Conservapedia talk:Night of the Blunt Knives

The links under burning the evidence don't seem to work anymore ... can they be updated? I'm not sure what they showed before. Jrssr5 11:23, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Without looking at them, they must not be permalinks (or diffs, same deal). Most of this was written and posted right at the inception of RW2, and we weren't as careful about permalinks yet. I guess the way to get them is to go to the linked files and follow the history back to the right dates.... ugh... human^{be in} 12:46, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Nope. They ARE perma-linked, but the entire articles got deleted. --Sid 12:48, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm, you know, maybe that was the point of the links? That the histories, etc., are completely gone, and "here is where they would be"? human^{be in} 14:05, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

If I recall correctly, TK only pseudo-deleted (blank+redirect to DeletedPage) them in the beginning, but then did a full vape:

• 14:42, 28 June 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "Conservapedia talk:Sysop and Admin Abuse" (content was: '#REDIRECT conservapedia:deletedpage')
• 14:43, 28 June 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "Conservapedia talk:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative" (content was: '#REDIRECT conservapedia:deletedpage')
• 14:40, 28 June 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative" (content was: '#REDIRECT conservapedia:deletedpage')

Way after the Great Purge, and possibly after reading our entry. --Sid 14:20, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Adding to this: I believe I saved the wiki source texts of the various pages. I'll post them later tonight (or tomorrow, depending on free time), once I figured out what is the source of which file belongs to what page. --Sid 15:39, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I got banned from Conservapedia too, and I didn't even sock. Glad to hear it's not just me. Tisane (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's it…

I'm going in. Wish me luck! --Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 19:47, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I hope youre wearing socks, cuz aren't you permabanned?PalMD^talk 19:48, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Yup, however, I get about three new IPs a day, therefore… --Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 20:15, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I see you there, ugh could you please try not to be so OBVIOUS!?~~ Cracker_talk 20:17, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Where? ----Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 19:41, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Jesus, Linus it was 12 days ago! Like I can remember yesterday; anyway, the account I thought was you wasn't you. I thought it was you doing a sycophant righty, posting to TK and Ashfly's talk pages within minutes of creating their account. (And, no, I don't remember the user:name.) ~~ Cracker 20:18, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

In Memoriam

Dis Moribus (to the spirits of the dead) Linus, Human, Horace, Jssr5, Tims, etc., you will be missed.-AmesG_yo! 21:27, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, but it looks like you got sheared, too, Ames! Huw Powell a/k/a human 12:30, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

It took me about 3 days, but I was resurrected here ... kinda eerie! Jrssr5 00:20, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Addendum

Some of my favorite socks are still active on CP. I won't name names, but "3rd Reich" and "Abuse" are still very active. The latter may be a sysop soon--and just for the hell of it, this is a great page on cp [1] Zero 11:01, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Unfortunately, the page cited just above (Stephen Garaas) got deleted. Anyone have a cached copy, or know how to get one? When they delete edits without destroying the entire page plus history, we can still point to it (see "Burning the evidence", above), but for really embarrassing things, they nuke everything. BTW, I have several other examples in my files of burning the evidence; a whole page should be written about it. I also have one case of nuking everything; thank Deity for the Google cache! SJIHAS 20:37, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Odd things in article

Why are there a load of what looks like talk page comments in this article (under "That's it", "In Memoriam" & "Addendum")? If they're just comments on the page, they should really be moved here to the talk page. If they're copied from CP or somewhere else, that should be explained. wassaiLOId~ 13:22, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Shouldn't the heading type thingy read "But are you truly rid of them?" --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:32, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah... if it should say anything at all... I'll go clean it up. ħuman 13:48, 24 December 2008 (EST)

(ed conflik) I'm not convinced we need that bit at all. It seems to be pointing out teh obvious. wassaiLOId~ 13:50, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Yes. Really, this is a historical piece and shouldn't really see much, if any, editing. In regards to the likely raising of your first question on the internets where it ranks in the top five hits on google Afghanistan.... sort of the same answer. This was written very early on RW 2.0, like day 2 or 3, and sort of became a bit "live-bloggy". I'd say, leave it alone as an historical artifact. Perhaps we should put in some "comments" so anyone inclined to alter or move those bits will know what's up? ħuman 16:46, 24 December 2008 (EST)

OK, I kind of undid most of the "recent" changes to this, and added a domineering, authoritarian note at the top describing its historical nature. I think that, perhaps, if people want to have a "version" of this that is "live" and gets updated, we should start another article of some sort, which can be "see also"d, of course. Does anyone mind my kind of "locking this down" in this way? There really is no point in adding to it, because 1. the story is told, there is nothing new to add, and 2. it's an odd glimpse into our transition to RW2, a trip down memory lane, if you will. I didn't bother to undo PC's linking of "TK" every fucking time he is mentioned (Why did you do that? It makes no sense...) because I was lazy and it doesn't really affect the article. However, the changing of the links to the CP:sysop files from CP:user links made sense to me. ħuman 16:59, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Joyous One

a special comment was added in blocking the Joyous One,

• 07:51, 16 May 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked "JoyousOne (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (sock puppet) [ed. note, well, ok, JoyousOne was a puppet...]

Rationalwiki 1.0 records reveal this sock to have been User:PalMD: [2]

• Bwahhahahahahaha...thanks Tm...Ill try to be subtle to start.

