Conservapedia:FBI Incident

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(If Asked a Difficult Question, Stick Head In Sand & Ban)
(If Asked a Difficult Question, Stick Head In Sand & Ban)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
==If Asked a Difficult Question, Stick Head In Sand & Ban==
 
==If Asked a Difficult Question, Stick Head In Sand & Ban==
  
The questions have been met with a truly amazing sequence of reverts and blocks.  It seems that the powers that be at CP are '''extremely''' touchy about this embarrassing issue, and are engaging in their usual conservative deceit — deny, stonewall, cover up, deny, stonewall, rinse, repeat.  One CP sysop indicated that asking about the case constitutes obstruction of justice, another gave the revert comment "FBI is NOYB".
+
The questions have been met with a broad sequence of reverts and blocks.  It seems that the powers that be at CP are '''extremely''' touchy about this embarrassing issue, and are engaging in their usual conservative deceit — deny, stonewall, cover up, deny, stonewall, rinse, repeat.  One CP sysop indicated that asking about the case constitutes obstruction of justice, another gave the revert comment "FBI is NOYB".
  
 
The cases are:
 
The cases are:

Revision as of 22:16, 4 August 2007

Conservlogo late april.png
Conservapedia
Introduction
Newcomer's Guide
What is going on?
Commentary
Best of Conservapedia
Blatant Plagiarism
Differences with Wikipedia
Hijacked Articles
"SDG"
"TZB"
"Fab Five"
Sysops
Timeline
CP in the News
In-depth analysis
Active users
Illustrated guide
Fun
Article Matrix
Greatest Insights
Parthian Shots

More about CP

The Powers That Be at Conservapedia have made grandiose claims about so-called vandalism on their site. They have repeatedly threatened editors with legal and employment repercussions. Some of their claims have been farcical, some quite serious.

One particularly amazing piece of foolishness has been going since mid-July, 2007. Someone vandalized their site quite seriously, using an automated bot [1]. Conservapedia's fearless and manly leader, Andy Schlafly, proudly proclaimed that this had been reported to the FBI and was being prosecuted. Then something very interesting happened. One user after another after another (it's up to 7 as of this writing), suspecting that this was typical Schlafly hot air, has asked how the investigation is progressing. Some have also suggested that asking the FBI to prosecute someone who vandalized an open wiki is not only a foolish attempt to distract our law enforcement officials from more serious problems, but also possibly a criminal offence of 'time wasting', given that there is clearly no crime here.

Contents

If Asked a Difficult Question, Stick Head In Sand & Ban

The questions have been met with a broad sequence of reverts and blocks. It seems that the powers that be at CP are extremely touchy about this embarrassing issue, and are engaging in their usual conservative deceit — deny, stonewall, cover up, deny, stonewall, rinse, repeat. One CP sysop indicated that asking about the case constitutes obstruction of justice, another gave the revert comment "FBI is NOYB".

The cases are:

  • User JackTheRealMcCoy, revert at [2], block at [3].
  • User Eddiec, revert at [4], block at [5].
  • User SumsUp, warned at [6], reverted at [7], block at [8].
  • User Philaretes, reverts at [9] and (on his own talk page!) [10], block at [11]. Eight minutes after the block he gets his final warning and a remarkable threat.
  • User Order, revert at [12], threat at [13], using the picturesque phrase "they're gonna give you the stick".
  • User EdDeTour, revert at [14], block at [15].
  • User Supervisor (This one is clearly just needling the nice people at CP), revert at [16], block at [17].

Various Sections copied From Andy's Discussion Page Follow

Major Vandalism

(This seems to be the first appearance of the incident)

Just thought I would report a strange incident. A user vandalized over 80 pages in three minutes. Bohdan 00:57, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Probably another liberal enemy of conservative principles. He needs to listen to the classic rock song entitled, "I fought the law, and the law won." He needs to listen to it 80 times, in fact. Your quick work counts towards our team totals, Bohdan! Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The people at the other place are using bots. Fox (talk|contribs) 04:46, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

At least Assfly is somewhat aware of a great Clash (cover) song.

