Conservapedia talk:Banwatch

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The deletion debate for this article can be found at RationalWiki:Do we keep these CP-related articles?/Resolved.

Sysops?[edit]

Realizing it is a much longer term bet and not necessarily a ban... Rank in order of when they leave... kind of like sysop survivor..

  • TK
  • Conservative
  • RobS Hasn't edited since Dec 16th
  • Ed Poor
  • etc...

I don't consider this much of a long shot though... especially given the raising tensions between some of the old timers. Its more a question of how long Andy turns a blind eye to them before one of them explodes. One could also put a reprimand list down, though its doubtful if that will be something that we can find out without a mole... that 11th commandment type thing. --Shagie 20:54, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

No clue whatsoever, but I do suspect that TK will either be the first gone, or the last. I just don't know which. --Gulik 01:12, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
If Andy had any sense, he'd get rid of TK first...which means he's guaranteed to be last. XD --Kels 06:31, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

There's more than a little testiness against Conservative appearing - TK, DanH, and Ed Poor are now pushing back strongly on the Ateism article he has 'written' - with TK saying how appalled he is by the 'tract' and giving it 24 hours to justify itself. Newton - how long do you give yourself? You're always welcome over here once they ban you. So, there you go, I say Conservative is the first biggie to go, either because of his own frustrsation, or theirs. DogP 19:43, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I wonder how long Andy will stay. He has to get a real job at some point, right? He can't live off the allowance Mommy gives him forever. After that it's the triumverate of TK (Octavian), Rob (Mark Antony), and Ed (Lepidus). Conservative, the little brother of the group who wants to play with the big boys, is already getting the smackdown, as we are seeing. There's also Jallen, Bohdan, and Karajou, but after that there's basically nobody, unless we see Jazzman and Iduan running the show, but they'll shut down before they let that happen. Even though there are 31 or so sysops, it's basically 7 people running CP. Strife is already setting in, how many can they lose before they see no one manning the gates for long stretches? DickTurpis 00:41, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

JohnJoe[edit]

Friends, I am the Johnjoe! I claimed to be a Methodist preacher! It was worth it though, my tactics were going great until I posted something along the lines of 'What are you on?' To TK. They really are an arrogant agressive lot. The Anti-Conservapedia 05:17, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Also, from the main page, preserved for posterity:

  • Johnjoe, five years by TK: "See? I won't argue forever. Bye." Time Lasted 06:27, 27 August 2007 to 18:42, 28 August 2007 -- quite a nice tracktime for a RW sock! I'm sure you can then tell exactly whose sock it is and provide proof instead of just posting silly accusations, right, Niandra?

UHm, if he was a sock, why on earth would there have been all that fuss over inviting him here?

I think it's a backhanded compliment, really. Niandra obviously assumes that anyone intelligent, well-spoken, earnest and who argues in good faith must be one of us, and therefore clearly unsuitable to CP. I, for one, thank you. --Kels 19:15, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Good article, but...[edit]

This is a great little article, a happy little place for yuks as we watch people being dispatched. But we have to watch that it doesn't just turn into a transcript of the daily New User/Block activity that happens at CP, for that way lies madness - half the traffic there is new users followed rapidly by bans. We probably ought to not add people to the list if they've joined in the last 24 hours. DogP 12:56, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps you're right. I've been trying to confine it to people who are questioning the powers that be rationally without breaking the rules (okay, I added Draare to the list, but I thought such sloppy gatekeeping on the part of TK and others was worth mentioning). Since so many last much fewer than 24 hours that might be a bit too limiting (or it might be just right). Johnjoe hardly lasted more than that, and he was probably the raison d'etre for this list. We should try to keep it under control though. DickTurpis 13:03, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Paleocon?[edit]

Did anyone manage to invite him before he got the hook? --Gulik 23:36, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

An email was sent. --Shagie 00:11, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

RichardT[edit]

(Yet) Another example of TK not being able to correctly discern diffs. I think I'm beyond caring. CЯacke® 12:54, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, hooray for the block revert. But yes, that was quite a slip - reverting vandalism and silliness is dangerous, yo. Let's see if RichardT is actually still around to notice that he has been unbanned. --Sid 15:52, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Redundant[edit]

