User:Sandman/Conservapedia:Sysop Stuff

New Sysops Training Page

'''If you are reading this, then congratulations! You have joined an elite group of editors, here to protect Conservapedia, and act as "stewards" of the project. Below are some tips that will make your job as a Sysop much more effective:''' Terms explained
 * Administrators, also known as sysops, are editors with the ability and authority to enforce Conservapedia's rules and resolve disputes.
 * Bureaucrats are Administrators with the additional ability to change user rights.

Blocking

 * 1) When blocking vandals or other troublemakers, uncheck the "block anonymous users only" box. The block is more secure this way as it will block the IP Address (computer connection) that the vandal or troublemaker is using which will make it impossible to use the same exact Internet connection to edit Conservapedia.
 * 2) Always check to see if a new editor is a sockpuppet. Use the "Checkuser" function to see if the editor is using the same IP address to edit Conservapedia as a known vandal or just another user. Checkuser can be found here, along with a short tutorial on how to use it here. Check all IP's given against both users and edits.
 * 3) Given the amount of vandalism at Conservapedia, if the IP address check shows that the IP address is being used by two usernames the person is likely a sockpuppet who is using the same computer connection to edit Conservapedia. It is suggested that you block the person and if a mistake was made and the person was merely using a public computer that another person used (this scenario is rare and highly unlikely) the mistake can be undone if necessary. However, given the amount of vandalism at Conservapedia it is better to err on the side of caution and block the suspected sockpuppet. Undertake a check of the user(s) edits, they will tell you much.  Some keep one account for making lots of trivial change, adding a coma or the like on many articles, to get their edit count up, while using a "throw away" account(s) for subtle or major vandalism. Some even "argue" with their own puppet, and then "expose" them to us in order to gain credibility as a helpful editor, constantly repeating the cycle.
 * 4) In all cases where a user has been blocked infinitely for vandalism, and there is no doubt, remove their user and talk pages. First go into edit, and remove all content.  Save.  Protect the page "Sysop Only". Go back into edit, add a re-direct:  "conservapedia:deletedpage" within the brackets.  Save.  Repeat with their talk page. In other cases, if you change a short block for infinite, after investigating, remember to go back and remove their pages. Care must be taken to check their user and talk pages for links to "sand boxes" and other pages they may have created ancillary to their user and talk pages.  Wipe, save, protect and re-direct those as well.
 * 5) For blocks of over a day, but not infinite, use the "Blocked" template, found here   in the template list, and protect the pages by locking them against any possible changes or vandalism.

Moving

 * 1) To move a page, click the "move" tab on the upper pane. It should be directly to the right of the "delete" tab. Once you have clicked this button, you will see a page which enables you to move the content of one page to a page with a different title. Simply type the new title of the page in to the box entitled "To new title:", and give a short reason in the "Reason:" box. By default, the "move associated talk page" checkbox should be marked; this should always be marked. It's up to you whether or not you want to "watch" the page (this places it on your watchlist).
 * 2) If a page already exists with the new name, you will be warned and asked if you want to delete that page.  It is recommended that you answer "no" to this, and delete the page manually.  The reason for this is that if you allow the software to delete the page, it will not delete the accompanying talk page, which means that the talk page of the article you are moving will not itself be moved.  If you already know that there is no accompanying talk page, then answering "yes" will work.

Images
Please check the upload log frequently to protect any new images. This will in turn prevent any image vandalism.

(Images are usually not on anyone's watchlist except that of the person who uploaded them, and cannot be reverted if someone replaces the image. This makes protecting images more important than protecting articles or templates, both of which are more easily reverted and/or more likely noticed.)

Keeping Informed of New Developments
1.A area of Conservapedia has been created for Sysop discussion so Sysops can be informed of various new developments. The area is located here: cp:Conservapedia:Sysops. 2.Create a unique instant messenger user name on AIM, where most Sysops have accounts. With it you also get a free email account. Your name there could be CP_Sysop_(your CP user name) as an example. Experience has shown us the importance of this form of communication in heading off trouble, discussing users, vandals and their intentions and targets privately. It also provides you with a CP-only email address, so you can safely enable emails through CP from editors with questions. This completely protects your privacy.
 * Suggestion:

Also See

 * CP Guideline: Locks and Blocks
 * CP Guideline: Civility

Portal

Welcome Sysop!

Sysop Portal

Public domain

There is a lot of information in the public domain, from our own trusty U.S. government. You know, the folks who gave us free GPS satellites, invented the Internet, stuff like that. ..

Anything on a web site with a .gov suffix is likely to be in the public domain, which means we can use it any way we want. (I assume our editorial policy requires us to give them credit, but it's not a violation of law if we "forget" to credit them.)

I've been learning a lot about PHP programming and databases this quarter, and I think I could program a cp:bot to create articles. It could do it more accurately, and a whole lot more quickly, than copying and pasting by hand.

If you all give me the go ahead, I'll look for a database of terms and explanations similar to the one Sharon and I were copying from (National Institutes for Health). I was thinking of the CIA fact file with country profiles.

The way I would program the bot would be to see if a given title had an article (if so, do nothing; go on to the next entry). If it's a "red link", my bot would create an entry with the raw text copied from the public domain source. It would add a link or footnote, giving them credit.

I would "throttle back" the bot, so it would only add 10 entries per hour, and only when we had someone around to watch it. I would also provide an emergency shut off switch available to all sysops!

This would be my first bot, so wish me luck. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 17:15, 10 July 2007 (EDT)


 * That's a very intriguing suggestion, Ed. The attractiveness of this would depend on the reliability and quality of writing of the specific government source.  I look forward to seeing what you come up with.--Aschlafly 17:23, 10 July 2007 (EDT)


 * This sounds like a good idea. My only concern is the quality of the entires being generated.  I usually have to sort through the .gov indexes to find the useable information. ~ SharonTalk 18:10, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I found country backgrounds from the CIA World Factbook, all laid out neatly in a table. . Check out my (second, corrected) addition to cp:Senegal. --Ed Poor Talk 18:43, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk/Archive 1

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ NOTE: This archive is actually the page formerly located at Conservapedia:Sysops

(This page was initially available to any editor to contribute, and the talk page was always available.)

A hangout place for Conservapedia Sysops
(Sysops: please mark this page as watched)

You might wonder who our Sysops are. We have 30 Sysops. Only one of them is related to me, and we often disagree with each other.

I first met the vast majority of our Sysops online through this website. Except for a few students and one relative, I did not know any of our Sysops before they registered here. Our Sysops reflect all political views, and nearly all time zones. We have several from Britain, several from Australia and at least one from Canada and one from Mexico.

A minority of our Sysops are high school and college students.

Sysops are promoted based on initiative and merit, not ideology.--Aschlafly 21:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)


 * On May 7, 2007, I reduced our number of Sysops to 29. This was a routine housecleaning that simply reflected inactivity by several Sysops for more than a month.  They are free to return and, based on new edits, seek again to become Sysops.--Aschlafly 14:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Two duplicate accounts have been removed, trimming the number of Sysops to 26 (also subtracting a duplicate account).--Aschlafly 02:07, 8 May 2007 (EDT)


 * The Sysop count is 25 as of May 10. We will be adding a new Sysop in the next week when we surpass 9,700 new entries.  The new Sysop will be the person considered to have the highest quality and quantity of edits.--Aschlafly 18:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

On May 16, two new Sysops were added based on merit. Also, for unrelated reasons, Sysop status was removed from two other users. The total number of unique Sysops remains at 25. I do not know any of these four Sysops personally.--Aschlafly 17:36, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

On May 17, the Sysop privileges of cp:User:Niandra were restored. Welcome back, Niandra! That brings our total of unique Sysops to 26.--Aschlafly 10:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

'NOTE: There have been further changes since the above discussion. See for the current list of sysops.' Philip J. Rayment 05:46, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Vulgar metaphors on the page cp:Talk:Theory of evolution
Ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the above page is getting increasingly vulgar. Here is the latest example:


 * Vulgarity TerryH? Are you as clueless of the definition of that word as you are of evolution?  Please.
 * In any case, both Dimensio and Murray are quite right (as was I): evolution does not give a rat's behind whether a god or gods exist or don't exist, it is utterly irrelevant to the theory.
 * Now, what Dawkins writes regarding theology is his own opinion and has no bearing on the science of evolution. As Dimensio says, Dawkins is a piss-poor theologian and his arguments, poor as they are, are his own.  In my opinion, both theists and atheists, especially of the rabid variety (Benny Hinn and Richard Dawkins) are intellectual fools: as any deities would exist in the realm of the paranormal, there is no way to either prove nor disprove their existence -- arguing vehemently and vociferously on either side of the equation is a waste of brain cells.  Personally, I don't care if deities exist, I'm more concerned with being a good father, good friend, etc. NousEpirrhytos 07:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Urine, ladies and gentlemen? And the pudendum of Rattus rattus? And the saliva of hamsters, which was what I originally replied to and cited as vulgar? (In addition to User NousEpirrhytos, the other offender is User Dimensio.)

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm too close to this. But if someone is going to use vulgar metaphors, then I think perhaps some short-term blocks would be in order--perhaps for a day or two or three. But rather than take that action unilaterally (because it might appear to be self-serving), I now lay it before you all.--TerryHTalk 08:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * "Pudendum - The human external genital organs, especially of a woman. Often used in the plural". Explain yourself Terry.


 * In any case the use of "behind" in "rat's behind" is a euphemism. I would tell what we would say in Australia but I suspect it might cause trouble.  --Horace 08:28, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Perhaps I ought to have said "haunch." In any case, ought we to permit people to use metaphors that speak of urine and haunches and saliva? I thought that minors used this site.


