Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.


This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Contents

[edit] TAR finally whacks Wshact

And img tellsimg everyoneimg. And clogs everyone's talkpagesimg. But doesn't bother Ken. I wonder if AugustO or AlanE will unblock him. On an unrelated note, I hope DouglasA or Ed Poor come back and decides to start deleting the articles created by TAR due to their shortness. Ghost (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't just delete things because they're short. They also have to not be awful. PubliusTalk 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, it seems that capturebot causes 503 errors whenever it's running. 12:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I am actually quite enjoying this. TAR is slowly turning cp even more insane than it was before, something I thought difficult to do, and turning it into an even more 'niche' blog the likes of which not even the coultergeist or wnd will EVER let themselves be associated with. Perhaps it's time to updated the CP article to relect the new fixation on prepper politics, wingnut woo medicinal theories and gun nut rights so that any moderately interested parent may take a look and pull their children even firther away from allowing the owner of cp to destroy their childrens education. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And now they are getting ready to throw AugustOimg under the bus. Way to go ken, one of the few, the VERY FEW, truely well-intentioned editors left in your cesspit of idiocy and you want to loose him. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The important point is that it was TAR that did this based on coaching and phone calls with Karajou and Ken. "07:26, 13 January 2015 TheAmericanRedoubt (Talk | contribs) blocked Wschact (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Removing content from pages: Ignoring repeated advice from Admins re behavior towards: User:TheAmericanRedoubt)" This is a "ban" not a "block" so Karajou and Ken taught TAR how to do it in a way that none of the other people with the Block bit can reverse. There are ways in MediaWiki software to do this, but it is best not to share that here. The irony is that TAR complains that this has wasted one hour of his time, but if you look at Ken's activity last night -- placing a notice on Wschact's talk page commanding his presence at Conservapedia:Community Portal, and then berating him for three hours after he withdrew the "arrogant" statement: "I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world."
It is clear that Wikipedia user Trasel came to Conservapedia as Fongman but disclosed the connection in some Conservapedia templates. Trasel was then banned from Wikipedia for having a number of Sockpuppets. Trasel probably had to establish a new Conservapedia account to avoid the Trasel - Fongman connection. TAR is probably Trasel/Fongman, or could be someone else working for Survivalistblog to create massive amounts of inbound links. TAR wrote that Survivalistblog is the most popular one on the internet and is taking great pains to remove Wschact additions that Alexa and "The Survivor Top 50" site rank it only in 4th place. It is very clear that TAR/Trasel/Fongman is here to promote the Survivalistblog. Hclodge (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
He's doing an amazing job of playing Karajou and Ken. He knows exactly which strings to pull. While it's completely obvious to us, they're unable to see what's going on. Ken, I can understand, but I'm always amazed by how stupid Karajou is. It's also interesting how he's resigned CP to not be a collaborative effort (anyone who creates an article gets to "finish" it "unmolested"). As always, Andy's silence is beautiful. While I appreciate what the "liberal" editors are doing, I'd love to see what TAR can do without any checks. Sam, August, Joey, etc, please pack it up. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Ditto OU. I'm delighted that he's not so subtly pressing for rollback. He obliquely referred to it something like 4 or 5 times in a post. Andy might ignore conflict, but he sure knows how to promote in his meritocracy. If TAR is Trasel, and it looks like he is, I'm really disappointed that he's not a parodist, he's just crazy. I guess he'll fit right in, but it would have been more fun to watch those knuckleheads watch TAS ruin their site, and let I'm do it because they treat "conservatism" like a talisman. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec) A blind peanut could play anger bear if it wanted to. TBH I think ken is actually the harder to play, all you need to do with AB is quote a few silly buzz-words, attack certain editors over there (AugustO, SamHB etc) and anger bear will be already veering to be on your side. He's had it in for August for a long time but August has been tacitly accepted by Andy too often for ab to simply ban him. This is his chance. I do like TAR's latest bollocks about the UK by the way? Another subtle tickle under the chin for ken and anger bear there. And who is Trasel, I can't find him over at wp? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Trasel. Eh, Ken is extraordinarily easy to play because he's an insecure and paranoid bigot who's not very smart — he jumps jumps jumps to respond in his typical fashion to anyone who disagrees with him. Seriously. It takes practically nothing to launch him into hours long editing sprees tweaking his essays and penning those long screeds that get farther and farther from the tenuous, hateful, point he was trying to make. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, does seem like him doesn't it? And as for Ken, he's easy to wind up and set of on a binge like you say but I think he's actually harder to tickle under the chin like TAR is doing with them right now. Ken is ill and sad and lonely but does occasionally show some awareness. Anger bear is a paranoid fool with massive delusions of adequacy, delusions that are way aove his actual level of adequacy. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If TAR is really Trasel, then should not a checkuser discover that he has Fongman as an undisclosed Conservapedia account? Hclodge (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Brooking no dissent

