according to the rules. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your Fairly well-acquainted with the anti-conservtive viewpoint for somebody who made an account 20 minutes ago. You reek of sock-puppetry/ill-intentions. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:31, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Why do I reek of ill intent? I want to see this site succeed. Which is why I want properly enforced rules rather than bullying and arbitrary authority. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Because you seem to know a lot about this situation despite only having just made your account, which either means you pointlessly lurked for a while or your a parodist. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Somewhat fitting, given that part of the problem is that various people who made good points in the past have been banned because the sysops don't like people who dare to speak up. And Sean, PLEASE don't throw around "parodist" so easily. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have sided with neither Rob or Conservative. I am pointing out that a new user who suddenly comes into a debate speaking with knowledge of the situation is going to appear suspicious. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::A parodist is someone who pretends to be something they are not. There is no evidence JarradD is a parodist. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anything I have written could be regarded as parody. You have successfully derailed this discussion. Congratulations Sean. How about getting back on topic. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. As it stands, he brings more doubt and distrust by getting involved in a dispute between Senior Admins despite having no reason to fully understand the situation. The fact his first edits were to get involved raise even more doubts to his intentions--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::*''If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more.''
::::::::::::::How is that possible? they all get banhammered at the door. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::If anyone's intentions are suspect, it is you. You have totally derailed this discussion. It was a discussion on a vitally important topic and you have made it all about me. Could you please attempt to get back on topic? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:50, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I would like to return this discussion to matters of significance. The feeling among a number of editors is that there is a lack of uniformity in enforcement of rules and that some sysops act in an arbitrary and, sometimes, capricious manner. What is sought is, in essence, the rule of law. A system wherein all editors know where they stand and are not subject to whim. In my view this is a hugely important issue for this site. In any venture these issues are important, but in a co-operative venture such as a wiki they are absolutely vital. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
: If I recall correctly, haven't people been banned from Conservapedia for being a member of an atheistic site before? If we do want consistency of rules/sysop accountability and if Rob is indeed a member of said site, then shouldn't he face a penalty? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::How cute of you to start enforcing the most idiotic "rule" ever that was likely introduced by a troll who wanted CP to fail. But hey, sure, all for it. I'm sure Ed Poor will agree; after all, he has no account on-... oh, wait. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::In his/her world, there is no evidence at all unless he/she personally admits anything, such as his/her gender or his/her name. So what makes you think he/she would admit his/her username on any site? Give it up, liberals! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Indeed. We seek him/her/it here. We seek him/her/it there. Those Frenchies seek him/her/it everywhere. Is he/she/it in heaven? Is he/she/it in hell? That d****d elusive Pimpernel. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::: Obviously Conservative is not a member of that atheist website because it would be really stupid of him to complain about Rob's association with it while simultaneously holding an account there. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, it would. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Gentlemen, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. Schlafly's talk page is not the place to hold such debates? And that it would be both prudent and considerate to move this discussion to another forum? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Seeing how Andy seems determined not to chime in, this may be for the best. I'd support a mass move of the last few sections (starting with "User: RobS") to [[Conservapedia:Community Portal‎]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Let me explain Conservapedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology Kremlinology] (tea leaf reading): If the site owner likes the idea, he'll speak up. If he's neutral or negative, silence. That's traditoinally how Senior CP Sysops read the tea leaves. Conclusion:
::::*neither RobS nor User: Conservative desysoped;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed] has been repealed;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=894017&oldid=892763 Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interfact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors] is added;
::::*and moving forward with other initiatives has been endorsed.
::::Now, somebody want to go around with a mop bucket after [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism_and_obesity&action=historysubmit&diff=893866&oldid=893394 User:Conservative's incivility here] and hang the {{[[Template:personal remark removed|personal remark removed]]}}, per [[CP:Guidelines#Civility]]? I'd do it, but I have a COI. Let's help this man/woman/other become a better editor. He/she/it needs to learn how to play nice with others. Please treat him/her/other respectfully. But remember, his/her/other days of being an ''allegedly'' abusive sysop are over. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:23, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It would be nice if we didn't have to give a PC-esque list of pronouns for him. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I wouldn't suggest trying to sweep this discussion under the rug. I believe Admin Karajou wants to give his thoughts to Ashlafly on this matter. And of course, I can certainly consider asking other Sysops to weigh in as well. I would suggest that RobS not thrash around in this tar pit he has jumped in. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::RobS, I have been asked if I felt you should lose your Admin privileges and if the benefits you bring outweigh your costs. So far, I have said that you should not lose your Admin status. You most recent behavior which I mentioned above, is tipping the scale in the wrong direction. I suggest making some changes and avoid trying to dodge issues. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I certainly don't think the discussion should be swept under the rug, but I do feel that consideration for Andy merits moving it to a more appropriate venue. I support the idea of moving the discussion to Community Portal. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If this discussion is attempted to be pushed under the rug and RobS chooses not to address matters. This certainly would be another sign that RobS should lose his Admin status. If a an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion, this certainly does not work in his favor. I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not willing to give RobS infinite second chances in terms of how I feel about his behavior. I have also been told that Karajou wants to join the discussion on Ashlafly's talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::RobS, I can live with you being an egotistical blowhard. On the other hand, a backstabbing untrustworthy egotistical blowhard is a problem. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::"If a (sic) an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion..." I'm sorry. Who were we talking about Pot? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
*''play power games and '''try stifle discussion'''''
:My friend, User:Conservative, seriously, who stifles discussion by locking their user page? who stifles discussion by placing redirects on article talk pages? who stifles discussion by deleting other Sysops comments? who stifles discussion by oversighting other sysop's comments? Need I remind you, you started these threads claiming I wanted to discuss things with you and you want no discussion on your talk page. Then, you came here, claiming some offense, but deleted and oversighted the evidence. Do I have to point out to you, what other's see, extremely erratic behavior? I'm sorry, but this really borders on trolling. If it wasn't for the fact Conservapedia can be improved from discussing some of these problems, I'd really rather remain silent. I'm sorry, but this is not an issue of personalities, it regards the future of this project. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have untrustworthy backstabbers as my friends. Second, people are free to leave me messages to me. I know you like to whine about my talk page, but please restrain yourself because a user's talk page is still his/her castle. Next, I am certainly amenable to admitting where I can make improvements and the talk pages on comedy/satires on now open. On the other hand, I have yet to see you apologize for your backstabbing behavior. And your poor behavior in terms of altering my talk page was also never apologized for. Of course, your modus operandi is avoiding taking responsibility for your bad behavior. This does not work in your favor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Am I the only who thinks all Admins should have their talkpages left unlocked so people can ask them things? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Right now I am neutral however. I see Conservative's points on this, but Rob has done a lot of good work for this wiki too. I think it is best of we leave to to Andy to decide. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
'''RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication.''' Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. '''Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Hold on. Why is RobS even a member of an Atheist website. Surely he of all people knows that they will not accept the logic of conservatism and that it is a hopeless cause to try to convert them that way. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There is converting going on. I just received an email saying RobS is becoming more and more like the members of a atheist vandal website. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::In that case I am not sure RobS should be given this much power, if he has such close affiliations with sites that support such illogical viewpoints. RobS, you are a good contributor, but I'm sorry; if what Conservative says is true, then it is better safe than sorry. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:45, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::If this atheist vandal website is wikipedia, than I should admit that I have an account there. However I have not used it for quite a few months now. I think it would be wrong to punish people like me, who only were trying to help when they made Wikipedia accounts but have since moved on. [[User:MorrisF]]
:::::::::I have an account at just about every "wiki" type site. I was an active member of "the trio of wiki" (Cpedia, <s>censored</s>, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 08:09, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section Break===
Wait a minute. Why were Conservative's posts replaced with "Personal attacks removed"? He never personally attacked anyone. Plus, many of his key points were removed. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=894161&oldid=894159 this user did it.] ive since reverted it.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::SeanS, that's a diff, not a user. I replaced Conservative's several personal attacks with the template that is prescribed at [[Guidelines#Civility]]. NickP, I cannot tell if you are being serious. Conservative's post in this section are full of personal attacks against another user, that user has been conscientiously polite in response. If the personal attacks that I removed are the key points then that merely shows them to be invalid points in the first place. SeanS, you have now reinstated the personal attacks, in clear contravention of site policy. Please read the policy, and replace the templates. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know what they are. IF you notice, the Diff has your username in it, therefor, I can say who did what. And if it is indeed a personal attack, why make it harder for an admin to see what it is and judge accordingly? --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 23:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Also note that a lot of the comments you removed were not really personal attacks. When Conservative said that RobS was a "useful idiot", he wasn't actually calling RobS stupid. "Useful Idiot" is actually someone who sympathizes with the enemy, as Conservative was accusing RobS. "Egotistical" is not a personal attack; it is a critique (though arguably impolite) on a user's behavior, not an attack on the person. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::In the same way that "Sleazy Nazi", for example, is really just an assessment of a person's moral fibre and political views, not a personal attack. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his Administrator rights ==

I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his administrator rights. I regret to say that RobS is engaging in inexcusable behavior which was previously described on this talk page, but has now been whitewashed from this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am considering lobbying harder for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I know I am a new poster ==
But I have been registered for some time and I have to say one of the main reasons I have not tried to contribute here is because of the behaviour of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. His childish 'satire' articles have done more to make me re-consider than anything else on here, and I have already spoted several parody entries in articles such as the article on Motorcycles. About the only thing that would make me become a regular contributor would be if [[User:RobS|RobS]] were able to succeed in his attempts to reign in the more idiotic 'contributions' of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. But no doubt I will now be blocked for daring to voice this opinion, despite Aschlafly having said previously that dissenting opinions are not censored on Conservapedia. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Davidspemcer, If you do choose to contribute in the future, I would suggest using the Firefox browser as it would enable you find your spelling mistakes (behavior and spotted). Second, if you want to show you are a good faith editor and not merely a member of a vandal website, I would suggest further expanding the article [[Soviet atheism]] and please cite reputable sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Oh the irony. Myusername is DavidspeNcer and not M. And I do use the firefox browser, 3.6.3 to be precise with greasemonkey, no script and IE View installed.
:::::And I am British so the word is spelt behaviour as far as I am concerned and seeing as we created the English language I will use that version if that is ok with you. And this is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that I mean. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Sid and David, the [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] and the reactions of atheists with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] reminds me of the movies when "holy water" is sprinkled on the demon possessed.

Obsessed atheist: What's that?

Conservapedian: One of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|satires concerning atheism and evolution]].

Obsessed atheist: Keep it away! Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Concerning the article [[Soviet atheism]], how can I improve on what is evidently perfection. Concerning your articles such as [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] most of them can not be improved on can they, hence them being locked. However I will see what I can do to improve the already good article concerning [[Soviet atheism]]. Now I will refrain from commenting again for a while as I do not wish to violate the 90/10 rule which, as Aschlafly said, is only a guidleine anyway. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Without wanting to pronounce on the rights and wrongs of the situation under discussion, is it quite seemly for a user to weigh in and reply to complaints made to a third party about his own conduct? Monkeys and organ grinders spring to mind.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
CPalmer, because you are an atheist and an evolutionists, I humbly defer to your superior atheist intellect and your superior knowledge of monkeys. "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, why do you think that I am an atheist and an evolutionist(s)? I am just questioning whether your hasty butting in on people's overtures to Mr Schlafly can be considered polite. From a practical point of view, I would think it would also tend to prolong or inflame disputes (wasting more of your time and others'), rather than speeding their resolution. We know what your position is, so you do not need to restate it here until the discussion is furthered by a response from Aschlafly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::CPalmer, my apologies. The was a former user with a similar username as you who had a habit of being unreasonable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Proposed blocking reform framework ==

Setting aside the current disputes about blocking and whether CP's current blockers/Sysops do or have ever done an unwarranted block or whether Sysops should undo another Sysops block, I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks. I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking.

Absent of such a policy being developed using the framework I am about to suggest, I would be willing to assist in the creation of such a policy sometime in the fall of 2011.

Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting:

1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable.

2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.

3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board that could meet either bi-monthly or monthly or every two months (or perhaps quarterly). The CP community can offer up suggestions on whose blocks should be reviewed, but each CP editor can only offer so many candidates lest a cumbersome list be created of past blocks (CP has been around for 3 plus years. Perhaps, the blocking review board will only look at blocks for a given period). The blocking review panel could be made up of Sysops and non-Sysops and a certain amount of blocks per blocking period (which will be decided by this proposed framework} will be reviewed. For example, say the blocking review board meets one a month. It could be decided that 5 blocks per month could be reviewed by the board. Perhaps, Andy could choose to review the boards decision for any given period that the board meets. Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board.

I am not saying my framework couldn't be adjusted as time goes by (how often they meet, how many candidates are reviewed, etc.), but I do think that my proposed blocking reform provides adequate protection, but is not overly complex or burdensome given any blocking periods blocking volume. I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board. I would suggest that RobS not be a part of such a blocking review board because including myself 3 Sysops that I am aware of now think he should lose his Admin rights.

I was told by a pessimist that a workable blocking reform couldn't possibly be developed in 30 minutes or less. However, I believe I just created one. :) I welcome other editors comments on my blocking reform framework lest I am being overly optimistic about the viability of my suggested reform. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:I like it. Although I would say, if Rob doesn't lose admin rights he should be allowed on the review board. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::If such a board is created, I will suggest to Andy and my fellow Admins (including the two who think he should no longer have Admin rights) that RobS not be allowed to serve on the board. Perhaps, after a considerable amount of time and evidence that RobS has changed, I would no longer oppose him being on such a board. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:02, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== 3 Sysops now agree that RobS should lose his Admin rights ==

Including myself, 3 Sysops now think RobS should lose his Admin rights. Sysop TerryH said I could list his name. I have not yet strongly lobbied for RobS to lose his Admin rights among my fellow Sysops and editors. I am giving RobS a chance to apologize for his recent behavior including among other things, the behavior I mentioned on this talk page but was whitewashed off this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
: There are more users that have come forth believing you should lose your Admin rights. RobS has pushed for accountability for sysops and clear banning rules. It speaks volumes about you three. The one person calling for user friendly changes should lose his rights, while the man/woman/man-child/eunuch who bans the dissenters, burns evidence of dissent, and writes asinine articles on casual relationships present in any demographic, should continue unabated? No, you are a large factor in the farce that is Conservapedia.

:Conservapedia has yet to gain any large-scale positive attention. No high-profile conservatives have endorsed Conservapedia. This project can't even attract many good faith editors. Many who come in get banned at the door. Those who make it through are immediately suspected parodists. Those who toe the CP line too hard are branded as parodists and banned. Those who deviate from the CP line are vandals and banned. When a user disagrees with a sysop they are banned. If they disagree with you in particular, they are banned and the relevant talk page is burned. CP bans for ideological differences and censors dissent. As long as this behavior continues CP will never be a respectful source. RobS is pushing to change this. His proposed changes won't end the problem, but it is certainly a large step forward from the current system.

:User:Conservative, you are the one who needs to lose admin rights for your obvious abuse of power, not RobS. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::While I do not agree with all of CP's material, Concerned women of America (CWA), Human Events, Patriot Update (PU) and other conservative websites have linked to CP in a positive way (CWA and PU linked to material I had a substantial hand in if memory serves). Please try to have an informed opinion rather than merely an opinion. Second, I am not of the opinion that the number of people advocating a position is paramount. Neither did America's Founding Fathers who set up a republic and not a democracy. While I do not agree with all of Ann Coulter's political positions (the military, etc.), I am considering reading my first Ann Coulter book which focuses on how liberals love mob rule. Third, you certainly did prove your claim that anyone or anyone who disagrees with me, I ban or that I oversight all those disagree with me. I would also point out that RobS banned me and I never never banned him. It could be argued that in many ways I have shown more tolerance of him than he has afforded me. And all of this could have been avoided. All RobS had to do was stop pestering concerning inane and non-urgent matters. I wonder if RobS likes to poke sleeping dogs over and over and then complain when they bite him. And lately, RobS's poor behavior has gone significantly beyond merely pestering me which I mentioned on this talk page before it was whitewashed away (RobS recommended doing the whitewashing). As a result, I said enough is enough and sided with those who think he should lose his Admin rights. I do think he should be able to earn back his Admin if he admits his wrongdoing and behaves in a more positive manner for a period of time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I specified high profile conservatives, I said nothing of websites. Either way, [http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1350/comparisonv.png this link compares Conservapedia, the three websites you mentioned, and a comic strip.] As you can see, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is bigger than all of them. So I feel safe saying CP has no large scale positive support. Furthermore, there are no Congressmen or Senators that have endorsed CP. To my knowledge there are no candidates that have endorsed CP either.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of open discussion of problems. They did not stifle discussion by suddenly becoming busy when challenged, or by doing whatever the 18th century equivalent of locking their talk pages was. The Founding Fathers also had a large problem with men abusing their power.

That's where you come in. Let's look at your block reasons. Of course, I can only provide the diff logs for a few of these, you've burned most of the pages:

''15:45, 6 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Soxwon04 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (having a sentence with an unsupported clause followed by a question. waste someone else's time)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''04:10, 7 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked XavierC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki)'' [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/XavierC Here] is his contribs. He called you out for locking your talk page and stifling debate, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=886852 here.] Yes, he called you a coward, but this is extremely common for you to do other people.

''16:49, 29 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Haggger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo)'' Burned diff logs. How can we evaluate his actions?
''02:00, 2 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked SNg (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार [Masculinity is not behaving])'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''21:55, 25 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Sasayaki (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize )'' Contribs is blank, I remember this one. User answered the Question Evolution Campaign and asked own questions to you. Oh, boo-hoo he linked to RW. He disagreed with you, took up your debate, and you deleted the evidence.

''02:41, 24 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Atheistlogic1995 (Talk | contribs) wit''h an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (oxymoron)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''18:25, 1 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked PapaBear (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (too much talk, talk not enough serious enditing)'' User made three posts, two of them talk pages, one of which was remember to add his sig. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=873210 Offending post here.] Criticizes gossip in the BHO article.

''00:34, 28 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Jclough (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''22:54, 15 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aleksyevt (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Yeah, he talked a lot. You know what else he did? Ask for more sources, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Agnosticism&diff=prev&oldid=869530 here.]

Ten examples within you're last 120 blocks: 8.3% Seven of these had blank contribs pages. How can we even analyze this? You are showing no accountability in your position of power on this wiki. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 16:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::JonS, you are still wrong. [[Matt Barber]] and [[William Dembski]] linked to Conservapedia in a positive light as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia|HERE]]. I personally know that a leader in a extremely well known Christian organization linked to CP's atheism and evolution articles which I largely wrote (Please do not forget the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don't know about various links does not mean they do not exist. :) ). Second, please feel free to have your liberal/evolutionists/atheists bean counter friends scour through my blocks and tabulate and examine them. I would hope they have bigger fish to fry in their lives, but I am not particularly concerned if they do. The truth is that those who whine and kvetch about me in the vast majority of cases do so because of the atheism/evolution articles I largely created at CP. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Please provide a link to this "extremely well known Christian organization." You should also acknowledge your wanton abuse of power. You can spin a quick look into your block log however you like, but that does not change you ban people for disagreeing with you, and that you burn the evidence of it. You are complained about for two reasons: 1) you abuse your sysop powers. 2) Your atheist/evolution articles are non-encyclopedic. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ha! Demski links to Conservapedia in a "positive light"? The best that he says is that a part of the Conservapedia [[Climategate]] article "...does not sound entirely far fetched". A ringing endorsement! As for Matt Barber, no link is provided and a search of the CWA website (that you refer to in reference to him) for "Conservapedia" comes up with no results. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would like to note something here. Just because a user's contributions are blank does not mean that they didn't make contributions. I assume that they made inappropriate articles, or in some cases, did not follow the proper username policies. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
The userpages are left blank because Conservative has oversighted the pages they contributed to. There are two people who have names technically in violation of the rules on the list. Neither of them are said to be blocked for that reason. Given the people who have been blocked for 90/10 violations, I assume they disagreed with Conservative, he seems to block for that (Aleksyevt, PapaBear, and Sasayaki all criticized him). Even if they made inappropriate articles, Conservative should only delete them, rather than burn them, then we can be aware of these blocks, and he can be accountable, a concept he seems unfamiliar with. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 19:20, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== In an effort to end this continued and protracted debate ==

This has gone one for long enough. Both editors, RobS and Conservative, have used personal comments against each other and both have argued from opposite corners but to no avail. Why don't they '''both''' lose their sysop rights for a time - then they can prove themselves once more. I know I am just a new user but still, this is going on and on without resolution. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, in the absence of RobS pestering me again or engaging in additional very egregious behavior, I have spoken my piece on this matter. I have a feeling that RobS will either lose his Admin rights in the next 1-5 days or keep shooting himself in the foot through his poor behavior and cause his own demise or he will alter his course. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I feel, and I am sure that many other observers would agree, that you are both guilty of poor behaviour, personal attacks and actions unbecoming of someone in a position of power. I am a mere observer and carry no weight of course but it is people like me who come to conservapedia to contribute and who'll be turned off by protracted arguments, reverting and disappearing of editors comments, accusations and poorly thought out essays and ongoing in fighting. Which you are both guilty of (one in more areas than the other). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, if your words carry no weight, then why offer them? Frankly, given the substance of your recent post to me I have to agree with you on this point. Now that we both agree that your words carry no weight, I won't feel bad ignoring you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::carry no weight as in no authority not because of lack of substance. All I was trying to do was be even handed, rational and end the pointed bickering. But since you have insulted me, and not for the first time, I leave you to ignore me. Frankly for someone that calls atheist quarrelsome and socially challenged you certainly seem to be showing similar traits yourself. As a Christian I avoid insults and try to be polite and fair and as I don't feel I can continue to be so I'll have to end my response here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You end your comments by calling him a hypocrite, then claim to avoid insults?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:19, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I think that Max is selling himself short. He has shown himself to be a calm and considered editor. His input should be valued and I would ask that he continue to participate in this discussion. SeanS, on the other hand, has shown himself incapable of staying on topic. In the section [[User_talk:Aschlafly#RobS_becoming_a_pawn_and_a_.22useful_idiot.22_of_an_atheist_website|above]] he totally derailed the discussion in an attempt to attack me. However, his input is also welcome if he can stay on topic and avoid irrelevant personal attacks.