 * Oh, and one more thing: shouldn't this page be protected?--TerryHTalk 08:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Do you mean protected from me? --Horace 08:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * No obscenity is allowed, even on talk pages. This is an absolute rule.  The user above is going to be warned of blocking, at a minimum.  Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Andy, the continued fighting there is permeating the site, and many are just growing weary of a few who just cannot stop arguing the issue. Can't we just lock it all down until the Students come up with an answer? --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 08:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * TerryK, you never cease to amaze me. --Horace 09:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? You should try my Gin Fizzes! --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 09:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I thought the evolution page was locked until the students address it (they have made progress). If not, feel free to do so.  This page is now locked since it is a Sysop page.  User NousEpirrhytos has been warned of blocking, and I'll warn User Dimensio next.  Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * FYI, the article is locked, but the talk page is not locked.
 * And (*sigh*) I find this next report almost as distasteful as my earlier report on vulgar metaphors. But have any of you had a gander at this latest highly disrespectful side discussion? Il Unione Siciliano, AKA La Cosa Nostra ("Our Thing")? Please. Argumentum ad hominem is bad enough--but how much blatant disrespect for authority must we tolerate?--TerryHTalk 10:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The likely problem with this sort of thing is in deciding what is vulgar and what isn't. I know that some things that Americans consider vulgar Australians wouldn't, and vice versa, and some things I consider vulgar other Australians wouldn't (Horace, I know what you are referring to, but personally I wouldn't use that term.  By the way, I didn't realise that you were another skip; have you seen the Aussie template?). Some terms there would be no question about, but other, more borderline ones, might genuinely be considered acceptable by some and not by others. Is there any way of having a Conservapedia standard on what's acceptable and what's not short of drawing up a list of unacceptable terms? Philip J. Rayment 10:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Guidelines would be fine, we do want to keep the rules and regulations to a minimum here, in contrast with Wikipedia. Sysops have discretion and authority, and we do ban obscenity.  Generally unintellectual comments are disfavored.  A comment like "Piss-poor" wouldn't be tolerated in a good university homework assignment, so why should we?--Aschlafly 11:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I smell a cp:Conservapedia:Standard emerging:
 * unintellectual comments are disfavored
 * good university homework assignment
 * I'd translate this into a guideline as, "Avoid unintellectual article comments and strive to make articles of a quality which is on par with a good university homework assignment." I'll settle for a good high school homework assignment, especially when starting an article (see cp:stub). --Ed Poor 05:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Namespace Filters for Contrib Pages
Ladies and gents, can't we have a namespace filter for the special pages on user contributions? How can we judge an editor's substantive contributions when, half the time, we can't even find any among the most recent fifty contribs, because that editor has spent so much time getting hot and heavy in the Talk or User talk namespaces? I realize that this might constitute a valid criticism of that editor--and I intend no cp:special pleading on my own part for having begun in this project largely by engaging in futile and unseemly flame wars (for which I apologize). But in all fairness, we ought to be able to find the pages that any user has made substantive (i.e., non-minor) edits to, or better yet created, so that we can better judge the value of his contributions to the project.

I propose that when you look up contributions, you have the option of searching either all namespaces, or just the main (article) namespace, or any other namespace you want to pick. And if we have that capability already, I'd like to know what I'm missing, and suggest that the method appear on this page so that every sysop knows how to conduct such a filtered search.--TerryHTalk 09:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Directions Provided
Well, after publishing the above, I got the instructions--and from Sid 3050. Give that man credit for a very helpful suggestion.

In case anyone hasn't seen it yet, whenever we search any page for user contributions, keywords, or whatever, we can select either all namespaces, or any particular namespace. The filter appears immediately below the set of links to various logs. The minor edits still present a problem--but such filtering is a powerful tool indeed.--TerryHTalk 09:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate Topics Falling Into Main Namespace
I hate to tell everybody, but prefixing "Debate:" in front of various debate-topic titles succeeds only in throwing it back into the Main namespace. Somebody needs to create a new, specific namespace for debate topics. The chief benefit would be to allow people to search for debate topics more readily (in case they didn't get added to the Debate Topics page), and to allow those of us who want to judge people's contributions, to separate article edits from debate postings and judge these separately.--TerryHTalk 12:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

More on this issue, from Sid3050:"The problem is not just that the debates are currently bleeding into the mainspace, but also that they will become inaccessible if we create a 'Debate'/'Debate talk' namespace set right now. Check out this link for reference (just under the first blue-border box). The explanation (from what I gather) is: Right now, we got an article with the full name 'Debate:Blah'. If we then create 'Debate' as a namespace, calling 'Debate:Blah' will actually show 'Blah in the Debate namespace' instead of 'Debate:Blah in the Main namespace' - two quite different things. So a sysop will have to revert those moves before the new namespace is being created. Good news is that there's a 'revert' link next to each move. Bad news is that there are many things that have to be reverted."

Something else to consider...--TerryHTalk 13:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes, quoting Sid, and getting help from him, is a real good idea. --~ TK MyTalk 13:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 * He at least provided good links. As long as I've checked out his information, and found it sound, I'll stand by my recommendation of it. If we allow his record to disqualify anything he says for no better reason than that he said it, then we commit cp:ad hominem and cp:non sequitur. Not to mention nasal self-amputation.--TerryHTalk 13:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, it at least sounds clever. --~ TK MyTalk 14:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Novel Cover Art
User Additioner has been uploading some book-cover images to Conservapedia. Now I don't have a problem with that, so long as we restrict the use of those images to articles about the books themselves. Under cp:United States law, such use constitutes cp:fair use. But the uploader ought to state that explicitly in the image summary when he does an upload.--TerryHTalk 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Agreed! There are many images, seemingly belonging "nowhere". --~ TK MyTalk 17:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I would suggest putting the images on watch. Don't delete yet, someone may be working on articles for them. ColinR talk 17:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes, especially images of "donuts"! --~ TK MyTalk 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocked Users
Please take special care to protect the pages of blocked users, to prevent vandalism and such. Especially if the ban isn't infinite. Additionally if not protected, it seems to be a posting spot for socks, etc. --~ TK MyTalk 18:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Sock Ring
If you review my recent blocks, you'll notice a large number of accounts with names on a similar pattern; generally six characters long, first and fourth characters capital letters, the rest random letters/numbers. Each of these accounts shared an IP with at least one other in the same group. If you notice a similar username in the User creation log, it might be an idea to run them through CheckUser. Tsumetai 04:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


 * What is the "check user" function? --~ TK MyTalk 05:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


 * CheckUser allows sysops to see a list of IP addresses used by any given account, and a list of accounts which have used any given IP address. Tsumetai 05:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Update: That makes 30 accounts in the last three days. Tsumetai 09:18, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


 * This might sound kind of crazy, but I think we're being raided again. Or someone's trying to prepare for a raid and you just shut them down heh.NSmyth 9:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Very well done, Tsumetai! I had not caught that myself.--Aschlafly 09:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Block Policy
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Plase Vote on the Policy Here.--CPAdmin1 10:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I think you had better start communicating. I think if you did, it would be explained to you, so you won't embarrass yourself further. --~ TK MyTalk 23:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I am Attempting to comunicate here, i am proposing a block policy to make things easier for everyone. --CPAdmin1 10:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


 * This is the best thing to come along about this topic/problem/issue which I've seen since I got here. Regardless of whether or not this policy proposal gets elevated to a guideline, it's an excellent effort. It's also a creative masterwork of compromise and negotiation and balance. It's what *I* wish I had come up with, but I am frankly not a good enough writer to do it. I may not agree with every jot and tittle, but it is certainly something I can live with; I've already started to try to conform my actions to it. --Ed Poor 20:52, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Thank you for the compliment. If there are any changes you would propose please post them on my talk page or the talk page for the proposed policy. --CPAdmin1 20:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, I am happy Ed, you were asked for input. Not all of us were.  That is the problem I have with it, same as Andy. And, since it has already been moved to vote, it is disingenuous and corrupt to make changes after people have voted. Since I am their primary target, and they refuse to communicate with me, but just post public charges and defamation's here, and privately denigrate and disrespect me, I have told Andy I will be fine with it, if he feels the need to remove me, or ask for my resignation. --~ TK MyTalk 20:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what I just posted on the talk page for the proposed policy.
 * I posted on the cp:Conservapedia:Sysops Page asking all of the sysops including you for input | Here, and I asked you personally for input | Here. I meant to post the first message on your talk page when I posted it on others, but I accidentally missed you. I am doing my best to try to involve you in the development of this policy, but all you have offered so far is insults.  Please make suggestions. --CPAdmin1 23:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of what you think of my proposal, do you see recognize the need to have a block policy? --CPAdmin1 00:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes, I do. One considered by Andy, Bureaucrats and Sysops and hashed out at least a bit, before springing it publicly.  That way keeps people from feeling they have been backed into a corner, Tim. You are so snide!  I posted several times in the beginning about needing some codified rules of procedure for Sysops, before and after being made a Sysop.  Ask Ed Poor, it is a constant subject of our conversations! Since you only communicate with other "elites", you wouldn't know the great lengths I always go to before blocking others.  I check with other Sysops, via IM or email, or in IRC.  I check with Andy.  And then after all that, along comes "Elite CPAdmin1" and Benjamin,  making a snide remark in the summary, and undoing it.  And if that wasn't enough, you denigrate me to others, questioning my mental state.  You messaged with others about drawing up the "proposed" rules, but excluded others.  That is not exactly bridge-building, or being fair. And through all these dozens of posts, you still refuse to make contact, and resolve it, as Ed Poor suggested to you.    --~ TK MyTalk 03:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Malicious Redirect
Someone has set up right-wing-masturbapedia.com as a redirect to conservapedia.com; take a look here for more info. Tsumetai 07:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think there's anything we can do about that... MountainDew 23:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

No, there really isn't. If they want to spend $5 a month just to do that, I could care less. --&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt; 23:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 * This is defamation. i will bring this to Andy's attention. Geo. Talk 18:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I think the redirect simply sends us new visitors. As said above, if they want to spend their money and time doing that, albeit in an offensive way, I'm not sure why we should care.