INTrigued posting directly on Andy's page a few minutes ago is redundant? --Kels 13:23, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

It's covered in the previous sentence. DickTurpis 13:25, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
BTW, has INTreagued got an invite here? time is looking short. DickTurpis 13:28, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
If someone knows who he is on WP, then it would be easier than trying to get hold of him via CP. --Kels 13:34, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Goldstein[edit]

Ha. Thanks for the inclusion, guys. I was just shocked that they hadn't locked that username yet.--Zelandoni 13:29, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

So you're Goldstein, eh? Welcome. Is that name by any chance a reference to 1984? DickTurpis 13:31, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
But, of course. After looking around CP a bit, I thought it would fit well as a username. It refers to the character Emmanuel Goldstein from Orwell's masterpiece 1984 .--Zelandoni 13:43, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
Oh...doubleplus ungoodthink.CЯacke® 13:47, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Ungtss[edit]

Okay, who wants to lay odds that if Ken finally gets fed up and bans Ungtss, TK will turn around and unban him? If only to piss Ken off. --Kels 19:11, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Sounds like a fairly probable scenario, but I'm not sure if Ken will get out the banhammer in the first place. Depends on the continued non-talk contribs, I guess. Ungtss is making a few excellent points, but so far, Conservative just seems to ignore them. --Sid 19:14, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
Only if User:C notices, which is an even money bet. Once User:C gets started on something else usually that something else diverts the Kster for the rest of the evening. Watching User:C is like Watching a train run a mobius strip, fascinating and ultimately boring.CЯacke® 19:16, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
I don't think Conservative will ban Ungtss. He usually leaves bans of that sort to the big boys. Besides, Ungtss is pretty well-liked, I believe, and I think he was invited to join CP by one of the main sysops. At one point he said he was quitting, pointing out some of the obvious flaws (notably that all the uncontroversial articles are done better elsewhere, and all the others are locked), but several editors enticed him to stay. If he's smart he'll give up on the project voluntarily, and he is smarter than most of them. DickTurpis 10:45, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
I notice that Sid did not say what supposed excellent points Ungtss is making. I also don't believe he will be able to squirm out of the paltry generosity of the average atheist who resides in the USA (see: the atheism talk page at Conservapedia). Newton 14:25, 5 September 2007 (CDT)Newton
Ungtss has made many excellent points. I have a question, do you have any knowledge about limitations of surveys? Particularly in regards to bias in the data based on societal expectations? tmtoulouse torment 14:28, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
And how much did you give to charity this year, Newton? DickTurpis 14:28, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
I see "Rational"Wikians offered no real conterevidence to the ABC NEWS, Barna Group, and data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research). Newton 14:36, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Jeez, Ken! That was quite a dodge there!--Offeep 14:42, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
You are way over extending what a phone survey can demonstrate. To make the claim you want to make you would need to show some experimental evidence. Place those with out religious belief and those with in the same circumstances and see if its true the religious are more likely to be charitable. Thats how you demonstrate causation. Not through a correlative phone survey. Here is one example of why a phone survey could easily be way off: those who profess religious belief are more likely to claim to have given more (regardless of what they give) than those who do not profess religious belief because of perceived external standards.
You simply can not make wide charges like this based off of one phone survey. This is nothing surprising from you, since like all creationist you latch on to a single data point and refuse to let it go or let it be placed against a wider background knowledge, or extended in anyway. tmtoulouse torment 14:41, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I thought you were leaving and never coming back, Ken. Won't TK be angry with you? --Kels 14:29, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Kels, are you misquoting me? I think so! Newton 14:37, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
I'm not quoting you at all, you dork! Man, between here and cp:Talk:Atheism, I'm beginning to wonder if you know how to read at all. But hey, if quotes get you hard, how about "I likely will not return to or read the RationalWiki website again..." --Kels 15:06, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Go easy on him, he got skill-drained recently by TK :P
Oh, and C? If you are unwilling to acknowledge the points Ungtss makes (they're all over the place and in the archives, he even pointed to them during your phase where you stubbornly stuck to your charity issue without replying to any of his questions), nothing I say will enlighten you, I'm afraid. I can only suggest to get some fresh air into your room and re-read the archives. --Sid 15:13, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Bye Bye. Perhaps you will see me at RationalWiki again but please don't count on it. Newton 14:43, 5 September 2007 (CDT) -- Don't let the door hit ya where the dog shoulda bit ya. --Gulik 22:09, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Jazzman[edit]

