| Chapters Appendices | The LDS and UltimaheroUltimaHero was an editor who believed that Mormonism (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) is not Christian. He tried several times starting a debate page on the issue, and had it deleted and was blocked each time, for various reasons that ranged from convenient to illogical.1 He then tried inserting into the article about the Mormons some of the beliefs that Mormons hold, only to find various administrators, including Andy Schlafly, objecting to this also. The objections to his edits, however, never held much water. This page documents some of the attitudes on this issue, demonstrating that they were not built on reason and logic, which means that opposition must have been due to other motives. In the case of one administrator, it was clearly because he was a Mormon, and saw the edits as a threat to his beliefs. Indeed, he ended up leaving Conservapedia over this issue, although returned a little while later. Another objecting administrator was a member of another cult, and presumably realised that if Conservapedia was going to document uncomfortable things about Mormonism, his own cult could be next. And finally, there was Andy Schlafly. I don't know what the basis of his concern was. It may well have been a desire to "keep the peace", but this doesn't adequately explain it. Andy had no desire to "keep the peace" when it came to offending "liberals". So why was this situation different? Part of the answer would be that this was different because Mormons are fellow conservatives. But then so are Muslims in many respects. That is, Muslims oppose homosexuality and various other vices. So why not keep the peace with Muslims? Because Muslims are a false religion. And of course this doesn't apply to Mormons. Doesn't it? According to various cult groups, it does. Ultimately, I think that this shows Andy Schlafly's theology to be lacking, if he can accept Mormons as fellow Christians, which is clearly what he thought. It's also worth noting here that apart from me, two other administrators supported Ultimahero's right to post material about the Mormons. The correspondenceI was initially going to reproduce here all the discussions surrounding Ultimahero's persecution, but there was too much to include, and most of it is readable on various talk pages on Conservapedia anyway.2 Instead, I've reproduced some discussions from the sysop e-mail group that illustrate the attitude. 22nd June 2008, 09:44
Philip, you also saw the that the edits made by Ultimahero were directed against Dean, and I feel those edits were deliberate. Whether or not the Mormon Church is Christian is no longer an issue; what I saw was a user willfully provoking a fight with a sysop who has done nothing except work his butt off to make Conservapedia a better site. Ultimahero is banned for a month as a result. Provoking a fight by anyone for any reason is not to be tolerated. This was my reply: 23rd June 2008, 00:31
No, I saw edits that were directed to defending the criticisms directed at his edits. With all the respect I can muster, it is nonsense to suggest that he was merely trying to provoke a fight with that defence. And if that is the only reason for banning him, there was no reason to do so, and I will unban him. Yes, that means I will overturn your ban because there was absolutely no basis for doing so. I will, however, wait before doing so in case you can give me some reason not to. What you have said so far is no reason at all. In other words, I'll set the example by giving you more of a chance than you gave him. The response was as follows: 23rd June 2008, 01:53
I gave a reason. And now I'm demanding you leave Conservapedia. My reply: 23rd June 2008, 02:16
Your "reason" is that you "feel" that it was deliberate and directed against Dean, and you that it was to provoke a fight. But you gave no reason for having those feelings. In other words, you banned an editor solely on subjective feelings, and not on hard evidence. That is not a reason to ban. The following series was a discussion with a different administrator. 25th June 2008, 22:38
Philip,
Rather than ban Ultimahero, I am giving him a chance to apologize. An
apology is not the same as a death sentence or a plea bargain. No
evidence is required; it is not a matter of justice.
Christianity is not Judaism, let alone Islam. The "eye for eye, tooth
for tooth" rule was not for people who were too lenient, but for
people who retaliated with overwhelming force way out of proportion to
injuries received. Mercy is even better than justice.
Do you want Christ to call you to account for all your sins, and then
let some demon punish you? Are you afraid that if you confess or
repent or apologize, that such a statement will /increase/ your
punishment? If so, then I question /your/ Christian faith. If you
don't know about God's mercy, which is sure and everlasting, then I
pity you (not with contempt like Mr. T. but with tenderness and
empathy like a brother).
There is a reason Andy asked us not to bicker over denominational
differences. If you won't heed his wish without knowing that reason,
then you better ask him about it. I don't like to oppose another sysop
out in the public wiki area, but if you keep aiding our enemies I
think I have to.
This was my reply: 25th June 2008, 23:46
Yes, evidence /is/ required. That is, evidence that there is a /need/ to
apologise. As far as I can tell, he has done nothing wrong. Therefore,
there is nothing to apologise for. If you think that he needs to apologise
for something, then you have to demonstrate that he /has/ done something
wrong that needs an apology. Otherwise it's like sentencing an alleged
criminal without actually getting a conviction or confession.
As for asking Andy about it, I already have, on this list, in reply to his
comments. I have yet to receive an answer.
And the reply to that: 26th June 2008, 08:39
LOL, I hardly think asking for an apology is the same as sentencing an
alleged criminal!
My further response: 26th June 2008, 19:01
There's a big difference in the gravity of the situation, but the point is
the /principle/ of showing that he's done something wrong before sentencing
him (expecting him to apologise).
There the matter rested for over two days. Then, with still no explanation of just what Ultimahero had done wrong, this message was posted: 29th June 2008, 05:34
I think I've done enough to point out the error of UH's ways. Absent
any apologies, I blocked him for 2 weeks and blanked his user page.
| Timeline22nd November, 2006 Conservapedia is created 17th March, 2007 I join Conservapedia 3rd April, 2007 I am made an Administrator 25th April, 2007 First Admin. e-mail group. 25th May, 2007 Ed Poor proposes me as "template manager". 5th January, 2008 Letter to Andy about wise counsel 28th April, 2008 Bugler joins Conservapedia around June, 2008 I'm feeling more and more uncomfortable with associating myself with Conservapedia. 11th June, 2008 Bugler gains block rights. 17th June, 2008 I start writing these pages. 20th June, 2008 DanH quits. 31st December, 2008 Bugler loses rights. 1st January, 2009 CPAdmin1 quits. 2nd January, 2009 Bugler outs himself. 22nd March, 2009 I resign |