 * Thanks to User:Conservative for blocking one of the perpetrators promptly from this site.--Aschlafly 18:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It means that, hopefully, someone will some day find a Conservapedia page on Google that points to a right wing masturbapedia URL. Copied from blog entry by owner. Geo. Talk 18:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


 * That's already happening. The redirect is showing up in various Google searches on 'conservapedia + (something else).' One would think DreamHost would have a policy against this. Tsumetai 18:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I'd just ignore this. I think it simply attracts attention to Conservapedia.  The perpetrators are defeating their own purpose, which even they will realize eventually.  That "something else" in Tsumetai's message is probably something our legitimate visitors would not type.  Over time Google will drop it also.--Aschlafly 19:04, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Sorry, I should have been more clear. That "something else" could be anything at all, or even nothing. Their content is our content, and Google's bots are crawling their URLs. So any Google search which returns one of our pages ought to return one of theirs too. The only question is how high up their results get. I've already seen a couple on the first page of a search. Tsumetai 19:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't think this is the first time anyone has thought of this. I would expect Google's search engines to recognize this scam and filter it fairly soon.     But if not, the perpetrators are using our name without our permission and I think that violates our intellectual property.  We'll have them explain themselves to a judge if they want to persist in this.  Also, we can tell their ISP and it will stop intellectual property violations that use its machines.--Aschlafly 19:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I believe the website was illegal and the website is down now and it appears as if it was created by Jason Terk who lives in Somerville, MA  See:  http://forum.scotchandpolitics.com/viewtopic.php?id=87&p=17 and  here Conservative 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Pop celebrity pages
Ladies and gents, user has been making some edits, the wisdom of which I seriously question. These pages concern pop culture celbrities like cp:Britney Spears. My objections are threefold:
 * 1) Pop culture is by nature ephemeral, and I'm not sure that we want to offer that kind of, for lack of a better term, fluff in our encyclopedia.
 * 2) Some of these celebrities conduct themselves in an inappropriate manner, and having articles on them might appear as though we accept their behavior.
 * 3) They are living persons, some of whom are in and out of courts of cp:law all the time. Can't you see the cp:lawsuits, cp:subpoenae, et cetera ad nauseam? Andrew, you're an attorney. You know what I'm talking about.

For these reasons, I am recommending virtually every one of that user's new pages for deletion.--TerryHTalk 09:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * You raise a good point. We need to decide whether or not such articles are within the scope of the project. I don't think we need worry about points 2 and 3, however. On point 2, we have an article on Hitler, after all. And on point 3, public figures are generally fair game; we'd have to really cross the line to open ourselves up to a lawsuit. I don't think edits which were promptly reverted would count, either. Tsumetai 09:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * The problem is that the particular public figures involved, routinely hire Dream Teams of lawyers and can be quite vindictive. We deal here with celebrities who spend most of their time attacking one another, often viciously--too viciously to type here. We don't want to get caught in any legal crossfire.--TerryHTalk 11:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Lets just stick to hard facts, (DOB, movies, songs, etc.), rather than losing all the knowledge. I will refactor Britney Spears as an example.Geo. Talk 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Is all knowledge profitable for instruction and education, just because it is knowledge? In my day, if I brought TV-show merchandise into class and played with it, it would be confiscated. Class was class and pop was pop and never the twain did meet. And more than that: I maintain that you cannot mention the name Britney Spears in the company of minors without first saying, "This person comports herself in a deliberately immodest manner, and that strictly for shock value. Parental judgment and discretion are advised." What is Conservapedia coming to?--TerryHTalk 14:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I agree with some of everything here. Funny, Dew and I were discussing deleting everything by this (hopefully) 12 year old, Sunday night. Terry, yes she is she mostly inappropriate?  Of course!  Encyclopedia's routinely drop references to such "celebrities" who do not keep some relevancy.  See Marylin Monroe and James Dean as examples of those who have. They should have articles, with a picture so the uninformed about pop culture (like me) will possibly connect the name to the face, and agree with Geoplrd as to what the articles should be like. --~ TK MyTalk 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between Britney Spears and Cookie Monster, Big Bird, and Homer Simpson, all of which this user has created articles on. DanH 15:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Indeed. If very young, all topics of interest to them, eh? We have many very young users, and they are indeed pop culture icons, no? Like I said, I agree with most of the above.  Judicious pruning never hurts as well! --~ TK MyTalk 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Templates
I've created a page listing all Conservapedia's templates as a ready reference for editors wanting to know what templates are available and what they are for. It is very rough and ready and the page could do with some improvement, but my main concern at the moment is that there are a number of templates in existence that are likely against the rules and/or guidelines, or which we don't want to encourage people to use.

Could sysops (or others) have a look through the list and cull out (of existence, not just from the page) any templates that we should not have. Now that I've created the page it should be easier than before to see what's there and take action accordingly.

Philip J. Rayment 18:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Absolutely super!! :-) --~ TK MyTalk 19:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Following discussion between some sysops, we plan on insisting that anybody who creates a template also properly documents that template, with the penalty that it will be deleted if they do not do so. I will shortly be preparing a template that can be posted on the user talk pages of people who fail to document their templates advising them of this requirement. Philip J. Rayment 03:54, 26 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I have created the template for user talk pages. There are two versions, but this is the standard one for new templates:
 * I have also created three templates for use in documenting templates: TemplateDoc, Parms , and Parm.
 * Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

TimSvendsen?
Isn't this CPAdmin1? Are we all getting two accounts now? I kinda like the idea! --~ TK MyTalk 19:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes, he changed usernames. Geo. Talk 20:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Another memo lost! I gotta get a file system going. I have both names on my Sysop list, but I posted about it here, because I saw a block by TimSvendsen, and usually he uses CPAdmin1. Maybe Andy forgot to deactivate one of them? --~ TK MyTalk 20:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Tim doesn't use cp:User:TimSvensden anymore. Indeed, his user and user talk pages redirect to CPAdmin1. --Hojimachong talk 21:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Hmmmm, odd, I could have sworn that name did a block quite recently ....maybe someone has hacked it! Maybe I ran across it looking at old blocks....on a project I am doing...that must have been it!  --~ TK MyTalk 21:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Edit etiquette
I've created an editing etiquette page, and linked it off the help page. I wish that there was some way of notifying all editors of things like this. Philip J. Rayment 20:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Useful links template
I've add a Useful links template that users can include on their user page. I've also prettied-up the welcome template and included Useful links in the Welcome template, as you can see here: ''' Welcome! '''

Hello, < >, and welcome to cp:Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. To the right are some handy links, some of which you should read as soon as you can.

(You can include these links on your user page by putting Useful links on your page.)

Thanks for reading, < >! Philip J. Rayment 21:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Desysoping inactive users
try
 * cp:User:ChrisS - not active since 17th April


 * cp:User:Sarah B - most recent edits displayed below:


 * 04:33, 24 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Hillary Rodham Clinton (→Criticism)
 * 04:31, 24 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Kangaroo (→Reproduction)
 * 04:03, 23 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (→Evolution is a Racist Philosophy)
 * 04:03, 23 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (→Evolution is a Racist Philosophy)
 * 04:02, 23 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?
 * 03:59, 23 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Theory of evolution
 * 10:36, 1 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Ronald Wilson Reagan
 * 06:15, 1 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Ronald Wilson Reagan
 * 05:52, 1 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sarah B
 * 05:56, 19 December 2006 (hist) (diff) The Mona Lisa


 * cp:User:PhilipB - inactive since 29th March


 * cp:User:AustinM - not active since 7th April

(list created by CPAdmin1, expanded by Niandra)

question about blocking
Sharon posted to Bohdan:

Great job blocking! I'm not sure if anyone told you this yet: when blocking vandals, uncheck the "block anonymous users only" box. The block is more secure this way. Thanks, ~ SharonTalk 20:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Why is this so if it is true?

Conservative 21:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * That's what Mr. Schlafly and the Webmaster said. I'm not sure exactly why. ~ SharonTalk 21:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Good enough for me! Conservative 21:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Checking the box narrows the block to anonymous users only. Uncheck the box and it applies broadly to anyone, including already registered sock puppets, I suppose.--Aschlafly 21:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Only if those socks are using the same IP, and are not accessing the site via proxy. --Hojimachong talk 22:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

(developer note) I suggest we set the defaults for those checkboxes to the way we want them. That way, we don't have to take the extra time and mental effort to "remember" one more niggling little detail. --Ed Poor 09:16, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Agreed. JustineA --sysop-- talk 09:27, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Agreed! -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 15:21, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Please direct new Sysops to this article
Please direct new Sysops to this article: cp:New Sysops Training Page

Conservative 20:54, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

AtheistKathryn
Is there some reason why AtheristKathryn's pages were'nt deleted after she was blocked infinitely? I just want to make sure that I should delete her pages.--BethTalk 09:38, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Kathryn is not blocked at the moment. She has been unblocked since sometime in April. Niandra talk 09:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh. It didn't say she was unblocked in her block log. Thanks!--BethTalk 09:57, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

''' Niandra talk 09:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 * 07:30, 27 April 2007 Hojimachong (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AtheistKathryn (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 seconds (insulting donuts)
 * 14:48, 12 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked AtheistKathryn (contribs) (Asked for second chance. Promises not to be insulting to users anymore)
 * 11:14, 11 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AtheistKathryn (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Insults/Disruption)

Breaking News
(Transferred from Andy's page on 7/1/07)