Why would he come back? Why subject himself to the humiliation and abuse leveled at him by a bunch of sociopathic imbeciles? If they are so lost in their little ideological mazes and battles that they can not recognize a good contributor I would tell them to fuck off. And in fact I did, I got jacked around once by CP and quit and help start up this little project. I went back for a while but mostly to try out all the crazy ideas we came up with here and to get conservative to battle the scientologist. Bah! tmtoulouse torment 10:36, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

That whole "commuted sentence" thing is bizarre. He had it commuted from a shorter period (3 days) to a longer one? Whaa?? --Kels 13:36, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Mh? 60 hours is a bit less than three days (and MUCH less than infinite). Taking into account the time he had been banned already, it's roughly three days, I think... Okay, why they bother with a three-day block in the first case is another issue - you can bet he'll be on "parole" (either official, or unofficial), and Rob will wait for the next tiny slip-up to find a good excuse for a ban. --Sid 13:42, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Oh, sorry. It was commuted from three days to 2.5 days, I read that wrong. --Kels 13:44, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
It was infinite, then reduced to 3 days. However, about 12 hours had already gone by, so Rob only blocked him for 60 hours, to bring his total block, from time of original block, to 3 days. 88.208.235.54 15:50, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Bets[edit]

  • I give FillmoreMan two days tops. One doesn't march into CP and say your opinions like that.--Offeep 14:25, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
  • My odds-on favorite for next to go is currently Ursus. He's been bothering Andy on his talk page (when did posting there become verboten?), and now has a little treatise on his userpage about they keystone article Deceit. His days are numbered if he doesn't shape up fast. DickTurpis 14:21, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
  • I give Wismike a day or two. He'll get the hammer for 90:10 before long, if nothing else. I'm going go out on a limb for Johnjoe, and say he gets a short block or two for time to "cool down", but I think he'll quit in disgust before he gets banned. He seems a bit too much of an honest Christian to get banhammered, though I could be entirely wrong. No opinion on BenHur yet. DickTurpis 16:37, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
    • Damn. I was wrong. I knew it was going out on a limb. DickTurpis 17:57, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Tactically, JohnJoe is playing a blinder. Constant repetition of Jesus' name and declarations of belief in His Word are giving him a major advantage over others. It's like wearing bulletproof underwear. I have him 1/3 for survival. HE'S GONE! Order - 4/5 within the next week. DogP 16:53, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

  • I think we need to create a recruiter account, and deluge these people with invites to RationalWiki. Few of them have e-mail addresses listed (already tried). Anyone up to the challenge? Have to read myself, or I'd jaunt over to the nearest Starbucks. Not exactly a dearth of them in NYC.-αmεσ (!) 16:57, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't think Jazzman will get booted, because Rob likes to hear himself talk. If Jazz is gone, who will he spout of insanity to? (I'm not, however, going to place any large some of money on that though!!) At least Jazz has absolutely no worry about a silly 90/10 block. [2] 134.82.109.72 22:38, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

  • Jazz has too many useful edits. They can't ban him or they will lose a valuable contributor, which they can ill afford. That's the only reason his epic talk with Rob has not got him banned. My plan when I was editing there was to make just enough useful edits to ward off the hammer, but it didn't work in the end (I should have been more clandestine with my contributions here, oh well). I was hesitant to make too many useful edits there, as I didn't want to help them too much, and that brought the hammer down. Jazz has been too valuable; it would take quite a lot to get him more than a few days "cooling off" block. DickTurpis 23:53, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

BenHur isn't long for this world. I'd say 5/1 before next week. DogP 19:14, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Ben just got himself a 2-hour block from Ed, with a nice blatant lie and coverup in the block log. --Kels 19:26, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Samwell might not know that being a smartass is a bannable offence. DogP 19:37, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Looks like the 24th block might be the last one for Ames, given TK's summary of his edit of Ames' comment [3]. Tohuvavohu 08:03, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