I would like to voice my view of Max's original post in this section. I do not see why Rob should lose any rights. So far as I can see he has worked hard to improve this site and introduce reform that would only benefit the site. He has been met by a series of largely unreferenced slurs by Conservative who clearly regards his own position as under threat. If Rob were to lose rights it would send out the message that anyone who seeks to improve the site is putting their own position at risk. I do not regard that as a positive message. On the other hand I have no difficulty with Conservative losing admin rights. His history is one of abuse and failure to co-operate as has been demonstrated above and elsewhere again and again. I have no personal animosity towards him/her but he/she stands in the way of this site ever becoming a serious educational tool. That is regrettable but it is also an unavoidable conclusion. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:59, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
===One second...===
This is Andy Schlafly's talk page, so shouldn't he be the one to decide on this? He has not posted anything yet, so I assume he is busy. Perhaps we should wait until his decision? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 19:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Amen. Can we please show the man a little respect by giving him a chance to respond? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::If andy wanted to reply, he could have by now. If he is going to, he will when he considers it best. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:18, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:::It's no secret that Andy has quite a number of projects on his plate, Sean. He's a busy man with a lot of demands on his time. It's entirely possible that he hasn't had a chance to look at any of this yet. Whether he has or not, though, the point remains: this is his talk page. It is a place to communicate with him, not to carry on general debates with all and sundry. In the interest of putting my money where my mouth is, I will be refraining from further posts here. I urge others to do the same. Both Conservative and RobS have said their piece; Andy will respond as he chooses and in his own time, as is his perogative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::: ''If he is going to, he will when he considers it best.''--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

==My two cents for Mr Schlafly==

I have been reading conservapedia for several months now, and I am pleased to say that my kids (11 and 14) also use it as their first point of call when needing encyclopedic information for homework assignments etc). I have not signed up an account as I do not feel knowledgeable (or tech-savvy) enough to contribute anything meaningful. However I fell compelled to chime in here regarding the ongoing discussion regarding the direction of this website. Cards on the table now: I am a conservative Christian and I read and encourage my kids to read this website because it promotes true American values. The main page is my "go to point" for the latest news, as the administrators here seem to have an uncanny knack of highlighting exactly the kind of stories I am interested in, I am also pleased to say that the article evolution has given my kids plenty of knowledge that is censored from them in school (and the satires have brought us all many hearty chuckles! :) ). From what little I know of this website, User:Conservative has contributed a huge amount of first-rate material and wishes to maintain the integrity of this site as a reliable conservative Christian resource, whilst User:Rob Smith (maybe with a view to enlarging the target audience?) wishes to make the site more liberal and cater to atheistic views. There are plenty of liberal atheistic sites out there, I choose not to read them. I choose to read conservapedia. Please don't change that Mr Schlafly. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 20:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy) ==

Deep breath and here we go...

These are my thoughts on the blocking policy, somewhat directed at Conservative's proposals.

1) Blocking for obvious vandals is, well, obvious. Blanking pages, filling pages with gibberish, vulgar or stupid names, etc. is just childish and such children should have a time out - a long time out. I don't believe a lot of time or effort needs to be spent establishing rules for those cases.

2) Parody, as noted elsewhere on this page, is much harder to discern. I have noticed recent blocks (and no, I'm not going to go search for them - I'm not here to point fingers) that have been questionable, in my opinion. There needs to be a set and fairly easy procedure where a blocked editor who feels their block was unfair can present his/her/its case. Chances are that most blocks are good, but in cases where there was a misunderstanding, or a personality clash, a ''disinterested'' admin needs to step in.

3) I've already suggested a board of some type, consisting of both admins and regular editors. Given the number of appeals can't be known ahead of time, setting a regular schedule might not be warranted. The board could meet when a certain number (4 or 5?) appeals have been presented and make their decision, with Andy possibly reviewing it and putting his seal of approval on it. Notifications of the board meeting should be posted prominently on the front page. A talk page could be provided with a list of editors who are appealing their block. This would allow others who are not on the board but who might have a direct interest could express their opinion. There might also be a rule with regards to a blocked editor who has been restored and their subsequent behavior.

4) As for the makeup of the board – right now I feel that should be decided later, when tempers have cooled a bit. One possible idea is to make it a rotating membership, with say, a six-month tenure. This would prevent the board duties from becoming too onerous a task for the individual members.

On a personal note, I would like to request that the editors here at CP remember that debates and discussions about articles, essays and even questionable editors should be about the actual ''edits'' that have been made, not about the editors' personalities. I realize it can be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!)
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== My proposed solution to the current crisis ==
My understanding is that the the [[User:CPanel|Student Panel]] has the final word on all matters related to the site. Why don't we put the following questions to them?

* Who is wrong here? Conservative, RobS, neither or both?
* In the event that they determine that one or both of them has acted inappropriately, what should happen to them? (Temporary block, permanent block, demotion, etc)
* Is the current block policy sufficient and appropriate?
* If not, what policy would be?

I feel this is the only solution left. God Bless. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 00:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2011-07-22T17:10:05Z

FergusE: fixed broken tag

[[File:Conservative words.jpg|thumb|480px|The growth in conservative words on an annual basis (red), compared with a perfect geometric growth rate (Courtesy User:Jcw)]]Each year the [[English language]] develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> many good words have since developed.

[[Conservative]] terms, expressing [[conservative insights]], originate at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.

Powerful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For each new conservative term originating in the 1600s,<ref>The King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, by then [[William Shakespeare]] had written nearly all his plays.</ref> there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|26
|-
|1700s
|53
|-
|1800s
|107
|-
|1900s
|215
|-
|2000s
|20 (preliminary)
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|the willingness or obligation to be held responsible for one's actions- a fundamental conservative ideal, unlike liberals who believe that 'society,' and not individuals, are responsible for their wrongdoing.
|-
|accuracy
|1660
|conservatives strive for accuracy, while many liberals are masters of [[deceit]]
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|activism
|1915
|this differentiates conservatives from inactive people; this term might have originated in connection with [[Prohibition]] and efforts to pass the [[Eighteenth Amendment]]
|-
|aerobics
|1967
|invented by the [[Christian]] Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper<ref>http://www.christianadvice.net/famous_christians.htm</ref> to describe his self-help, revolutionary program to improve health, he entitled his ground-breaking book in 1968 ''Aerobics''.
|-
|agitprop
|1929
|propaganda designed to incite agitation, originally coined to describe communist propaganda
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings, as in the politically motivated claims of [[global warming]]
|-
|{{#ifexist: alcoholism | [[alcoholism]] | alcoholism }}
|1860
|excessive or addictive drinking of alcohol
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|ambulance chaser
|1896
|a lawyer who searches for victims to persuade them to sue for his profit
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|the vision that, with hard work, anyone in American can attain happiness and prosperity
|-
|[[American exceptionalism]]
|1835
|the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity
|-
|American Way
|1930s
|later conservative entrepreneurs used this to coin a new name for what became a highly successful and uniquely American business model: "Amway"
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|opposing Christian ideals and institutions
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|term criticizing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|apathetic
|1744
|term critical of the those who are deliberately inactive and disengaged mentally
|-
|apple pie
|1780
|honesty, simplicity, wholesomeness. Relating to, or characterized by traditionally American values. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apple%20pie Merriam-webster- Apple pie]</ref>
|-
|assimilate
|1880s<ref>estimate only; this originated sometime in the late 1880s.</ref>
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|atheistic
|1625-35
|An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|axiomatic
|1797
|self-evident (first usage), and later it developed the meaning of being based on a set of axioms
|-
|baby boom
|1941
|an increase in birthrate, which is a good thing; note that the baby boom actually started before World War II, contrary to what textbooks teach.
|-
|back burner
|1963
|inactive status away from attention, as in "RINOs try to put social issues on the back burner"
|-
|[[bailout]]
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|balkanize
|1919
|to break a region or neighborhood into divisive components; the opposite of the American concept of assimilation or "[[E pluribus unum]]"
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|beltway mentality
|1986
|popularized by [[Paul Weyrich]] though possibly first used by then-Governor [[John Sununu]] ("captives of yourselves"), it refers to a governing style that sees only as far as the highway that surrounds its capital, especially the one around D.C.
|-
|[[Best of the Public]]
|2009
|A term coined by [[Andy Schlafly]] to express the idea that one does not need [[liberal]] credentials that so-called "experts" have. Indeed, many great historical figures would have failed the liberal "expert" test.
|-
|biased
|1649
|to show prejudice for or against something; American society is rapidly becoming ''biased'' against Christian and Conservative beliefs.
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|-
|biological clock
|1955
|how each woman begins to lose her ability to have children at age 27, no matter how much [[feminists]] try to conceal this scientific fact from women
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|blather
|1719
|nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common on the [[lamestream media]]
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|a person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|boomerang
|1825
|originally coined to describe a throwing device that returns to the thrower, the term became increasingly useful to describe how wrongful conduct returns to bite the perpetrator
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee [[Robert H. Bork]].
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brainstorm
|1894
|a burst of productive thought
|-
|brainwashing
|1950
|derived from the Chinese term "xǐnǎo" soon after the [[communist]] takeover of China, "brainwashing" means forced abandonment of [[faith]] in favor of regimented [[atheism]]. In a more general sense, it refers to the manipulation and control of the human mind through torture and propaganda techniques.
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|[[carpetbagger]]
|1868
|a politician who moves to a new area to be elected to a government position, as in [[Hillary Clinton]] moving to [[New York]] to become a U.S. Senator
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|caucus
|1763
|citizens or representatives gathering to meet and reach political decisions as a group while harnessing aspects of the [[best of the public]]; first coined by John Adams<ref>The future author of the Massachusetts Constitution who also played a role in developing the [[Declaration of Independence]].</ref> when he described a meeting of political Boston elders as a "caucus club"; the word may be from an Algonquian term for a group of advisers or elders.
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|charisma
|1930
|literally "a gift from God", charisma is a personal magic of leadership found in [[conservative]] public figures (but beware of the liberal tendency to put style before substance!)
|-
|Chicken Little
|1895
|one who falsely predicts disaster, especially for silly reasons: "global alarmists" are the Chicken Littles of our time<ref>In characteristically [[liberal]] style, the online Merriam-Webster spins the [[global warming]] example usage by saying the data showed he wasn't a Chicken Little.</ref>
|-
|circle the wagons
|1800s
|regroup with family and friends, when under attack. usage from settlers in the old US west.
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|civil defense
|1939
|civilians protecting themselves and their community against attack or natural disasters
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|[[Coase theorem|Coasean]]
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|cogent
|1659
|compelling with the powerful force of reason, the opposite of [[liberal]] claptrap
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|Cold War
|1945
|coined by [[George Orwell]] shortly after he wrote ''Animal Farm'',<ref>http://www.worldwar2history.info/war/causes/Cold-War.html</ref> as recognition that communist nations were at war with American freedom even in the absence of actual military conflict
|-
|collectivism
|1880
|when decision-making by a group takes priority over the good ideas of an individual, often preventing progress
|-
|common sense
|1726
|sound judgment based on facts
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conniption
|1833
|hysteria or alarm, as in "having a conniption fit"; a typical response by [[liberals]] when confronted with their [[double standards]] and illogical positions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|someone who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values<ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conservative</ref>
|-
|[[conservative field]]
|1870s?
|a type of physical force over a region such that items moving throughout the region can store energy ''without loss'', as in the planetary system and electrical products<ref>The mathematical definition of a conservative field -- which arises in [[multivariable calculus]] -- is that a scalar potential exists for the function and, alternatively, it is [[irrotational]].</ref>
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|constitutionality
|1787
|its date of origin is the year of the [[Constitutional Convention]] that proposed the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|cooking the data
|1830
|[[Charles Babbage]] used it in his book, "Reflections on the Decline of Science in England".<ref>http://www.scientus.org/Church-Science-History.html</ref>
|-
|coolant
|1926
|a fluid, typically water, that facilitates efficient energy production, especially nuclear energy to cool a reactor and slow down the fission of neutrons
|-
|copacetic
|1890s<ref>Merriam-Webster officially lists its date of origin as 1919 and its source as unknown, but that is well after when Robinson says he developed it.</ref>
|Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, tap dancer extraordinaire, claimed the invention of this word; it was first popularized by African Americans
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|corporate socialism
|1970s
|the tendency of large corporations to act in a socialistic manner, at the expense of meritocracy and productivity
|-
|correlate
|1742
|(verb) to show that one thing relates to another, such as [[atheism]] or [[homosexuality]] and selfishness or lack of charity; [[liberal]]s falsely rely on anecdotes to deny the general relationship
|-
|[[countability (Mathematics)|countability]]
|1874
|[[Georg Cantor]], loathed by the leading contemporary [[mathematicians]], developed this in proving that the real numbers are ''uncountable''
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition. A common point in logical, reasoned debate.
|-
|counterfactual
|1946
|especially assumptions that are contrary to fact; Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], "petitioners' standing does not require precise proof of what the Board's policies might have been in that counterfactual world."<ref>''Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.'', 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3163 (2010) (5-4 decision).</ref>
|-
|counterproductive
|1959
|interfering with a worthy goal. Example usage: "nearly everything a liberal supports is counterproductive."
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|[[creation science]]
|1970s
|a term coined by the anti-[[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Henry Morris]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801716.html</ref>
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|crystal clear
|1815
|liberals are the opposite
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|cyberbullying
|2000s
|a type of obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decentralization
|1846
|the dispersion of power, as in a shift from national to local control
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|[[defeatism]]
|1918
|a negative attitude that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
|-
|defensive driving
|1964
|a style of driving a car that always focuses on avoiding accidents, even those potentially caused by others; nearly a half-century later, dictionaries still do not recognize this term
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|defund
|1948
|refers especially to termination of government funding of a wasteful or hurtful program
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|Den mother
|1936
|leader of children's group
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|pejorative term directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|devotee
|1645
|ardent follower, supporter, or loyalty to. 56 years separates devotee and devoted
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|dog and pony show
|1970
|an overblown event, typically having more fanfare than substance; liberals like to run a "dog and pony show" in towns having a large public university, where students brainwashed by liberal professors are led like cattle to the events
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|a term first coined by [[George Orwell]] in his dystopian novel ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|duh science
|2000
|First coined by the ''LA Weekly'' to criticize the ''[[LA Times]]'' for failing to criticize a publicly funded study that concluded that pessimistic people are often in bad moods.<ref>Originally "duh!" science: "But couldn't we have been treated to just a soupcon of critical thinking, some irony even -- perhaps a glancing reference to the wisdom of public funding for 'duh!' science?"
"L.A. TIMES WHO KNEW? DEPARTMENT", ''LA Weekly'' p. 12 (Jan. 14, 2000).</ref>
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|dumpster diving
|1982
|Searching through dumpsters for food or other material that can used rather than discarded; first known use: "Restaurant and store owners have complained about drunks panhandling during the day and 'dumpster diving' through trash at night."<ref>Phil Long, "Special Wing for Drunks Suggested at Future Jail," Miami Herald D1 (Nov. 24, 1982).</ref>
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|egotism
|1714
|the root of atheism, as explained by Paul in Romans 1:21-22; the root of depression and anxiety also
|-
|electioneering
|1780s
|to work for the success of a particular candidate, party, ticket, etc., in an election.
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[embryoscopy]]
|1967<ref>The first endoscopic image of the unborn child was in 1967, by Mandelbaum. The date of origin of the term "embryoscopy" may have been later, but likely before the 1990s.</ref>
|Search this term on the internet and see the spectacular photos of the unborn child ("embryo") that were "scoped" by tiny cameras.
|-
|empowerment
|1986
|facilitating power for the ordinary; see also [[best of the public]]
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|Eurabia
|1970s
|A satirical word based on the idea that Europe is rapidly becoming Islamized.
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|everyman
|1906
|the typical person
|-
|exceptional
|1787
|same year of origin as the [[U.S. Constitution]]!
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|expatriate
|1768
|to give up one's own citizenship, or be banished by one's own nation
|-
|expose
|1803
|(noun) a statement of the facts, typically to discredit wrongdoing by government
|-
|facade
|1845<ref>1845 is the date of origin for the figurative use. The literal use dates back to 1650s, meaning the front of a building.</ref>
|Example usage: "The facade of a liberal politician is often conservative."
|-
|fair shake
|1830
|approaching an idea or concept with an open mind
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|fat farm
|1969
|a place where obese people -- such as self-centered [[atheists]] -- might go to try to lose weight
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|fear-mongering
|1938<ref>The ''[[New York Times]]'' attributed the first use -- ironically -- to President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]].</ref>
|stir up exaggerated fear by the public, typically to expand government
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|may have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Leon Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party. The term was invented by the communists in its original, non-negative sense, but the conservatives were the first to use it as a pejorative term.
|-
|[[Flip flop (politics)|flip-flop]]
|1976
|''verb'', meaning to change political position, typically due to [[liberal]] pressure. First used by the Republican S.I. Hayakawa campaign to describe California Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator John Tunney, whom Hayakawa defeated in an upset.
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|Founding Fathers
|1914
|the several dozen [[Christian]] men <ref>[http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, Adherents.com]</ref> who helped draft the formative documents of the United States
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free lunch
|1949
|something acquired ostensibly without paying for it, as in welfare; often used to remind people that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" in order to point out that it must cost someone something, now or later.
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free speech
|1873
|shorthand for "freedom of speech," but with a connotation that extends to non-citizens and listeners; first used in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in dissent in the [[Slaughter-House Cases]] by Justice Bradley
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|frontiersmen
|1814
|living and working in a self-sufficient manner and with courage in a new land.
|-
|fuzzy math
|1937
|non-computational math designed to obscure the differences between the correct answers and the incorrect -- but perhaps politically motivated -- answers
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|[[gambit]]
|1656
|a sacrifice that obtains an advantageous position, as in the game of [[chess]] ([[Bobby Fischer]]'s queen's gambit was a masterpiece) or in real life (the [[Passion of Christ]])
|-
|gang up
|1925
|group pressure
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|gimmick
|1922
|originally meant a deceptive mechanical device for controlling a [[gambling]] machine, and then its meaning expanded to include all trickery to attract attention
|-
|globalism
|1997
|Merriam-Webster states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term "globalism";<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|God-fearing
|1835
|Living by the rules of God; living in a way that is considered morally right.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|golden parachute
|1981
|a pejorative term for a pre-arranged handout to a corporate executive when fired, as when the company is taken over by new ownership
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|goon
|1926
|a dim-witted thug, espec. one who intimidates on behalf of a union
|-
|government school
|1955
|coined by [[economist]] [[Milton Friedman]] as a more accurate name for [[public schools]]
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|greasy spoon
|1902
|a free enterprise term for a small, cheap restaurant - which in many places is just what the public wants; reflects Jesus' [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] about the digestive system
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by William H. Whyte in 1952.
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|hatchet job
|1944
|still looking for the context of its first use; today it means an article, typically by a liberal, that misleadingly smears someone, typically a conservative
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|hippie
|1965
|someone who rejects traditional morality and does what he wants, often growing long hair and smoking [[marijuana]] rather than working hard; this term became increasingly pejorative over time
|-
|hissy fit
|1970
|an unjustified tantrum, typically female in nature, as in "[[feminist]]s had a hissy fit when [[Lawrence Summers]] suggested (but criticized) the possibility that women have weaker scientific aptitude than men, and Summers ultimately resigned."
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>this term has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|hokey
|1927
|phony, in an obvious or corny way
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>the OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[homemaker]]
|1876
|a wife and mother whose efforts are wisely spent running the household for the family
|-
|hometown
|1912
|the place where someone grew up and typically obtained some benefit
|-
|[[homosexual agenda]]
|1989
|used to promote the agenda in the book ''After the Ball'', but then used to criticize the movement by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] in his dissent in''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003)''
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as set forth in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|hype
|1931
|originally meant to deceive or "put on," and then its meaning shifted slightly to represent extravagant promotion of something as the liberal media often do
|-
|hyphenated American
|1889
|President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1915, "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American."
|-
|hypothesis
|1656
|a suggestion, typically scientific in nature, which must be tested and proven before asserted as truth
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|idealist
|1701
|a person guided by ideals
|-
|illiteracy
|1660
|liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the [[public schools]] are illiterate today
|-
|incentivize
|1970
|create a reward to encourage good work
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incoherent
|1626
|the term often applies to liberal [[double standard]]s
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inerrancy
|1834
|free from error, as in "biblical inerrancy"
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"we [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|[[invisible hand of marriage]]
|2008
|discovered on Conservapedia, it is the unseen force of productivity that results from marriage (only between a man and woman).
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|[[irreducible complexity]]
|1935
|coined<ref>[[Alan Turing]] reportedly used the term for a completely different meaning that went nowhere. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/]</ref> and later adopted and developed by [[Michael Behe]] to describe structure or system that could not possibly have evolved, because removing any part makes it nonfunctional, thereby showing that [[God]] must have created it whole into biology; if the [[Nobel Prize]] were not dominated by [[atheism]], Behe could win one for this insight.
|-
|[[Islamofascism]]
|1990?
|A form of totalitarian Muslim fundamentalist rule, or extreme Islamism.
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|John Hancock
|1903
|a personal signature, especially in a bold style that stands up for principles as John Hancock did with his signing the Declaration of Independence
|-
|[[judicial activism]]
|1947
|first coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|the bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|one who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|[[judicial taking]]
|1982
|the deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then four Justices of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] endorsed the principle in a decision in 2010, with two others accepting the possibility.
|-
|[[junk science]]
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals (such as [[Global Warming]])
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kiss of death
|1943
|from Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss, Mark 14:44-4
|-
|kleptocrat
|1819
|A politician who seeks status and personal gain at the expense of the governed
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|la-la land
|1979<ref>First known use was in an article by Tom Zito, "Mr. Mike's Mania; Sick Humor, Very Well Indulged," [[Washington Post]] F1 (Nov. 8, 1979): "But now, it's off to La-La land, and his movie deal. 'The thing about Southern Californians,' he says, 'is this: They wake up and say, 'Gee, what a wonderful morning. I think I'll make a salad.' And that takes them the whole day. ..."</ref>
|a term for the decadent, liberal culture of [[Hollywood]]-driven [[Los Angeles]], originally capitalized as "La-La land."; Merriam-Webster is in denial about this etymology and claims a later origin of 1983.
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|lamestream media
|2009
|coined by Bernie Goldberg to describe the clueless [[Mainstream media]] that repeat superficial, discredited liberal claptrap
|-
|landslide
|1838
|In the political sense, an overwhelming election victory. A clear, democratic expression of popular will.
|-
|leadership
|1821
|an ability and willingness to lead, often by example
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|level-headed
|1876
|"balanced", "having common sense and sound judgment"
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|liberal creep
|2008
|liberal bias that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.
|-
|life vest
|1939
|a pro-life invention
|-
|limousine liberal
|1969
|a multi-millionaire who pretends to be compassionate about the poor, but supports liberal policies that increase burdens on working Americans
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|lockstep
|1802
|mindless conformity, often to liberal values
|-
|locomotive
|1829
|a great engine of economic growth during the [[Industrial Revolution]]
|-
|lone wolf
|1909
|a person who prefers to work, act, or live alone,<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lone%20wolf Lone wolf, Merriam-Webster]</ref> synonymous with self-sufficiency
|-
|loose cannon
|1973
|an undisciplined person or program that dangerously lacks forethought; used in mid-November 1976 to describe $11 billion in unspent appropriations by the Ford Administration: "'That money,' says Arnold Packer, a senior Senate Budget Committee economist who is helping Carter draw up his shadow budget, 'is like a loose cannon rolling around the deck' because a sudden reappearance of the funds could be inflationary." (''BusinessWeek'')
|-
|lowest common denominator
|1854
|the lowest in work ethic, morals, or knowledge among a group; typically used to criticize the liberal practice of dumbing down content
|-
|lunatic fringe
|1913
|coined by U.S. President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to describe members of eccentric, radical or extremist groups<ref> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lunatic</ref>
|-
|machismo
|1948
|a word never used favorably by feminists!
|-
|mainstay
|1787
|the primary support, typically for something good
|-
|man-hater
|1970s<ref>This was during the epic struggle -- and defeat -- of the so-called [[Equal Rights Amendment]].</ref>
|William Safire wrote in the ''New York Times'' in 1983, "Misandry, from the Greek misandros for 'hating men,' is in the 1961 Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary Supplement traces it to 1946. The word is pronounced as 'Ms. Andry,' but I wonder why we need the Greek word for it. What's wrong with good, old-fashioned man-hater?"<ref>Sunday, Oct. 30, 1983, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3.</ref>
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|manifest destiny
|1845
|Providential design over future events, which originated in the context of expanding the United States to the Pacific Ocean
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|meat and potatoes
|1951
|the most interesting or fundamental part
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|mindset
|1909
|close-minded point-of-view, typically in adherence to a liberal falsehood and often to the exclusion of Christ
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|moonlighting
|1957
|working more than a full-time job in order to be as productive as possible; the [[work ethic]] at its best
|-
|moral majority
|1979
|coined by Jerry Falwell to describe the movement of growing moral, Christian conservatives.
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|muckety–muck
|1912
|a pejorative term for an arrogant person who holds a title or position considered to be important by others
|-
|muckraker
|1910
|a person who searches out and publicly exposes [[deceit]]<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muckraker Merriam-Webster - Muckraker]</ref>
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: this was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|muscle car
|1967
|placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance; also celebrate masculine style against erosion by feminism
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|name-dropping
|1950
|a term critical of the [[liberal]] practice of seeking to impress others by casually mentioning personal association with prominent people, despite its lack of relevance to the conversation
|-
|nanny state
|1978
|"Under the New Economic Policy, [the new French Prime Minister Raymond] Barre has made it clear that industrial lame ducks can no longer count on the generosity of Nanny i.e. the state - for bailing out."<ref>Leo Ryan, "Economy Shored up: France's new surge of liberalism," The Globe and Mail (Canada) (Aug. 1, 1978)</ref> Note how two powerful new conservative terms led to a third here!
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|nullification
|1798
|assertion of authority by a State against encroachment by the federal government, in defense of liberty
|-
|obambulate
|1600
|From Latin ''obambulatus'', to walk to or before, akin to ''wander''. Word currently claimed to have been invented by Rush Limbaugh in 2011 and used in reference to [[Barack Obama]], yet it is found in Oxford and Webster's dictionaries prior to 1991.
|-
|obstructionism
|1879
|deliberate interference with free speech or legislative progress, as when liberal legislators (the "fleebaggers") fled Wisconsin to try to block a reform
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|the ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|one-size-fits-all
|1996<ref>Was there an earlier conservative use? Frank Zappa's album cover in the 1970s does not count!</ref>
|Lee Wishing, director of communications for conservative [[Grove City College]], in criticism of how the government administers student loans: "Unfortunately, with government programs, it's one size fits all."<ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/dec96/er-dec96.html</ref> The 2008 Republican platform states, "We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules."<ref>http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf</ref>
|-
|one-trick pony
|1980
|a person or group that relies repeatedly on the same gimmick, as in "the media are a one-trick pony in their criticism of [[Rand Paul]]"
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|see [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|outflank
|1765
|to move swiftly around an opponent, a military tactic mastered by [[conservative]] [[General]] [[George Patton]] to crush the [[Germans]] in [[World War II]]
|-
|parenting
|1958
|children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justices. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|perestroika
|1986
|increasing economic freedom and free speech under [[communism]], which led to the unraveling of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]
|-
|perpetual war
|1947
|Coined by historian Charles A. Beard,<ref>Charles A. Beard is best known for interpreting the Constitution as being primarily motivated by economic interests.</ref> it has been used most recently by [[Ann Coulter]]
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|Philadelphia
|1682
|coined by [[William Penn]] and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "[[best of the public]]" approach
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|conservatives have long championed phonics to promote literacy, Bible-reading, and informed voters; liberals take the opposite position
|-
|phony
|1900<ref>This surprisingly recent origin appears to be derived from a British confidence game.</ref>
|needed to address [[liberal deceit]]
|-
|plasticity
|1783
|having a plastic quality that conforms to molding or pressure; in pejorative usage, someone who easily conforms to [[peer pressure]] or [[liberal]] falsehoods
|-
|poetic justice
|1890
|when virtue is rewarded and/or wrongdoing is punished in an indirect or unexpected way
|-
|political machine
|1905
|a pejorative term for local and typically Democratic power structures that prevent outsiders from winning elections; first used by George Washington Plunkitt to criticize the Tammany Hall machine for which he served
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|politicize
|1846
|seeking political gain at the expense of truth or quality<ref>The Merriam-Webster definition (1994 ed.) is incomplete and unclear: "to give a political tone or character to"</ref>
|-
|politics of envy
|2011
|used by Australian [[conservative]] Christopher Pine to describe the philosophy behind taking money from private schools and giving it to public ones.
|-
|pork barrel
|1909
|government as a source of handouts that redistribute money from hard-working people to those who avoid work
|-
|[[post-abortive]]
|1986
|the unexpected trauma and physical harm -- which can worsen over time -- that is experienced by a woman after having an [[abortion]]; coined by Dr. Kaye Cash in an editorial describing what she learned during a 365-mile walk in southeast Arkansas to speak with the public about abortion<ref>Editorial by Kaye Cash, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR), October 23, 1986.</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|pothead
|1959
|someone who smokes marijuana and doesn't realize how it destroys people
|-
|powerhouse
|1881
|source of energy and strength - which is what the conservative movement is
|-
|[[price discrimination]]
|1920
|charging different prices for the exact same service or good; first coined by the British economist (and critic of [[John Maynard Keynes]]) Arthur Cecil Pigou in ''The Economics of Welfare''.
|-
|prioritize
|1961
|to recognize that some goals and activities are more important than others, and then focus accordingly
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|Procrustean
|1832
|a pejorative description of the one-size-fits-all mentality, which disregards individual differences
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|pseudoscience
|1844
|worthless claims written with the appearance of scientific rigor to gain an aura of credibility
|-
|publicity stunt
|1969<ref>Earlier usage in the 1900s may have occurred, but the term "stunt" was not coined until 1878.</ref>
|Used on April 10, 1969 by Republican Senators who withdrew from a tour and probe by Senator [[Ted Kennedy]], criticizing him for his "publicity stunt" in preparation for his expected run for the presidency; the [[Chappaquiddick incident]] sunk his chances three months later.
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|refudiate
|2010
|combination of ''refute'' and ''repudiate'', as coined by [[Sarah Palin]]
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 (1988) II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|revolving-door
|1973
|the liberal practice of repeatedly transferring into and out of government in a way that impedes progress and access by others, like the same people going round-and-round in a real revolving door
|-
|riot act
|1715<ref>Its colloquial use, as in "read them the riot act," began in 1819.</ref>
|the Riot Act was a law passed in England in 1715 to authorize officials to disperse riots
|-
|Rogue state
|1993
|(Originally used in 1993 then reintroduced in 2002.) A 'rogue state' displays no regard for international law. It attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and other military technology with which to threaten neighbouring countries and support terrorism. Rogue states often reject human values and brutalize their own people.
|-
|rubber-stamp
|1918
|unthinking repetition or endorsement of something, despite having the responsibility to make an independent decision, as in "Democrats rubber-stamp demands by the abortion industry."
|-
|run of the mill
|1930
|meaning "merely average, commonplace," the term is critical of a failure to strive for excellence
|-
|sacred cow
|1910
|a person or idea, typically liberal, that becomes immune from criticism because of its political usefulness rather than its truthfulness, as in the theories of [[evolution]] and [[relativity]]
|-
|scapegoating
|1943
|a term criticizing how people, particularly liberals, deflect accountability and blame from themselves to others; inspired by Leviticus 16:8.
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[scientific fascism]]
|2009
|a coordinated effort by a group of scientists to enforce a certain point of view upon others.
|-
|[[secularism]]
|1850-55
|attempts to educate, particularly through [[public school]], without including [[faith]] or even acknowledgment of [[God]]
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-preservation
|1614
|preservation of oneself from destruction or harm
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|shotgun marriage
|1929
|pregnancy => get married. Think of someone besides yourself for a change.
|-
|silent majority
|1969
|coined by President [[Richard Nixon]] in his speech to the nation on Nov. 3, 1969<ref>http://watergate.info/nixon/silent-majority-speech-1969.shtml</ref>
|-
|skullduggery
|1867
|underhanded or unscrupulous behavior
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1979
|something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/smoke%20and%20mirrors Smoke and Mirrors, Merriam-Webster]</ref> Widely used during the 1990s to describe [[Bill Clinton]]'s political strategy.
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|staging for a typically liberal, unproductive rant having little substance
|-
|soccer mom
|1987
|a mother who devotes herself to her children's activities and a significant voting bloc or demographic group
|-
|[[socialist]]
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|Language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice.
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|spin doctor
|1984
|someone ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html?_r=2 General Petraeus describes Axelrod by Bob Woodward]</ref>
|-
|spot-on
|1949
|precisely correct, as in a prediction or in overcoming imprecision in a challenging task; its origin is from the military
|-
|[[stagflation]]
|1965
|inflation ''and'' high [[unemployment]] ''and'' stagnant demand by consumers, typically due to [[liberal]] policies as in the late 1970s under President [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
|stalking horse
|1788
|a candidate or issue that serves to increase the chances that ''another'' will win, as in "antifederalists attempted to win elections by using 'the stalking horse of amendments.'"<ref>''Centinel'', 1788 (quoted in ''The Federalist party in Massachusetts to the year 1800'', By Anson Ely Morse).</ref>
|-
|[[statism]]
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|something liberals are not
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|Stupaked
|2010
|hurt by someone who reassured everyone he would do the right thing, but then switched at the last minute to do the opposite (refers especially to [[abortion betrayal]]s)<ref>Columnist Kathleen Parker is credited with first coining this term.</ref>
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|tea party
|2007
|an amorphous group of ordinary citizens unified against a more expensive government
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|[[think tank]]
|1940s
|first coined in [[Britain]] to describe intelligence organizations that helped the military, think tanks became part of the rise of conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s; is ''Conservapedia'' the think tank of the future?
|-
|top-notch
|1900
|the highest quality, which requires respect for merit to recognize
|-
|[[totalitarianism]]
|1926
|term which identifies the similarities of fascist and communist regimes and ideologies and urges resistance
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important and distract people from the Bible; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with trivial junk
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|ultra vires
|1793
|beyond the authority, especially of a government or corporate official
|-
|unborn child
|1791
|the rights of the unborn child have been recognized in English law since the 1600s, but the specific term "unborn child" itself may have been first used by an attorney arguing before the New Jersey Supreme Court in ''Den v. Sparks'', 1 N.J.L. 67 (Sup. Ct. 1791)
|-
|underachiever
|1952
|a typically liberal person who fails to accomplish what he could
|-
|underdog
|1887
|[[David]] v. [[Goliath]], [[Cinderella]], [[best of the public]], etc.
|-
|[[underemployed]]
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|unscripted
|1950
|speaking sincerely without parroting a script; "[[Rand Paul]] and [[Chris Christie]] are effective because, unlike [[Obama]], they are unscripted."
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|vet
|1904<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2199254/?from=rss</ref>
|a verb meaning to screen for flaws
|-
|[[victimization]]
|1840
|
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabe
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|washed-up
|1928
|no longer productive, as in "the washed-up liberal professor has not contributed anything to his field in 30 years."
|-
|waterloo
|1816
|a final defeat or setback, coined merely one year after the [[English]] defeated [[Napoleon]] at the [[Battle of Waterloo]]; there has never been a "waterloo" for [[Christianity]] or [[conservatism]]
|-
|wildcatter
|1883
|a pro-energy term that describes someone who drills for oil in fields not known to have oil
|-
|wishy-washy
|1873<ref>An archaic meaning of poor quality dates to 1690.</ref>
|easily changing in opinion, usually due to peer pressure
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work (physical sense)
|1826
|a physical measure<ref>force times distance</ref> of effort used to increase energy
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|Yankee
|1758
|Inhabitants of New England, United States. Dutch slang in 1698- Americanized 50 years later.
|-
|Yankee Ingenuity
|1761
|America's inhabitants had a knack for clever design and capitalist success. The early Americans had applied their exceptional skills prior to the terms existence, see [[Eli Whitney]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]].
|-
|yellow journalism
|1898
|the practice, started by newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and his rival William Randolph Hearst, of sensationalizing and biasing newspaper headlines and articles in order to influence public opinion
|-
|}

