Conservapedia talk:FBI Incident/Archive1

Excellent work
Excellent work SIJHAS. Perhaps we can point the FBI at this article, it's probably a much clearer explanation of what happened than any info Andy gave them. Doggedpersistance  22:53, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

There's stuff missing though, I'll try to track it down. There was a spectacular thread on Andy's talk page, but he appears to have migrated to an entirely new talk page today (removeal of evidence). Doggedpersistance  23:21, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Found it. Cracker - how did you Wikifi that stuf I pasted in? I dunno how to do that. Doggedpersistance  23:28, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Did this replace the previous Conservapedia:FBI article, or are they competing for space? And, please, if you need wiki-markup help, feel free to ask, k? human be in 00:25, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

I think so, yes. But it's now much easier to get to from the front page, which is a great improvement. I've been digging around in Andy's talk page archives, but it seems that after they are archived, the history is lost? There were many comments in the threads I've posted which were removed (hence the "something's gone missing" comments, etc) - are they gone forever, do you think? And yes, any help linking and wikifiing much appreciated. Doggedpersistance  01:47, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Has anyone been able to unearth the original case number? I'm prety sure someone like Kinkajou posted it while ranting at one of the early dissenters. Genghis Khant 08:03, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

I Fought the Law
"He needs to listen to the classic rock song entitled, "I fought the law, and the law won."" says our hero. Classic Rock? It's like Punk never 'appened... Totnesmartin 03:26, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I know!  I imagine Andy is "upstairs in his bedroom sitting in the dark, annoying the neighbours with his punk rock electric guitar".   I never imagined back then that I'd see hideous backwards-thinking wankers like Andy enjoy the bands I gave my limbs and blood for.   (Not literally, you understand?).   Doggedpersistance  10:27, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * We'll have to send him some Gang of Four. Or what about The Pop Group? Totnesmartin 10:42, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, he could do with GoF, and maybe he'd like The Slits?  What about Crass?    Doggedpersistance  11:00, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * How could I forget Crass? I've got (the highly appropriately titled) Yes Sir, I Will. The first Slits LP would be good, he could put the cover on Masterpiece of the Week. Totnesmartin 11:13, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * There's no forgetting Crass.  Andy might like Christ-The Album?  Or perhaps he'd prefer Locust Abortion Tehcnician by The Buttholes?   Doggedpersistance  19:20, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Man, I haven't thought about that album in a looooong time! --Kels 21:12, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I never forgot it, and play it all the time... poop on you! human be in 21:32, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

I think it's highly amusing…
that they are apparently laboring under the impression that some sort of clandestine operation is taking place, when the much more probable explanation is that the FBI is more concerned with… oh, say, national security than with the legally baseless complaints of an insignificant website, run by a highly minor figure, with no detectable damage being done to it. --Linus (plot evil tech) 07:40, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Or else they are too embarassed to admit that the FBI isn't interested.Genghis Khant 11:20, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I find it most likely that they are simply lying about it and used the idea of reporting undesirable activities to the FBI as a scare tactic. Now, that the tactic has backfired they are embarassed and simply wish it would go away. But this comes from my educated guess (and admitted prejudice )that most of what Schlafly writes is dishonest in some way. Exasperate me!Sheesh! I said what? 11:24, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Lying - distinctly possible. Deceit is known to them. Embarrassed - less likely. shame is not known to them. Doggedpersistance  15:16, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Taunting Them
Hey, how about we get this article in better shape, then lock it, and then taunt them with links to it? It'll be great gas! Doggedpersistance  16:42, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Sure... if the builders of the article want me too, I'd be glad to "protect" it from editing. Just post me when it's time on my talk page. human <font color="#00AA00">be in 20:11, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

categories
Most of the cats this article is in don't exist, and probably never will. Anyone mind if I delete them? I know they are funny, and all, but... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 20:13, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe keep some of the spy-types, you know so we can link them to RobS' talk page, either here or CP. CЯacke ® 20:22, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Then please, do it. Otherwise I will delete them as silly, from this otherwise really cool article. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 20:27, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I blued them all up instead. Sticking with author's "original intent" of having lots of categories.