The hammer comes down. Did any of us really think Andy would allow "alternate perspectives" in his class? DickTurpis 10:31, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
Good one by Karajou:
  • AmesG's last contrib: 23:02, 2 September 2007
  • Karajou's "last warning" post: 23:54, 2 September 2007
  • Ban by Karajou: 09:25, 3 September 2007
Gotta say that I love these "last warnings". Even not doing anything at all can push Karajou over the edge. --Sid 14:12, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
  • My god, is what I'm seeing real? Has the mighty Jszzman finally gone down for the count? He was doing so well, too. Only... 3 more blocks, I think, until every major non-sysop is blocked.--Offeep 20:27, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Critically wounded?[edit]

  • MrRandom, three months by Rob. It's not really banned in my eyes, but he's pretty much out of the race for the moment. (Couldn't think of a better header, feel free to change it)
    • Up to 5 years now. Thats a ban (it's what I got, and I consider myself banned for good). Does anyoen honestly think CP will be active in 5 years? DickTurpis 23:44, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
  • I'm honestly bothered by how high their articles are starting to rank. That said, the answer is still "no."-αmεσ (!) 23:47, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
    • It is a bit worrisome, I suppose, but it seems our actions here are probably helping them, at least slightly. So it goes. DickTurpis 23:55, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

More info[edit]

Hey all! I just noticed myself on this list. I was wondering if you guys might be interested in the email conversations I had with TK over my block. If you would like to see them, I would be fine with posting them. 207.27.152.54 13:42, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Please do.--Offeep 13:46, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
OK, should I email them to you? 207.27.152.52 16:50, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Better yet, post them. Here, unless it's a lot of material, in which case, make a page in the conservapedia name space and put a pointer here. We should try to keep everything public, unlike that other place. And congratulations for hanging in there. We admire the brave souls fighting on the front lines. Gauss 17:40, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Jenkins[edit]

Somebody recruit Jenkins over to the good side! Quick! (I'm not near my sock computer just now.) Gauss 21:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Have done. --Linus(plot evil tech) 14:05, 23 September 2007 (EDT)


[4]Seems to have written his own death warrant, after getting sick of the 90/10 threats from Schlafly. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 22:50, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Graham[edit]

I'm not really into this, but what are his chances for survival? humanbe in 01:36, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, he refuses to join us… --Linus(plot evil tech) 14:05, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
I notice his reasoning for why not seems to be shifting. --Kels 14:34, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean? The Anti-Conservapedia 14:41, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

He's more interested in debating with them over there, which is noble and all. I mean, we've all tried it, but too soon realized that they are not interested in debate and discussion (their 90:10 rule actively discourages discussion), they are interested in shouting down and silencing dissent. If he keeps up his general approach, he'll get banned, and then maybe he'll come over here. He'll get disillusioned soon enough. DickTurpis 14:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You have to see his reasons for refusing to join here when he's over there. It's like getting an official invite to join the US during the Cold War when you happen to be in the Soviet Union. The Anti-Conservapedia 14:59, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Theone banned for 3 deys[edit]

well I got banned for changing the "Earth" page I don't Know the rules for posting bans here so...

That should read theone banned for 3 days

Postostudanto[edit]

Would someone please grab a copy of one of the reasons he will be banned and save it for the memory hole? It appears that PostoStudanto already saved it once from Conservative's evidence burning. Now that its on his personal "castle" it can be burned again when he is banned. I can't save a clean copy just now (though I have a browser copy-and-paste of it if all else fails.) Gauss 13:53, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Mschel[edit]

Apparently Mschel is back. The block log says "Per email discussion between user, TK and Ed Poor". 12.158.190.38 16:13, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

TK[edit]

TK, having publicly taken on Andy, Ken and what it means to be an encyclopedia, cannot be allowed to continue his deceit for long, can he?