FBI defence

Prosecuting Vandals

User:Stevecarson, IP address 208.102.255.xxx (we have all the digits), ISP Fuse Internet Access of Cincinnati Bell Telephone, has been reported for his attempt to vandalize this site last night. Prosecuting vandalism on the internet is a priority of this site and of the Department of Justice. It's unfortunate that public schools don't teach that vandalism is wrong, but the court system does still teach that. He can hire an attorney and try to explain his conduct to a judge. I doubt he'll find much sympathy.--Aschlafly 10:32, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Follow-up: the above instance of vandalism has been reported by phone directly to the FBI office in Cincinnati, which handles internet crime. At the request of the FBI, we then sent the electronic record of the vandalism and the IP address to the officers for their investigation and potential prosecution. Yes, it is wrong and a crime to vandalize websites, and our criminal justice system does not care whether you learned that in school or not.--Aschlafly 10:51, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Honestly, that was probably a waste of both your time and the FBI's. I have a sneaking suspicion that they have bigger things on their minds than chasing down some internet punk. I will be *very* surprised if anything actually comes of this.--Porthos 11:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, Porthos, I suggest you visit a local federal courtroom one morning and watch the line-up of cases brought before the judge, and the prison sentences imposed. I suspect you will also be "very surprised" by what you see. Ignorance and lack of experience lead to surprise about many things.--Aschlafly 12:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy - the FBI have FAR more important things to be doing. You have a ludicrouly inflated sense of importance (not atypical of most CP'ians) if you genuinely believe that the nation's Federal Bureau of Investigations will be all "Yessir! Right on it!" over a complaint that a minority interest blog has attracted a rash of argumentative postings. Really.
And frankly, I'll be right at the front of the line to complain to my Representatives if the FBI DOES give you the time of day, what with the nation on Orange alert. Have you thought about the fact that now, because of your angry complaint, some FBI official is now going to actually HAVE TO process it? A call or two will have to be made, some thought given to it, a process applied, some forms filled - each act in every way representing a distraction from vital work for your country. If an al-Qaeda plot slips by as a result of your distraction, you will have blood on your hands.
Take a look at yourself - don't you think you've actually now REALLY gone too far? Your feverish delusions have now stooped to wasting the time of the proud servicemen and women of an august force. You should grow up a little and act more responsibly. Wumps 12:45, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

So, you are going to complain about the FBI investigating a crime? I will be the first to complain to my representative about you waisting your representatives time. Bohdan 12:51, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

No matter your bluster Bohdan, you know what I'm talking about. This is not the FBI's website, where vandalism could be national security issue. Nor is it the IBM website, where vandalism could represent a commercial threat. This, in fact, is a wiki, a technology purposely designed to not only allow but encourage members of the public to write. You do not have a legal leg to stand on if you leave all the doors of your house open and complain to the FBI that burglers rearranged your furniture and stole the TV. Even contacting the good folk of the FBI is timewasting. They have terrorists to catch. Wumps 12:59, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Are you aware that the FBI has a separate division that is dedicated only to fighting internet crime? Bohdan 13:01, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
"Wumps", let me guess. You're a liberal, right? You may be hearing this for the first time, then. Vandalism is wrong, and it's a crime. The FBI investigates crimes, the DOJ prosecutes them, and the Bureau of Prisons houses the defendants after they are convicted. No kidding. I know, you didn't learn that in public school. Well, let this site be an education for you and others.--Aschlafly 12:56, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

No, Andy, I'm not a liberal. I'm an American. And yes, Bohdan, I did know there's an internet unit at the FBI. I believe child pornography, identity theft, financial fraud, international and commercial espionage are all crimes pursued by the department. I don't see any crime anywhere about annoying blog postings being a crime. Wumps 13:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Wumps, you're clueless, and I'm confident you are a liberal. We're not fooled by you here. Only a tiny percentage of the FBI and DOJ's efforts go towards catching terrorists. And, by the way, someone who burglarizes an open house is going to jail for just as long as if the house were locked. There are entire divisions of the FBI devoted to internet crime, including vandalizing websites, as Bohdan pointed out.