Whatever you like, peeps. As I'm working on this, I keep thinking the less stupid and more mature and opinion-free it is the better. I enjoyed making all those categories, but I'm changing my mind. There's plenty of other places to laugh at them, but doing something as idiotic as reporting this to the FBI - if it actually happened - might end up no laughing matter for some of the people involved. As per a point one of my socks made in Andy's talk page, if he really did report this, the FBI cannot simply go "oh hell, it's some crazy bullshit" and toss it in the Whacko File. That would literally be dereliction of duty, and the FBI has had to deal with many whacko claims in the past that ended in crimes or deaths. They simply HAVE to investigate. At the very least some officer would have to spend a little bit of time with it, call a few people, track that IP address and find out a little about who that Stevecarson user really is, investigate their various postings at CP (and perhaps elsewhere), etc. A Supervisor would be consulted, an opinion given. At the very least, you can be certain that 'Stevecarson' has had his or her privacy removed. It's not a trivial matter, not at all. So I'm feeling that this article might serve us - and Stevecarson - best if it's sober, simple and to the point. Anyone? <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  12:22, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

I see where you're going with this, and you've done good work. Personally, I like to see a bit of funny here and there, but there *are* lots of other places for that. If that's the case, why the "satanic Cults" tag??? PFoster 12:25, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, makes sense to me. That cat was a bit random, yup.  I just swapped them all for ones we already have.  A few should stay, I suspect (internet, law, con, theories) but the silly ones should go. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 12:41, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I think it might be best to just be straightforward with the cats. BTW, nice layout work here Human, thanks for helping. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  12:27, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks, all I had to do was add some equals signs. I appreciate the effort it's taking to pull all this together and make a real article out of it! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 12:41, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Goddam, Dog, this article looks so good you might have to take a cue from you-know-who and "lock and block" it when you're done...PFoster 12:52, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I'm actually quite keen to do that for at least one reason - I would not be surprised to see all these records somehow being purged from CP in an attempt to cover their foolish trail, and I think it's for real one case where the record's gotta safely exist somewhere. The law's involved, folks. (Supposedly).

I think we're almost there with the article. I guess I should finish all the proper wikification, but the day awaits and I must away to my real life. If anyone has anything else to contribute, away you go. We can lock it pretty soon - there seems to have been no more developments of late. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  13:09, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
 * The article/information is safe here - who is gonna wipe it out?  Vandalism is easily reverted.  If you're really worried, you could create an appendiz in a subfile with the "footnotes", and have it protected.  Or, better yet, create an off-site copy or several. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 13:14, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Ahhahaha! Of course, I forgot my own argument. I'm as paranoid as Andy. Anyway, fulll wikification awaits. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  13:21, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Moving the bottom to the top
Please forgive my "tabloid" attitude, as in the National Enquirer, New York Post, and (soon) Wall Street Journal, but I think the more sensational material, about 10 people being victims of CP's Slash and Burn behavior, should be at the top. People clicking from the front page will want to get straight to the sensational aspects of the craziness.

That said, I really do appreciate and admire the great work that many people, some with dogged persistence, have put into making this an "intellectually respectable" article. We have to include both the respectable aspects and the "Holy Shit! Look what those assholes are doing!" aspects. SJIHAS 13:22, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


 * They are fucking assholes, and I'm happy to support anything that gets that point out upfront.  But I still believe that if this article is logically argued and 'tone cold', it will serve us much better.   We spend most of our time laughing at their closed-mindedness, but the truth is that really no-one other than us cares - and I often wish I could just not care about them too.   We are a self-selecting group of people interested in and/or amused by the ramblings of extremists.   But this is more than just another typically laughable CP incident, this is actually really serious.    Reporting someone to the FBI is a really serious matter and displays an incredible lack of responsibility on Andy's behalf (as well as an inflated sense of importance, which is the funny part) and if we can make a bigger, real news story out of this and actually help to inform others who battle against extremist views, this article can help people understand why these people are so dangerous.   There's just no justification whatsoever for Andy doing what he's done, and it absolutely shows how extremist views can spill over very easily into sociopathic behaviour.


 * I guess one of my questions here is - what's the story here?  Is it that they keep banning people who ask about it, or is it that Andy's reporting editors to the FBI?   I kinda think the latter.