I added the following articles from cp:Michelle Malkin to the Breaking News section you might be interested in: '''[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/22/what-liberal-media-yeah-that-liberal-media/ What liberal media? Yeah, that liberal media] and the forgotten victims of cp:Planned Parenthood'''  here  Crocoite Talk 10:24, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I also added this one about cp:liberals don't like being called "liberals" - they prefer the term progressive. Liberals adopt name for 'progress'. Even though this is old news, this article is great entertainment... "It's about spine and dogma and a certainty of movement. It's a way to counter conservatives." More fun - "The word "progressive, ... goes beyond the traditional concept of liberalism, which we also subscribe to, and it has an emphasis on empowering people in the political and economic sphere." Enjoy! Crocoite Talk 22:12, 22 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I think we should have a few articles on the main page with pics, and the rest be moved to another page called Previous Conservapedia Breaking News with a link from the Breaking News section on the Main Page. This would shorten the news section (so we can see the Today in History section), and give a place to archive the previous news articles. I could even organize and archive them by topic. Crocoite 17:13, 30 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I got a head start on this including the link from the Main Page. Crocoite 20:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)


 * "Getting a head start" isn't exactly discussion and approval is it? -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 20:55, 30 June 2007 (EDT)


 * It's not necessary to get approval for everything, and nothing Crocoite's done can't be undone. Having said that, it is a bit odd to ask about doing something then doing it without waiting for an answer.  Philip J. Rayment 22:59, 30 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes, it was a bit odd. Sort of like, praying for patience, and asking the Lord to give it to me NOW. :-( Crocoite 01:03, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I trust Crocoite with the front page. He's done a wonderful job keeping it current and fresh and I trust what he'll do in the future. DanH 01:10, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Test

This is a test page. I can see it, can you?


 * I can see it. --Crocoite 22:31, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

User blocks

Sysop Discussion Page ''Note:Please archive anything with latest date before minus six days. 10 to an Archive''

#5
User Brian blocked. He was fairly inactive, and has now started up again in ernest after posting on RW that he was going to deal with us in ernest. I assumed a couple of months ago he was from there, and sure enough, within seconds of his being blocked here he had a page there. I let him back, but he did little, but has been busy of late. Recent postings on RW caught my attention. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 05:16, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

A blocked newbie
I got this email. I wonder how many of you also received it:


 * Hi Ed,
 * I have been blocked by another sysop who will not respond to my emails. Here is a copy of the email I sent to him:
 * Hi Dan,
 * I was wondering why you blocked me from contributing to
 * conservapedia. I am a homeschooled person from the northeast and have not edited any
 * pages. The reason given for my block was "'". My block ID is #11331.
 * Thanks.
 * Is it normal to be banned without doing anything? I thought this was a page where conservative people could be free. What do I need to do to get unbanned? Thanks.
 * Is it normal to be banned without doing anything? I thought this was a page where conservative people could be free. What do I need to do to get unbanned? Thanks.
 * Is it normal to be banned without doing anything? I thought this was a page where conservative people could be free. What do I need to do to get unbanned? Thanks.

I haven't even looked at the block log yet, because I don't want to second-guess any of my fellow sysops. Now that I've posted this, I might take a peek though. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 22:37, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


 * That complaint sounds more legitimate than the one yesterday. Do you have the user id.?  Let's unblock and monitor him.--Aschlafly 22:40, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


 * 15:32, 28 June 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Nukular (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite


 * I unblocked him, and email him with a cc to you and Dan. Is this edit summary "discreet" enough? All it says is "A blocked newbie" --Ed Poor Talk 22:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Perfect comment. You could work for the CIA!--Aschlafly 22:59, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


 * It's such an old block, and I hate to second-guess Dan, but - okay, just to test our new communications channel more than anything else ... --Ed Poor Talk 22:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Ah. User id "Nukular"?  Sounds like a Bush-hater and I think he may be lying about being homeschooled.  Oh well, as long as we're monitoring him we can find out soon enough.--Aschlafly 22:43, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, his email address had the term "Fox sucks" in it. I didn't think he was being straightforward with me. I wasn't sure what to say, but then I forgot about him... DanH 03:57, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

User:Krimpet
I just blocked User:Krimpet Here's the user page:
 * My name is Francine, and I am a proud American homemaker, homeschooling my nine children in Blue Ball, Pennsylvania. I am proud to be a Christian.


 * I also have an account on Wikipedia, where I have crusaded in vain to erase the rampant liberal bias that prevails there in the name of "neutrality."

This sounded like Troll language. When I followed the Wikipedia link, I saw User:Krimpet ON WHEELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111269.

I left the summary blank so the trolls can't read it in Recent Changes. --Crocoite 23:00, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


 * We could just number the headers for new posts.........-- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 04:35, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Krimpet came back in a few minutes later, as user:Tepmirk (backwards!), and got immediately blocked. Oh well! Karajou 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

User:AManInBlack
Andy, I know you gave him a warning. I've seen a couple of edits from him I really like. I saw his creation of the cp:Slur page and the redirect of the cp:Faggot page. I think this is a good long-term solution for any slur words, It's sure easier than blanking the page, protecting it, and redirect to deleted for everything these trolls invent. The other edit I liked was Fire hydrant. I think this user has good potential. --Crocoite 00:19, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Joaquin, I suspect that AManInBlack is a vandal. But Crocoite likes him, and I noticed that Crocoite is on your upcoming team. I'm not sure myself yet. I wouldn't give him image privileges, but his Scouting entry didn't seem that bad. Your thoughts?--Aschlafly 01:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Joaquin, my mistake on my user page. Only in this "Sysop" namespace is it confidential.--Aschlafly 01:10, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok Andy. I think he is only loosing our time but Crocoite opinion is important. You may change his "week" blocking if you please. --cp:User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 01:15, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * OK, I'll undo it now. I'll probably live to regret it! :-) --Aschlafly 01:19, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't think you will regret it Andy or Joaquin ... but if you do, you can both tell me "I told you so" right here. ;-) --Crocoite 01:23, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Ha ha ha. I appreciate your humor, Crocoite!  I'm really looking forward to our upcoming team competition.  Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:31, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm looking forward to the sysop contest as well. I just wish we weren't on opposite teams. ;-) --Crocoite 01:35, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Uh oh, does ManInBlack's behavior look odd and suspicious? Does anyone know what he's doing?--Aschlafly 01:57, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * He was just working on Template subpages. (I'm monitoring him). I see a good edit on United States Flag Code. --Crocoite 02:02, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I usually shut off editing by new users at this time to prevent overnight vandalism. Editing will be turned back on for ManInBlack early tomorrow morning.  I've let him know.


 * His name, his immediate question about uploading, his tinkering with Templates, his over-politeness (for kids) ... I'm very suspicious of him. But we'll see.  I'll watching him for a few more minutes before I shut off new-editor changes.  You won't have to watch him for more than the next ten minutes.  Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 02:11, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * He has not edited any templates. All he has done is point out a problem with a template on the template's talk page, and asked if anyone would object to him changing the template accordingly.  Philip J. Rayment 02:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * You are correct Philip. I meant subpages. ;-) When are you going to stop putting comments in the sysop summary block? Hint, hint. --Crocoite 03:08, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I've actually got my preferences set to require an edit comment*, and I've gotten into the habit of doing it all the time. I'm trying to remember, though, to not having anything too revealing.  I've remembered to delete the automatic part of the summary (the name of this section) both times I've posted here (including this post), although the recent changes list already shows that AMainInBlack is being discussed here.  It would be much better (and safer) if Andy or someone was able to find a solution to these posts showing on the recent changes list.  Philip J. Rayment 03:47, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * *&mdash;although it can be overridden on a case-by-case basis.

(reset indent)Gut feeling? ManInBlack is a parodist working his way in; this is the new modus operandi for rat ionalwiki users. I hope I'm wrong, but I will now be cross-checking every date, statistic, fact and figure that ManInBlack posts :(  Fox (talk|contribs) 11:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT) I assume that his name is probably just a reference to Johnny Cash. DanH 13:29, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Either Johnny Cash (the "man in black" or maybe the movie cp:Men In Black). Either way, he got my dander up with an apparently sidelong reference to support "hate speech" laws which favor homosexuals or homosexuality. See my talk page for my response.


 * All this "cp:politically correct" nonsense is aimed directly at eroding our cp:First Amendment rights. If you can't even say something without your opponent "correcting your vocabulary", you spend all your time backpedaling and no time making your point. Let's not cater to that here. --Ed Poor Talk 19:16, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you in this case and strongly oppose such laws on First Amendment grounds. In retrospect, the content of his early edits could possibly be construed as blatant attempt to make "legitimate" edits in order to commence with this campaign. DanH 19:23, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Note to All Sysops
It is worth marking this page as "Watch this page" so it shows up in bold on the Recent Changes page.--Aschlafly 01:31, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

cp:User:Nukular
Just got this (note: look at his email address, tells you his politics). RobS 10:52, 7 July 2007 (EDT) from Nukular     hide details  Jul 6 (14 hours ago) to RobS  date Jul 6, 2007 6:43 PM    subject  Conservapedia e-mail

Hi Rob. I was recently blocked by DanH. Could you please help me find out what happened? I sent him an email and he did not respond. This is the email I sent.

Hi Dan, I was wondering why you blocked me from contributing to conservapedia. I am a homeschooled person from the northeast and have not edited any pages. The reason given for my block was "'". My block ID is #11331. Thanks.

I have not violated any of the conservapedia commandments and can not figure out why I was blocked. thanks.
 * See "A blocked newbie" above. This has been dealt with.  Philip J. Rayment 10:55, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

MfD
I just recieved an email from User:MfD. MfD was blocked by me May 20 as a sock, unblocked 38 minutes later by TK without explanation.