Tar is a delight. I am enchanted by how immediately he gets personal when people offer well-considered criticisms and attempt to act in good faith in the interest of the site (no, I don't really think there are any good faith editors among the rabble there, but they do pretend to act in good faith as they perform). TAR's new target is "British Liberal Evolutionist User:EJamesW. Bravo! The guy is indistinguishable from a parodist, but he's also indistinguishable from the any of the other tendentious weirdos who use CP as a way to forget that they're nobodies. And so he fits right in, particularly with Ken, who isn't just enabling him, but goading him on. Finally something interesting happening at CP.. What took TAR so long to start flexing his muscles? Is he a parodist? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite two more pleas from AugustO, it appears that Andy is going to ignore the request to unban Wschact. (Implicitly Andy is also ignoring the request to remove TAR's block rights.) Hclodge (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And EJamesW is now banned, on a probably trumped-up charge. Whoover (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ken unblocked EJamesW without addressing TAR's blocking rights. Hclodge (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's actually quite lovely watching the way that Wsacht is playing kenny and tar. They genuinely seem to have no idea just how well Wshact is playing them. By being reasonably intelligent in trying to enforce cp's rules about spamming and the like Wsacht is driving kenny and trassel to ever more stupid utterances. Can you imagine a good faith editor, if there are any left, coming in and reading recent changes and seeing tar's lunacy and childish insults and kenny's supine support of him and thinking "Oh this is a great place, I think I'll join and edit in good faith because I'm sure I'll be welcome'. I'm not sure if that is Wsacht's intention but it is playing out quite well in it's own way. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Conservative blocked Wschat for two weeks for marking a spam article about a survivalist website with the spam template. Hclodge (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

TAR has dialed back his participation. Did he find a new job? Hclodge (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa ranking

I know we've supposedly moved beyond Conservapedia-watching and all that. However, this chart is pretty nice not only for comparing Conservapedia and RationalWiki but just looking at the pageviews that RationalWiki gets. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (gossip) 03:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I am bored so looked at What sites link to conservapedia.com?, 5th on the list is this http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~peddy/favoritesites1.html Wow, just wow. Also, there are almost twice as many visiting from India than Canada, I wonder who's paying for them. Sphincter (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Judging by its format, the page was designed about a decade before Convservapedia was founded. However, higher on the list was: "If someone believed EVERYTHING they read on the Internet, which websites, subreddits or threads would be the worst possible places for them to go?"img The best answer with 232 votes was The Onion. Way down the list with 2 votes was Conservapedia, which despite Ken's postings, fell behind "porn ads." I am sure that people checked out the link before they down voted it. However, you raise a valid point: how can Conservapedia find its audience? Certainly appearing on the Colbert Report was a big boost. Turning it into a link spam farm is not such a good move. Hclodge (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I am proud to be a Conservapedia watcher. I sense a new Golden Age is imminent, too. While the crazy end-of-civilization prepper guy has our attention, blocking AugustO with Ken rooting him on, crazy geocentric-universe guy is quietly beginning to polute things. Conservapedia's only audience is slow-motion train-wreck gawkers, and this is looking to be a fine season. Whoover (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I like this[1][2]. The big giveaway is the opening. Conservative nearly always starts his sentences with the name of the person his is talking to. Sock.--Mercian (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And another advertiser/linkspammer, this time about robert richardsonimg, with the article being entirely written by OGSMEDIA , aka Robert Richardson. Ghost (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