__TOC__ 

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|blame shift
|false accusations
|e.g., guns blamed for an increasing murder rate
|-
|buycott
|counter support
|An effort to cooperate and promote an organization or a process to nullify campaigns that are targeted by boycott protests.
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|Constitutional values
|adherence to righteousness as set forth by the [[Founding Fathers]]
|principles set in the Declaration
|-
|Counterfeit Marriage
|uncivil union
|Manipulating Man's laws by usurping God's laws.
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|debtucation
|tuition noose
|College student debt is now larger than credit card debt in the US
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|mind-locked, self-centered pride obscuring the truth
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|[[earmark]]
|
|spending on specific projects at the request of a particular congressman, and without meaningful examination by others voting on it
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Fleebagger
|Oath breakers
|Describes [[liberal]] politicians who avoid their sworn duties as a way to advance their political agenda.
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|Hoax and Chains
|[[Keynesian economics]]
|a phonetic play on the rhetoric slogan of Hope and Change. Hope replaced by unemployment and Change represents obsessive tax burdens.
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Hollywood values]]
|West Coast Hedonism
|Over 800,000 results on Google, not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|homo-fascist <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1318230 LaBarbera: Apple's action stems from 'homo-facism', OneNewsNow, March 25, 2011]</ref>
|LGBT Stormtrooper, Gay-vangelist
|Guardians of gender identity ideology
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Datelin
|-
|[[limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|manufactured outrage
|fake tears
|liberal politicians and the liberal media's method of stroking anger to pursue an agenda.
|-
|media vigilantism
|soviet-style censorship
|media's public campaign to demonize dissent against people or groups, such as [[Juan Williams]].
|-
|Mediscare
|fear card
|Democrats opposed to entitlement reform use fear to stop changes to Medicare
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|moral fabric
|domestic tranquility
|ethics and virtues united for the common good of all
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|narrative hysteria
|delusional finger-pointing
|a frantic attempt to capitalize on calamity by casting their opponents as somehow responsible for an act of madness and evil
|-
|opposite of [[global warming]]
|regional warming
|the North pole shrinks as the South pole increases
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|used in titles to professional journal articles as early as 1994
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based on falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|smear merchant
|serial slander
|to constantly hurl degrading or false accusations against others
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[affirmative action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|colonist
|1701
|settlers of a new country
|-
|compartmentalize
|1925
|compartmentalizing the Bible away from knowledge and education leads to ignorance and despair
|-
|contrarian
|1657
|someone who delights in taking a position contrary to others
|-
|eclectic
|1683
|taking the best from among different styles or ideas; compare [[best of the public]]
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting racial, ethnic, gender alliances for political gain
|-
|inane
|1662
|refers to comments, often made by liberals, that are utterly devoid of substance
|-
|junk legislation
|1980s
|used initially by liberals to complain about the lack of meaningful legislation
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|multitasking
|1966
|performing multiple tasks all at once
|-
|polar coordinates
|1694
|Newton may have used it earlier
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|reverse engineer
|1973
|to deconstruct a product (or software) in order to understand how it works, often with the purpose of copying it
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|now used pejoratively, but probably not initially when it was a way for the public to participate
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>The first use of this term was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|tomfoolery
|1812
|playful or foolish behavior
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|Whip<ref>In its political usage.</ref>
|late 1800s
|An elected position in each political party for the legislator responsible for gathering and confirming support for the party position on particular bills. This term is derived from "whipper-in," which in fox-hunting refers to the man who prevents hunting dogs from straying amid a chase.<ref>http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/11/durbin_re-elected_number_two_s.html</ref>
|-
|wiki
|1995
|a website (or website software) that facilitates contributions and corrections by the public
|-
|working class
|1789
|those who work regular, 40-hour weeks in manual labor, such as factory jobs
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|connive
|1601
|to pretend ignorance
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|disorder
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited; inspired by Caspar Milquetoast, the unassertive character in "The Timid Soul" cartoon strip by Harold T. Webster, which ran in the New York Herald Tribune on Sundays beginning in 1924.
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]
*[http://dictionary.reference.com/ Dictionary.com]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]
*[[Secularized Language‎]]

{{Conservatism}}
{{Conservapedia}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Andromeda galaxy

2011-07-21T02:22:31Z

FergusE: Removed old-earth nonsense again. Please see talk page

[[Image:M31.jpg|right|thumb|Messier 31 (Andromeda)]]
The '''Andromeda Galaxy''', ''M31,'' is a large [[spiral galaxy]], the nearest one to the [[Milky Way]], and situated within the same [[galactic cluster]] called the [[Local Group]]. It appears to be within the constellation [[Andromeda (constellation)|Andromeda]].

The name "M31" is an abbreviation for "Messier 31," the thirty-first object in Charles Messier's (1730-1817) pioneering catalog of nebulae.

The Andromeda galaxy is sometimes described as being visible with the naked eye, but this is not possible in the light-polluted skies of a typical U. S. city or suburb. However, it is easily seen with binoculars even from a suburban back yard once you know where to look and know what to look for. Through binoculars, the galaxy is a small, dim, fuzzy spot, unlike the dramatic, bright detailed photographic images shown in astronomy books.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Andromeda galaxy

2011-07-20T23:55:41Z

FergusE:

Vegetarianism

2011-07-20T23:39:31Z

FergusE: /* Famous Vegetarians */

[[Image:Fruits.jpg|right]]
'''Vegetarianism''' is the practice of abstaining from [[meat]] consumption. Somebody who practices vegetarianism is referred to as a ''vegetarian''.

==Reasons for Vegetarianism==

Vegetarianism is a common theme among the [[Dharmic religion]]s, such as [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Sikhism]] and [[Jainism]]. This stems from the belief that all higher animal life is sacred (in Jainism, ''all'' life is considered sacred), one of the core concepts of all of these religions. For more than 130 years Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have practiced a vegetarian dietary lifestyle because of their belief in the wholistic nature of people.<ref>[http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/veggiediet.html Andrews University Nutrition Department]</ref> [[Pythagoras|Pythagoreanism]] also required its followers to abstain from meat, fish, and beans. It was also a central tenet of the [[Essene]] branch of Judaism.

Many people outside of these religions also choose to be vegetarians because of various other beliefs, such as abstinence from contributing to inhumane farming methods practiced by the meat production industry, or to lessen their environmental impact. Health is sometimes provided as another reason to adopt vegeterianism, though its health advantages are debatable. The section below provides more on the nutritional concerns.

Most non-religious vegetarians are [[college]] students or [[teenager]]s, for whom the vegeterianism is often a short-lived fad or mode of rebellion from their parents and other adults. Once their idealism becomes tempered with more experience (or they become tired of maintaining a vegetarian diet), they often return to eating meat. The major exception to this are teens who adopt vegetarianism as a personal form of animal activism. Lucy Watkins, editor of vegetarianteen.com, was interviewed on the matter:
{{cquote|Young people, especially girls, tend to be very loving and softhearted. [Lucy] Watkins says that, although sometimes teens become vegetarians because it's the latest fad, animal activism is often a spark for young people to become vegetarians. When it's done for "faddish" reasons, they usually don't stick with it. The animal rights kids tend to stay the course.<ref>http://www.preteenagerstoday.com/resources/articles/vegetarian.htm</ref>}}
Vegetarianism among teenage girls has troubled many [[dietitian]]s, because in their eagerness to adopt it, teenage girls often underestimate the responsibilities and consequences of a vegetarian lifestyle.<ref>[http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/feb2006pg58.shtml] "Most dietitians I spoke with who have teenage vegetarian clients agree that teens avoiding meat is becoming a trend or fad and that the vegetarian teenagers (mostly girls aged 14 to 17) they counsel usually come from meat-eating families."</ref><ref>[http://www.annecollins.com/teen-weight-loss-advice.htm] "Quite a few girls turn to vegetarian diets in their mid or late teens. As a way of eating, vegetarianism has a lot to recommend it. Trouble is, most teens don't realise that giving up meat makes it much more difficult to eat a healthy diet. The point is, meat is a very convenient source of important vitamins and minerals, especially iron. So if you stop eating meat, you need to eat a wide range of vegetarian foods to compensate for this deficiency. Unfortunately, vegetarian teenagers are not famous for doing this."</ref> In contrast, teenage boys, who have many exertions from [[sport]]s and other activities, need meat almost daily, so there are far fewer teenage boys than girls that have taken up the fad of vegetarianism. There is conflicting advice about the health effects of vegetarianism on teenagers <ref>http://www.pamf.org/teen/health/nutrition/veggieteens.html</ref>, however given the ideological underrtones associated with the movement parents might be wise to discourage vegetarianism <ref>http://wn.com/savage_more_mosque_history,_liberalism,_vegetarianism</ref>.

==Forms of Vegetarianism==
*'''[[Vegan]]''' - A vegan diet excludes all food and ingredients that comes from animals. This excludes animal meat, animal products such as milk, cheese, eggs or honey, and byproducts such as gelatin. Effort is needed to make a vegan diet healthy.<ref>http://www.vegan.org/going_vegan/eating_vegan/index.html Vegan regimen</ref> "Vegan" can refer both to the diet and the dieter.
*'''Lactovegetarian''' - Someone who eats a plant-based diet but also eats animal produced foods (that do not result in the death of the animal) such as milk and cheese. Lacto vegetarians can relatively easily remain healthy.
*'''Ovo-lactovegetarian''' (or '''lacto-ovo-vegetarian''') - Similar to the Lactovegetarian but also consumes eggs.
*'''Pescatarian''' - This form of vegetarianism includes the consumption of [[fish]], but no other varieties of meat. [[Egg]]s and dairy may be part of this diet. Since fish are still living animals, stricter vegetarians (especially those who are vegetarians for moral reasons) are likely to feel that pescatarians are not true vegetarians.