One more point, Wumps: "burglers" is spelled "burglars".--Aschlafly 13:13, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I gotta admit, you got me there Andy!  :-) Actually, I'm not clueless, though my spelling could certainly do with some work. But seriously now, please specifiy exactly what crime is being committed- the actual code of law - when a wiki experiences a disagreeable posting? And no, someone who burglarizes an open house is not going to jail, especially since the house has big signs all over the nations highway saying "Open House here! Come write at www.conservapedia.com!"
You don't seem to get it. You might well have a legal leg to stand on if you were not a wiki. But by definition a wiki is an open invitation to write and edit. By your standards, since I'm writing something you're disagreeing with right now, I am currently committing a crime. And I don't think for a moment you believe that's the case. Wumps 13:19, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
A Wiki is a (fairly-) open invitation to write and edit. But not to vandalize, which is the case in question. Philip J. Rayment 07:49, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

I got a better idea. You write an article on Internet crime, starting with website vandalism. Sometimes the best way to learn about something is when you have to teach it to someone else. --Ed Poor Talk 13:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Not to pry, but should someone check first to make sure that this kind of report isn't considered a nuisance and is not itself prosecuted?SumsUp 22:09, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but you should probably check to make sure your post here wasn't considered a nuisance that can be prosecuted. Bohdan 22:10, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Excuse me???SumsUp 22:13, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
By prosecuted I mean blockable. Bohdan 22:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
I'll take your non-responsiveness to mean that you did not consider it, and that you are kind of mean to boot.SumsUp 22:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, the FBI will investigate crimes of this nature. They have to do it, it's an obligation. Scorpio 00:01, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

There seems to be a little confusion here... The issue isn't that some moron came along and changed a page maliciously - it is that someone designed a software tool specifically and solely with the aim of targeting and damaging the content of this site and then utilised it to do so. That is not mere vandalism, I think you'll find. Also, the "open house" analogy is ridiculous. If I visit a museum, it has a huge welcome sign on the door; I may even pay a fee, entitling me to enter that museum. I am not excused in law from then smashing an exhibit... Fox (talk|contribs) 08:19, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I think it is necessary. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:38, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Something seems to have gone missing. Should I inform the FBI? BritishConservative 08:40, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Is it malicious vandalism? Was it done by a bot designed to vandalize? No to both questions, so I suggest that you go back to writing and/or improving articles. Philip J. Rayment 09:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

I see you have two cases filed with the FBI. Do you have representation? LegalWhizz 15:44, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism and the FBI

Hi, I love your encyclopedia and have gotten much useful information out of it. I was just wondering if you would be so kind as to provide me with the exact law governing vandalism on open edit wiki's such as this one, I'm doing a computer assignment and haven't been able to find much information on it. Since you've been using it to prevent liberal vandalism would you be able to tell me it. Thanks, and keep up the good work Spooster 22:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Check out Internet Crime. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:12, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

FBI

User:Jayjay, using IP address 24.123.175.xx (we have the full number), is being reported next to the FBI. Cincinnati Bell will easily be able to trace that IP. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:13, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

FBI defence

I'm revisiting you herre today to check up on the status of your FBI investigations, but I see you've archived that thread. No matter - I would simply like to again offer my professional services to you in this matter. I am a solicitor well versed in defending individuals against the FBI, and am very familiar with cases such as yours, as I've made it my speciality over the past 15 years or so. I notice your wiki references the Gravois Mills case [18] - this is a very similar case to your own, and I have spoken with the pastor involved in that case. Despite being a different area of the law, the FBI does indeed view vandalism of physical property the same as vandalism of online property. I understand that you may appreciate discretion, and I will observe that. Please contact me off list if you are interested. DrJoshWeinstein 18:26, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Where would you be contacted, Dr. Weinstein? Your IP Address, 85.92.130.117, is located in the Netherlands. You must have a very impressive practice! --Sysop-TK --Talk 2 Me 18:35, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I am indeed located in the Netherlands - I'm taking a vacation with family in Utrecht, since you asked! You may contact me via my email address off this thread if you wish. DrJoshWeinstein 18:41, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Wow, and you're posting at nearly 1am on a Sunday morning there while on vacation with your family!!!! Good "doctor", perhaps Wikipedia would be a better home for an "expert" like you. You seem far too "clever".
By the way, good "doctor", "solicitors" don't practice law here in the United States. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Uhm....yes, it is indeed 1am on a Saturday night/Sunday morning, but what's so strange about being up after midnight with a nice glass of wine by my side and my wife and I playing backgammon? As to 'solicitor', yes, you've spotted that I am a UK-based solicitor - 'lawyer' in American terminology. I also practice law in the US, by the way, and I'm sorry, I should have pointed that out sooner. I have an office in Washington DC. BjornBenny 19:00, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Copied from Conservapedia: About Talk Page

FBI investigation

Could we please have an update on this? People are curious as to the status of the investigation. Are you allowed to talk about it at this time?--Philaretes 12:51, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