TAR's main selling point to Ken and Karajou has been that survivalblog.com has been talking up Conservapedia, so there should be reciprocity. Googling "Conservapedia site:survivalblog.com" produces 73 hits. Googling "survivalblog site:conservapedia.com" produces 64 hits. Most of survivalblog's references to Conservapedia are to the article "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" without mentioning that it was written by Fongman/Tarsel. Hclodge (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's quite sweet that in the deluded world of the US extreme right they actually think that link-whoring to conservapedia will increase the traffic to their own hate blogs. They really can't be so stupid as to not realise that almost all of cp's traffic is people coming to point and stare can they? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Manipulating search engine rankings is very complicated because Google has changed its ranking algorithm, and DuckDuckGo and Bing are now on the scene. According to TAR, DuckDuckGo has a list of websites that curate against spam and Conservapedia is on the list of such sites. So, TAR argues that by link spamming CP, he can boost the rankings of survivalblog.com. This is similar to Rawles' tactics to become a "best selling" author. He takes a book that had been sold as a paperback for a decade and orders a hard cover edition. He then puts in an order for, say, 10,000 hardback copies that he can resell on his blog or give away to his donors. That single big "sale" puts him on the NY Times hardback fiction best seller list for one week only. But that is enough for TAR to repeatedly use the phrase "best-selling author James Wesley Rawles..."

[edit] AugustO seems to now be basically commiting seppuku

With thisimg series of edits. And thisimg one. He's also started revereting TAR gibberish categories again on authors. He'll be toast in very short order. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