What are you talking about...? Methinks the strife may be exaggerated. 207.162.58.3 13:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Read Dawkins Talk and some user pages...there has been more than the usual dissension. --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τalk ǃ 16:11, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
Not that I can see. This isn't anything different from his (probably staged) tiffs with both of them in the past, and in the case of Ken is actually milder than some of their past set-tos. As for Andy, he's oblivious to any facts that he didn't make up first, so it's likely he hasn't even noticed. --Kels 17:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
Wow. Just wow. Paranoid much? -- --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ♦Τalk ǃ 19:17, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Pachyderm[edit]

Thank you. 'Sound articles' reads so much better than 'mundane contributions' (cheeky buggers). Fretfulporpentine 10:24, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

How about "passive transfer of electrons to a server"? --HVista-epiphany.pngjimachong 12:11, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

IDuan[edit]

Anyone think Iduan will get blocked for this? [5] In the real world that'd be fine, but in Andy's world it might be an insult.--Danielfolsom 23:54, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Nah, Iduan's fallen in line. His early days of suspicion are over and it will get more than that to have him blocked. A new account might not get away with it though. DickTurpis 00:28, 2 December 2007 (EST)
Alright fair enough - although I'm not so sure IDuan has fallen in line. I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't just a liberal who is just editing there because he wants to make sure people that go there aren't completely uniformed. He's never edited controversial articles - which supports my claim. I'm actually surprised he hasn't been blocked yet - as usually people that reasonable don't make it--Danielfolsom 20:00, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Order?[edit]

How has order survived this long [6] in this discussion? I was in the same one and got hammered after 6 comments. --BillOhannity 12:52, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Somehow, he got PJR interested in discussing with him. As long as PJR will find "good" arguments and he will not understand how Order is destroying them by rational reasoning, I'd assume he's safe.. Editor at CP 14:28, 11 December 2007 (EST)
I don't understand why a supposedly omnipotent God has to be bound by our puny human "logic". If God is omnipotent, that means He can do ANYTHING, even impossible things. God can create a rock so big He can't lift it, and then can lift it anyway! But then, these types generally only seem to be confortable with a god who's as small as they are... --Gulik 23:13, 11 December 2007 (EST)
He's lasted this long because he's an apologist, not an nontheist like us. He's probably read the Bible, he likes the bible, and he's clearly Christian. I'll also note, unlike every one of you to try arguing on Conservapedia, Order is/was actually being nice; he is not spoiling for a fight. Whenever you guys argued with Conservapedians, you were very aggressive. I practically cringed when BillOhannity came onto the scene, because I knew he would be spoiling for a fight. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Keep in mind: For many of us, the aggressive tone and open snark/sarcasm only started after weeks or months of failed diplomacy. Many of us started out nice and later literally begged and pleaded in an attempt to induce some balance to Andy's horribly biased agenda articles. Also, on an encyclopedia project (which CP claims to be, according to their own logo), it's no use to always be polite and back off in content discussions, especially not when the other side keeps pushing and attacking. Sure, Order survived and managed to make useful edits to harmless articles, but let's face it: Few people go to Conservapedia to read up on the Umayyad or stuff.
And don't forget: As soon as The Ten decide that a user crossed the magic border from "mildly annoying, but works for free" to "works for free, but annoys me a bit too much", he's toast. Politeness will not save you in Arbitrarypedia. It can only delay the inevitable.
Don't get me wrong, I envy Order's apparently infinite patience and politeness. He's my hero for lasting that long without sucking up. I'm just saying that his presence doesn't make a serious difference because the sysops completely lock down key articles, keeping them in a state that is so biased that it's pure propaganda. So no matter whether you're a nice guy or a blunt guy, the end result is exactly the same for the articles that need to be changed. --Sid 00:14, 12 January 2008 (EST)
You thought I was spoiling for a fight RA? It may have appeared that way but it wasn't intentional, it was more a matter of built up frustration. Kind of like trying to teach little kids basic mathematics, finishing the lesson, then having them stubbornly insist that 2+2 is still 6. I was genuinely trying (probably foolishly) to help improve the site, both by creating new articles, fixing the abominations that were the existing math and science articles, and calling bullshit on many of their news headlines. Out of curiosity, which of my edits/discussions made you think I was trying to pick a fight? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

AngryCommunist[edit]

What do you guys think? Does he have any chance at all? --Linus(plot evil tech) 18:16, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Sargeant Schultz and the Shakin' Babies.[edit]

Could this be the end? PFoster 22:07, 11 January 2008 (EST) UPDATE: It is, at least for a while. Assfly wiped out Schultzie's talk page after Schultz told him he wouldn't trust an AAPS doctor to treat a skinned knee and then made repeated "quacking" sounds.