 * 21:42, 20 May 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked MfD (contribs) (Chatted online, assures not vandal or threat)
 * 17:32, 20 May 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MfD (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Colin/Ice/Sid/Jtl et.al. sock puppet)
 * 16:52, 20 May 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked MfD (contribs)
 * 16:14, 20 May 2007 RobS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MfD (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (sock)

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:MfD

Why was the original block undone 38 minutes later without explanation? RobS 10:26, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

from Scrum Charlie     hide details  12:45 am (7 hours ago) to Rob Smith  date Jul 7, 2007 12:45 AM    subject  From MfD mailed-by gmail.com

There is a bug in the software that whenever I try to edit my userpage I am blocked from editing Conservapedia again. You can fix this by blocking me again then unblocking me. Thank you.


 * We had quite a few times in which a troll came in, got blocked, emailed someone claiming it was a mistake and was let back in...only to have the troll confirm who he was the hard way. It pays to do careful checks.  Karajou 14:03, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

BrianCo
I appreciate he's been doing lots of categorizing and beavering away like anything... but I'm uncomfortable that he is up for sysop so early in his... "rehabilitation" period. Just a few weeks ago, he was happily trash talking us all on RW, calling us "Wackopedia", copy/pasting our talk comments to ridicule us, and revelling in the parody entries that had taken me ("Pox" as he liked to call me :D) so much digging to detect. I'm all for people turning over new leaves and so on, but we have no idea what his motives are; he can say that he no longer uses RW, but these people have so many sockpuppets, even on their own site! that we don't know if that's true. Sure, let him carry on sweating at the coalface, but I wouldn't trust him with the keys to the door for a long while yet :/ Fox (talk|contribs) 11:51, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * He's done a lot of maintance chores, but I haven't seen anything outright subversive to content to be concerned about. RobS 12:04, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Fox, your comments are enormously helpful. I was not aware of this background info on BrianCo. You are certainly right that we should be cautious in giving out the keys to the door!

RobS, your continued feedback on BrianCo will be very helpful.--Aschlafly 13:59, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Okay, I just decided to get straight to the point with BrianCo and emailed him, explaining that it unnerved me not knowing why he had left RW and come "back to the fold". I don't like things not being transparent, so it seemed more honest to just ask him outright. His reply was equally forthright, and eased my mind that he is genuine; as RobS has pointed out, he has done nothing wrong here, and as for his time at RW he said: "Anything I may have said at RW was just being part of the crowd, people do and say things in a group that they wouldn't do on their own." I believe him; in fact, I feel a little mean for my comments above. Apart from the RW thing, I like him as an editor, and we've swapped emails about article suggestions in the past. cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:10, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Thanks much, Fox. I'll remain cautiously optimistic.  If BrianCo has really reformed, he may be the first here!--Aschlafly 16:17, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I posted to the General Discussion group, I believe, and did email serveral of you when I unblocked him. All the above was covered.  -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 05:58, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

SwmingStar
What did she do? DanH 13:32, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * We need a link. RobS 13:36, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * My only guess is that she was blocked because of her comments on the Main Page Talk in the Fox News video section and the Google and Sicko section. They were a slight troll but not enough to warrant an infinite block.--BethTalk2ME 13:48, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * She was a he, specifically banned RW user Heuygonagetcha, however he spelled it. Huey made the mistake of using his same IP for his new sock, which pick up a third sock that he used.  Good thing we got "Check User" functions!  Karajou 14:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I see. I never thought to check her...I mean him. Thanks for clarifying Karajou! --BethTalk2ME 14:08, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. I don't want him around any more! After I banned him for the first time here he sent me many obscene emails. DanH 14:13, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Could BORF and Huey be the same? I banned a BORF sock and got hit with obscene emails. Geo.Complain! 20:12, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Tarkyukyul
This user made hash of the entry on Saint cp:Mark, and I had to block him as a troll.--TerryHTalk 16:34, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Request for a block repeal
Just got this email:

Dear Elamdri,

I am Juan Manuel Arcia, an user of Conservapedia who needs your help. I was blocked by the user Niandra because I had written my username with uppercase characters. I would like to resign it with the same username, but with less uppercase characters, and of course to be unblocked. However Niandra will not be active until 23rd July. For that I will thank you in advance if you can solve my problem. My user page is JUANMANUELARCIA, my current IP address is 201.208.41.47, and the block ID is #10238. Please, answer as soon as possible.

My E-mail: juanmanuelarcia@hotmail.com

Sincerely yours,

Juan Manuel Arcia Salazar
 * I infinitely blocked someone recently for their username (it might have been "JesuswasaliberalJew "), but unticked the box for preventing account recreation, figuring that there was no problem with them trying to reregister with a better name. Philip J. Rayment 01:41, 8 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Smart. Thanks, Philip.  In Christ, Aschlafly 01:45, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Great block
Great block, Bethany, on User:Omega!!! You caught and reverted his vandalism of blank pages quickly. Well done! In Christ, Aschlafly 13:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, I saw the vandalism, looked to see if he had been blocked (he hadn't), tried to block him, and found that BethanyS had got him in those few seconds! Philip J. Rayment 13:41, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Thanks for saving one of my pages--and for showing me how to use the DefaultSort template.--TerryHTalk 14:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank You! It took a while to revert his edits. Annoying person! :P --BethTalk2ME 17:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Team Contest
This is the wrong page for this, but I want everyone to see this. To confirm who has access to your team's pages, go to cp:Special:Listusers and sort by one of your team categories (scroll down in "Group"). No one else has access to your team pages except the persons listed, not even me. In Christ,Aschlafly 14:32, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Blocking privileges
One member of the contest, User:Learn together, does not have blocking privileges and thus cannot earn points that way.

Can other Sysops comment on whether User:Learn together should be given blocking privileges, which would enable him or her to block other users? Thanks. In Christ, Aschlafly 21:12, 8 July 2007 (EDT)


 * That's a problem! Joaquin has asked Tash to be the final member of his team, and if he accepts, he won't have blocking ability either.  I think we should give Learn together blocking privileges for this contest.  This is a good chance to see if he will use his power responsibly. ~ <font color="Turquoise">SharonTalk 21:22, 8 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Unless someone objects, I'm inclined to give both blocking authority before the contest begins. Other Sysops, do you have a view about User:Learn together and User:Tash?  This discussion is confidential and they will not be able to view this, even if they have blocking powers.  Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:25, 8 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I vote to give both of them blocking authority. --Crocoite 21:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I agree with Sharon's idea, and Andy's inclination. We never really know about anyone until seeing them at work over a period of time....and Lord knows we can use the extra blocking help often!  Tash was also one of those responsible for getting Fox to stick around....so their judgement is pretty good.  -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 02:09, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I have had no issues with regard to either Tash or Learn Together; neither one of them (at least to me) have appeared to have caused any problems; in fact, they have been assets to Conservapedia. I vote for granting them blocking powers. Karajou 02:15, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm happy for LT to have blocking powers, and Tash already has them cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 03:54, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Misc
For Hoji and others, I just exercised my newly found ability to delete 3 obscenities from the "Recent changes" page. In general, do not be alarmed if you see your blocks disappear from the Recent changes page, because I can delete those entries (but not undo the blocks) from the database now. I do this simply to make the page look nicer.

On another topic, I'm confident that User:AManInBlack was a vandal wannabee, and thanks to Ed Poor and others for being so vigilant that he left voluntarily. Well done! Godspeed--Aschlafly 23:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Eterriere64
Eterriere64 has e-mailed me asking me to unblock him. Niandra blocked him as a sockpuppet, and indeed his IP is the same as that of cp:user:MfD, whom RobS has also recently blocked as a sockpuppet. Do we have any evidence of sockpuppetry other than the same IP? I have replied to Eterriere64 asking where he logs on from (home/work/library/etc.). Philip J. Rayment 03:50, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, he/she seems to have several names, Philip; Charlie Scrum, Eterriere, MfD and now "Tim" etc. Rob was right in blocking him, under whatever personality he is currently using.  I beleive I origainlly blocked him as Scrum Charlie or Charlie Scrum, if memory serves me. Here is the email I received Saturday:

From: Scrum Charlie [mailto:charliescrum@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:11 PM To: TK Subject: RobS

RobS has banned me again for no reason other than "sock," which is bizarre. I don't think I want to be on board with careless and irresponsible users like this, who don't even look at the contributions of a user they ban, so good luck with Conservapedia. I'm out of here. What did I do now? Do you even notice why so many people you ban have no idea why they were? I can pick a random user's block log and, sure enough, he or she was banned or had been banned before. At Wikipedia I saw a well-respected administrator who asked Ed Poor to unblock him at Conservapedia, and I thought, here we go again. My time is much better spent at Wikipedia, the horribly biased encyclopedia which the websites WikiTruth, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Conservapedia like to make fun of. And of course, now that I've criticized you a little, the next time you ban some "sockpuppet" use the summary ( Colin/Ice/Sid/Jtl/MfD et.al. sock puppet). My work here is done. —Tim, formerly MfD -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 04:18, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * None of that actually shows that MfD and Eterriere64 are the same person (or even that MfD has more than one account). You have not blocked anyone with "scrum" or "charlie" in their name (unless Andy has removed them from the databse).  Philip J. Rayment 04:38, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * At the risk of this being taken as snippy, we are not court of law, we really don't have to "prove" anything...as our feelings on these things are usually correct.  There was an account for Scrum, back several months ago, sometimes they are known to drop off, for unknown reasons, even before Andy's latest technical wizardry...-- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 05:50, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * No, we are not a court of law, but I suspect that the claim that "our feelings on these things are usually correct" might be somewhat self-reinforcing and not supported by the evidence.  But even ignoring that:
 * The Bible teaches us to make judgements on evidence and witnesses, not feelings (which is the origin of courts requiring evidence).
 * Even if your feelings are correct 90% of the time, how do you tell whether an individual case falls into the 90% or the 10%?
 * Following from the previous point, are you so sure of your feelings that you will maintain a block against protest without evidence?
 * Philip J. Rayment 06:06, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I should have investigated a bit more closely, but a further couple of e-mails from this user made me realise that Eterriere64's e-mail was also from charliescrum@, which confirms that he and MfD are the same user. I have told him that the ban stays. Philip J. Rayment 21:24, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Wow. What a dunce. Can't even troll properly. RobS 22:11, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

buryyourdraws
Requested via email to be unblocked to choose new username. Fox (talk|contribs) 05:52, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Having said that, as I thought I didn't block the IP address. Replacing block on username. cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 05:55, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

cp:User:KxWaal
Take a gander at his user page, and then take a gander at his contributions.

