Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Community Portal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(On archiving)
(On archiving)
Line 75: Line 75:
 
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
 
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
 
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk.  For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
 
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk.  For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
 +
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
 +
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 13:56, 13 August 2011

This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

Archive 1

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.Conservative 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Seems like a good idea.--JamesWilson 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
Likewise. Jcw 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. Conservative 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --SharonW 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. MaxFletcher 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.


Yes votes:

Yes. Conservative 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. Jcw 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--JamesWilson 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --AlejandroH 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. DouglasA 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

No votes:

(EC) For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. RonLar 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. RobertE 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. JDWpianist 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --MarkGall 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)


Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --SharonW 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Why were the archives deleted?

RonLar 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. JDWpianist 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. Conservative 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? JDWpianist 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

On archiving

By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" JDWpianist 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". Conservative
That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. JDWpianist 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
  • the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
  • it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
  • To quote Sharon: The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. You are certainly trying, Conservative!

RonLar 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. Karajou 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? JDWpianist 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. Karajou 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
  • And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)

RonLar 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)