Wolfbagger and DavidSullivan?[edit]

Huhbahwhu? Wolf and David got axed? Why?

I didn't x-ray every last edit there, but what I saw looked pretty solid. Correcting minor mistakes, a few new entries, nothing that screamed parody of vandalism. So why the double-perma-ban? Did they share an IP (which, as we all know, is absolute proof that they are part of a liberal conspiracy to censor free speech on Conservapedia - Godspeed!) or something? I don't get it, and there was no comment. --Sid 11:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Google is your friend, Sid. Fretfulporpentine 11:14, 27 January 2008 (EST)
...*coughs up his water* AHAHAHADAMN XD --Sid 11:15, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Petmemorial[edit]

After attempting to add sanity to The Theory of Evolution talk pages - will he last? Silver Sloth 11:04, 28 January 2008 (EST)

What's the point...[edit]

...of the express lane? Is it to list every single editor who has been blocked before making 10 edits? The most recent addition is just stupid; he was an obvious sock of Bill11 (who was himself blocked for deleting the YEC article and replacing it with, and I quote, "junk by creationists"), he deleted large swaths of information without explanation, and he added sarcastic commentary within an article. Any wiki would block such a user. JazzMan 15:25, 7 December 2008 (EST)

My first name was Bill111, not Bill11. If you are going to critize me, get your facts straight. Also, you look at their YEC article and try to get a young, fiercely scientific, athiest person from deleting it the first time. Anyway, I've been getting much more mature in my editing.-- ConservapediaUndergroundResistor

Actually what is the point of this article? Given that the last 50 edits span back to the third of Janurary it is not like people are keeping watch much. It is clear that the only recent addition are people boasting about their rather trivial vandalism. Like I said the other day over at the proxy page we need to increase our quality control if we want to be viewed as anything other than a hang out for vandals. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 18:40, 9 December 2008 (EST)
I agree with Pi wholeheartedly. This article should be mothballed. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:38, 9 December 2008 (EST)


How about this: We create a page for people to post when they were blocked, what they did, etc. If they get enough sysop votes, they get put on the page. This would keep us from being viewed as a hangout for vandals- ConservapediaUndergroundResistor

I dunno if it needs to be mothballed entirely; there's still some interesting information on it. Maybe we can make a template that says something to the effect: "Warning: This page pretends to be current but it is totally behind the times. We keep it here because it's kinda cute."
I kinda like the idea from CUR, and I bet a page like that actually exists somewhere. Though I don't think we need any voting or anything. JazzMan 13:00, 12 December 2008 (EST)
I made the page Banwatch Holding Pen. Now all we need to do is make a voting function. How about it works like this: a sysop vote is worth 10 points, member vote is 5 points, and nonmember vote is one-half point. You need 30 votes to get on the banwatch list--ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 16:29, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I have added myself there. Now, who is willing to get a voting machine there? --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 11:58, 13 December 2008 (EST)

I don't know if anyone cares enough. Votes are only ever used for major affairs, and even then the turnout isn't great. JazzMan 19:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Seriously, someone needs to add yes/no checkmarks to the Conservapedia:The Good, the Banned, and the Ugly page. Otherwise people will just keep piling up. . .--"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorMOAR KITTY:[1] (wasn't me) 11:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

JM[edit]

That JM guy blocked me. Why? Vandalism. What was it? Asking what they're position on therians was. Could someone do this for me, on teh fly's talk page? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorMOAR KITTY:[1] (wasn't me) 18:47, 21 January 2009 (EST)

facepalm.jpeg DSFARGEG 15:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Banned from site for suggesting that the site have a page on the furry fandom?[edit]

Because i used to be on the site,but i think i was banned for suggesting that the site have a page on the furry fandom.

And it was blocked for "Nonsense/entering gibberish into forums" Axlebookmite 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Template[edit]

I think given that the page is dead and the examples used are pretty ancient, plus the fact that not being banned is a bigger event on CP these days, it's not really worth keeping this on the CP template is it? --PsygremlinKhuluma! 14:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to completely remove it from the template or categories or anything like that. But mentioning how "not being banned" is a bigger event may be an interesting addition to the top of the article, essentially justifying and explaining the mothballing. Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)