What say you? Has he crossed a legal line by declaring himself to be a user of (presumably illicit) drugs?--TerryHTalk 07:18, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I thought about that, but held back from blocking on the theory that his/her next edit will almost certainly be worthy of a block. Give em enough rope... ;) cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 07:27, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Contest
I just gave User:Learn together blocking and uploading powers, as he or she is part of Team1. I find the user name "Learn together" a bit suspicious-looking, and I recall that there was a concern about his or her edits a long time ago. So a little extra vigilance in watching what this user does might be worthwhile. Most likely this is a valued contributor and the concerns are misplaced, but "trust and verify" as President cp:Ronald Reagan used to say. Thanks.--Aschlafly 11:27, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Powerful new blocking feature
Thank's to Geo's tip of two weeks ago, I have figured out how to turn on the power to block IP address ranges (finally!). Every Sysop now has this power.

Using this new power correctly is not easy. You may find have to try several times and overcome numerous "not a correct IP" or "user not found" error messages. A couple of tips:

The "/" denotes the range, and the number after the "/" apparently has to be between 16 and 31. Don't ask me why!

This example just worked for blocking this IP address range: 142.167.0.0/16. I just did it successfully as a test for 2 hours. Hope I didn't block anyone we like! Short blocks with this feature are preferred until we know what we're doing!

More info here if desired:

Enjoy. The folks who keep vandalizing us this afternoon are suitable candidates for testing this.--Aschlafly 16:52, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm glad that you're finding the MediaWiki software so easy to configure. Even though I had nothing to do with the actual programming, I like to think that I had some influence over what features the programmers chose to put into it.


 * Liberals aren't all bad, and not even all liberals are entirely bad. The idea of "cp:free software" is a quasi-liberal notion and the brainchild of MIT hacker cp:Richard Stallman. When I have time, I'll write more about him, his ideas, and the work he did that led to free operating system which the business world calls "cp:Linux" (see also the cp:GNU project). --Ed Poor Talk 11:41, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd question that the idea of free software is a quasi-liberal notion, although the "quasi" qualifier might just make it true.
 * Amway co-founder Rich DeVos wrote a book titled, if I recall correctly, "Compassionate Capitalism". His point was that capitalism doesn't have to be a brutal dog-eat-dog world of unbridled competition.  Offering free software is actually a Christian thing to do&mdash;sharing with others&mdash;whereas the liberal mentality is for governments to provide free software as a duty, or to force others to.
 * Philip J. Rayment 21:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Email Received
Original Message From: Mescad [mailto:mescad@gmail.com ] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 11:51 AM To: TK Subject: Conservapedia e-mail

Hello TK,

I was blocked by Joaquín Martínez as a "Vandal". I have only made four edits, and none of those edits were anything close to vandalism. They were all reverted when I was blocked, on Saturday. I have emailed him, asking for a reconsideration, but for some reason he has not responded at all. Can you help me?

My current IP address is 63.170.133.108, and the block ID is #12926.

Mescad

Anyone else hear from them? -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 19:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I have not received an email but do not see anything offensive in his edits. I don't know why Joaquín blocked him but I will unblock him and take the responsibility of watching his edits if needed.--BethTalk2ME 20:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Thanks, Beth, I owe you on this one! -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 11:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I will unblock him now, since Joaquin gave no reason for his block. Could you possibly send him an email, I will post on his talk page?(if you can't that fine)--BethTalk2ME 11:49, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

cp:user:LuckyJN
She's asking the same questions regarding our positions on "deceit" that were asked by a troll a couple weeks ago. I don't know if he/she is the same one, but worth looking into. Karajou 23:24, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Krimpet
This troll came back from under her bridge, as User:DYerKrimpEr (obvious). Got blocked. Karajou 01:01, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

ThatSpongeCakeBrand‎
I rolled back its "mascot" link. I don't like new users posting links here which might go to bad stuff. Just roll back edits to new links by unproven editors without even checking out the link. Thanks.--Aschlafly 01:19, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

P.S. I see that Joaquin later blocked that user. Thank you, Joaquin.--Aschlafly 01:21, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Ah, I've got a thick skin. I checked out his picture.  Not bad, actually, at least certainly not crude, but it is having a dig, and of course not what we would want as a mascot.  Feel free to have a look, though, if you are curious.  Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * P.S. Joaquin was just after the points!  :-)  Philip J. Rayment 01:48, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

If I unblock and reblock him, does my team get the points too? :) DanH 01:50, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Heh heh heh. :-) Philip J. Rayment 01:52, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Adormo
"Expanded" the Hegel article with a lengthy passage apparently cribbed from another website. See cp:Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. I'm annoyed, I don't have time for this! My client wants his project done yesterday, and we're getting hit with what looks like deliberately planted stuff like this which can hurt the project. --Ed Poor Talk 11:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yea, I think that's a deliberate copyright. You could block him for infinite if you want to.--BethTalk2ME 11:16, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Halifax Troll
I think we just succeeded in using that new blocking feature against the Halifax troll. Hopefully! Karajou 15:30, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * This guy DID NOT RETURN after I put in that range thingy a few minutes ago. He's bagging on his keyboard just a'swearing at us, using every foul, four-letter word he can think of...and he can't get back in!  Victory for the good guys!  Karajou 15:36, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Why is he called the "Halifax" troll, by the way? cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:39, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * All of his IPs traced to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Karajou 15:41, 10 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Praise the Lord.--Aschlafly 16:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Now, the Halifax troll did come back as "Montanaman", with an IP of 142.176.13.19, which traced to Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. he had tried to force an edit of Glace Bay once before, and this IP may have been a sock. Still, I range-blocked that too, just in case. Karajou 17:20, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

The vandal who first showed up today as "Oldearthcreationist" and a bunch of other names, many of which were obscene, was from Halifax. DanH 17:22, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Halifax is a crappy city. Bohdan 17:24, 10 July 2007 (EDT)


 * LoL. Anyway, I earned some points off the idiot :P cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:25, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd congratulate you, but I don't think you are on my team. Bohdan 17:26, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was funny how somebody who was in the contest welcomed him at one point AFTER he'd been banned. That made me laugh. DanH 17:27, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

It don't matter who gets the credit for banning that idiot; what does matter is that all of us, and this site, benefits! Karajou 18:33, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Stlphotog...
...has submitted copyrighted work directly from Wikipedia. See his cp:Ponca City article. The oil section is a direct copy. I will warn him but I think he should be blocked. What do you think?--BethTalk2ME 13:26, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 * If he does not remove the offending material by tonight (say, at midnight), you may have to block him. I recommend blocking him for one week.--TerryHTalk 14:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Just to be fair, find out if he wrote most or all of it for Wikipedia. A number of articles I had wrote while there I brought over, with Andy's approval.  Karajou 15:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm afraid he didn't. In fact, what he did contribute to Wikipedia's Ponca City article was a long list of places to visit--which user "Reservoirhill" promptly reverted. At issue is the oil-business section, to which--as far as I can tell--he did not contribute.
 * He ought to confine his copying to those edits that he furnished to Wikipedia, together with a permanent link to the revision that existed immediately before the revert.
 * If you want an example of how to submit something to CP and to another wiki, I offer my own articles on the Hebrew kings, or better yet my most recent submission, cp:Exodus of Israel. Take a gander at cp:Talk:Exodus of Israel for an example of how I reference my submission to the other wiki. It contains my username on the other project, and the permanent link (with the oldid) to the version that I last created.--TerryHTalk 16:19, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 * My practice (only two or three times), if I'm sure it is not their own work has been to delete the page myself and warn the user not to do it again. Philip J. Rayment 08:15, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Tag team
A tag team of cp:User:Tyler and cp:User:J3susfr34k just got a Sysop to revert to thier prefered version; this is the second time today the same material was inserted into the same article. RobS 16:17, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Sid
After email discussions with TK, cc'ed to Andy, I've taken it upon myslef to unblock cp:User:Sid_3050. His email said:


 * It's kinda fun, but not exactly productive to watch the contest people competing about who can copy the most articles ([1]). So I wanted to ask if you guys really need THAT long to determine if you want to unban a guy who can write non-ultra-stub, non-copied articles. I mean, if you unban me now, you'd have sixteen people breathing down my neck who'd LOVE to get two points for blocking me for the tiniest offense! It would be the best surveillance you could ask for when it comes to a hardcore villain like me =P

And on that note, "Let the healing begin!" --Ed Poor Talk 19:18, 11 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Anyone wanna start a pool as to exactly how long he lasts, everyone bending over backwards and all? I give him less than one week, before he involves himself in some train wreck needlessly....I see he has already inserted himself into an argument needlessly already. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 02:47, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

cp:User:Porthos
Radical activism and questionable sources. User inserted a definition in the Humanism article from a website whose President readily admits the organization engages in subversive infiltration and spying on "enemies." Used Prof. Gregory Herek as a source in the Sexual orientation article  whose extreme views we have already debated to death in the Homophobia article. Other questionable edits and extreme activism. RobS 14:27, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Now that you've explained your concerns to him, is there still a problem? Philip J. Rayment 07:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
 * The balls is in his court; as a newbie, he's now been instructed a radical POV crusade is unacceptable. So we'll see if he has any ability in a more moderate vein.  RobS 10:07, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Tomoko
Tomoko just sent this: 90/10 block

from Tomoko <beatlegirl4004@yahoo.com>    hide details  11:47 am (24 minutes ago) to RobS <nobs03@gmail.com> date Jul 15, 2007 11:47 AM    subject  90/10 block