About fucking time. AugustO is of course free to do whatever they like with their time, but spending it in a sisyphean effort to keep Andy and co. honest seems to me one of the least productive pursuits you could ever consider.
AugustO, if you're reading this, why would you willingly subject yourself to such heinous insultsimg by a man-child explicitly condoned by the site's owner, regardless of your relationship with him? Shakedangle (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Dance ken, dance. Dance and prance for your masters man-child. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This all comes down to personal honesty and integrity. There is a lot of sneaky stuff that can be done with a wiki. "Labeling" with a perjorative category can be one. For example, TAR is now labeling everyone with a "Pro Second Amendment" or 342 people in "Anti Second Amendment". That division has no meaning for people outside the United States. If TAR were to add a sentence in a biography stating that someone was "Anti Second Amendment", he would have to give a basis and citation for that conclusion. But anyone can add a category without any justification, time frame, or source. TAR has been adding very narrow new categories like ".22 LR Rifles". How many people would search on that? Conversely TAR has been adding incredibly broad meaningless categories like "Systems of Support" (rather than "Support Systems"). He has placed that tag on 94 articles and many subcategories so that it includes anything useful in day-to-day life. Perhaps this category should be renamed "Useful stuff". TAR is an idiot who cannot write, cannot think clearly, and has only one mission - to link spam for his survivalist heros/employers. I wonder how his call with Andy went? Hclodge (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
CP is actually getting interesting again. Just when you think they couldn't go in a worse direction, they manage. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Like a crappy soap opera, when you've had just enough and can see the plot points coming from a mile away, they take a mono-dimensional side character and give him some depthimg to reel you back in. Curse you, conserva-drama. Shakedangle (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Fuck me. No REALLY fuck me. When the voice of reason is one of the most angry unreasonable people I have ever had the misfortune to interact with in the form of anger bear then you know something is VERY wrong in the state of denmark. Karajou, talking sense. I have now seen everything. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that really caught me off guard. Then again, there have been 2 or 3 times when Kenny's been the voice of reason, so maybe it can happen to anyone. Maybe Karajou's discovered the marijuana and is in the process of mellowing out.
I'm not going to fuck you, though. DickTurpis (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You are missing the classic wiki pattern: at each step AlanE, SamHB, Phil, Wschact, Ken, AugustO and now Karajou talked with TAR, explained what was wrong and TAR promised to change and to go back and fix it. He kept going without change. TAR's response is "He is a liberal/RINO and he is micromanaging me." He is like the bully in kindergarden who runs to the teacher saying "Joey started it." TAR has been messing up Conservapedia under the radar for months before kicking into high gear in mid-December. If TAR blew past Ken, odds are that he will somehow blow past Karajou as well with a well-worn, "I did not hear that." Hclodge (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Dick, TAR has been sprinkling CP with socially liberal pro-marijuana legalisation stuff. It's possible. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Earlier today I was looking back over his early edits, which I admit I missed, and he has been quietly changing every article about the UK to us spelling from the correct English spelling, defense instead of defence and the like. He's labelled his 'corrections' as removing spelling 'mistakes'. It's fairly evident now he has spent months gradually testing his hand and building his idiot base before launching this, what can only be called a, takeover on cp. Enjoy it kenny, he's turning andy's project into his own little fiefdom and you have let him do it. And one day he will go for you and you will find yourself in the wilderness. Bizzarely anger bear is the only one who seems concerned. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It's also fun to watch the parodist VargasMilan overplay his hand in the insanity feeding frenzy. He's never been subtle, but he will burn himself badly if he's not careful. Whoover (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This all comes down to who has been "aggressive" in categories. TAR has been doing it wrong since the start of his CP editing. Adding categories was amoung his earliest edits.img Fongman had been adding categories in a normal way. But TAR could not resist polluting Fongman's "Mayors" article on December 1 with implausible "See alsos" and categories.img People tried to talk gently TAR down.img Instead of making good on TAR's promisesimg to stop and to repair his category mistakes,img TAR has taken an "aggressive" posture arguing that the "harassment" of a new and productive user over-rides any criticism of his incompetence. You could not write a movie plot better than this. Hclodge (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AugustO has upped the ante by using the Wayback Machine to resurrect the history of Ken's bookletimg that Ken so diligently burned. This is response to a rather rash dareimg. The exchange started with Ken taunting AugustO in his Colonel Klink Nazi voice again. Next move? Whoover (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that. I'm still surprised with quite how much AugustO gets away with. And in other events Douglas Adams DouglasAimg seems to have reappeared, although he's not doing much right now. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I see kenny is now going back and trying to burn the evidence - again. Bad luck that capture bot got it all kenny. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Terry H.

Did this person REALLY get a medical qualification of some kind? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

TAR would argue that sometime after the flood, God gave man the "inalienable right to bear" firearms. So, life spans started to shorten after God intervened in gun control, rather than Noah's flood. Hclodge (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. Since the weapon of gun is largely defensive, gun rights increase average life span. It's definitely the isotopes. Whoover (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Jeezus Haploid Christ that paper tho - the one by Tennessen. That's some hard fucking going right there. Here's a taste:
"When the more liberal definition of functional SNVs was used, [EA, European-American] individuals have a significantly higher proportion of predicted functional SNVs compared with [AA, African-American] individuals... P < 10^−15 ... However, when the more conservative definition was used, this pattern was reversed, and AA individuals have a significantly higher proportion of predicted functional SNVs compared with EA individuals... P < 10^−15. These results highlight how the definition of functional variants can influence inferences and underscore the importance of continued methodological development to robustly identify functionally important variation."
Yeah, fellas, maybe you want to settle on a definition beforehand, hm? I don't recall seeing a p-value less than ten to the minus fifteenth power before, either; that's pretty boss. It's sort of wasted on a statement that boils down to 'depending on how brown a freckle is, it is proven with mathematical certainty that Tom has either more or fewer freckles than Bob'.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Particle physics only requires p < 3 x 10^-7 (i.e, five sigma) for a "discovery". --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course, TAR would argue that after the end of civilization, academic papers would cease to be of any influence or interest. TAR would advise us to "be prepared" to live in a world without the scientific method as well as without any social fabric. Hence, TAR feels free to add dystopic fictional novels to the recommended reading list that he adds to non-fiction article topics. Hclodge (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Unadjusted p-values in genetics typically get very, very small indeed, 10^-15 is not unusual. Multiple testing corrections generally scrape off around 6 orders of magnitude. In my experience, though, most things in the order of 10^-15 have generally turned out to be experimental error (failed assays, faulty algorithms etc.). This is why we don't bother much with p-values, other than in drawing up a shortlist of candidate variants to examine in more detail. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Why Don't Liberals Argue Like This?