==Nutritional Issues==

Some nutritionists have argued that vegetarianism is an unsustainable diet. It can be difficult to regularly get all of your daily required [[nutrient]]s without eating animal products every day. [[Soy]], [[nut]]s and [[bean]]s are often used as a source of protein and a substitute for meat, but nonetheless many vegetarians have to take vitamin supplements or eat enriched foods.<ref>According to Olivant, the most useful supplements for the vegetarians contain nutrients that may be limited in their diet, such as omega-3. [http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=65255-vegetarian-supplements]</ref> Nutrionist Dr. Ray Sahelian warns "Those who eat very little meat, fish and foul (sic) and ... may be missing, or getting very little, crucial nutrients for optimal health such as [[vitamin B12]], [[iron]], [[creatine]], [[carnitine]], and several other [[nutrient]]s"<ref>[http://www.raysahelian.com/vegetarian.html Dr. Ray Sahelian]</ref> Vegetarians suffer from higher rates of certain diseases, such as [[osteoporosis]], [[anemia]], [[bulimia]], and [[thyroid]] problems due to the lack of [[calcium]] and other nutrients in their diets. Recently, scientists discovered that a vegetable-heavy diet can actually cause [[brain]] shrinkage.<ref>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/Eating_veggies_shrinks_the_brain/articleshow/3480629.cms Times of India] Eating Veggie Shrinks the Brain</ref>

Another danger of the vegetarian diet is an over reliance on highly processed soy products, which contain phytoestrogens (plant estrogens), impair proper thyroid functions and contain compounds that inhibit absorption of minerals and protein. Many people mistake the historic use of soy in Asian countries (with high life expectancies) as evidence that soy is healthy, however these cultures use different methods of preparing their soy foods, and consume far less than the average vegetarian. <ref>http://www.foodrenegade.com/dangers-of-soy/</ref>

In contrast, the American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have taken the position that properly planned vegetarian diets can be nutritious, healthy, and provide benefits in helping prevent and treat some diseases, possibly with the help of nutritional supplements.<ref>[http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm Vegetarian Diets]</ref> Also, in Daniel 1:4-15, Daniel and his companions declined to eat Babylonian royal food and instead requested fresh water and vegetables. At the end of ten days, they were healthier than those who ate the rich food.

Conversely Genesis 1:26 clearly states that God gave dominion over the animals to man, furthermore after the worldwide flood God says to Noah that every moving thing shall be food to him (Genesis 9: 3). Jesus eats lamb (Luke 22: 7-8), eats fish (Luke 24:41-43), serves fish during the miracle of the loaves and fish (Matthew 15:34-37) and encourages the consumption of fish (John 21: 5-6). A fair reading of the bible doesn't unearth any commandment against vegetarianism, neither is it endorsed, though the current ideological climate of vegetarians is usually hostile to Christ.

==Famous Vegetarians==
[[Image:H G Wells 2.jpg|right|H G Wells, science fiction writer and vegetarian]]
*[[Adam and Eve]], at least while in Eden <ref>(Genesis 1:29)</ref>
*[[Bob Barker]] - Game Show Host, most notably [[The Price is Right]] <ref>Bob Barker [http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/bobbarker179450.html]</ref>
*[[Albert Einstein]] - Scientist, famous for [[Theory of Relativity]]. He became a vegetarian a year before his death. <ref>History of Vegetarianism [http://www.ivu.org/history/northam20a/einstein.html]</ref>
*[[Thomas Edison]] - inventor <ref>History of Vegetarianism [http://www.ivu.org/history/northam20a/edison.html]</ref>
*[[Ralph Waldo Emerson]] - writer and philosopher in [[Transcendentalism]].
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - Statesman, scientist, author and diplomat. <ref>PBS.org [http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_self.html]</ref>
*[[Mohandas K. Gandhi]] - activist and political leader
[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Adolf Hitler]] was a vegetarian for much of his life.]]
*[[Siddhartha Gautama]] - founder of [[Buddhism]]
*[[Adolf Hitler]] - dictator
*[[Henry Heimlich]] - Inventor of the [[Heimlich Maneuver]]<ref>www.famousveggie.com[http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm]</ref>
*[[Mahavira]]
*[[Paul McCartney]] - singer/bassist for [[The Beatles]]
*[[Shania Twain]] - country singer
*[[Henry A. Wallace]] - Vice President of the U.S. 1941-1945; Presidential candidate 1948
*[[H. G. Wells]] - Famous Science Fiction author, works include [[The War of Worlds]]
*[[John Wesley]] - Founder of [[Methodism]].

== Further reading ==
* Foer, Jonathan Safran. ''Eating Animals''. Little, Brown, 2009.

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Adrian Vander]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm USDA Dietary Guidelines]
* [http://www.vegsoc.org/ The Vegetarian Society ]
* [http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm 49 good reasons to be a vegetarian]
* [http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html The Myths of Vegetarianism by Stephen Byrnes]

[[Category:Health]]
[[Category:Vegetarianism]]

Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?

2011-07-20T22:30:05Z

FergusE:

{{debate}}

Should the United States defund scientific research?

== YES ==
Science has yet to fully explain many basic things, such as how gravity or magnets work. With a budget of $6.87 billion and so little to show for it and with the Bible being a rich and ready-made source of much [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge|scientific knowledge]], the US should completely defund all scientific research and use that money to fund other more immediate needs. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:19, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ummmm, I know how both gravity and magnetism work. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:20, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::You might have an idea about what science says this week, but science is always changing. Secular researchers really have no idea how they work. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Magnetism and gravity are very well understood forces. I think you are just pulling our legs. I am going to keep an eye on you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:39, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Please stick to the topic at hand. Should the United States Government be using taxpayer money to fund scientific research of dubious utility? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Who decides what is "scientific research of dubious utility"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well, Andrey Schlafly has labeled many areas of science as "junk science". [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 00:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::that doesn't really answer my question. And I would like to hear from the guy who thinks science can't explain magnetism. I suspect the user isn't who he claims. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I never said science can't explain magnetism, only that it hasn't and that the United States doesn't need to be wasting billions of taxpayer dollars researching it. Scientific research has lead to abortion, the racist theory of evolution and the acceptance of perversion. It exists to draw people away from the wisdom of Christ and towards the folly of man. I'm done with this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 01:55, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Magnets and gravity are so simple and so basic that a 5 year old could understand it (because I learned how they both work in *GASP* the evil public schools when I was 5). You don't understand how the scientific theory works and I'm not going to sit here and explain such a basic concept to a parodist. Or maybe you're not, you sound just like some of the sysops here. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:12, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:I'd say this person is a parodist for sure. See:[[Magnetism]]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Can we please stay on topic, Max? We're talking about the US wasting taxpayer money on scientific research. If research is truly that valuable, then private industry can pick up the slack. The NSF only funds about 20% of all science anyway. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 18:30, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

== NO ==

Of course, you'd save millions in the short-term, but how do you think the USA became the largest national economy in the world?

And to point out that science hasn't discovered the answer to some questions, therefore it should be defunded is absolutely ludicrous and displays a complete ignorance of the scientific process. If you'd made the same argument 100 years ago you'd look like a bit of an idiot today with all the advances that have been made. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:36, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you'd made the same argument 20 or even 10 years ago you'd look like a fool toda as well

Conservapedia:Atheism Project

2011-07-20T20:18:41Z

FergusE:

[[File:Baron2.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|225px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789), was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]

[[Conservapedia]] has initiated a campaign to expand its number of articles relating to [[atheism]]. Editors are encouraged to create articles on the subjects below. The objective is to provide the public with a greater understanding of the topic of atheism in terms of its history, ideology, promulgation, effects on society and its relationship to counter atheism movements. Conservapedia also encourages individuals to spread awareness about the Conservapedia Atheism Project, as we are seeking to expand our editor base and greatly expand our readership among the general public concerning the general subject area of atheism.

== Guidelines ==
*Note to individuals or teams of individuals creating articles: Where appropriate, please try to make the articles or essays at least 400-500 words in length rather than making stubs. There is a helpful tool located [http://www.wordcounttool.com/ HERE] for web writers that indicates how many words are on a web page.

*Please cite your sources for articles via footnotes (see: [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help]]).

*In addition, it is important that the articles be original and not created by merely cutting and pasting content from other websites.

== Additional Atheism related articles needed ==

Please feel free to add any other article suggestions or expand the articles below:

*[[Atheism symbols]]
*[[State atheism]]
*[[Soviet atheism]]
[[File:286px-Map of USA TX.svg.png|thumbnail|400px|[[Texas]] is a very influential state in the [[United States]] when it comes to [[biology]] textbooks.<ref>http://www.utne.com/Politics/Right-Wing-Activists-Rewrite-US-Textbooks-6418.aspx</ref> A supporter of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) with a large Christian YouTube audience has declared he is going to aggressively promote the CMI [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas in order to reduce the prevalence of [[atheism]] and belief in [[evolution]] in the United States. In addition, a group of volunteers indicated they will promote the campaign in the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/question-evolution-volunteer-reported.html</ref>
 
 
Please see: [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Question evolution! campaign and atheism]] and [[Atheism and evolutionism]]
 
 
(graphic obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_TX.svg Wikimedia commons], username:Huebi , Title of picture:Map of USA with Texas highlighted, see: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_TX.svg license agreement])]]
*[[Soviet realism and atheism]]
*[[Atheism organizations]]
*[[Atheism activists]]
*[[Atheism 1960s]]
*[[Atheism 1970s]]
*[[Atheism and evolutionism]]
*[[Atheism and consciousness]]
*[[Christian response to atheism]]
*[[Teenage atheist depression]]
*[[Psychology of atheism]]
*[[Portal:Essays/Atheism|Conservapedia's collection of essays on Atheism]]
*[[Essay: Who is the father of atheism?]]
*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Atheism and sexuality]]
*[[Atheism vs. Christianity]]
*[[Atheism and creationism]]
*[[Atheism evangelism]]
*[[Atheism and China]]
*[[Counter atheism movements]]
*[[Atheism and North Korea]]
*[[Atheism and creation science]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Four Horsemen of atheism]]
*[[Question evolution! campaign and atheism]]
*[[Atheism and the founding fathers]]
*[[Atheism in popular culture]]
*[[Atheism vs. theism in education]]
*[[Isaac Newton and atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Difference between pantheism and atheism]]
*[[Atheism statistics]]
*[[Teenage atheism]]
*[[Atheism and logic]]
*[[Atheism in the media]]
*[[Francis Schaeffer and atheism]]
*[[Mark Twain and atheism]]

== Atheist ==

*[[Famous atheists]]
*[[English atheists]]
*[[Jewish atheists]]
*[[French atheists]]
*[[Dutch atheists]]
*[[Former atheists and agnostics]]
*[[Agnostic atheists]]

== Naturalism ==

*[[Naturalism movement]]
*[[History of naturalism]]
*[[Naturalism paintings]]
*[[Teen naturalism]]
*[[Naturalism literature]]
*[[Realism and naturalism]]
*[[Essay: What is naturalism?]]
*[[Christian response to naturalism]]
*[[Naturalism literary movement]]
*[[Metaphysical naturalism]]
*[[Religious naturalism]]
*[[German naturalism]]
*[[Naturalism in Europe]]
*[[Naturalism in theatre]]
*[[Definition of naturalism]]
*[[Russian naturalism]]

== Humanism ==
[[Image:Lahaye-family-01.jpg|right|400px|thumb|from Tim LaHaye, ''The Battle for the Family'', 1982.]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Secular humanism]]
*[[History of humanism]]
*[[Evolution of humanism]]
*[[Renaissance humanism]]
*[[Religious humanism]]
*[[Secular humanism and money]]
*[[Secular humanism vs. Christianity]]
*[[Council for Secular Humanism]]
*[[Secular humanism fiction]]
*[[Father of humanism]]
*[[Humanism in education]]
*[[Examples of humanism in schools]]

== Spreading Awareness Concerning Conservapedia's Atheism Project ==

'''Attention!''' Conservapedia wishes to increase public awareness of its Atheism Project to counter many atheism websites targeting young people.

=== Spreading awareness via personal email ===

Email everyone in your contacts and tell them about them about the Conservapedia Atheism Project so ''they'' can help us do something to counter atheists targeting young people with their false and morally bankrupt ideology.

=== Email list subscribers ===
Are you on a Christian or conservative email list? Please forward a message to your fellow subscribers inviting them to take part in this exciting project!

=== Members of social networking sites ===
Are you a member of a site like [[Facebook]], [[Myspace]], [http://www.myichthus.com/ myIchthus], [http://www.mychurch.org/ MyChurch] or other social networking websites? Spread the word about the Conservapedia Atheism Project!

=== Christian and Anti-atheism Bloggers ===
Please tell people about the Conservapedia Atheism Project!

=== Video sharing websites ===
Are you active on [http://www.tangle.com Tangle],[http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube], or other video sharing websites? Create a video about the Conservapedia Atheism Project!

{{Atheism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Conservapedia]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2011-07-20T05:40:16Z

FergusE: Added a new term.

[[File:Conservative words.jpg|thumb|480px|The growth in conservative words on an annual basis (red), compared with a perfect geometric growth rate (Courtesy User:Jcw)]]Each year the [[English language]] develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> many good words have since developed.

[[Conservative]] terms, expressing [[conservative insights]], originate at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.