How do I get this block lifted

RobS 14:14, 15 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Doesn't show up in Check User....so perhaps they have forgotten the sock name that was actually blocked? -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 15:51, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I haven't a clue; never heard of him/her, and it could be from 150 years ago for all we know. Didn't provide a link either.  RobS 16:19, 15 July 2007 (EDT)


 * 22:28, 6 May 2007 RobS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Tomoko (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (90/10 violation) cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 17:43, 15 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Thanks Fox. I guess it was ancient history. What a coincidence, Tomoko's last posting was about the Westboro Baptist Church more than two months ago,  and only moments after somebody puts Westboro Baptist Church in cp::Category:Hate groups,  Tomoko asks for a reprieve. Another strange but true phenomenon.  RobS 18:06, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
 * LoL Surprising how many strange but true phenomena we experience here :D cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 18:32, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Gokly
I received this email:

From: Yellowsmith <isis4563@gmail.com> To: Crocoite <crocoitecp@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 1:09:07 PM Subject: Conservapedia e-mail

"I am upset. I can't edit anymore. I don't know what happened. The computer says I was blocked. As user:Gokly, I made an edit to the Thundercats page. I didn't think it was bad, and I can't edit anymore. I was using this for my homwork, and wanted to start editing it, so I creeted an acount. Can you let me start editing agin?"

Here is the block log:

09:33, July 15, 2007, Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Gokly (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (unblock) (vandal)

I don't see anything that would have earned him this block, but perhaps Conservative would like to deal with this situation. --Crocoite 23:05, 15 July 2007 (EDT)


 * -Original Message-
 * From: Yellowsmith [mailto:isis4563@gmail.com]
 * Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:48 AM
 * To: TK
 * Subject: Conservapedia e-mail
 * As a stupid, narrow-minded conservative, you won't listen to me, but I'll
 * speak anyway. I made an edit. It was in good faith, and I was blocked for
 * it. I didn't get any warnings. Soooooo conservative!!! I want to watch
 * conservapedia die a very slow death. No wait, scratch that, I want it to
 * dissapear very quickly!!!!
 * dissapear very quickly!!!!

That is one among many received....

-- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 23:40, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Spiffified Desk
I spiffified the Desk Geo.Complain! 01:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

cp:User:JBT
User:JBT just removed content from his page which had been up since June 3. This content was highly inflammitory and used the CP Main Page Template. IMO, the castle clause doesn't apply here, and this User either needs to be warned or blocked. RobS 13:37, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I had blocked him already for the hate content of his user page. cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 13:41, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


 * A user's pages are indeed their castle. Removing material that is critical of CP, or seemingly wanting the destruction of Israel, is a good thing, no?   Or the possibility they are removing all evidence and putting the sock in storage, for later future use. ;-) In any event, Fox I think the block needs to be removed, because we do allow wide latitude, and them removing the material, and then his being blocked (without warning) wouldn't seem to be transparent enough., according to some Sysops.   -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 13:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


 * On the contrary, the page wasn't critical of CP - or at least not that I noticed. But it certainly contained hate material. A user's page is only their castle so far as other people editing/tampering with it is concerned, I would maintain - it is not an isolated bubble within CP where all other considerations are suspended and the fomentation of hate is allowed. As for whether they would or would not replace it with further hate material, whether they would or would not use the account as a sock, that is immaterial - we do not unblock vandals on the grounds that their next edit might be a work of genius disproving evolution: they are blocked for what they have already done. And people have been blocked here for far, far less than what this user put on their page. cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:02, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Use of the Main Page Template is the issue that needs to be considered; this is a pretty blatant provocation to impugn CP integrity. RobS 14:31, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, that too, I agree, Rob. I don't feel any qualms that this user should have been blocked. cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


 * We do not have a policy, stated or implied about using the main page template, and several users do use it. Please address Andy and blame him, if blame you need to assign, but he is the one who specifically stated the user/talk pages (both of them) were free ground. Indeed there was material there critical of CP. While I dislike intensely the statement there, wishing for the destruction of Israel, that isn't at all the same as attacking a specific CP user, which I don't allow, most of us will not allow to stand, per our CP Guidelines.  Accordingly, the user has been unblocked, and if you see something in their edits, not on their talk/user pages, or article talk pages, something in that user's edits that violate our Commandments and Guidelines, feel free to block them, Fox.  Was there some email from you, or another sysop that caused the user to return after being absent for a month, that caused them to blank their user page?  Please let us know. Odd you undertake these actions, and then make sure you are offline from IM.  That does trouble me, as does Rob supporting this action, when he was pretty clear a couple of days ago in his support of the ultra-leftist Sid3050, and saying his removal violated some "policy" that doesn't exist, and wanting full discussion before blocking him.  This really does smack of a double standard, no?  Now, please use the email if you guys want to discuss this more, okay?  Since the user voluntarily removed the offending material, before they were blocked, the action smacks of retribution.  -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 15:06, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


 * (a) the issue per User:Sid 3050, as the record reflects, was over transparency, and not his politics, as my Rt. Hon. friend implies; (b) again, another false claim cited by my Rt. Hon. friend, Rob did not "support this action" -- Rob raised this issue in the appropriate forum for discussion. Please refrain from distortions of fact that are unsupported by the record.  RobS 15:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I've blocked this user for trolling on the Iran Hostage Crisis talk page. Firstly, TK, you make some kind of veiled accusation about my not being on IM because of this... I'm not on IM for the same reason I'm never on IM - ie I'm never on it. This has nothing to do with the block. Secondly, I don't wish a perfectly good block to be used as a pawn in this disagreement between you two. cp:Image:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:16, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Comment: This is probably an issue for Andy to review, plagerizing the Main Page Template to perpetrate hate and impugn CP, and how it relates to the castle clause. However, it should probably be discussed here first & not on Andy's page.  RobS 15:19, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Agreed, Fox. I also emailed you as well.  Above you state the reason for the block as being their User page.  Now you state it is over something posted on the Talk page, which we do not block for until the user has been warned at least once or twice.  Either way, the user has been unblocked, and if there is something objectionable now, after several months, and the user not being around for weeks, please email them a warning, or post it, and if they violate policy, post it here, or email all of us, and block them in the future.  Fair enough? -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 15:21, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


 * The problem with his user page (which I've just now looked at what it had) is that it was an altered copy of Conservapedia's main page (if it was simply an insertion of the templates, it wouldn't be an issue). Although we normally don't control what a person puts on their user page, we will take down offensive material such as pornography, profanity, etc.  Personally, I think that putting up something that looks like Conservapedia is wanting the "destruction of Israel" is probably something that we should be deleting (as has now been done).
 * TK, yes Fox did give two different reasons for blocking JBT. But I also note that he blocked him twice, so perhaps it was a different reason in each case?
 * Philip J. Rayment 21:46, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Philip, he removed the offending material seemingly on his own, after that happened it was posted here he was blocked for that reason. After objection was raised, another reason for his block was offered.  The problem I have with that, all within one hour, is it appears we were looking to get rid of him.  Now certainly I have no use for his type, but the edits in general are not all that bad, and for the sake of propriety, as Andy often tells us, he will most certainly violate our rules soon enough, so he can be blocked in the future. The offensive material was up there for a long time, and no one did anything about it.  We don't need to provide fodder for our detractors by removing someone who ostensibly saw the errors of their ways, and removed it them-self, right?  Finally, I was told by several Sysops and Andy, we do not block for talk page comments.  Doing so after first blocking for self-removed items on his user page, is just more insult to injury, IMO.  -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 22:13, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Tanktunker
He put this javascript in and then takes it out. Could this be a setup for a later vandal attack; where someone could grab this code and cause major vandalism? --Crocoite 00:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Right now he's in violation of 90/10, so if he needs to go, better do so before he start editing the mainspace. RobS 00:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Andy got him
 * 19:49, July 16, 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Tanktunker (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (bye)
 * I still wonder about that code being reused. Maybe a siteadmin can delete it from the database. --Crocoite 00:43, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

For that code to do anything, it would have to be put in a page by some means other than an edit box. It was always going to be harmless (non-functional), and even if it did run, it would not have harmed Conservapedia. All it would have done is display a lot of message boxes on the screen of whoever opened that page. It would have been a nuisance for the person concerned, but that's all. And it's not as though it's complex code that would be difficult to recreate if it was deleted from the database. It's a dead simply bit of code that anybody who understands Javascript even a little could write. I'm not sure whether the perpetrator should have been banned for attempting this, or for being silly enough to think that it might work! Philip J. Rayment 01:50, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Its a coder joke. i would say Linus? Geo.Complain! 01:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Perhaps, but if so, why bother removing it? That gives me the impression that he decided to remove it when he discovered it didn't work, whereas Linus would have known that to start with.  Philip J. Rayment 02:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Philip, please cool your jets, okay? I tried to edit that piece at least six times, and just like the other code, discussed before, that you once again said did nothing, this one did the same nothing. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 02:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Huh? In the right place, it is a bit of Javascript code.  On that page, it's just plain text.  There's nothing "uneditable" about it.  How did you try to edit it?  Philip J. Rayment 02:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Please follow exactly. I didn't "try" to edit "it".  I tried repeatedly to edit the page, revert it, roll it back.  Six times.  Nothing happened.  Just like the episode we discussed what?  A month ago?  Two months ago?  I went to the section, blanked and saved it, each time the edit history didn't show any action by me.  None at all.  Zip.  Finally the history showed other posts by you and Hoji, I went back in, to where Truck added whatever was there, removed the content, saved it again, and finally it showed my action.  -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 03:00, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * When was this? Tanktunker put it in, edited, and deleted it all in the space of a minute.  Did you try editing in that minute?  And the fact that others have been able to edit since shows that the page was still editable.  And it's still true that the "code" was just ordinary text.  It couldn't cause any problems there.  As for that other occasion, I don't think we ever established just what happened there either, and I was never satisfied that there really was a problem then.  Philip J. Rayment 03:15, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I am not on trial, Philp, and you are not my inquisitor. Get it?  The same thing happened to Geo.  So there. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 03:23, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm not putting you on trial. I'm asking you to explain what you did, because your claims so far don't make sense*.  Perhaps Geo could explain how he couldn't edit the page, given the fact that he did edit it.
 * * This is not trying to be smart; this it to explain myself. Suppose I said that I typed in "hello" on a page, and the computer replied with an audible "hello".  Would that sound right?  That is, would it sound like the vocal "hello" that I presumably didn't imagine, had anything to do with me typing in "hello"?  Your claims sound as incomprehensible as that.  Which is not to suggest that you are making this up, but that you are blaming this "code" for doing something it couldn't possibly do.