And which people are curious about it at this time? Karajou 13:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Investigations are not launched on a newspaper front page. They are, by their nature, clandestine, unless a point is reached when an indictment will be served. I hope this was edifying. Learn together 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

No harm in asking a simple question. In response to Karajou, these people here [19],and here [20], and here [21], and here [22]would like to know. BTW, Learn together, how do you know there will be an indictment? The FBI may well determine this is not worth their time or trouble. Andy made it public that he reported username stevecarson to the FBI, so what is the harm in asking? --Philaretes 15:12, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

You are concerned about trolls (or a troll) asking questions? Interesting. Hopefully you will take this opportunity to quickly learn FBI protocol. If they had started an investigation, they would hardly copy Andy with what they are doing. They will choose to act based upon their timetables and workload. Andy has informed them of a law being broken. That is the proper procedure to follow. In the event that law is broken again, they would be more likely to expedite the case. Andy has already set that foundation. We won't know, nor do we necessarily care, what is being done at this moment. We'll leave that to you. Learn together 18:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
As has been previously established, the clandestine nature of investigation means we simply don't know. DanH 15:14, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

DanH, that is true, assuming that the FBI is conducting an investigation. However, why did Conservapedia ban the editors who asked the questions about the investigation? I understand the one who titled his "embarrasing question" as he was a troll, but the others I think, were not.--Philaretes 15:19, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

(Possible) Internal FBI Legal Briefing on the Case

Origin of The Site

01) Conservapedia, the purportedly wandalised website, is a non-commercial, non-governmental, non-infrastructural, not-for-proft, personal website.
02) It was created and is owned and operated by Andy Schlafly to assist in the compiling of information for his homeschooling program, which has about 120 children.
03) It was created to teach his students about new technologies and to encourage his students and other internet users to compile and collaboratively edit information appealing to a particular, rather narrow, political and social viewpoint.

Technology Background to the Site

04) WIkiMedia software was created expressly and exclusively for the purpose of enabling simple collaborative document creation on the internet.
05) It is possible to securely limit editor entry to a Wiki by any number of methods (new accounts only by invitation, delayed approval, IP address zone exclusion, and many more). Implementation of any of these methods alone or together can securely restrict the set of users who may create or modify data to only those the site owner wishes to allow.
06) Mr.Schlafly deliberately chose not to establish any such methods, and the purportedly wandalised website is thus an open Wiki.
07) As a result, any person with an internet connection may create an account (for free) and immediately begin to create, modify and delete any unlocked page on the website, without legal warning or caution.

Common Usage Patterns at the Site

08) It is routine for new editors to immediately begin creating and modifying pages at the Site.
09) It is routine for sysops and established users to create and modify pages at the Site.
10) As a public space containing (sometimes very) controversial viewpoints, there is frequent debate among existing members, new members and sysops as to content and tone of articles at the Site.
11) Frequently, this debate results in page locking, editing, deletion or vandalism, with much controversy following.

The Alleged Crime

12) The alleged criminal act is that a user created a new account and ran software which repeatedly modified articles on the site automatically, achieving many more changes in a three minute window than humanly possible. Around one hundred articles were modified, with certain words being substituted for other words.

The Effects of the Incident

13) When the wandalism was noted, the user's editorial abilities were instantly removed and they were disallowed access to the Site.
14) All information modified was easily and quickly reverted by Sysops within minutes, as the Wiki software automatically stores the previous version of the document.
15) No financial loss was reported.
16) No data modified was essential to any person, organisation or governmental body, either in a permanent archival sense, or in a time-dependent sense. Most of the information at the Site exists elsewhere on the internet.
17) It is accepted a few minutes of inconvenience was caused to the owners and sysops of the Site.

Following a review of the above facts, the FBI is probably thinking along these lines:

a) No law has been broken;
b) No property damage or financial loss has occurred;
c) The owners made no attempt to secure the data at the Site - in fact, modification of the data was encouraged;
d) Nothing more than minor inconvenience for a few minutes was casued to the owners and operators;
e) The FBI will not be pursuing this case on behalf of Mr.Schalfly;
f) The FBI views the reporting of this non-existant case to the Bureau as a nuisance, and pursuit of it as timewasting;
g) Following further discussion, the FBI may decide to prosecute Mr.Schlafly for wasting the Bureau's time.

Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support