Powerful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For each new conservative term originating in the 1600s,<ref>The King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, by then [[William Shakespeare]] had written nearly all his plays.</ref> there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|26
|-
|1700s
|53
|-
|1800s
|106
|-
|1900s
|213
|-
|2000s
|20 (preliminary)
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|the willingness or obligation to be held responsible for one's actions- a fundamental conservative ideal, unlike liberals who believe that 'society,' and not individuals, are responsible for their wrongdoing.
|-
|accuracy
|1660
|conservatives strive for accuracy, while many liberals are masters of [[deceit]]
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|activism
|1915
|this differentiates conservatives from inactive people; this term might have originated in connection with [[Prohibition]] and efforts to pass the [[Eighteenth Amendment]]
|-
|aerobics
|1967
|invented by the [[Christian]] Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper<ref>http://www.christianadvice.net/famous_christians.htm</ref> to describe his self-help, revolutionary program to improve health, he entitled his ground-breaking book in 1968 ''Aerobics''.
|-
|agitprop
|1929
|propaganda designed to incite agitation, originally coined to describe communist propaganda
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings, as in the politically motivated claims of [[global warming]]
|-
|{{#ifexist: alcoholism | [[alcoholism]] | alcoholism }}
|1860
|excessive or addictive drinking of alcohol
|-
|algorithm
|1894
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|ambulance chaser
|1896
|a lawyer who searches for victims to persuade them to sue for his profit
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|the vision that, with hard work, anyone in American can attain happiness and prosperity
|-
|[[American exceptionalism]]
|1835
|the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity
|-
|American Way
|1930s
|later conservative entrepreneurs used this to coin a new name for what became a highly successful and uniquely American business model: "Amway"
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|opposing Christian ideals and institutions
|-
|anticompetitive
|1952
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|term criticizing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|apathetic
|1744
|term critical of the those who are deliberately inactive and disengaged mentally
|-
|apple pie
|1780
|honesty, simplicity, wholesomeness. Relating to, or characterized by traditionally American values. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apple%20pie Merriam-webster- Apple pie]</ref>
|-
|assimilate
|1880s<ref>estimate only; this originated sometime in the late 1880s.</ref>
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|atheistic
|1625-35
|An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|axiomatic
|1797
|self-evident (first usage), and later it developed the meaning of being based on a set of axioms
|-
|baby boom
|1941
|an increase in birthrate, which is a good thing; note that the baby boom actually started before World War II, contrary to what textbooks teach.
|-
|back burner
|1963
|inactive status away from attention, as in "RINOs try to put social issues on the back burner"
|-
|[[bailout]]
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|balkanize
|1919
|to break a region or neighborhood into divisive components; the opposite of the American concept of assimilation or "[[E pluribus unum]]"
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|beltway mentality
|1986
|popularized by [[Paul Weyrich]] though possibly first used by then-Governor [[John Sununu]] ("captives of yourselves"), it refers to a governing style that sees only as far as the highway that surrounds its capital, especially the one around D.C.
|-
|[[Best of the Public]]
|2009
|A term coined by [[Andy Schlafly]] to express the idea that one does not need [[liberal]] credentials that so-called "experts" have. Indeed, many great historical figures would have failed the liberal "expert" test.
|-
|biased
|1649
|to show prejudice for or against something; American society is rapidly becoming ''biased'' against Christian and Conservative beliefs.
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|-
|biological clock
|1955
|how each woman begins to lose her ability to have children at age 27, no matter how much [[feminists]] try to conceal this scientific fact from women
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|blather
|1719
|nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common on the [[lamestream media]]
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|a person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|boomerang
|1825
|originally coined to describe a throwing device that returns to the thrower, the term became increasingly useful to describe how wrongful conduct returns to bite the perpetrator
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee [[Robert H. Bork]].
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brainstorm
|1894
|a burst of productive thought
|-
|brainwashing
|1950
|derived from the Chinese term "xǐnǎo" soon after the [[communist]] takeover of China, "brainwashing" means forced abandonment of [[faith]] in favor of regimented [[atheism]]. In a more general sense, it refers to the manipulation and control of the human mind through torture and propaganda techniques.
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|[[carpetbagger]]
|1868
|a politician who moves to a new area to be elected to a government position, as in [[Hillary Clinton]] moving to [[New York]] to become a U.S. Senator
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|caucus
|1763
|citizens or representatives gathering to meet and reach political decisions as a group while harnessing aspects of the [[best of the public]]; first coined by John Adams<ref>The future author of the Massachusetts Constitution who also played a role in developing the [[Declaration of Independence]].</ref> when he described a meeting of political Boston elders as a "caucus club"; the word may be from an Algonquian term for a group of advisers or elders.
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|charisma
|1930
|literally "a gift from God", charisma is a personal magic of leadership found in [[conservative]] public figures (but beware of the liberal tendency to put style before substance!)
|-
|Chicken Little
|1895
|one who falsely predicts disaster, especially for silly reasons: "global alarmists" are the Chicken Littles of our time<ref>In characteristically [[liberal]] style, the online Merriam-Webster spins the [[global warming]] example usage by saying the data showed he wasn't a Chicken Little.</ref>
|-
|circle the wagons
|1800s
|regroup with family and friends, when under attack. usage from settlers in the old US west.
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|civil defense
|1939
|civilians protecting themselves and their community against attack or natural disasters
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his liberal claptrap"
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|[[Coase theorem|Coasean]]
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|cogent
|1659
|compelling with the powerful force of reason, the opposite of [[liberal]] claptrap
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|Cold War
|1945
|coined by [[George Orwell]] shortly after he wrote ''Animal Farm'',<ref>http://www.worldwar2history.info/war/causes/Cold-War.html</ref> as recognition that communist nations were at war with American freedom even in the absence of actual military conflict
|-
|collectivism
|1880
|when decision-making by a group takes priority over the good ideas of an individual, often preventing progress
|-
|common sense
|1726
|sound judgment based on facts
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conniption
|1833
|hysteria or alarm, as in "having a conniption fit"; a typical response by [[liberals]] when confronted with their [[double standards]] and illogical positions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|someone who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values<ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conservative</ref>
|-
|[[conservative field]]
|1870s?
|a type of physical force over a region such that items moving throughout the region can store energy ''without loss'', as in the planetary system and electrical products<ref>The mathematical definition of a conservative field -- which arises in [[multivariable calculus]] -- is that a scalar potential exists for the function and, alternatively, it is [[irrotational]].</ref>
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|constitutionality
|1787
|its date of origin is the year of the [[Constitutional Convention]] that proposed the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|cooking the data
|1830
|[[Charles Babbage]] used it in his book, "Reflections on the Decline of Science in England".<ref>http://www.scientus.org/Church-Science-History.html</ref>
|-
|coolant
|1926
|a fluid, typically water, that facilitates efficient energy production, especially nuclear energy to cool a reactor and slow down the fission of neutrons
|-
|copacetic
|1890s<ref>Merriam-Webster officially lists its date of origin as 1919 and its source as unknown, but that is well after when Robinson says he developed it.</ref>
|Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, tap dancer extraordinaire, claimed the invention of this word; it was first popularized by African Americans
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|corporate socialism
|1970s
|the tendency of large corporations to act in a socialistic manner, at the expense of meritocracy and productivity
|-
|correlate
|1742
|(verb) to show that one thing relates to another, such as [[atheism]] or [[homosexuality]] and selfishness or lack of charity; [[liberal]]s falsely rely on anecdotes to deny the general relationship
|-
|[[countability (Mathematics)|countability]]
|1874
|[[Georg Cantor]], loathed by the leading contemporary [[mathematicians]], developed this in proving that the real numbers are ''uncountable''
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition. A common point in logical, reasoned debate.
|-
|counterfactual
|1946
|especially assumptions that are contrary to fact; Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], "petitioners' standing does not require precise proof of what the Board's policies might have been in that counterfactual world."<ref>''Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.'', 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3163 (2010) (5-4 decision).</ref>
|-
|counterproductive
|1959
|interfering with a worthy goal. Example usage: "nearly everything a liberal supports is counterproductive."
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|[[creation science]]
|1970s
|a term coined by the anti-[[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Henry Morris]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801716.html</ref>
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|crystal clear
|1815
|liberals are the opposite
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|cyberbullying
|2000s
|a type of obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decentralization
|1846
|the dispersion of power, as in a shift from national to local control
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|[[defeatism]]
|1918
|a negative attitude that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
|-
|defensive driving
|1964
|a style of driving a car that always focuses on avoiding accidents, even those potentially caused by others; nearly a half-century later, dictionaries still do not recognize this term
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|defund
|1948
|refers especially to termination of government funding of a wasteful or hurtful program
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|Den mother
|1936
|leader of children's group
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|pejorative term directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|devotee
|1645
|ardent follower, supporter, or loyalty to. 56 years separates devotee and devoted
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|dog and pony show
|1970
|an overblown event, typically having more fanfare than substance; liberals like to run a "dog and pony show" in towns having a large public university, where students brainwashed by liberal professors are led like cattle to the events
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|a term first coined by [[George Orwell]] in his dystopian novel ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1883
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|duh science
|2000
|First coined by the ''LA Weekly'' to criticize the ''[[LA Times]]'' for failing to criticize a publicly funded study that concluded that pessimistic people are often in bad moods.<ref>Originally "duh!" science: "But couldn't we have been treated to just a soupcon of critical thinking, some irony even -- perhaps a glancing reference to the wisdom of public funding for 'duh!' science?"
"L.A. TIMES WHO KNEW? DEPARTMENT", ''LA Weekly'' p. 12 (Jan. 14, 2000).</ref>
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|dumpster diving
|1982
|Searching through dumpsters for food or other material that can used rather than discarded; first known use: "Restaurant and store owners have complained about drunks panhandling during the day and 'dumpster diving' through trash at night."<ref>Phil Long, "Special Wing for Drunks Suggested at Future Jail," Miami Herald D1 (Nov. 24, 1982).</ref>
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|egotism
|1714
|the root of atheism, as explained by Paul in Romans 1:21-22; the root of depression and anxiety also
|-
|electioneering
|1780s
|to work for the success of a particular candidate, party, ticket, etc., in an election.
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[embryoscopy]]
|1967<ref>The first endoscopic image of the unborn child was in 1967, by Mandelbaum. The date of origin of the term "embryoscopy" may have been later, but likely before the 1990s.</ref>
|Search this term on the internet and see the spectacular photos of the unborn child ("embryo") that were "scoped" by tiny cameras.
|-
|empowerment
|1986
|facilitating power for the ordinary; see also [[best of the public]]
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|Eurabia
|1970s
|A satirical word based on the idea that Europe is rapidly becoming Islamized.
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|everyman
|1906
|the typical person
|-
|exceptional
|1787
|same year of origin as the [[U.S. Constitution]]!
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|expatriate
|1768
|to give up one's own citizenship, or be banished by one's own nation
|-
|expose
|1803
|(noun) a statement of the facts, typically to discredit wrongdoing by government
|-
|fair shake
|1830
|approaching an idea or concept with an open mind
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|fat farm
|1969
|a place where obese people -- such as self-centered [[atheists]] -- might go to try to lose weight
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|fear-mongering
|1938<ref>The ''[[New York Times]]'' attributed the first use -- ironically -- to President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]].</ref>
|stir up exaggerated fear by the public, typically to expand government
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|may have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Leon Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party. The term was invented by the communists in its original, non-negative sense, but the conservatives were the first to use it as a pejorative term.
|-
|[[Flip flop (politics)|flip-flop]]
|1976
|''verb'', meaning to change political position, typically due to [[liberal]] pressure. First used by the Republican S.I. Hayakawa campaign to describe California Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator John Tunney, whom Hayakawa defeated in an upset.
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|Founding Fathers
|1914
|the several dozen [[Christian]] men <ref>[http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, Adherents.com]</ref> who helped draft the formative documents of the United States
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free lunch
|1949
|something acquired ostensibly without paying for it, as in welfare; often used to remind people that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" in order to point out that it must cost someone something, now or later.
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free speech
|1873
|shorthand for "freedom of speech," but with a connotation that extends to non-citizens and listeners; first used in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in dissent in the [[Slaughter-House Cases]] by Justice Bradley
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|frontiersmen
|1814
|living and working in a self-sufficient manner and with courage in a new land.
|-
|fuzzy math
|1937
|non-computational math designed to obscure the differences between the correct answers and the incorrect -- but perhaps politically motivated -- answers
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|[[gambit]]
|1656
|a sacrifice that obtains an advantageous position, as in the game of [[chess]] ([[Bobby Fischer]]'s queen's gambit was a masterpiece) or in real life (the [[Passion of Christ]])
|-
|gang up
|1925
|group pressure
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|gimmick
|1922
|originally meant a deceptive mechanical device for controlling a [[gambling]] machine, and then its meaning expanded to include all trickery to attract attention
|-
|globalism
|1997
|Merriam-Webster states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term "globalism";<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|God-fearing
|1835
|Living by the rules of God; living in a way that is considered morally right.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|golden parachute
|1981
|a pejorative term for a pre-arranged handout to a corporate executive when fired, as when the company is taken over by new ownership
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|goon
|1926
|a dim-witted thug, espec. one who intimidates on behalf of a union
|-
|government school
|1955
|coined by [[economist]] [[Milton Friedman]] as a more accurate name for [[public schools]]
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|greasy spoon
|1902
|a free enterprise term for a small, cheap restaurant - which in many places is just what the public wants; reflects Jesus' [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] about the digestive system
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by William H. Whyte in 1952.
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|hatchet job
|1944
|still looking for the context of its first use; today it means an article, typically by a liberal, that misleadingly smears someone, typically a conservative
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|hippie
|1965
|someone who rejects traditional morality and does what he wants, often growing long hair and smoking [[marijuana]] rather than working hard; this term became increasingly pejorative over time
|-
|hissy fit
|1970
|an unjustified tantrum, typically female in nature, as in "[[feminist]]s had a hissy fit when [[Lawrence Summers]] suggested (but criticized) the possibility that women have weaker scientific aptitude than men, and Summers ultimately resigned."
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>this term has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|hokey
|1927
|phony, in an obvious or corny way
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>the OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[homemaker]]
|1876
|a wife and mother whose efforts are wisely spent running the household for the family
|-
|hometown
|1912
|the place where someone grew up and typically obtained some benefit
|-
|[[homosexual agenda]]
|1989
|used to promote the agenda in the book ''After the Ball'', but then used to criticize the movement by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] in his dissent in''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003)''
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as set forth in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|hype
|1931
|originally meant to deceive or "put on," and then its meaning shifted slightly to represent extravagant promotion of something as the liberal media often do
|-
|hyphenated American
|1889
|President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1915, "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American."
|-
|hypothesis
|1656
|a suggestion, typically scientific in nature, which must be tested and proven before asserted as truth
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|idealist
|1701
|a person guided by ideals
|-
|illiteracy
|1660
|liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the [[public schools]] are illiterate today
|-
|incentivize
|1970
|create a reward to encourage good work
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incoherent
|1626
|the term often applies to liberal [[double standard]]s
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inerrancy
|1834
|free from error, as in "biblical inerrancy"
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"we [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|[[invisible hand of marriage]]
|2008
|discovered on Conservapedia, it is the unseen force of productivity that results from marriage (only between a man and woman).
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|[[irreducible complexity]]
|1935
|coined<ref>[[Alan Turing]] reportedly used the term for a completely different meaning that went nowhere. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/]</ref> and later adopted and developed by [[Michael Behe]] to describe structure or system that could not possibly have evolved, because removing any part makes it nonfunctional, thereby showing that [[God]] must have created it whole into biology; if the [[Nobel Prize]] were not dominated by [[atheism]], Behe could win one for this insight.
|-
|[[Islamofascism]]
|1990?
|A form of totalitarian Muslim fundamentalist rule, or extreme Islamism.
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|John Hancock
|1903
|a personal signature, especially in a bold style that stands up for principles as John Hancock did with his signing the Declaration of Independence
|-
|[[judicial activism]]
|1947
|first coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|the bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|one who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|[[judicial taking]]
|1982
|the deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then four Justices of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] endorsed the principle in a decision in 2010, with two others accepting the possibility.
|-
|[[junk science]]
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals (such as [[Global Warming]])
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kiss of death
|1943
|from Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss, Mark 14:44-4
|-
|kleptocrat
|1819
|A politician who seeks status and personal gain at the expense of the governed
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|la-la land
|1979<ref>First known use was in an article by Tom Zito, "Mr. Mike's Mania; Sick Humor, Very Well Indulged," [[Washington Post]] F1 (Nov. 8, 1979): "But now, it's off to La-La land, and his movie deal. 'The thing about Southern Californians,' he says, 'is this: They wake up and say, 'Gee, what a wonderful morning. I think I'll make a salad.' And that takes them the whole day. ..."</ref>
|a term for the decadent, liberal culture of [[Hollywood]]-driven [[Los Angeles]], originally capitalized as "La-La land."; Merriam-Webster is in denial about this etymology and claims a later origin of 1983.
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|lamestream media
|2009
|coined by Bernie Goldberg to describe the clueless [[Mainstream media]] that repeat superficial, discredited liberal claptrap
|-
|landslide
|1838
|In the political sense, an overwhelming election victory. A clear, democratic expression of popular will.
|-
|leadership
|1821
|an ability and willingness to lead, often by example
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|level-headed
|1876
|"balanced", "having common sense and sound judgment"
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|liberal creep
|2008
|liberal bias that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.
|-
|life vest
|1939
|a pro-life invention
|-
|limousine liberal
|1969
|a multi-millionaire who pretends to be compassionate about the poor, but supports liberal policies that increase burdens on working Americans
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|lockstep
|1802
|mindless conformity, often to liberal values
|-
|locomotive
|1829
|a great engine of economic growth during the [[Industrial Revolution]]
|-
|lone wolf
|1909
|a person who prefers to work, act, or live alone,<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lone%20wolf Lone wolf, Merriam-Webster]</ref> synonymous with self-sufficiency
|-
|loose cannon
|1973
|an undisciplined person or program that dangerously lacks forethought; used in mid-November 1976 to describe $11 billion in unspent appropriations by the Ford Administration: "'That money,' says Arnold Packer, a senior Senate Budget Committee economist who is helping Carter draw up his shadow budget, 'is like a loose cannon rolling around the deck' because a sudden reappearance of the funds could be inflationary." (''BusinessWeek'')
|-
|lowest common denominator
|1854
|the lowest in work ethic, morals, or knowledge among a group; typically used to criticize the liberal practice of dumbing down content
|-
|lunatic fringe
|1913
|coined by U.S. President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to describe members of eccentric, radical or extremist groups<ref> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lunatic</ref>
|-
|machismo
|1948
|a word never used favorably by feminists!
|-
|mainstay
|1787
|the primary support, typically for something good
|-
|man-hater
|1970s<ref>This was during the epic struggle -- and defeat -- of the so-called [[Equal Rights Amendment]].</ref>
|William Safire wrote in the ''New York Times'' in 1983, "Misandry, from the Greek misandros for 'hating men,' is in the 1961 Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary Supplement traces it to 1946. The word is pronounced as 'Ms. Andry,' but I wonder why we need the Greek word for it. What's wrong with good, old-fashioned man-hater?"<ref>Sunday, Oct. 30, 1983, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3.</ref>
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|manifest destiny
|1845
|Providential design over future events, which originated in the context of expanding the United States to the Pacific Ocean
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|meat and potatoes
|1951
|the most interesting or fundamental part
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|mindset
|1909
|close-minded point-of-view, typically in adherence to a liberal falsehood and often to the exclusion of Christ
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|moonlighting
|1957
|working more than a full-time job in order to be as productive as possible; the [[work ethic]] at its best
|-
|moral majority
|1979
|coined by Jerry Falwell to describe the movement of growing moral, Christian conservatives.
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|muckety–muck
|1912
|a pejorative term for an arrogant person who holds a title or position considered to be important by others
|-
|muckraker
|1910
|a person who searches out and publicly exposes [[deceit]]<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muckraker Merriam-Webster - Muckraker]</ref>
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: this was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|muscle car
|1967
|placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance; also celebrate masculine style against erosion by feminism
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|name-dropping
|1950
|a term critical of the [[liberal]] practice of seeking to impress others by casually mentioning personal association with prominent people, despite its lack of relevance to the conversation
|-
|nanny state
|1978
|"Under the New Economic Policy, [the new French Prime Minister Raymond] Barre has made it clear that industrial lame ducks can no longer count on the generosity of Nanny i.e. the state - for bailing out."<ref>Leo Ryan, "Economy Shored up: France's new surge of liberalism," The Globe and Mail (Canada) (Aug. 1, 1978)</ref> Note how two powerful new conservative terms led to a third here!
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|nullification
|1798
|assertion of authority by a State against encroachment by the federal government, in defense of liberty
|-
|obambulate
|1600
|From Latin ''obambulatus'', to walk to or before, akin to ''wander''. Word currently claimed to have been invented by Rush Limbaugh in 2011 and used in reference to [[Barack Obama]], yet it is found in Oxford and Webster's dictionaries prior to 1991.
|-
|obstructionism
|1879
|deliberate interference with free speech or legislative progress, as when liberal legislators (the "fleebaggers") fled Wisconsin to try to block a reform
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|the ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|one-size-fits-all
|1996<ref>Was there an earlier conservative use? Frank Zappa's album cover in the 1970s does not count!</ref>
|Lee Wishing, director of communications for conservative [[Grove City College]], in criticism of how the government administers student loans: "Unfortunately, with government programs, it's one size fits all."<ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/dec96/er-dec96.html</ref> The 2008 Republican platform states, "We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules."<ref>http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf</ref>
|-
|one-trick pony
|1980
|a person or group that relies repeatedly on the same gimmick, as in "the media are a one-trick pony in their criticism of [[Rand Paul]]"
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|see [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|outflank
|1765
|to move swiftly around an opponent, a military tactic mastered by [[conservative]] [[General]] [[George Patton]] to crush the [[Germans]] in [[World War II]]
|-
|parenting
|1958
|children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justices. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|perestroika
|1986
|increasing economic freedom and free speech under [[communism]], which led to the unraveling of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]
|-
|perpetual war
|1947
|Coined by historian Charles A. Beard,<ref>Charles A. Beard is best known for interpreting the Constitution as being primarily motivated by economic interests.</ref> it has been used most recently by [[Ann Coulter]]
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|Philadelphia
|1682
|coined by [[William Penn]] and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "[[best of the public]]" approach
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|conservatives have long championed phonics to promote literacy, Bible-reading, and informed voters; liberals take the opposite position
|-
|phony
|1900<ref>This surprisingly recent origin appears to be derived from a British confidence game.</ref>
|needed to address [[liberal deceit]]
|-
|plasticity
|1783
|having a plastic quality that conforms to molding or pressure; in pejorative usage, someone who easily conforms to [[peer pressure]] or [[liberal]] falsehoods
|-
|poetic justice
|1890
|when virtue is reward and/or wrongdoing is punished in an indirect or unexpected way
|-
|political machine
|1905
|a pejorative term for local and typically Democratic power structures that prevent outsiders from winning elections; first used by George Washington Plunkitt to criticize the Tammany Hall machine for which he served
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|politicize
|1846
|seeking political gain at the expense of truth or quality<ref>The Merriam-Webster definition (1994 ed.) is incomplete and unclear: "to give a political tone or character to"</ref>
|-
|politics of envy
|2011
|used by Australian [[conservative]] Christopher Pine to describe the philosophy behind taking money from private schools and giving it to public ones.
|-
|[[post-abortive]]
|1986
|the unexpected trauma and physical harm -- which can worsen over time -- that is experienced by a woman after having an [[abortion]]; coined by Dr. Kaye Cash in an editorial describing what she learned during a 365-mile walk in southeast Arkansas to speak with the public about abortion<ref>Editorial by Kaye Cash, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR), October 23, 1986.</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|pothead
|1959
|someone who smokes marijuana and doesn't realize how it destroys people
|-
|powerhouse
|1881
|source of energy and strength - which is what the conservative movement is
|-
|[[price discrimination]]
|1920
|charging different prices for the exact same service or good; first coined by the British economist (and critic of [[John Maynard Keynes]]) Arthur Cecil Pigou in ''The Economics of Welfare''.
|-
|prioritize
|1961
|to recognize that some goals and activities are more important than others, and then focus accordingly
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|Procrustean
|1832
|a pejorative description of the one-size-fits-all mentality, which disregards individual differences
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|pseudoscience
|1844
|worthless claims written with the appearance of scientific rigor to gain an aura of credibility
|-
|publicity stunt
|1969<ref>Earlier usage in the 1900s may have occurred, but the term "stunt" was not coined until 1878.</ref>
|Used on April 10, 1969 by Republican Senators who withdrew from a tour and probe by Senator [[Ted Kennedy]], criticizing him for his "publicity stunt" in preparation for his expected run for the presidency; the [[Chappaquiddick incident]] sunk his chances three months later.
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|rapture
|1629
|spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|refudiate
|2010
|combination of ''refute'' and ''repudiate'', as coined by [[Sarah Palin]]
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 (1988) II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|riot act
|1715<ref>Its colloquial use, as in "read them the riot act," began in 1819.</ref>
|the Riot Act was a law passed in England in 1715 to authorize officials to disperse riots
|-
|Rogue state
|1993
|(Originally used in 1993 then reintroduced in 2002.) A 'rogue state' displays no regard for international law. It attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and other military technology with which to threaten neighbouring countries and support terrorism. Rogue states often reject human values and brutalize their own people.
|-
|rubber-stamp
|1918
|unthinking repetition or endorsement of something, despite having the responsibility to make an independent decision, as in "Democrats rubber-stamp demands by the abortion industry."
|-
|run of the mill
|1930
|meaning "merely average, commonplace," the term is critical of a failure to strive for excellence
|-
|sacred cow
|1910
|a person or idea, typically liberal, that becomes immune from criticism because of its political usefulness rather than its truthfulness, as in the theories of [[evolution]] and [[relativity]]
|-
|scapegoating
|1943
|a term criticizing how people, particularly liberals, deflect accountability and blame from themselves to others; inspired by Leviticus 16:8.
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[scientific fascism]]
|2009
|a coordinated effort by a group of scientists to enforce a certain point of view upon others.
|-
|[[secularism]]
|1850-55
|attempts to educate, particularly through [[public school]], without including [[faith]] or even acknowledgment of [[God]]
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-preservation
|1614
|preservation of oneself from destruction or harm
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|shotgun marriage
|1929
|pregnancy => get married. Think of someone besides yourself for a change.
|-
|silent majority
|1969
|coined by President [[Richard Nixon]] in his speech to the nation on Nov. 3, 1969<ref>http://watergate.info/nixon/silent-majority-speech-1969.shtml</ref>
|-
|skullduggery
|1867
|underhanded or unscrupulous behavior
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1979
|something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/smoke%20and%20mirrors Smoke and Mirrors, Merriam-Webster]</ref> Widely used during the 1990s to describe [[Bill Clinton]]'s political strategy.
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|staging for a typically liberal, unproductive rant having little substance
|-
|soccer mom
|1987
|a mother who devotes herself to her children's activities and a significant voting bloc or demographic group
|-
|[[socialist]]
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|Language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice.
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|spin doctor
|1984
|someone ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html?_r=2 General Petraeus describes Axelrod by Bob Woodward]</ref>
|-
|spot-on
|1949
|precisely correct, as in a prediction or in overcoming imprecision in a challenging task; its origin is from the military
|-
|[[stagflation]]
|1965
|inflation ''and'' high [[unemployment]] ''and'' stagnant demand by consumers, typically due to [[liberal]] policies as in the late 1970s under President [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
|stalking horse
|1788
|a candidate or issue that serves to increase the chances that ''another'' will win, as in "antifederalists attempted to win elections by using 'the stalking horse of amendments.'"<ref>''Centinel'', 1788 (quoted in ''The Federalist party in Massachusetts to the year 1800'', By Anson Ely Morse).</ref>
|-
|[[statism]]
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|something liberals are not
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|Stupaked
|2010
|hurt by someone who reassured everyone he would do the right thing, but then switched at the last minute to do the opposite (refers especially to [[abortion betrayal]]s)<ref>Columnist Kathleen Parker is credited with first coining this term.</ref>
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|tea party
|2007
|an amorphous group of ordinary citizens unified against a more expensive government
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|[[think tank]]
|1940s
|first coined in [[Britain]] to describe intelligence organizations that helped the military, think tanks became part of the rise of conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s; is ''Conservapedia'' the think tank of the future?
|-
|top-notch
|1900
|the highest quality, which requires respect for merit to recognize
|-
|[[totalitarianism]]
|1926
|term which identifies the similarities of fascist and communist regimes and ideologies and urges resistance
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important and distract people from the Bible; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with trivial junk
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|ultra vires
|1793
|beyond the authority, especially of a government or corporate official
|-
|unborn child
|1791
|the rights of the unborn child have been recognized in English law since the 1600s, but the specific term "unborn child" itself may have been first used by an attorney arguing before the New Jersey Supreme Court in ''Den v. Sparks'', 1 N.J.L. 67 (Sup. Ct. 1791)
|-
|underachiever
|1952
|a typically liberal person who fails to accomplish what he could
|-
|underdog
|1887
|[[David]] v. [[Goliath]], [[Cinderella]], [[best of the public]], etc.
|-
|[[underemployed]]
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|unscripted
|1950
|speaking sincerely without parroting a script; "[[Rand Paul]] and [[Chris Christie]] are effective because, unlike [[Obama]], they are unscripted."
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|vet
|1904<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2199254/?from=rss</ref>
|a verb meaning to screen for flaws
|-
|[[victimization]]
|1840
|
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabe
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|washed-up
|1928
|no longer productive, as in "the washed-up liberal professor has not contributed anything to his field in 30 years."
|-
|waterloo
|1816
|a final defeat or setback, coined merely one year after the [[English]] defeated [[Napoleon]] at the [[Battle of Waterloo]]; there has never been a "waterloo" for [[Christianity]] or [[conservatism]]
|-
|wildcatter
|1883
|a pro-energy term that describes someone who drills for oil in fields not known to have oil
|-
|wishy-washy
|1873<ref>An archaic meaning of poor quality dates to 1690.</ref>
|easily changing in opinion, usually due to peer pressure
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work (physical sense)
|1826
|a physical measure<ref>force times distance</ref> of effort used to increase energy
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|Yankee
|1758
|Inhabitants of New England, United States. Dutch slang in 1698- Americanized 50 years later.
|-
|Yankee Ingenuity
|1761
|America's inhabitants had a knack for clever design and capitalist success. The early Americans had applied their exceptional skills prior to the terms existence, see [[Eli Whitney]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]].
|-
|yellow journalism
|1898
|the practice, started by newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and his rival William Randolph Hearst, of sensationalizing and biasing newspaper headlines and articles in order to influence public opinion
|-
|}