 * There's LOTS of other hilarious stuff on RW, but it's not Uncyclopedia where clearly satire is the point, and it seems to me if we want a site that genuinely refutes Christian fundamentalist bullshit, we've got to try a little harder.  There's only room for one Uncyclopedia, one Onion, one Wikipedia on the intertubes, and a 100% diet of yuks and lulz is great and all but we're only really amusing ourselves.  It's not really achieving anything, and jokes always eventually wear thin.   Maybe I'm taking the arrangement of this article too seriously, but what do others think?    <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  14:01, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


 * How about a link to another file (FBI silliness?), which will contain the more sensational and snarky info? Which can also link here for a "serious treatment" of the issue? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 15:43, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Sure! <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  15:44, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

OK, I've reconsidered my move from the bottom to the top. After reading Doggedpersistance's comments, I think the original order was better, and that we should be the New York Times rather than the New York Post on this. I'd like something at the very top along the lines of "One of the most bizarre aspects of this episode is the lengths to which CP admins are covering it up, deleting any mention of it and blocking the people involved. A list is at the end".

What do the interested parties think? (BTW, it's up to eleven as of last night.) SJIHAS 10:49, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I think that's the right way to handle it. I've moved stuff as discussed - hope you like it. Now we can go off and do more stupid stuff. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  16:31, 7 August 2007 (CDT)


 * I like it. This is a really nice article now.  And very visible.  From looking at recent events at CP, it appears that asking about the FBI investigation is a very popular thing to do these days, very likely because of this article and the Google search results for "Conservapedia" and "FBI".  And I'm sure CP folks are looking at it.  Speaking of which: Andy, how's the FBI investigation going?  :-)  Goatspeed.  SJIHAS 16:51, 7 August 2007 (CDT)


 * And it's up to 12 now, but they still haven't censored it or banned the person. Andy!  Get with it!  Ban user Rube already!  Make it an even dozen.  SJIHAS 16:54, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Case number
Im sure I'm not going mad, and I've posted it elsewhere, but sometime after the night of the blunt knives one of the CP sysops posted a case number for the first vandalism report to the FBI as a sort of na-na-na-na-na post, I thought it was Karajou but I've searched the archives and can't find the reference. Did anyone else see this? If we could find the case number someone could ask the FBI for an update. Genghis Khant 16:10, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I'll try digging around and see if I can find it. I too seem to remember that - I think one of my socks provoked it. But I can't remember all my socks any more, there's too many. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  16:13, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I remember it, but not where it was. In any case, I don't think it was anything useful - just a temporary reference number you get when you contact their offices or something. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 16:16, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * It would be a start. Genghis Khant 17:32, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks Ice!  Do you have a cite?   <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  16:32, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Are you referring to the IC3 karajou posted over at WP? 17:33, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Here it is but its nothing. Its the confirmation number you get from submitting a report to IC3. How I figured that out is a funny story too. 17:35, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

go on....<font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  17:51, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


 * about the story? Oh well, basically after having it out with KooKoo over at WP and getting him banned for legal threats I decided to figure out what the hell the case number was. I took it and went to the index codes for FBI cases. The closest index code I could find was kidnapping. So then I realized something was up. So I asked myself, "Self...if you wanted to report something to the FBI about cyber crime what is the dumbest and laziest way you would go about it?" And I said "Self, well I would google 'reporting cyber crime to the fbi.'" And so I did that, and found the IC3 site. I submitted a blank report and got back an index number that matched what KooKoo gave me. I then used his e-mail address to see if he had recently submitted a report and sure enough he had. The idiot just googled FBI and computer crime, submitted to the first site he found and claimed to be "connected." 17:55, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Brilliant! So it's actually quite likely that this is all that's happened, even though this does seem to have some connection to the FBI. Although Andy does talk about the local Cinncinnati branch of the FBI having been contacted, but that could be just because he dreamt it between feverish Bible readings. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  18:01, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * The Cincinatti Branch is the one used for Internet Crime. If I remember rightly, there was some claim about Andy having contacts in the FBI. Genghis Khant 18:12, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


 * All of this was in regards to the night of the blunt knives stuff. I received all kinds of wonderful threats. Like here and here. TK joined the fun too, I then took it up with Schlafly and told him I would contact my lawyers about harassment. Thats when it stopped with one parting shot here. I dont know if IC3 is what they used for the vandal bot attacks or not. Schlafly claims to have done that one personally. 18:08, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

The IC3 case number was about RW 1.0 not the vandal bots. 18:13, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

So wait a sec - is the suggestion that Karajou was the one who actually did the FBI reporting, not Andy? <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  18:18, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Google's on our side
Via the magic of the Google Bong, typing "conservapedia fbi" has this article as first. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  16:50, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Congratulations! Print it, frame it, hand down the legend to the grandkids! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 17:40, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Found a temporary intertube! If CP stopped censoring it, they would probably be the first hit. User:PalMD

Can't be long now before someone over there notices.... <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  17:45, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