Philip J. Rayment 03:36, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I tried editing the whole page at first, but I think due to the size it crashed my browser. When i removed 70 kilobytes of sections piece by piece the problem cleared up. Geo.Complain! 03:40, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, Geo also said he couldn't edit it at first, mentioned nothing of a browser crash. I use IE 7, and it has never crashed once.  Philip, I removed the content, saved it.  Went to the history, and it showed absolutely nothing.  Nothing.  Finally it did, and the intervening posts by you and Hoji.  I cannot explain it, same as the last time, but is most certainly was exactly what happened before.  Exactly.  -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 04:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * See, this is the problem. We think we understand something, but we've misunderstood.  I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of what you actually experienced so that I can explain to your satisfaction that it was nothing to do with the code.
 * You say that you removed the content. Are you referring to this?  Are you saying that that edit didn't show on the history initially, but did later?  Or is that edit a later one?

The last edit showed. It is not showing the code that was removed, from what I can see there now. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 04:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

cp:User:Liberalism
Question: Should we consider trolling edits & vandalism to mainspace such as this when calculating a 90/10 violation? RobS 17:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Personally, I consider adding Bush to dictators vandalism, and worthy of a warning, and one weeks block, initially. Without even calculating the 90/10 rule.  -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 17:42, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * There's no way that would have been in good faith. Regardless of one's politiical affiliation, there is no reasonable case for Bush being a dictator. DanH 17:44, 17 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I blocked him for this edit to mainspace, this is just trolling.  Bertrand Russell's last name starts with an R, not a B.  Somebody has to clean up this mess eventually.  RobS 17:52, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

cp:User:BjornBenny
I almost never second-guess blocks, but BjornBenny had only one edit and it was legitimate. Any thoughts on that block?--Aschlafly 11:43, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I looked at the history, and he was blocked previously as "ClintonCat". I then looked at that user's contributions, and there was none...so my block was probably mistaken.  Karajou
 * Unblocked him...I'd rather not make a mistake in blocking. Karajou 11:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Thanks much. He, like all socks, is worth watching further, and I'm not saying you were wrong.  Time will tell.--Aschlafly 11:51, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Times like this I wished I had hindsight...which if true I'd be a lotto winner every time! Karajou 12:01, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Block

 * As can be seen on many discussion pages, the user uses a confrontational approach, and would not simply correct what he saw as wrong, or ask about it, before posting edit notes making accucations, and pretnending not to know what I was asking him to do, although most find me terribly blunt, lol.

66.90.73.56, 146.151.107.225, 146.151.109.255 are all IP's used by this editor, two of which are the University of Wisconson, Madison, one.... eagleheights-109-255.resnet.wisc.edu The 66.90.73.56 is a proxy. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 19:43, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


 * "the user"&mdash;what user? Philip J. Rayment 21:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


 * LOL! Sorry, was trying to leave the user name out of the header, so the spies wouldn't see it, and forgot to add it to the body! Jinkas, who posted on the Admin Desk, about his innocence. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 21:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * The first IP you list does not show up on Check User for Jinkas. Where did you get that one from?
 * I haven't seen his "confrontational approach", and I don't recall seeing anything that would justify the ban. Could you post the evidence, please?
 * And if a user asks for a third-party review of a sysop's ban, it shouldn't be up to the banning sysop to deny [edit: link corrected] that.
 * Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

146.151.109.255 Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:CheckUser" The other IP is from his sock he made to post about his block, contrary to policy. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 23:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Sorry Philip, but you are wrong. We have never had any such policy here. He never asked for a third party review, and is not entitled to one, being a sock of blocked user/vandals.  I just used check user again, and get both those IP's.  146.151.107.225


 * Wrong in what?
 * If you mean that I am wrong in claiming that it shouldn't be up to the banning sysop to deny a third-party review, why I am I wrong?
 * What policy are you talking about?
 * He asked for a third party review in the message that you responded to that I linked to.
 * And what is the evidence that he is a sockpuppet?
 * Philip J. Rayment 23:14, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Just a moment... Fixed. Philip J. Rayment 23:18, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Thanks for explaining where the 66.90... IP came from. But clarification please.  Is your accusation of Jinks being a sockpuppet related only to the TempAcct21 account?  Philip J. Rayment 23:25, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Check your email.
 * In chatting with the editor, his block has been removed, and all made good. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 00:09, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

cp:User:GNAA
I just blocked cp:User:GNAA. This represesnts nothing but trouble for CP. It took WP years to rid themselves of these trolls. As to the meaning of GNAA, see  and ask Ed Poor about it. Please do not unblock before discussion and examining what these trolls are all about. Thank you. RobS 14:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT) I'm going to vouch for Rob on this one. DanH 14:18, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
 * What are they about? Bohdan

Trolling, nothing more or less. DanH 14:20, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
 * WP has finally, finally, after many years and numerous AfD's succeeding in removing most if not all content from about this group. The link I provided above is a cache of some of it.  The name is intended just to outrage and inflame, they are nothing but trolls. Such an organization probably does not even exist.  RobS 14:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Rob, Dan, I know of the group, and the trouble, and totally support any efforts to curtail them from using us. Any further information you have Rob, please pass it on, here, or by email, so we can all be on the lookout! -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 15:43, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
 * This sounds interesting. Who are they?  I need Ed here to explain. Bohdan 15:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
 * C'mon Bohdan. Rob's link explains it all. --Crocoite 16:56, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I didn't follow the link, and if its inappropriate, I don't think I want to or should. Bohdan 17:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
 * It's the G ay N -word A ssociation of A merica - if you know what I mean. That's why it's not posted here. --Crocoite 17:47, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I think I know what you mean. Bohdan 18:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Please remember to post only very general information here, for reasons all of you should know. Thanks. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 17:51, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

JimBeam
I assume that he was a sock of JackDaniels? Very alert blocking from Fox, as usual. DanH 14:10, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism

I heard from Bethany that there was a major vandalism attack and that Philip Rayment locked the database.

When I looked at the "reason" for database locking, I didn't see anything given. I just assumed it was a test, and that Philip got distracted and didn't unlock it after his test.

Let's find a better way to keep each other informed, so that no one accidentally unlocks the database when they shouldn't. --Ed Poor Talk 10:54, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * (Oops, I just found out that leaving the edit summary blank is not discreet! I have to put something in it, or else the software copies the beginning of whatever I post!! --Ed Poor Talk 10:55, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Right. However, your point was well taken. Was the database actually locked? I see no evidence of a vandal attack or that edits were actually blocked.--Aschlafly 10:57, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

They were. I couldn't edit until Ed unlocked the database.--BethTalk2ME 10:58, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Ed, you could have tried e-mailing! :-). I seemed to recall Andy telling us to just quickly lock it (although it took me some time to even remember to do it at all!), and don't worry about the reason.  Anyway, Andy has shut off general editing now, so it's okay unlocked again.
 * I left a message that I was locking on Crocoite's page, because he was doing a lot of the vandal-blocking, and there was already a discussion there, but of course you wouldn't know to look there. This page would be a good place to post in future, if we can afford to wait long enough to leave a message.
 * Philip J. Rayment 11:01, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

The attack was apparently from one person who kept registering under new names (with similar themes) and kept creating new articles about human evolution (copy/pasting the same text over and over). The database was locked for somewhat less than 10 minutes. Philip J. Rayment 11:04, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Philip, I'm glad you locked it. That's great to exercise security like that. Thank you. We can always undo it quickly and such security really throws the vandals off and deters them from future attacks.

BethanyS, by the way, you already are one of the few who has the power to unlock (and lock) the database yourself. It's in your special pages near the bottom.--Aschlafly 11:05, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Attention! The vandal is still at it, trying to register new users. I am blocking those usernames as they appear.

Yes, the DB was locked. Philip locked it, and I understand the reason. Someone was trying to leave multiple copies of a disorganized pseudo-treatise on human evolution. I have only now finished protecting and scrubbing all the duplicate pages he left, under too many names to count!

Ed, you asked about a treatise on why people believe in evolution. Well, I'll write that as soon as I have time to spare from patrol!--TerryHTalk 11:06, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 * At least 37 accounts, by my rougth count. Philip J. Rayment 11:41, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, the vandal has registered three new accounts since the database was unlocked, but two of them since editing was shut off, so that's stymied him! Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I just reopened general editing, about 30 minutes after the initial locking. Usually about 30 minutes in locking is all it takes to break the attention span of a vandal!--Aschlafly 11:22, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * The individual in question is the Halifax troll. Anyone want to call up the man's ISP?  Karajou 11:24, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I was just about to point out that he's created no new account for just over 30 minutes, so appears to have given up (for now at least). Philip J. Rayment 11:33, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 * He'll be back. Karajou 12:44, 9 July 2007 (EDT)