__TOC__ 

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|pre-9/11 thinking
|9/10 mindset
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|blame shift
|false accusations
|e.g., guns blamed for an increasing murder rate
|-
|buycott
|counter support
|An effort to cooperate and promote an organization or a process to nullify campaigns that are targeted by boycott protests.
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|deceit
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|Constitutional values
|adherence to righteousness as set forth by the [[Founding Fathers]]
|principles set in the Declaration
|-
|Counterfeit Marriage
|uncivil union
|Manipulating Man's laws by usurping God's laws.
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|debtucation
|tuition noose
|College student debt is now larger than credit card debt in the US
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|mind-locked, self-centered pride obscuring the truth
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|[[earmark]]
|
|spending on specific projects at the request of a particular congressman, and without meaningful examination by others voting on it
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|family-friendly
|wholesome
|describes TV programming, websites, social events that are not offensive
|-
|Fleebagger
|Oath breakers
|Describes [[liberal]] politicians who avoid their sworn duties as a way to advance their political agenda.
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|heavenly body
|celestial body
|natural objects visible in the sky
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|Hoax and Chains
|[[Keynesian economics]]
|a phonetic play on the rhetoric slogan of Hope and Change. Hope replaced by unemployment and Change represents obsessive tax burdens.
|-
|hoax plant
|fake townhall, kkk teaparty
|a term to describe a deceitful method of placing an operative that appears to be part of a group in order to push an agenda or to make a competing agenda look ridiculous.
|-
|[[Hollywood values]]
|West Coast Hedonism
|Over 800,000 results on Google, not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|homo-fascist <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1318230 LaBarbera: Apple's action stems from 'homo-facism', OneNewsNow, March 25, 2011]</ref>
|LGBT Stormtrooper, Gay-vangelist
|Guardians of gender identity ideology
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Datelin
|-
|[[limited government]]
|we the people democracy
|first testament to this was the [[U.S. Constitution]], defining [[Reagan]]s presidency, can't be found in Merriam-Websters. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limited%20government Limited government - Not found] Merriam-Webster's</ref>
|-
|manufactured outrage
|fake tears
|liberal politicians and the liberal media's method of stroking anger to pursue an agenda.
|-
|media vigilantism
|soviet-style censorship
|media's public campaign to demonize dissent against people or groups, such as [[Juan Williams]].
|-
|Mediscare
|fear card
|Democrats opposed to entitlement reform use fear to stop changes to Medicare
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|moral fabric
|domestic tranquility
|ethics and virtues united for the common good of all
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|narrative hysteria
|delusional finger-pointing
|a frantic attempt to capitalize on calamity by casting their opponents as somehow responsible for an act of madness and evil
|-
|opposite of [[global warming]]
|regional warming
|the North pole shrinks as the South pole increases
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|used in titles to professional journal articles as early as 1994
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|reward failure
|TARP
|too big to fail, bailout bankrupt, mismanagement subsidized
|-
|rewrite history <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/rewrite%20history rewrite history not found, Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|[[deceit]], mislead
|Commonly used term describing liberal deceit to hide, defraud others about factual history.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based on falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|selective outrage
|partisan hypocrisy, bipolar
|to be against something to further a cause and reject, stay silent, ignore or discount something similar.
|-
|smear merchant
|serial slander
|to constantly hurl degrading or false accusations against others
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[affirmative action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|colonist
|1701
|settlers of a new country
|-
|compartmentalize
|1925
|compartmentalizing the Bible away from knowledge and education leads to ignorance and despair
|-
|contrarian
|1657
|someone who delights in taking a position contrary to others
|-
|eclectic
|1683
|taking the best from among different styles or ideas; compare [[best of the public]]
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|genetics
|1905
|perhaps this should be on the conservative list?
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting racial, ethnic, gender alliances for political gain
|-
|inane
|1662
|refers to comments, often made by liberals, that are utterly devoid of substance
|-
|junk legislation
|1980s
|used initially by liberals to complain about the lack of meaningful legislation
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|multitasking
|1966
|performing multiple tasks all at once
|-
|polar coordinates
|1694
|Newton may have used it earlier
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|reverse engineer
|1973
|to deconstruct a product (or software) in order to understand how it works, often with the purpose of copying it
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|now used pejoratively, but probably not initially when it was a way for the public to participate
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|technocrat
|1932
|technical expert
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>The first use of this term was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|tomfoolery
|1812
|playful or foolish behavior
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|Whip<ref>In its political usage.</ref>
|late 1800s
|An elected position in each political party for the legislator responsible for gathering and confirming support for the party position on particular bills. This term is derived from "whipper-in," which in fox-hunting refers to the man who prevents hunting dogs from straying amid a chase.<ref>http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/11/durbin_re-elected_number_two_s.html</ref>
|-
|wiki
|1995
|a website (or website software) that facilitates contributions and corrections by the public
|-
|working class
|1789
|those who work regular, 40-hour weeks in manual labor, such as factory jobs
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|connive
|1601
|to pretend ignorance
|-
|eleemosynary
|1616
|relating to charity
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|disorder
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited; inspired by Caspar Milquetoast, the unassertive character in "The Timid Soul" cartoon strip by Harold T. Webster, which ran in the New York Herald Tribune on Sundays beginning in 1924.
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|smart aleck
|1856
|an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to being superior to others. Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smart%20alec Smart Aleck Merriam-Websters]</ref>
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]
*[http://dictionary.reference.com/ Dictionary.com]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]
*[[Secularized Language‎]]

{{Conservatism}}
{{Conservapedia}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Conservapedia:Atheism Project

2011-07-20T02:16:05Z

FergusE: Added a few

[[File:Baron2.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|225px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789), was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]

[[Conservapedia]] has initiated a campaign to expand its number of articles relating to [[atheism]]. Editors are encouraged to create articles on the subjects below. The objective is to provide the public with a greater understanding of the topic of atheism in terms of its history, ideology, promulgation, effects on society and its relationship to counter atheism movements. Conservapedia also encourages individuals to spread awareness about the Conservapedia Atheism Project, as we are seeking to expand our editor base and greatly expand our readership among the general public concerning the general subject area of atheism.

== Guidelines ==
*Note to individuals or teams of individuals creating articles: Where appropriate, please try to make the articles or essays at least 400-500 words in length rather than making stubs. There is a helpful tool located [http://www.wordcounttool.com/ HERE] for web writers that indicates how many words are on a web page.

*Please cite your sources for articles via footnotes (see: [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help]]).

*In addition, it is important that the articles be original and not created by merely cutting and pasting content from other websites.

== Additional Atheism related articles needed ==

Please feel free to add any other article suggestions or expand the articles below:

*[[Atheism symbols]]
*[[State atheism]]
*[[Soviet atheism]]
[[File:286px-Map of USA TX.svg.png|thumbnail|400px|[[Texas]] is a very influential state in the [[United States]] when it comes to [[biology]] textbooks.<ref>http://www.utne.com/Politics/Right-Wing-Activists-Rewrite-US-Textbooks-6418.aspx</ref> A supporter of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) with a large Christian YouTube audience has declared he is going to aggressively promote the CMI [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas in order to reduce the prevalence of [[atheism]] and belief in [[evolution]] in the United States. In addition, a group of volunteers indicated they will promote the campaign in the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/question-evolution-volunteer-reported.html</ref>
 
 
Please see: [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Question evolution! campaign and atheism]] and [[Atheism and evolutionism]]
 
 
(graphic obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_TX.svg Wikimedia commons], username:Huebi , Title of picture:Map of USA with Texas highlighted, see: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_TX.svg license agreement])]]
*[[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]]
*[[Soviet realism and atheism]]
*[[Atheism organizations]]
*[[Atheism activists]]
*[[Atheism 1960s]]
*[[Atheism 1970s]]
*[[Atheism and evolutionism]]
*[[Atheism and consciousness]]
*[[Essay: The benefits of atheism|The benefits of atheism]]
*[[Christian response to atheism]]
*[[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]]
*[[Teenage atheist depression]]
*[[Psychology of atheism]]
*[[Essay: Who is the father of atheism?]]
*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Atheism and sexuality]]
*[[Atheism vs. Christianity]]
*[[Atheism and creationism]]
*[[Atheism evangelism]]
*[[Atheism and China]]
*[[Counter atheism movements]]
*[[Atheism and North Korea]]
*[[Atheism and creation science]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Four Horsemen of atheism]]
*[[Question evolution! campaign and atheism]]
*[[Atheism and the founding fathers]]
*[[Atheism in popular culture]]
*[[Atheism vs. theism in education]]
*[[Isaac Newton and atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Essay: Obese atheists heaven|Obese atheists heaven]]
*[[Essay: Obese atheist pet owners|Obese atheist pet owners]]
*[[Essay: Obese atheists, you can't run and you can't hide!|Obese atheists, you can't run and you can't hide!]]
*[[Difference between pantheism and atheism]]
*[[Atheism statistics]]
*[[Teenage atheism]]
*[[Atheism and logic]]
*[[Atheism in the media]]
*[[Francis Schaeffer and atheism]]
*[[Mark Twain and atheism]]
*[[Essay: Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting|Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting]]
*[[Essay: Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win|Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win]]
*[[Essay: Richard Dawkins and peanut butter|Richard Dawkins and peanut butter]]

== Atheist ==

*[[Famous atheists]]
*[[English atheists]]
*[[Jewish atheists]]
*[[French atheists]]
*[[Dutch atheists]]
*[[Former atheists and agnostics]]
*[[Agnostic atheists]]

== Naturalism ==

*[[Naturalism movement]]
*[[History of naturalism]]
*[[Naturalism paintings]]
*[[Teen naturalism]]
*[[Naturalism literature]]
*[[Realism and naturalism]]
*[[Essay: What is naturalism?]]
*[[Christian response to naturalism]]
*[[Naturalism literary movement]]
*[[Metaphysical naturalism]]
*[[Religious naturalism]]
*[[German naturalism]]
*[[Naturalism in Europe]]
*[[Naturalism in theatre]]
*[[Definition of naturalism]]
*[[Russian naturalism]]

== Humanism ==
[[Image:Lahaye-family-01.jpg|right|400px|thumb|from Tim LaHaye, ''The Battle for the Family'', 1982.]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Secular humanism]]
*[[History of humanism]]
*[[Evolution of humanism]]
*[[Renaissance humanism]]
*[[Religious humanism]]
*[[Secular humanism and money]]
*[[Secular humanism vs. Christianity]]
*[[Council for Secular Humanism]]
*[[Secular humanism fiction]]
*[[Father of humanism]]
*[[Humanism in education]]
*[[Examples of humanism in schools]]

== Spreading Awareness Concerning Conservapedia's Atheism Project ==

'''Attention!''' Conservapedia wishes to increase public awareness of its Atheism Project to counter many atheism websites targeting young people.

=== Spreading awareness via personal email ===

Email everyone in your contacts and tell them about them about the Conservapedia Atheism Project so ''they'' can help us do something to counter atheists targeting young people with their false and morally bankrupt ideology.

=== Email list subscribers ===
Are you on a Christian or conservative email list? Please forward a message to your fellow subscribers inviting them to take part in this exciting project!

=== Members of social networking sites ===
Are you a member of a site like [[Facebook]], [[Myspace]], [http://www.myichthus.com/ myIchthus], [http://www.mychurch.org/ MyChurch] or other social networking websites? Spread the word about the Conservapedia Atheism Project!

=== Christian and Anti-atheism Bloggers ===
Please tell people about the Conservapedia Atheism Project!

=== Video sharing websites ===
Are you active on [http://www.tangle.com Tangle],[http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube], or other video sharing websites? Create a video about the Conservapedia Atheism Project!

{{Atheism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Conservapedia]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

Deliberate ignorance

2011-07-19T00:23:11Z

FergusE: formatting

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. A related concept is the [[fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. Examples of deliberate ignorance include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[animal migration|migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]] and the other [[counterexamples to evolution]]
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[Liberals]] who [[Bible denier|refuse to acknowledge]] the many fundamental truths in the [[Bible]] and even dismiss out-of-hand the many examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] but refuse to read the Bible.
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
* [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal]] [[Cafeteria Christianity|cafeteria Christians]] refuse to consider [[Bible]] verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say.
* Liberal Internet discussion boards quickly delete posts that present facts contradicting liberal ideology and ban users making such posts.
* [[Liberals]] who claim that the [[first amendment]] says that public officials are not allowed to acknowledge America's Christan heritage.
(add more)

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

*"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by [[liberals]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>)
* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "That [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends me]]!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
* "You're persecuting me!" (when the "persecution" consists only of pointing out inconvenient facts or logic)
* "That's not true in my experience," with the implication that it therefore [[black-swan fallacy|cannot be true at all]]

Deliberate ignorance is clearly quoted from the Bible in 2 Peter 3:3-6: "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they ''deliberately forget'' that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (NIV) This is only referring to the denial of God's magnificent handiwork in the creation.

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Deliberate ignorance

2011-07-19T00:22:26Z

FergusE: another

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. A related concept is the [[fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. Examples of deliberate ignorance include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[animal migration|migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]] and the other [[counterexamples to evolution]]
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[Liberals]] who [[Bible denier|refuse to acknowledge]] the many fundamental truths in the [[Bible]] and even dismiss out-of-hand the many examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] but refuse to read the Bible.
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
* [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal]] [[Cafeteria Christianity|cafeteria Christians]] refuse to consider [[Bible]] verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say.
* Liberal Internet discussion boards quickly delete posts that present facts contradicting liberal ideology and ban users making such posts.
(add more)
* [[Liberals]] who claim that the [[first amendment]] says that public officials are not allowed to acknowledge America's Christan heritage.

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

*"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by [[liberals]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>)
* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "That [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends me]]!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
* "You're persecuting me!" (when the "persecution" consists only of pointing out inconvenient facts or logic)
* "That's not true in my experience," with the implication that it therefore [[black-swan fallacy|cannot be true at all]]

Deliberate ignorance is clearly quoted from the Bible in 2 Peter 3:3-6: "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they ''deliberately forget'' that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (NIV) This is only referring to the denial of God's magnificent handiwork in the creation.

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?

2011-07-18T05:55:43Z

FergusE:

Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?

2011-07-18T04:10:16Z

FergusE: Undo revision 890469 by MiloK (talk)

Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?

2011-07-18T03:49:00Z

FergusE:

Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?

2011-07-18T03:37:19Z

FergusE:

Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?

2011-07-18T03:35:40Z

FergusE: Undo revision 890455 by MiloK (talk) Blasphemy

Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?

2011-07-18T03:19:04Z

FergusE: Created page with "{{debate}} Should the United States defund scientific research? == YES == Science has yet to fully explain many basic things, such as how gravity or magnets work. With a budge..."

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2011-07-18T03:13:26Z

FergusE: /* Scientific debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists.]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the loser of debates be blocked?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia description of liberals heavy-handed?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]
# [[Debate:Why the Conservative, Christian South has the highest rates of liberal traits]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Deliberate ignorance

2011-07-18T03:02:27Z

FergusE: Added an example

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. A related concept is the [[fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. Examples of deliberate ignorance include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[animal migration|migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]] and the other [[counterexamples to evolution]]
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[Liberals]] who [[Bible denier|refuse to acknowledge]] the many fundamental truths in the [[Bible]] and even dismiss out-of-hand the many examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] but refuse to read the Bible.
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
* [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal]] [[Cafeteria Christianity|cafeteria Christians]] refuse to consider [[Bible]] verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say.
* Liberal Internet discussion boards quickly delete posts that present facts contradicting liberal ideology and ban users making such posts.
(add more)

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

*"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by [[liberals]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>)
* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "That [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends me]]!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
* "You're persecuting me!" (when the "persecution" consists only of pointing out inconvenient facts or logic)
* "That's not true in my experience," with the implication that it therefore [[black-swan fallacy|cannot be true at all]]

Deliberate ignorance is clearly quoted from the Bible in 2 Peter 3:3-6: "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they ''deliberately forget'' that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." (NIV) This is only referring to the denial of God's magnificent handiwork in the creation.

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-18T02:49:22Z

FergusE:

Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteritic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against "liberalism". Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be decribed in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning.
:I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out "England" specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on- but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]

== The entrenched Church of England ==

I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== More liberal ==

Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== The BBC ==
It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-18T02:49:09Z

FergusE:

Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteritic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against "liberalism". Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be decribed in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning.
:I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out "England" specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on- but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]

== The entrenched Church of England ==

I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== More liberal ==

Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== The BBC ==
It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::Do you deny that The BBC is not the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-18T02:01:18Z

FergusE:

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2011-07-17T19:06:28Z

FergusE:

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''
----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:As far as I can tell, it seems to be "words we like to use." I think it's pretty apparent that the claim that they "represent conservative values" is false... saying that, for example, the word "carpetbagger" represents conservative values is kind of insulting. Some of the words here are obviously included for their utility in showcasing liberal failings rather than their inherent "conservative value". I would argue that the using the term "conservative words" is actually kind of pejorative; while not quite as catchy, perhaps "words you may find useful" would be better? Calling them conservative words allows liberals to dismiss them more easily: "Those aren't ''real'' words, those are just conservative neologisms." [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:00, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::Should we correct that number in the article? [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 22:41, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Please improve as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::The user who added that ([[User:DrewDice]]) was subsequently blocked for prevarication. The one-million figure Andy added seems about right in my searches. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::Before you round the number down, consider rounding it up. [http://www.google.com/search?q=anti+Christian&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&prmd=inl&sa=X&ei=eQldTN2RGIWBlAeU8uCbCA&ved=0CBEQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=lr:lang_1en,cdr:1,cd_min:,cd_max:] The answer is 74.6 million. Google anti Christian with no quotes, no hyphens, English language only. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:24, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::That is true, but such a Google search would include Christian sites about "[[pro-life|anti-abortion]]" stances or "[[homosexuality|anti-Biblical]]" lifestyles. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 21:43, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::A good indication that my search results are accurate can be judged by the first 10 page results, nothing but anti-Christian in the title. Does it include anti-abortion and anti-American? Possibly, we are talking 78 million pages but I didn't see any through the top 10. I frown on the smaller number of 1 million.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. A good indication that your search results are inaccurate can be judged by using the "Search within results" function. Half a million of your results pertain to the Christian "anti defamation" commission. Another half million are for "anti abortion". 184,000 deal with "anti immigration". And the list goes on and on...173,000 are about the punk rock band "Anti-flag". I'm sure hundreds of thousands more results are about things that people named Christian don't like. The only way to accurately gauge the use of the phrase "anti Christian" on Google is to search for that phrase, not its components. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 11:50, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::I did a search for anti-Christian both with and without the hyphen when Paul Burnett first brought the issue up, and both returned the same number of hits (about the 7.5 million he mentioned). I think that Jpatt may have misread the number and moved the decimal place over. Even now, I'm only getting 10.8 million hits, both by typing in what Jpatt described or by clicking his link. I'm changing the article now to say 10 million, but I think the number should ultimately be removed. It just changes to quickly for the article to stay up-to-date unless somebody is going to check every morning. Also, on the first page of ten results, on is a list of anti-Christian movies, one is lamenting the anti-Christian bias in America, and one is against anti-Christian defamation. If you want to only use the first 10 results as a sample of the 10 million (which anybody who's taken a statistics course would tell you is a horrible idea), about 30% of those results are nothing hostile towards Christianity. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 23:12, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::JPatt's search results extended further into the past than a normal google search. For the same reasons I explained to him, your 10 million number is inaccurate (you can verify by searching within your results). I'm changing it back to 1 million for the time being, but maybe you're right that it should be removed outright. No one doubts that it is a widely-used term. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 17:54, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::There are 10.8 million results when you search anti-Christian on Google. The claim being made was not that there were X million results hostile towards Christianity, just that there were X million results. No attempt was made at qualifying them, and the statement in the article does not indicate any attempt at qualifying them. It doesn't matter if only one in ten of those results is actually something anti-Christian; the claim is only about how many results there are. I'm changing it back to 10 million, because that's how many results there are (not good results, or relevant results, just results in any form). With that being said, it is a fairly pointless claim to make, because we don't know how many of those results actually '''are''' anti-Christian, we only know that they make some reference to "anti-Christian." [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 20:17, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::I'm blanking the description on this term. The number of Google results is subject to wide variation, and the number of Google results is hardly an informative piece of information, as per discussion above. The term '''is''' included in the unabridged Merriam-Webster dictionary ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antichristian Link]). I don't know of a suitable replacement description, so I'm just going to leave it open to somebody else. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 13:52, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a "1-2-4-8" geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Definition by example seems best here. Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list. You wouldn't request a definition for "List of Words beginning with G", so why are you demanding a definition for "Conservative term"? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you? We're not using them in any aberrant way. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. "List of Words beginning with G" is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what "conservative" means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the "excellent scholarship presented in this essay" smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a "conservative word" was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::If liberals are so devoid of intelligence or honesty to clearly understand the simple application of an adjective to a noun, then why should we dumb down our article just for their pea-sized brains? --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:57, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

"AmandaBunting" (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk. We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology. It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you. Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
-

== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==

While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

: "Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

== Research method ==

I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.

This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Suggestion? ==

What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==

===Selection bias===
The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: 

<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Probability</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>1/15</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>2/15</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>4/15</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>8/15</td></tr></table>

For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

: Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===An unbiased test===
Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. 

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>

: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.

:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===Table of random words===
{|class="collapsible collapsed"
!500 words
|-
|1 economics
2 storeroom
3 hunkers
4 sufficing
5 coffeehouses
6 stalagmites
7 therapy
8 sanitation
9 cheapskates
10 Caesareans
11 ringmaster
12 acclimate
13 penology
14 verandah
15 caregivers
16 fed
17 disengaged
18 whitecaps
19 dissertation
20 consignment
21 chainsaws
22 speeds
23 kinfolk
24 caribous
25 hobbyists
26 coefficients
27 protuberance
28 morphemes
29 Caroline
30 millionaires
31 recyclable
32 wilts
33 unreconstructed
34 chandeliers
35 palomino
36 joysticks
37 volleys
38 cajoling
39 bucksaws
40 spars
41 portaged
42 acoustically
43 humanize
44 hybridize
45 tipsters
46 overprices
47 marksmanship
48 fezes
49 depressant
50 auctioned
51 flamethrower
52 biking
53 artistic
54 agribusiness
55 jottings
56 pedicures
57 Cordilleras
58 slots
59 recording
60 unrealistic
61 rationalism
62 peacekeeping
63 aromatherapy
64 jackknife
65 champagne
66 horrendous
67 Quasimodo
68 excavator
69 chowders
70 arts
71 configure
72 civic
73 telegraphy
74 sweepstakes
75 euphoric
76 strategy
77 subgroup
78 shouting
79 gusher
80 telemarketing
81 glucose
82 booties
83 preponderated
84 manures
85 outspokenness
86 wiener
87 embeds
88 amped
89 sternums
90 empathy
91 cognomina
92 colitis
93 kimono
94 retched
95 singletons
96 megaphoned
97 respelled
98 Hindus
99 squiggle
100 irrigates
101 reconstructions
102 deceptiveness
103 colonialism
104 missioned
105 dyes
106 maladroit
107 tents
108 turfs
109 generalization
110 seamanship
111 duffers
112 scruffier
113 pollinate
114 bobcats
115 achieved
116 exerted
117 flapjack
118 Independence
119 lucidity
120 indenturing
121 enumerable
122 disenchanted
123 flashback
124 trilogies
125 colloquially
126 Colby
127 killjoys
128 lifelines
129 hydrotherapy
130 psychoanalysis
131 memorializing
132 bronchitis
133 rink
134 automobiles
135 dandy
136 schoolmarms
137 debriefing
138 glands
139 oceanography
140 jetted
141 hurdler
142 dependability
143 tactician
144 rotor
145 liturgies
146 quantified
147 wests
148 quitters
149 ocarinas
150 betting
151 apathetically
152 smoggier
153 Xenia
154 saris
155 dupe
156 voodooism
157 optimize
158 particularization
159 funereally
160 masterminding
161 capsizes
162 orchestrates
163 uncivilized
164 emphasized
165 skyrocket
166 plagiarist
167 politicoes
168 streptococci
169 pantsuits
170 waving
171 decontaminates
172 teensy
173 taxonomy
174 proselytizes
175 drollness
176 expectoration
177 legmen
178 modulations
179 diploma
180 Brandy
181 radar
182 pushiest
183 drill
184 lush
185 temperas
186 musicals
187 wheal
188 horticulture
189 cancan
190 jocularity
191 caramels
192 bipolar
193 sophisticated
194 injudicious
195 emulsion
196 ignore
197 cannonballed
198 swastika
199 overachievers
200 rubella
201 chuckhole
202 ersatz
203 breeziness
204 climaxes
205 explosiveness
206 empathizing
207 jumps
208 secularizing
209 sequoia
210 bibliography
211 prettying
212 bouldered
213 authorship
214 vocalizing
215 tarpons
216 camisoles
217 cowpox
218 tans
219 breathable
220 machines
221 tycoon
222 flicking
223 squishes
224 semiprofessional
225 feline
226 seedling
227 hankie
228 entitlement
229 abscissa
230 derisive
231 romance
232 overprice
233 beads
234 stipple
235 Kitty
236 jewelled
237 mascaraed
238 dissociation
239 moments
240 Spica
241 quaking
242 legislation
243 wobbly
244 scorches
245 books
246 gastrointestinal
247 finked
248 renegotiates
249 flautists
250 wrongheadedness
251 allergenic
252 squishiest
253 kickoffs
254 mecca
255 disses
256 woodwinds
257 discotheques
258 replacements
259 tomahawks
260 voluptuaries
261 salon
262 eliciting
263 resale
264 soporific
265 dosage
266 smokestacks
267 rationalists
268 subsumed
269 futzes
270 minutemen
271 stingrays
272 marathoner
273 vagina
274 propellers
275 rooftops
276 sensationalist
277 bluejackets
278 individualize
279 hyphenating
280 Xanthippe
281 federated
282 amortize
283 airfare
284 hyphenates
285 syncopates
286 sermonizing
287 biochemistry
288 babysat
289 yellows
290 riskier
291 cassocks
292 stated
293 Cordoba
294 Slinky
295 eventfully
296 nines
297 blabbermouths
298 fraternizes
299 bucked
300 Boolean
301 bivalve
302 ricochetted
303 toys
304 toted
305 commissars
306 cushioning
307 redeploy
308 poignancy
309 variegating
310 snuffbox
311 stoplight
312 biochemists
313 bicycling
314 disenfranchised
315 nosing
316 enlightenment
317 knockout
318 resurgent
319 pediments
320 skyscrapers
321 treatments
322 polio
323 flashbulbs
324 empower
325 rounding
326 pervasive
327 humped
328 oxymora
329 freebie
330 passageway
331 barfing
332 motorists
333 triglycerides
334 Mayans
335 stopped
336 kidnapper
337 pensioning
338 foreclosures
339 Yankees
340 manifestoing
341 predictor
342 Delawares
343 librettos
344 panoply
345 angstroms
346 jodhpurs
347 backpedal
348 sugars
349 preclude
350 unravelling
351 Lilliput
352 motivator
353 enslavement
354 pencilling
355 flukey
356 amoral
357 depository
358 unemotional
359 stumpy
360 cartons
361 gal
362 ignitions
363 malingered
364 spotlighted
365 photographic
366 abnegated
367 dashing
368 atrocious
369 inanities
370 derricks
371 mountaineer
372 inseminate
373 sacrosanct
374 modernize
375 specializations
376 obliging
377 heckles
378 baccalaureates
379 bluebirds
380 lengthiest
381 octets
382 physiotherapist
383 disorganizing
384 toffees
385 unfurling
386 abnegate
387 bathrobe
388 socked
389 crepe
390 polkas
391 overwriting
392 punned
393 platoons
394 infrared
395 ensuring
396 decimate
397 baggiest
398 plungers
399 trampolining
400 centigram
401 Topsy
402 epochal
403 boogies
404 showrooms
405 pianofortes
406 Orphic
407 logbooks
408 amphibious
409 rapprochements
410 terms
411 Kalmyk
412 petering
413 geocentric
414 stills
415 ethnologist
416 exec
417 flairs
418 likableness
419 rods
420 melange
421 graduated
422 ante
423 voluminously
424 impaled
425 cognacs
426 yups
427 comfiest
428 strychnine
429 subsoiled
430 conics
431 Salish
432 windsocks
433 rutabaga
434 vacuumed
435 maestri
436 podiatrist
437 restructured
438 metrically
439 motorcade
440 zipping
441 unmoral
442 electioneered
443 minibikes
444 trillion
445 sudsier
446 actuator
447 acing
448 masochism
449 softeners
450 cocksucker
451 brig
452 verbs
453 buccaneer
454 confessed
455 filibustered
456 rearmed
457 melodramatics
458 swivelled
459 veggies
460 monochrome
461 hellos
462 escalators
463 Seyfert
464 bushwhack
465 encapsulation
466 combining
467 realists
468 playgrounds
469 teenage
470 glandular
471 tot
472 cyclical
473 tinsmith
474 commitment
475 undersells
476 orthopaedics
477 yardstick
478 Vivian
479 peppy
480 swatted
481 earlobes
482 snapshots
483 nitpicker
484 unities
485 depressants
486 briefing
487 halo
488 watermarking
489 electronics
490 inadequates
491 ghosted
492 rapscallions
493 snorkeler
494 percentages
495 relapsing
496 facet
497 inconsistently
498 takeout
499 acidify
500 password
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''
{|class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
!word
!date
!class
|-
|monsignor||align="right"|1607||C
|-
|productive||align="right"|1612||C
|-
|alertly||align="right"|1618||C
|-
|inconsistent||align="right"|1620||C
|-
|numerical||align="right"|1628||C
|-
|interlock||align="right"|1632||C
|-
|platoons||align="right"|1637||C
|-
|forevermore||align="right"|1641||C
|-
|identification||align="right"|1644||C
|-
|untenable||align="right"|1647||C
|-
|reversible||align="right"|1648||C
|-
|authentication||align="right"|1652||C
|-
|monotheistic||align="right"|1660||C
|-
|constructive||align="right"|1680||C
|-
|alphabetize||align="right"|1691||C
|-
|misconduct||align="right"|1705||C
|-
|propagandists||align="right"|1718||C
|-
|revelations||align="right"|1729||C
|-
|guaranteed||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|cohesiveness||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|systematizing||align="right"|1767||C
|-
|letdown||align="right"|1768||C
|-
|dissident||align="right"|1769||C
|-
|diagramming||align="right"|1785||C
|-
|backhanded||align="right"|1800||C
|-
|autocratically||align="right"|1823||C
|-
|socialistic||align="right"|1827||C
|-
|Mormonisms||align="right"|1830||C
|-
|westernize||align="right"|1837||C
|-
|trademarks||align="right"|1838||C
|-
|propagandized||align="right"|1844||C
|-
|graffito||align="right"|1851||C
|-
|Americans||align="right"|1855||C
|-
|optimize||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|outdistancing||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|rogues||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|birthrates||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|slob||align="right"|1861||C
|-
|quantifier||align="right"|1876||C
|-
|implode||align="right"|1881||C
|-
|housemother||align="right"|1882||C
|-
|scantier||align="right"|1600||
|-
|sierras||align="right"|1600||
|-
|arena||align="right"|1600||
|-
|toddled||align="right"|1600||
|-
|eventful||align="right"|1600||
|-
|catheter||align="right"|1601||
|-
|primarily||align="right"|1601||
|-
|labeling||align="right"|1601||
|-
|copings||align="right"|1601||
|-
|Pooh||align="right"|1602||
|-
|respectively||align="right"|1602||
|-
|embroiling||align="right"|1603||
|-
|haloes||align="right"|1603||
|-
|Iliad||align="right"|1603||
|-
|enthusiasm||align="right"|1603||
|-
|dragoons||align="right"|1604||
|-
|promised||align="right"|1604||
|-
|recollecting||align="right"|1604||
|-
|stentorian||align="right"|1605||
|-
|rivaling||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impregnates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|touchy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impassive||align="right"|1605||
|-
|immediacy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|literary||align="right"|1605||
|-
|animosities||align="right"|1605||
|-
|volatile||align="right"|1605||
|-
|vegetates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|acclaiming||align="right"|1606||
|-
|onlooker||align="right"|1606||
|-
|sides||align="right"|1606||
|-
|wisher||align="right"|1607||
|-
|melancholia||align="right"|1607||
|-
|tab||align="right"|1607||
|-
|typical||align="right"|1609||
|-
|casuist||align="right"|1609||
|-
|bucolic||align="right"|1609||
|-
|footfalls||align="right"|1610||
|-
|bison||align="right"|1611||
|-
|lambing||align="right"|1611||
|-
|ticketed||align="right"|1611||
|-
|incompatibilities||align="right"|1611||
|-
|demonstrators||align="right"|1611||
|-
|reproduces||align="right"|1611||
|-
|longish||align="right"|1611||
|-
|amalgamations||align="right"|1612||
|-
|bailing||align="right"|1613||
|-
|caste||align="right"|1613||
|-
|convulses||align="right"|1614||
|-
|abscess||align="right"|1615||
|-
|valise||align="right"|1615||
|-
|cult||align="right"|1617||
|-
|hesitancy||align="right"|1617||
|-
|drill||align="right"|1619||
|-
|blotchy||align="right"|1619||
|-
|urban||align="right"|1619||
|-
|appositeness||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingratiated||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingrate||align="right"|1622||
|-
|diplomata||align="right"|1622||
|-
|exporters||align="right"|1623||
|-
|drolly||align="right"|1623||
|-
|adrift||align="right"|1624||
|-
|powwow||align="right"|1624||
|-
|oaf||align="right"|1625||
|-
|preconceptions||align="right"|1625||
|-
|ruse||align="right"|1625||
|-
|abominating||align="right"|1628||
|-
|dodo||align="right"|1628||
|-
|discriminated||align="right"|1628||
|-
|biassing||align="right"|1628||
|-
|enslaved||align="right"|1628||
|-
|backwaters||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromic||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromes||align="right"|1629||
|-
|tussles||align="right"|1629||
|-
|correspondents||align="right"|1630||
|-
|underrates||align="right"|1632||
|-
|underrate||align="right"|1632||
|-
|characterized||align="right"|1633||
|-
|etcher||align="right"|1634||
|-
|labium||align="right"|1634||
|-
|fluctuates||align="right"|1634||
|-
|morocco||align="right"|1634||
|-
|circumnavigated||align="right"|1634||
|-
|Anglican||align="right"|1635||
|-
|graphically||align="right"|1637||
|-
|millenniums||align="right"|1638||
|-
|domesticating||align="right"|1639||
|-
|pharmaceutical||align="right"|1640||
|-
|onus||align="right"|1640||
|-
|feints||align="right"|1644||
|-
|scavenge||align="right"|1644||
|-
|malls||align="right"|1644||
|-
|salaciously||align="right"|1645||
|-
|additional||align="right"|1646||
|-
|nonuser||align="right"|1646||
|-
|predisposing||align="right"|1646||
|-
|temperamentally||align="right"|1646||
|-
|invigorate||align="right"|1646||
|-
|protuberances||align="right"|1646||
|-
|disinclines||align="right"|1647||
|-
|castanet||align="right"|1647||
|-
|piloting||align="right"|1649||
|-
|leniently||align="right"|1652||
|-
|melange||align="right"|1653||
|-
|dialling||align="right"|1653||
|-
|naively||align="right"|1654||
|-
|siesta||align="right"|1655||
|-
|collectives||align="right"|1655||
|-
|quibbles||align="right"|1656||
|-
|dawdler||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmologies||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmology||align="right"|1656||
|-
|morbid||align="right"|1656||
|-
|inconvenienced||align="right"|1656||
|-
|numerating||align="right"|1657||
|-
|incapacitate||align="right"|1657||
|-
|overwrite||align="right"|1658||
|-
|horrendous||align="right"|1659||
|-
|tableau||align="right"|1660||
|-
|derisively||align="right"|1662||
|-
|disk||align="right"|1664||
|-
|diverging||align="right"|1665||
|-
|rotundity||align="right"|1665||
|-
|cultivators||align="right"|1665||
|-
|maroon||align="right"|1666||
|-
|stunning||align="right"|1667||
|-
|interleave||align="right"|1668||
|-
|globes||align="right"|1668||
|-
|hick||align="right"|1669||
|-
|realty||align="right"|1670||
|-
|belated||align="right"|1670||
|-
|punning||align="right"|1670||
|-
|haphazardly||align="right"|1671||
|-
|wader||align="right"|1673||
|-
|resilient||align="right"|1674||
|-
|auk||align="right"|1674||
|-
|priggish||align="right"|1676||
|-
|bungalow||align="right"|1676||
|-
|masqueraded||align="right"|1677||
|-
|configuring||align="right"|1677||
|-
|masterstroke||align="right"|1679||
|-
|yaws||align="right"|1679||
|-
|ganglions||align="right"|1681||
|-
|kidnaps||align="right"|1682||
|-
|shivery||align="right"|1683||
|-
|whaler||align="right"|1684||
|-
|bewilder||align="right"|1684||
|-
|roughshod||align="right"|1688||
|-
|bluebird||align="right"|1688||
|-
|toothbrushes||align="right"|1690||
|-
|romance||align="right"|1690||
|-
|adeptness||align="right"|1691||
|-
|dowsing||align="right"|1691||
|-
|processioned||align="right"|1691||
|-
|missioned||align="right"|1692||
|-
|vessels||align="right"|1694||
|-
|flabbiness||align="right"|1694||
|-
|penmanship||align="right"|1695||
|-
|Ojibwa||align="right"|1700||
|-
|actualized||align="right"|1701||
|-
|established||align="right"|1702||
|-
|copped||align="right"|1704||
|-
|liability||align="right"|1705||
|-
|sniggers||align="right"|1706||
|-
|dyspeptic||align="right"|1706||
|-
|crunch||align="right"|1706||
|-
|hibiscuses||align="right"|1706||
|-
|stencil||align="right"|1707||
|-
|quadruplet||align="right"|1709||
|-
|primness||align="right"|1709||
|-
|stocks||align="right"|1709||
|-
|leaseholds||align="right"|1710||
|-
|rheumatic||align="right"|1711||
|-
|papilla||align="right"|1713||
|-
|presentiments||align="right"|1714||
|-
|tantrum||align="right"|1714||
|-
|needling||align="right"|1715||
|-
|impersonating||align="right"|1715||
|-
|settees||align="right"|1716||
|-
|hustling||align="right"|1720||
|-
|unassuming||align="right"|1722||
|-
|Houyhnhnm||align="right"|1726||
|-
|knotholes||align="right"|1726||
|-
|Lilliput||align="right"|1726||
|-
|soporifics||align="right"|1727||
|-
|Shinto||align="right"|1727||
|-
|bludgeons||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pillboxes||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pantheistic||align="right"|1732||
|-
|vampires||align="right"|1732||
|-
|palaver||align="right"|1735||
|-
|Stilton||align="right"|1736||
|-
|incriminates||align="right"|1736||
|-
|philanders||align="right"|1737||
|-
|exiled||align="right"|1737||
|-
|coterie||align="right"|1738||
|-
|cantaloupe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|wham||align="right"|1739||
|-
|swipe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|icings||align="right"|1740||
|-
|segueing||align="right"|1740||
|-
|insulates||align="right"|1741||
|-
|flatiron||align="right"|1743||
|-
|uncharacteristic||align="right"|1748||
|-
|cornmeal||align="right"|1749||
|-
|develop||align="right"|1750||
|-
|spindling||align="right"|1750||
|-
|measurements||align="right"|1751||
|-
|pompon||align="right"|1751||
|-
|fanciers||align="right"|1751||
|-
|lumberyard||align="right"|1753||
|-
|riffles||align="right"|1754||
|-
|personification||align="right"|1755||
|-
|mesquites||align="right"|1759||
|-
|maniacs||align="right"|1763||
|-
|pronouncing||align="right"|1764||
|-
|frivolity||align="right"|1764||
|-
|aboriginals||align="right"|1767||
|-
|Afghans||align="right"|1767||
|-
|paws||align="right"|1769||
|-
|mynas||align="right"|1769||
|-
|modernization||align="right"|1770||
|-
|coagulants||align="right"|1770||
|-
|hairpin||align="right"|1771||
|-
|fagged||align="right"|1772||
|-
|Ta||align="right"|1772||
|-
|propertied||align="right"|1772||
|-
|fagging||align="right"|1772||
|-
|pups||align="right"|1773||
|-
|gibbon||align="right"|1774||
|-
|gecko||align="right"|1774||
|-
|passé||align="right"|1775||
|-
|clannish||align="right"|1776||
|-
|gnu||align="right"|1777||
|-
|gasses||align="right"|1779||
|-
|balalaika||align="right"|1780||
|-
|congressman||align="right"|1780||
|-
|fumigate||align="right"|1781||
|-
|varying||align="right"|1781||
|-
|minutiae||align="right"|1782||
|-
|effervesce||align="right"|1784||
|-
|bangle||align="right"|1787||
|-
|letups||align="right"|1787||
|-
|thyroids||align="right"|1787||
|-
|loots||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Hollands||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Dolly||align="right"|1790||
|-
|weakfish||align="right"|1791||
|-
|rutabagas||align="right"|1791||
|-
|equalizer||align="right"|1792||
|-
|steeplechase||align="right"|1793||
|-
|daredevils||align="right"|1794||
|-
|commentated||align="right"|1794||
|-
|embeds||align="right"|1794||
|-
|telegraphy||align="right"|1795||
|-
|soled||align="right"|1795||
|-
|allover||align="right"|1796||
|-
|titanium||align="right"|1796||
|-
|quizzically||align="right"|1797||
|-
|stashes||align="right"|1797||
|-
|kilogram||align="right"|1797||
|-
|belittled||align="right"|1797||
|-
|Mon||align="right"|1798||
|-
|bibliographies||align="right"|1802||
|-
|fezes||align="right"|1803||
|-
|dressmaking||align="right"|1803||
|-
|condoned||align="right"|1805||
|-
|coarsening||align="right"|1805||
|-
|gumbos||align="right"|1805||
|-
|peewee||align="right"|1806||
|-
|lassos||align="right"|1807||
|-
|Pueblos||align="right"|1808||
|-
|blinder||align="right"|1809||
|-
|eddied||align="right"|1810||
|-
|scurrying||align="right"|1810||
|-
|milliliter||align="right"|1810||
|-
|miffed||align="right"|1811||
|-
|quintet||align="right"|1811||
|-
|aluminum||align="right"|1812||
|-
|shawling||align="right"|1812||
|-
|tossup||align="right"|1812||
|-
|opalescent||align="right"|1813||
|-
|vocalic||align="right"|1814||
|-
|Swahili||align="right"|1814||
|-
|nocturnes||align="right"|1814||
|-
|underpaying||align="right"|1817||
|-
|diarist||align="right"|1818||
|-
|intellectualizes||align="right"|1819||
|-
|stethoscope||align="right"|1820||
|-
|bloodstain||align="right"|1820||
|-
|squawk||align="right"|1821||
|-
|suffragist||align="right"|1822||
|-
|caffeine||align="right"|1823||
|-
|flysheet||align="right"|1825||
|-
|augmented||align="right"|1825||
|-
|subway||align="right"|1825||
|-
|crotchety||align="right"|1825||
|-
|pullout||align="right"|1825||
|-
|beadier||align="right"|1826||
|-
|mammal||align="right"|1826||
|-
|chaffed||align="right"|1827||
|-
|clinics||align="right"|1827||
|-
|recruitment||align="right"|1828||
|-
|mas||align="right"|1829||
|-
|mesmerizing||align="right"|1829||
|-
|constitutionals||align="right"|1829||
|-
|cahoots||align="right"|1829||
|-
|homeopathic||align="right"|1830||
|-
|pterodactyl||align="right"|1830||
|-
|cadres||align="right"|1830||
|-
|hex||align="right"|1830||
|-
|chipmunks||align="right"|1832||
|-
|Horus||align="right"|1832||
|-
|toothpastes||align="right"|1832||
|-
|cottonmouths||align="right"|1832||
|-
|underplays||align="right"|1833||
|-
|dorsals||align="right"|1834||
|-
|cetaceans||align="right"|1835||
|-
|wholeheartedly||align="right"|1836||
|-
|creepily||align="right"|1836||
|-
|étude||align="right"|1837||
|-
|Confucianism||align="right"|1837||
|-
|scatting||align="right"|1838||
|-
|smokestacks||align="right"|1838||
|-
|pretzel||align="right"|1838||
|-
|upheaval||align="right"|1838||
|-
|Bunker||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mushier||align="right"|1839||
|-
|bushings||align="right"|1839||
|-
|OK||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mesa||align="right"|1840||
|-
|wastrel||align="right"|1841||
|-
|pyromaniac||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Assam||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Spitz||align="right"|1842||
|-
|wisteria||align="right"|1842||
|-
|cubbyhole||align="right"|1842||
|-
|kinkiest||align="right"|1844||
|-
|Limoges||align="right"|1844||
|-
|taillights||align="right"|1844||
|-
|subgroups||align="right"|1845||
|-
|garnisheeing||align="right"|1846||
|-
|Joe||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tobogganed||align="right"|1846||
|-
|snobby||align="right"|1846||
|-
|strapless||align="right"|1846||
|-
|cheekily||align="right"|1846||
|-
|orgiastic||align="right"|1846||
|-
|funnest||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tactlessness||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tailcoats||align="right"|1847||
|-
|gynecologists||align="right"|1847||
|-
|cartography||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tenderfeet||align="right"|1849||
|-
|laterals||align="right"|1851||
|-
|educations||align="right"|1851||
|-
|trunks||align="right"|1851||
|-
|hangars||align="right"|1852||
|-
|colloids||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimits||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimited||align="right"|1852||
|-
|davenport||align="right"|1853||
|-
|Russians||align="right"|1854||
|-
|abnormality||align="right"|1854||
|-
|rainfall||align="right"|1854||
|-
|Brewer||align="right"|1855||
|-
|hazings||align="right"|1855||
|-
|vendetta||align="right"|1855||
|-
|pullouts||align="right"|1855||
|-
|warlords||align="right"|1856||
|-
|seismographs||align="right"|1858||
|-
|interbreeding||align="right"|1859||
|-
|emulsification||align="right"|1859||
|-
|pub||align="right"|1859||
|-
|soulfulness||align="right"|1860||
|-
|Darwinian||align="right"|1860||
|-
|flautist||align="right"|1860||
|-
|pipelines||align="right"|1860||
|-
|ewe||align="right"|1861||
|-
|bellboy||align="right"|1861||
|-
|trapezes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|ewes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|railroading||align="right"|1862||
|-
|isomorphic||align="right"|1862||
|-
|canapé||align="right"|1863||
|-
|columns||align="right"|1863||
|-
|octets||align="right"|1864||
|-
|coffeecakes||align="right"|1865||
|-
|goulash||align="right"|1866||
|-
|sudsier||align="right"|1866||
|-
|maverick||align="right"|1867||
|-
|safaris||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rangier||align="right"|1868||
|-
|mailbox||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rotting||align="right"|1870||
|-
|saprophyte||align="right"|1870||
|-
|agenda||align="right"|1871||
|-
|roomers||align="right"|1871||
|-
|masterminds||align="right"|1872||
|-
|deforest||align="right"|1874||
|-
|spaghetti||align="right"|1874||
|-
|intercollegiate||align="right"|1874||
|-
|Helicon||align="right"|1875||
|-
|dermatitis||align="right"|1876||
|-
|semiprivate||align="right"|1876||
|-
|toniest||align="right"|1877||
|-
|supplies||align="right"|1878||
|-
|quirking||align="right"|1878||
|-
|wagged||align="right"|1879||
|-
|onionskin||align="right"|1879||
|-
|bacillus||align="right"|1879||
|-
|clobber||align="right"|1879||
|-
|steamrollered||align="right"|1879||
|-
|alumna||align="right"|1879||
|-
|locoweed||align="right"|1879||
|-
|toeholds||align="right"|1880||
|-
|paternalism||align="right"|1881||
|-
|adrenals||align="right"|1882||
|-
|syndicating||align="right"|1882||
|-
|winery||align="right"|1882||
|-
|interface||align="right"|1882||
|-
|infantryman||align="right"|1883||
|-
|worldlier||align="right"|1883||
|-
|shyest||align="right"|1884||
|-
|showdowns||align="right"|1884||
|-
|oilfield||align="right"|1884||
|-
|words||align="right"|1884||
|-
|fixating||align="right"|1885||
|-
|micron||align="right"|1885||
|-
|stagehand||align="right"|1885||
|-
|contraceptives||align="right"|1886||
|-
|sensitization||align="right"|1887||
|-
|parachutists||align="right"|1888||
|-
|sandblaster||align="right"|1888||
|-
|erogenous||align="right"|1889||
|-
|lactating||align="right"|1889||
|-
|psychopathics||align="right"|1890||
|-
|reactor||align="right"|1890||
|-
|unsnaps||align="right"|1892||
|-
|decolletes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|inbound||align="right"|1894||
|-
|marihuana||align="right"|1894||
|-
|encapsulated||align="right"|1894||
|-
|erythrocytes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|sequinned||align="right"|1894||
|-
|defrosted||align="right"|1895||
|-
|sacks||align="right"|1895||
|-
|phonemes||align="right"|1896||
|-
|mescaline||align="right"|1896||
|-
|ions||align="right"|1896||
|-
|midyear||align="right"|1896||
|-
|redwoods||align="right"|1897||
|-
|happenstances||align="right"|1897||
|-
|sandhog||align="right"|1897||
|-
|eggs||align="right"|1898||
|-
|taxicab||align="right"|1899||
|-
|concoction||align="right"|1675||
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative. But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words. Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:
{|class="wikitable"
!
!16s
!17s
!18s
!Σ
|-
!conservative words
|15||9||17||41
|-
!all words
|176||114||210||500
|-
!percentage of conservative words
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.