 * oh they notice, you have to realize there are several CP sysops that comb RW as obsessively as anyone here does CP. They collect information and articles and every time we delete something it gets marked in a book that they will reveal during the end times to God to show how evil we are. Or the LA time reporter...as soon as she returns their calls! 17:47, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * me. I am obsessive. Bohdan

And what do you make of it all, Bohdan? You banned me quite a few times, IIRCAICRAA. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  18:04, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


 * What does all that "IIRCAICRAA" mean? Who did I ban?  I remember arguing with 50something if that was you, but someone else got you. Bohdan 18:06, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

If I Remember Correctly Although I Can't Remember Anything Anyway. Yeah, she was me. I liked her, she was a sweet lady. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  18:32, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Something about being trustworthy... Bohdan 18:31, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm? Where you going to? <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  18:32, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm pretty sure that was the only time I ever debated you, or one of your socks. Bohdan 18:33, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Uh-oh. Bumpy ride ahead! <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  19:20, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Taken care of already. No ban yet, though! --Sid 19:25, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Hilarious! Didn't last long, though :( <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 19:31, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Account has been banned, too. --Sid 19:33, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Hey, Newton, Bohdan--do you think Andy has any idea how this sort of thing (both the ham-fisted threats AND the Memory-Hole treatment of same when it's obvious they're empty) makes him look? --Gulik 11:55, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Great, now Hoji's got it, too....
Hoji, why'd you block AbbyC? Afraid she'd get cooties from FBIForever? --Gulike@work 67.102.192.7 16:07, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, actually. I've been pretty clear about where I stand on me following the rules over there. -- H [[Image:Vista-epiphany.png|9px]] ji machong  16:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Wait.... so now, having someone else post to your talk page is a bannable offense there? I continue to be amazed you folks have any editors left, considering the rate at which CP eats its young.  --Gulik@work 67.102.192.7 16:13, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * you might be on to something. -- H [[Image:Vista-epiphany.png|9px]] ji machong  16:17, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Now, probably "AbbyC" is a spoof anyway (ABC), but assuming her for a moment to be real, I'd pay to see her face when, immediately after joining the CP "community", without any apparent reason someone yells "FBIIIIII!!!!!!!" at her, and next thing she knows she's banned without having done anything whatsoever. --82.58.194.10 16:30, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Wow, this "constupapedia" place sounds lame. Perhaps I should go polish my trolling skills, then again not. Vandalism is never justified. ŖěɔŪŗşÏvě 17:44, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * That's why I've given up trying to 'sabotage' CP--nothing I could do could POSSIBLY top the things they're doing to themselves. I just wish they'd self-destruct a little faster.  --Gulik 02:44, 10 August 2007 (CDT) (not @work)

Maybe we should stop collecting these.
It's becoming clear that people are hacking them just to get their 5 minutes of fame over here. What do people think? SJIHAS 19:43, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I think the point has been made - until Schlafly takes the weirdness up to the next level....PFoster 20:28, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Yup...Nothing to see here, move along home now folks. <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  21:00, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I can easily picture Andy threatening vandals with an armed standoff and Delta Force involvement. Nothing too serious. --76.22.8.23 21:27, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Smart move, Dog. Don't let the "glory seekers" spoilz your hard-worked-upon article. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 23:01, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

wandalism vs. vandalism
One reason for the "w" version is that that is what we call it on this site - partly to distinguish "real" vandalism ("keying" a car, graffiti on a bridge, destruction of real property) from open "wiki" vandalism, which simply consists of edits that the wiki owners/admins don't like.

On a wiki, the concept of vandalism is very weak, since every page has "sign in/create account" and "edit" links. It is then up to the site owner/admins to decide who and how to let edit, and what edits are considered useful. Edits not considered useful are not "vandalism" - they are wandalism. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 13:23, 16 August 2007 (CDT)


 * OK, thanks for explaining that. I apologize for being short-tempered about the previous change.  But since the term is widely used here (and confused me for a long time), there really ought to be a general explanation of such things on or near the front page.  To an outsider, it looks silly.  Now, can someone explain "pwn"? SJIHAS 14:44, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
 * No, no one can explain pwn. It is not something to be explained, it is beyond the physical realm.  It is  perfect, yet unknown.  Our pathetic human minds cannot begin to comprehend the pwn. Bohdan
 * One, no need to apologize, it's an in-joke and a neologism, and as such should be explained clearly if used in a serious article. Your footnote works very well.  As far as pwn, pwnage, etc... Google or wikipedia will explain it better than I can. Ignore Bohdan, he's a wandal. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 15:06, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Don't listen to Human, he is my sock puppet. Bohdan 16:26, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm only BoHdAn's PoCkSuPpEt when I'd using "bad" language. Or intercaps. I'm his aolpuppet. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 19:11, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