"Obama's Tax on Stay-at-Home Moms"img is, of course, the proposed tax break for child care. Just as the mortgage deduction is an attack on renters or the increased deduction for dependents is Obamas cruel war on sterile women. I suspect there's a "stupidly paranoid" gene that explains the right wing. Whoover (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

They do--Miekal 21:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Everything will be spun for the demographic. If you can't see the spin, it's working on you. When I don't agree with the editorial direction of a popular news story I often go check the facts. Sometimes I catch myself agreeing with a story and passing over without checking. Bzzzt! That story is nearly certain to be at least as wrong as the last one where I did check. We fool ourselves so easily, and there are plenty of people who're happy for it to stay that way. Tialaramex (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As a former conservative and Republican, there are two unacknowledged beliefs at the heart of the movement. 1, nobody is capable of change (single exception for David Horowitz). This is why anyone who ever heard Saul Alinsky say boo is now and forever a dyed-in-the-wool commie, why criminals of any degree must be locked up forever if not summarily shot in the head, why we must kill every enemy we see, because it shall always be so. 2, everyone is trying to fuck you over and take what is rightfully yours. Illegal immigrants are here to steal from us, the government is here to steal from us, everybody on welfare and disability is a drugged-up fraud, unions are cheating you with their higher wages, all anybody ever wants to do is line their pockets at your expense. I think this is tied in with the natural reaction against the fact that we age, and we die, and our faculties leave us slowly but surely, and someone must be doing it... Semipenultimate (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That article is slightly disturbing. You would have to have a real bunker mentality to write something like that about a plan to help out some of the most vulnerable in society. No doubt the author is absolutely opposed to abortion as well, so it is a bit galling that he would want to make it even harder for people to raise kids. DamoHi 00:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
What really pisses me off about people like Schlafly is they are so pro life, every sperm is sacred. He will spend thousands of his own money arranging trips to March For Life because that makes him appear to be a good upstanding conservative but will begrudge every single penny he is taxed for the welfare of these unwanted kids and campaigns vigourously against any provision to provide them and their often very poor mothers with free healthcare.--Mercian (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] How fast can you get banned from Conservapedia?

I got banned within 20 minutes by Andrew himself. It was quite fun.{{User:|RationalMan|16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)}}

There was a time when it was instantaneous if you were from Europe. Ikanreed (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest moving this discussion to the talk page of WIGO:CP.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy watches Recent Changes like a hawk, which I find hilarious considering how long he's been at this and how little progress the site has made in the last 8 (!) years. For all his faults, he's at least persistent. Cow...Hammertime! 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence is Andy's defining trait, though. Like that's what happened with every major Andy incident. Ikanreed (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no trick to getting banned from CP. Not getting blocked, without playing the role of the parodist, is the real challenge. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple of years now although I have had a few short term blocks from one of the more vigorous parodists before he removed his mask. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Karajerk's sole function these days seems to be blocking people, based on spam / checkuser history. Come on Kara, those millions of empty bird articles aren't going to flll themselves! PsyGremlinParlez! 10:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support