Conservapedia/2008-11-23 extract

Extract
Please give a valid reason for his block. As far as I can see he has done nothing wrong. --Tim (CPAdmin1) talk Vote in my NEW polls 19:58, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * Then you are an idiot. Look at his edits again, and try and look at them with your brain in gear. If you do not see anything questionable, then you are an even bigger fool than you appear, or you are deliberately trying to damage this project by sheltering potential enemies. The poster is obviously either a saboteur or an immature fool. I gave a relatively lenient block so that if he is the latter, he has the chance to return and contribute sensibly. If he does so it will be more, as far as I can gather, than you have ever done. Now clear off and stop trying to damage the sincere efforts of hard working editors, rather than fly-by-night blow-ins, to build up Conservapedia. Bugler 20:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * What has he done that is deserving of a block? Nothing he posted was harmful to the site, and nothing broke the rules. --Tim (CPAdmin1) talk  Vote in my NEW polls 20:07, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * His edits were damagingly immature. Either he is a parodist or he is too stupid to post here. Either way a three month holiday is not excessive. Now stop interfering. You are clearly motivated by personal resentment over the Daphnea episode, in which you also made an idiot of yourself. Bugler 20:10, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * I had actually completely forgotten about the "Daphnea episode" and this has nothing to do with it. What do you have against this user.  His edits were not damaging in any way. --Tim (CPAdmin1) talk  Vote in my NEW polls 20:13, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * Your denials are laughable. Look at my previous post again for my reasons, and try and read properly this time. Then look at Hotdog's edits. I cannot believe that any rational person would see these as good and desirable. They are either damaging parody, or so poor as to merit deletion. Either way Hotdog is not at present the sort of person we need here, as you would realise if you ever did any proper work instead of turning up once once a flood to strut about. "Oh look, here's Tim! Haven't seen him for a while. Isn't he marvellous." Bugler 20:19, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * (EC) You didn't undo any of HotDog's edits or mark any of them for deletion. HelpJazz 20:27, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * I looked at his edits, and while many of them were very minor (such as adding a couple links to pages) none of them were damaging to the site. And while it is not much help to add a few links here and there, it is a bit of help, even though it is small.  It does not help the project to block and scare away any editor who isn't extremely productive.  I am pretty sure that you would get rid of me, and others of the Admins that you don't like if you got the chance.  --Tim (CPAdmin1) talk  Vote in my NEW polls 20:25, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * That is rich from someone who took an extremely strong line, to say the least, on another senior editor's professed religious beliefs, and who then threatened me when I dared to use the term auto da fe. Your characterisation of Hotdog's edits is not how I would have put it, unless someone has been burning evidence.  And welcome, HelpJazz. I'm pleased to see that the BBC is mustering. When is getting up time in Australia? Bugler 20:31, 15 November 2008 (EST)


 * All I'm doing here is trying to stand up for the rules. If you don't like the rules of this site, then why are you even here?--Tim (CPAdmin1) talk  Vote in my NEW polls 20:35, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * If there is an edit you object to, please post a diff. --Tim (CPAdmin1) talk Vote in my NEW polls 20:36, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * Bugler, you used the imaginary BBC to avoid answering my question. (And to poke yet another jab at PJR, who's not even here, but that's neither here nor there). HelpJazz 20:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to ask everyone in this thread to avoid making personal remarks about each other. Or else I will lock this page. --Ed Poor Talk 20:38, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * I made no personal remarks. All I did was unblock an innocent editor give my reasons for doing so. --Tim (CPAdmin1) talk  Vote in my NEW polls 20:40, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Remarks like the following are out of line:
 * 1) you are an idiot
 * 2) look at them with your brain in gear
 * 3) you are an even bigger fool than you appear
 * 4) you are deliberately trying to damage this project
 * 5) more ... than you have ever done
 * 6) stop trying to damage the sincere efforts
 * 7) motivated by personal resentment
 * 8) made an idiot of yourself
 * 9) Your denials are laughable
 * 10) if you ever did any proper work

Everyone, let's avoid such language. Thanks. --Ed Poor Talk 20:44, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * If you check, those all came from one editor. There's no need to ask "everyone in this thread to avoid making personal remarks", you can just ask the one. HelpJazz


 * My beef with Hotdog is this. After a string of feeble contributions, he comes up with this gem. It might be deliberately designed to hold CP up to ridicule, or it might be the result of immaturity. Either way, we would be better off whithout his help for a while. Six months seemd enoughto put a vandal/parodist off for good, and enough to allow immaturity to wear off a bit. My beef with Tim is that he has previous on this. Several months ago, on one of his visits, he attempted to undermine the work I was doing by protecting an obvious parodist and troublemaker named Daphnea, in a manner that was replicated last night. I object to having my work undone and Conservapedia undermined and damged in such a mannerm, which appears to me to be extremely high-handed. I object to having rank pulled on me by people who are hardly ever present on this site. I object to being insulted by such people (as Tim did in the earlier incident when he implied that I was a parodist). From regular, hard-working sysops it would be difficult; from a bird of passage it is intolerable. Bugler 07:01, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I don't think any further comment from me is needed. Philip J. Rayment 09:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
 * You comment to say that no comment is required? Curious. Bugler 09:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
 * I've also been involved with producing books that have pages in them that say "This page is blank"! Philip J. Rayment 10:01, 16 November 2008 (EST)