When and why...
were all the references changed to links? Did I miss the discussion of that? Am I just really slow? ThunderkatzHo! 15:28, 25 August 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't understand the question. All the incidents of editing/blocking are links to the edit items on CP, and have been all along.  (I think that's what's called a "permalink"&mdash;a link into the history that is (usually) impervious to subsequent censorship.)  What are you claiming was changed? SJIHAS 16:06, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I could've sworn that all the links were in tags, instead of just links. That they looked like [1] and not [1].  Maybe they weren't and I'm just going crazy.  But I could've sworn they were.  ThunderkatzHo! 16:31, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Nope, they weren't.  I wrote 'em, they were never tags, always links. For a brief period as I copied them over from CP, the links got screwed up, but I and others tidied it up. Did you think they were better suited to be tags? <font color="#00F0A20">Doggedpersistance  17:57, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh. My bad.  That's what happens when you get young and senile.  I think tags would look more professional, but then we'd have to deal with the incredibly long reference list, which would make that part of the page look cluttered and unprofessional.  It's up to you.  If you feel like doing lots of pointless work on an unimportant part of the article that wouldn't actually affect it in any way, be my guest.    ThunderkatzHo! 18:27, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

I Fought the Law and the Law Pwnd
Say, I hadn't thought about this before, but isn't it possible that Andy doesn't know the Clash version so much as the John Mellencamp (then John Cougar) cover? The latter was much more mass-market back when it came out, so he'd be more likely to have heard it on the radio, and it still pops up on oldies stations. --Kels 17:50, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh I certainly think so, although I was assuming he was referring to the Springsteen or Tom Petty version. The idea he would have liked the patently liberal Clash is absurd, we were just having a a laff with the idea. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  17:57, 27 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Yeah, I thought about that after I'd posted. Besides, he'd probably listen to a pro-USA guy like Springsteen in RL. --Kels 18:01, 27 August 2007 (CDT)


 * The boss is a card carrying liberal. Double Sheesh! Pete Seeger cover album anyone? anyone? Ferris?  Exasperate me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! I said what? 12:55, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm sure his mum has a copy of the Bobby Fuller Four version lying around for special occasions. I know I do... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 16:17, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I can't imagine Andy listening to anything other than Gregorian chant. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

FBI Names
Has the list of FBI tauntings by names been kept up with, or are the ones listed just used as an example? I say this because FBIAgentSamwellmade a funny to the Dinosaur article. Good ol' Samwell name, I might add. 68.205.178.238 11:27, 3 October 2007 (EDT)


 * It is not being updated, barring extraordinary circumstances. This was an explicit policy decision, made when it became clear that people were taunting CP just to get listed over here.  On a rather famous page&mdash;Google "FBI" and "Conservapedia".  See "It's gotten out of control" on the article page, and "Maybe we should stop collecting these" on this page.  The place where people would add new items has a notice urging them not to do it.  Gauss 11:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia Humiliated again
Question

Don't know if this is the right place, but I want to know --if it's not very touchy for you-- about the FBI investigations on vandalism. In Christ --Eury 23:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, how is that investigation going, have you guys caught the Halifax troll yet? Maybe you can get the FBI after him. Oh wait I forgot they don't have any jurisdiction in Canada. Looks like you guys are shit out of luck --Cochabamba 12:09, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

So what happens to the people the FBI catches, are they sent to Gitmo? --Kucinichforlife 12:20, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Yeah they are and then the army rapes them up the ass with a broomstick --Edwards4pres 12:24, 1 November 2007 (EDT)


 * I moved the above from the article. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  12:51, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for keeping the article in shipshape Human. I'm only slowly getting back into things so watchlist stuff is slow to get to. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  20:24, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Sysop Disease
Posted on CP:

Sysop....sounds like a deadly autoimmune disease.

ex. Get BACK! He's got the Sysop!

No, he's got admin affliction!! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 17:46, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Taunting
As noted in the article, please - no more taunting them about it over there, and reporting on the blocks back here. It's pointless and counter-productive. Read the article. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  16:31, 21 April 2008 (EDT)