::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "''best''" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

== Destruction of words ==

Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.

Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.

Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like "population control") fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==

For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of
the conservative words:

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!claimed
|20||40||80||160||13
|-
!recount
|20||40||81||150||14
|}

An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!pre Segway
|14||28||56||112||6
|-
!post Segway
|15||28||56||124||6
|-
!my count
|15||29||57||114||6
|}

How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.

But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !

After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...

So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours. The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== Too Good to be True ==

Imagine the hypothesis: There are as many male writers as there are female
ones.

To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,
the hypothesis is true.

But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we
reach round 300?

Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being
finished, but we can't conclude anything!

Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.

Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1

So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.

And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.

When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!

Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.

Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating
''best conservative new words''.

At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be bigger than for each other combination,
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields odds of
1:2,000,000.

Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not
believable, and don't support your claims made in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Disbelief of something because it is "too good to be true" is not a strong argument against it. Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example. Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.

: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil. Of course it is not a random process. That would be silly. But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn. We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells. Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== A summary with graphs... ==

On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: <blockquote>'''Conservapedia's Law''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. 
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. </blockquote> This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''
<blockquote>''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''</blockquote>

{|
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]
|-
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of ≈ 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]
|-
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]
|-
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]
|}
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.

I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!

{|
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]
|-
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does not show a geometric progression.
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]
|-
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century ≈ 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]
|-
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 conservative words, and a general distribution of the creation of words.
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|However, if one maps the percentage of words in - e.g. - a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]
|}

Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:<blockquote>That's a
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I
would have identified as liberal in nature. But very few of these words
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) </blockquote>

I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)
pattern.

Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative. But quantity is no substitute or quality. You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil. Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil. Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about. Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your software to which you want attend?
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them, you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the ''best conservative words''.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

One way of marrying the two ideas above (that there is no increase of conservative terms over time and that there is an increase in the "best" conservative terms over time) is simply to suggest that conservative terms are getting better in quality and not quantity, which is the point that Mr. Schlafly makes, I believe. An explanation that might want to be considered is that after a new term is coined, it may slowly lose its relevence over time. I would suggest that if you look at the vocabulary from the 17th century, many words have lost their relevence greatly. This presumably applies to conservative terms as well. So, a partial explanation for conservative terms increasing in "quality" over time may be the decrease in time-lag and thus an increase in relevence.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 12:15, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

== Decrypt ==

Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified. It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the "Bombe"). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.
:: As for "the British are notoriously weak in math": you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so. If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!

::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, "a non-Newtonian fluid". He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::Brilliant logic. 17th century tabloids tell us little of the women in Newton's life, therefore, there must not have been any. As for his writings on the occult, perhaps your referring to his beliefs that some tales in Ovid's Metamorpheses were inspired by physical fact? If I recall, he was proved right in this regard, when he demonstrated that the chemicals which corresponding to classical elements ascribed to certain mythological figures actually, in one case, produced a cracking purple "web-like" effect when combined - just as in Ovid's story. I'd hardly call this un-Christian, especially since he also used translating the Bible as inspiration for much of his work. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I must agree with you, JacobB. This is nothing other than rank liberal revisionism of the highest order. Slandering the good name of such a noble Christian is just plainly offensive. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

''" If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!"'' - Here is a small list of some whom I would consider to rank with the world's best (in no particular order):
* Sir Isaac Newton
* Charles Babbage
* Alan Turing
* G.H. Hardy
* Bertrand Russell
* Roger Penrose
* Andrew Wiles
* Arthur Cayley
* William Rowan Hamilton
* George Boole
* Augustus De Morgan
Whilst I agree that Polish mathematicians played an important role in cracking the Enigma code, but to jump from that to saying that not only are there no great British mathematicians, but that also Brits are 'notoriously weak' at maths - is clearly unfair and incorrect. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 07:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

: While I am respectful of the contributions of those on your list, as a group they are a far cry from the greatest mathematicians and many would not be considered "British". Hamilton was Irish, for example, and Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain. Wiles did his work in the U.S. Russell's work was deflated by Godel, and others on the list don't even come close to being great mathematicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Fiona seems to miss the varying degrees of "mathematician", "great mathematician", and "one of the greatest mathematicians" as if they're all the same thing. We saw the same thing when another contributor was unable to grasp the difference between "conservative words" and "best conservative words". It's as if liberals can see everything in the world only in black and white terms, as if everything falls perfectly into one of two categories, e.g. "mathematician" and "not-mathematician". I think this is another example of [[Liberal Inability To Abstract]]. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 14:42, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Andy, you stated: "It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman" and "The British are notoriously weak in mathematics". Both these statements are not only untrue but ridiculous. I've tried to contribute to this encyclopedia but I'm not going to waste my time messing around if you fill it up with your own uninformed prejudices, refuse to do some easy reading to check your facts, and get absurdly defensive when your statements are corrected by people who are more knowledgeable on the subject in question. ''Laziness is not a conservative character trait, least of all intellectual laziness.'' Please tell me if you're going to check your facts before shooting your mouth off in future, in which case I'd be pleased to continue contributing to CP. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

: Benjy, please rant somewhere else instead. We tell the truth here, whether [[Anglophile]]s accept it or not. The relative weakness of [[Britain]] in mathematics is an objective fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::Have you any proof for your assertion? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 16:37, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::(EC) Hi Andy. Are you talking about mathematical ability in the general UK population, or about the number of major contributions to the field by British mathematicians? Thanks, --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 16:48, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::(EC) Look at any list of the greatest mathematicians of the past 200 and count how many were from Britain. Or list the greatest modern mathematical achievements and count how many came out of Britain. I'm sorry liberals don't teach this, and that's why there is a need for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::::According to [http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm this blog], 9 of 99 were British - and that's an all time, Ancient Greece to present list. Now you; would you care to support your position with sources? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::And ''your source'' comes from a ''blog?'' How about you, SamI, come up with non-blog, official sources yourself to support ''your'' position. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:16, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::Rather a blog than my own imagination. Would Andy care to provide his sources? The burden of proof, and all that. [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::(EC)[http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html This list gives 3 British and 1 Irish out of 14.] And why do I keep having to fill out captcha boxes? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Andy said "Look at '''any''' list" (my emphasis). This is a list already on the Internet so SamI is just following Andy's advice. Please note that there are '''no''' people on that list who were born in the U.S.A. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:23, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Guess what...you, SamI, just accused Andy of using his own imagination, and since you, GeoffA, is supportive of Sam's statement, both of you are going to get official sources to support your side, otherwise I'm going to assume you are using your own imaginations just to troll here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:31, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::I would say that the second source I posted above is fairly official. And why do we need to support our side, but Andy doesn't have to support his beyond saying 'oh, it's an objective fact'? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:39, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::How about the [[Fields Medal]] as a rough proxy? I count six awarded to UK mathematicians out of a total of 48 (12.5%), compared to thirteen awarded to Americans (~27%). Not bad for a small island. --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 17:27, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well there you go "Karajou". Since the USA has a population ~5 times larger than the UK, it looks like the UK is doing pretty well. And don't you think Andy can talk for himself without you leaping to his side? What are '''your''' sources to support his statement? [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:36, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::There are better ways to prove us wrong then by coming here and making demands; one of those ways is to provide a reasonable explanation which supports your position, backed up by valid sources, and being polite about the whole thing. See ya in a couple hours. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

(outdent) Well I used the two "ours" you gave me to find some sources.

How about this [http://www.virtualimage.co.uk/html/great_mathematicians.html commercial source]? Of the 20 mathematiciams, John Napier, Ada Lovelace, Lewis Carroll, Alan Turing and William Oughtred are British. That's 25%. No Americans.

Or how about [http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/apr/11/the-10-best-mathematicians this] article listing a top 10? 1 Brit - no Americans.

The Scientific Computing Laboratory at Hong Kong Baptist University [http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html lists] four Brits out of 14. Yes - Christains disagree with you too.

Another blog (I know you don't like them, but surely the "Best of the Public" is always right? Your boss thinks so) [http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2008/01/twenty-five-greatest-mathematicians-of.html here] has two Brits out of 25. No Americans.

Centre College [http://web.centre.edu/mat/century.html lists] 24 for last century alone. Four Brits and Five Yanks. That's still not bad for such a poor, small, atheistic island.

Lastly, in the magazine Mathematics Teacher (I.7. Vol.55, 1962), W.C. Eells [http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.rs/~flora/100.html published] a list of the 100 greatest mathematicians of all time. I'm not going to go through all 100, but Newton, Napier, Wallis, Hamilton, Barrow, Taylor, Briggs, Babbage, Smith, H.J.S., Cotes, Boole, Halley and Lord Kelvin were all Brits. That's 13/100.

So. There are your sources. I note that SamI can't respond because TK blocked him/her. Since I fully expect the same fate to befall me after this post for having proved you wrong, I'll say goodbye now. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect you or Andy to provide sources to back up ''your'' point of view. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 19:43, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Granted, GeoffA, I would agree with your point that we should provide sources to back up our point of view. But we're not going to do it for someone on demand. And there lies the end of the lesson. Hope you learned something about tact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

*Is there something in the water over there in the U.K., or is it your atheism? Perhaps its the generally gloomy economic picture and remnants of the class system that make you as you are! Godspeed to all of you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:38, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Brits, we're talking about '''''mathematicians''''' in this thread. Do you know what a mathematician is? That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell). One more tip: the Irish (Hamilton) do not consider themselves to be British.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

*''Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain'': The [[Oxford calculators]] were pre-modern, but English. [[John Napier]] or [[Richard Recorde]] where Scottish or Welsh - though they weren't English, they were inhabitants of the British Isles, and therefore British in the same sense as most Haitians are Hispaniolians as well. Both are modern mathematicians - in the usual sense of the word ''"modern"'' when talking about periods of history. You may describe them as ''early modern''. Sir Isaac Newton - who lived even later - was e a modern mathematician, too. And as a subject of Queen Anne of Great Britain, he was most certainly British.
*''Do you know what a mathematician is? '' A mathematician is someone who contributes to the field of mathematics. Mathematicians are not squeamish: you could be covered with green fur and be a baker - if you solve an open Hilbert problem, they will you love you, and count you as a mathematician. Penrose, Lovelace, Babbage, Turing and Russell were great mathematicians, even if they were part-time physicists, geeks or hacks. {{unsigned|RonLar}}

:: Additionally, the overlap between mathematics and physics is huge - especially applied mathematics. Sophie Germain, a ''woman'' mathematician who appears on several of those lists, contributed a huge amount of work to the subject of elastics, and her work was used extensively, for instance in the construction of the Eiffel Tower. She is universally considered to be a mathematician, but you would apparently describe her as a physicist or even an architect. Russell was deeply involved in the Hilbert Program, which though ultimately unsuccessful provided modern mathematics with a solid framework. His work ''Principia Mathematica'' is one of the most important works on the subject.

:: I cannot understand why you have such a closed mind on this subject. You have plenty of evidence that contradicts your opinion, so it's now only fair that you present evidence to support your hypothesis or at least consider revising it.

:: Please note, that I am not claiming that Britain is the pre-eminent country for producing mathematicians. Germany would probably win that prize across modern history, and if you take the last 50 years or so, it's probably the U.S.A. (although I have no hard evidence for that statement). I merely take issue with your statement that "The British are notoriously weak in mathematics". [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 08:43, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

== General reply to Brits, if any, who commented above ==

The [[Brits]] who protest so stridently illustrate to me the problem of [[Anglophilia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

:"curiouser and curiouser" - for me, it looks as the [[Anglophobe]]s are justignoring the evidence:

:{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="3"|Field Medalists by Country
|-
!country
!#
!medalist
|-
!USA
|align="right"|13 ||Jesse Douglas, John Milnor, Paul Joseph Cohen, Stephen Smale, John G. Thompson, Charles Fefferman, Daniel Quillen, William Thurston, Shing-Tung Yau, Michael Freedman, Edward Witten, Curtis T. McMullen, David Mumford
|-
!France
|align="right"|9||Laurent Schwartz, Jean-Pierre Serre, René Thom, Alexander Grothendieck, Alain Connes, Pierre-Louis Lions, Jean-Christophe Yoccoz, Laurent Lafforgue, Wendelin Werner
|-
!Soviet Union/Russia
|align="right"|8||Sergei Novikov, Grigory Margulis, Vladimir Drinfel'd, Efim Zelmanov, Maxim Kontsevich, Vladimir Voevodsky, Andrei Okounkov, (Grigori Perelman)
|-
!UK
|align="right"|6||Klaus Roth, Michael Atiyah, Alan Baker, Simon Donaldson, Richard Borcherds, Timothy Gowers
|-
!Japan
|align="right"|3||Kunihiko Kodaira, Heisuke Hironaka, Shigefumi Mori
|-
!Belgium
|align="right"|2||Pierre Deligne, Jean Bourgain
|-
!Finland
|align="right"|1||Lars Ahlfors
|-
!Norway
|align="right"|1||Atle Selberg
|-
!Sweden
|align="right"|1||Lars Hörmander
|-
!Italy
|align="right"|1||Enrico Bombieri
|-
!Germany
|align="right"|1||Gerd Faltings
|-
!New Zealand
|align="right"|1||Vaughan F. R. Jones
|-
!Australia
|align="right"|1||Terence Tao
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:04, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

:Klaus Roth was Prussian. Michael Atiyah is Sudanese/Egyptian. Simon Donaldson does his work in ''four-dimensions'' when this world obviously only has ''three''. I imagine if I made up the math as I went, I could get a Fields medal as well? And Richard Borcherds is from South Africa.
:So spectacularly, you provide ''maybe'' two candidates for British mathematicians. Hardly impressive, considering ''Finland'' managed to get one. And who cares about this "Field's Medal" anyways? It's just some award experts give to each other to make each other feel better, and exclude the best of the public. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 20:07, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
::For the record, "Cathy," the cobordism work of Donaldson was not only essential to the classification theorems which have revolutionized modern topology, but also have important applications in quantum mechanics and other fields that deal with "this world." For somebody who apparently has such extensive knowledge in the history of 20th century mathematics, you are certainly lacking in understanding if you believe Donaldson "made up the math as he went." As for the Fields medal (no apostrophe) being something that the best of the public are excluded from, you should be aware that best of the public exemplar Gregori Perelman was OFFERED a Fields medal and turned it down.
::Before you continue your pattern of jumping into talk page arguments with on-the-spot research, I suggest you make significant and substantive edits to our mainspace articles.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== Connive is too early ==

With an origin date of 1601, "connive" is too early, I think. We start at 1612, after publication of the [[KJV]] and completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. But "connive" is a fascination suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:42, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
:I was debating to put it in the Conservative Downgraded terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:56, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

::That would work! It's always good to preserve information for everyone's benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:57, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== New Layer Suggestions ==

These would take it to a 21-42-84-168 progression.

Cogent (1650-1660): to the point; relevant; pertinent.
Yankee (1750-1760): a native or inhabitant of the United States.
Minuteman (1765-1775): (sometimes lowercase) a member of a group of American militiamen just before and during the Revolutionary War who held themselves in readiness for instant military service.
Secularism (1850-1855): the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Theonomy (1885-1890): the state of an individual or society that regards its own nature and norms as being in accord with the divine nature.
Populism (1890-1895): grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
Secular Humanism (1980-1985): any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.
Ecoterrorism (1980-1985): violence carried out to further the political or social objectives of the environmentalists .

Any thoughts? "Secularism" and "secular humanism" might provoke some objections, and I know that "isms" raise some red flags, but I would argue that they're important terms. They clearly identify these types of thought as organized and agenda-driven movements, and identify that agenda.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:00, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

: Ben, your suggestions are fabulous. My only reservations are with "Yankee", which today means a Northeasterner and is often derogatory in the singular, and "Populism", which is increasingly conservative today but probably not so when it originated. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

::Well, Yankee has certainly had a varied history--it wasn't a term of endearment when spoken by a Southerner during the Civil War or Reconstruction! On the other hand, it also gives us Yankee ingenuity and "Yankee Doodle." The soldiers of the Greatest Generation were "Yanks." I think it would be a shame to let the fact that it's sometimes used in derogatory fashion undercut the rich heritage of the term. (After all, "Red Stater" is a term of derision to liberals, but a badge of honor to those who live there!) Populism...well, it's harder to argue that one; some highly leftist movements have been identified as "populist" in the pass. I cheerfully concede your point! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

:::This is a fascinating issue and discussion. I'm wondering if a word can be more derogatory as a singular noun ("Yankee") than as an adjective or when used in the plural. Southerners, who tend to be conservative, would have no trouble with "Yankee Doodle" but I suspect when they call someone a "Yankee", it's meant to be an insult. Interestingly, the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) lists the first (original) meaning of "Yankee" to mean a New Englander rather than an American.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

== Suggested Way To Format Page ==

I would like to suggest that the formatting on the page might be easier to follow if it were organised into centuries, instead of purely alphabetically. I suggest this because, when I first looked at this page, I could not follow the progression clearly. If it was organised firstly into centuries, and then alphabetically, people just passing could see the progression quickly, thus making them more likely to read it thoroughly.

As I do not consider myself very good at editting pages, I do not trust myself to make this change.

I will understand and accept any critiscm of this idea, as it was a spur of the moment thought. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 16:15, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-07-17T19:01:48Z

FergusE:

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Portal:Essays/Politics

2011-07-17T03:33:11Z

FergusE: Created page with "This is the list of essays on politics ---- {| |- | *A case for Frugality by JamesWilson |}"

This is the list of essays on [[politics]]
----
{|
|-

|
*[[Essay:A case for frugality|A case for Frugality]] by [[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]]
|}

Portal:Essays

2011-07-17T03:30:00Z

FergusE:

Welcome to Conservapedia's '''Essay Portal'''! Here, you will find original works by many of Conservapedia's editors, helpfully organized by topic.

----
{|
|-
| valign="top" style="width:50%"|
*[[Portal:Essays/Atheism|Essays on Atheism]]
*[[Portal:Essays/Politics|Political Essays]]
|}

Portal:Essays

2011-07-17T03:13:32Z

FergusE:

Welcome to Conservapedia's '''Essay Portal'''! Here, you will find original works by many of Conservapedia's editors, helpfully organized by topic.

----
[[Portal:Essays/Atheism|Essays on Atheism]]

Portal:Essays

2011-07-17T03:11:21Z

FergusE: A start

Welcome to Conservapedia's ''Essay Portal''! Here, you will find original works by many of Conservapedia's editors, helpfully organized by topic.

----
[[Portal:Essays/Atheism|Essays on Atheism]]

Sumerians

2011-07-11T16:56:04Z

FergusE: Removed Old Earth Nonsense

The '''Sumerians''' were among the earliest civilizations in the [[Middle East]]. They dwelled in the land between the [[Tigris]] and [[Euphrates]] Rivers known as [[Mesopotamia]]. In the southern portion of Mesopotamia, they established agriculture-based city-states stretching for hundreds of square miles. The most notable of these city-states were Erech, Kish, Nippur and [[Ur]]—the site of [[Abraham]]'s birth. They dominated this area of Mesopotamia through the third millennium B.C. In 2400 B.C., they were conquered by the Akkad Kingdom. Ultimately, the Sumerians were absorbed as a part of Babylon.

==Writing==
The Sumerian written language known as [[cuneiform]] is one of the earliest examples of writing historians and archaeologists have found.<ref>[http://www.crystalinks.com/sumerwriting.html Crystallinks.com]</ref> Many Sumerian records written on clay tablets still survive in museums to this day.

==Agriculture==
The Sumerians' farming techniques were largely dependent on [[irrigation]]. Sumerian agriculture is credited as one of the first uses of irrigation in history.

[[Category:Middle East]]
[[Category:History]]