PalMDtalk 21:16, 24 April 2007 (CDT) aka Joyous One (JO)

This posting was made 3 days after PalMD's indefinite block, and 3 weeks before representing to Stephanie Simon of the LA Times when User:PalMD became active in cyber-vandalism.

This sockpuppet account, a violation of CP policy, was created the same day as the RW 1.0 posting; [3] further, the sockpuppet account was deeply involved in the Scientology article and NAMBLA article as evidenced and discussed by User:PalMD at RW 1.0. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's.......really uninteresting. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up with your stupidity, Nobs, or face the horrible bars of the wandal bin once again. ħuman 05:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Nubbins, I'm curious, do you have a complete copy of RW1, or just random page copies? Because wikis, you know, get edited. I'm curious as to the quality of the alleged copies you keep posting all over kingdom come. PS, don't answer me here or I'll block you for two months. Answer on my talk page. ħuman 05:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Set the record straight

The time has come to set this recortd straight. Andy did not want a mass blocking of users. TK acted on his own. Andy says on May 16,

I don't see...a reason to scatter our enemies yet: we are better off if they continue to congregate and discuss as they have been. .. Also, it's important not to signal to our enemies that we are watching them. [4]

TK disagrees:

understand, Andy, this is something much bigger than any of us imagined. The sooner we deal with this, the sooner we get back to more peace, and more articles, and the safer Christian's will be on CP. You've been reading their stuff...they are truly evil. Real evil.

The mass blocking of editors was TK's doing. Andy, Ed Poor, and myself argued for constructive engagement. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Then what happened? I mean sorry to ask a silly question, but if Andy was opposed to the move, and it is his wiki, then why did the blocks take place? There must be more to the story than you are letting on. Has to be. --Damo^Hi 20:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all there from the link provided above, a series of discussion threads on May 16 the Night of he Blunt Knives. Andy stated his view, as well as others. TK didn't like it and organized an AIM chat with some other sysops (as was TK's habit fully documented in several RW mainspaces). Those without AIM were excluded. Then TK began a mass blocking.

It is no secret TK would not engage, nor listen to others' arguments. When he acted it was emotionaly driven. With the Stephanie Simon article was born the myth Andy shut down debate and blocked for ideological purposes, whereas Conservaleaks reveals (as I argued in WP last year) the reality was quite different. TK shut down debate wih me, Andy and Ed, and blocked for whatever purposes he did. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep missing two key factors:

First of all, while TK did a lot of bad shit, everybody else let him. The ones who actively opposed TK on key issues are now gone - guess why! Didn't you ever wonder why TK was so busy banning RW members and merrily fueled the fire against us? Didn't you wonder why he was so opposed to PJR while he always praised Ed and Andy?

Secondly, debate being shut down wasn't just TK. Sorry, but that's a fantasy world simplification.

• 90/10 was Andy's work for example, and it quickly became the most over-abused banhammer excuse ever: "Discuss before you make changes! Keep discussing until you convinced us (which won't happen)! If you make too many talk page posts, we'll ban you!"
• And even today, you have Conservative redirecting talk pages to his pet articles and even protecting his own talk page so that nobody can directly contact him on the wiki. And people who try to challenge him on Talk:Main are met with absurd troll posts.
• And don't get me started on the habit of deleting entire pages and talk pages and recreating them without history (and often enough without archiving, or with very selective archiving).
• And DEFINITELY don't get me started on Night Editing Mode or rampant page protection (which is often combined with ignoring or stonewalling any argument on the talk page).
• Oh, I forgot Ed's "Banhammering is not punishment!" stance which he used to justify his own bans of anybody who opposed him in the Math sector.
• Or how about Karajou's epic banhammer orgy about a typo in his "Bible" article? (That one was FUN.)
• Or what about the CheckUser abuse (in direct violation of CP's privacy policy, but that's a tangent)?
• Oh goodness, what about any discussion with Andy, who notoriously can't admit he was wrong even when presented with overwhelming evidence, and which always ends with complete stonewalling and him basically going "LALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU!" while somebody applies 90/10 or some liberalism-ban?

Seriously, do you have any, any idea what is going on on your own wiki? --Sid (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good, Sid, but was does that have to do wit improving the Conservapedia:Great Purge article? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice deflection, Rob. A bit transparent, but I don't give a shit, really. And I could ask you the same: The article already states that this was a TK thing, and you "setting the record straight" added pretty much exactly nothing new. If there is something specific you wish to change in the article or add to it, say so.

All I see is you resuming your attempt at portraying TK as the one true evil and yourself and others as helpless victims. Look, we get that you want to present yourself as a good guy, and that's okay. The thing is that reality is not as simple as you want it to be. And if you really want to improve CP, you need to see the big picture. Everything else will fall into place once you do. --Sid (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's get to specifics: RW has for four years attempted to claim Andy Schlafly is an authoritarian dictator while RW is a social experiment in mob rule. The truth now can be seen that TK acted on his own, counter to Andy's wishes and without a concensus of opinion from other CP sysops. CP was never the authoritarian organization RW imagined it to be, and the Ratiopnalwiki mob certainly has always acted with more organization than CP sysops ever did. You know that. Everyone from the early days knows that. And anyone interested to examine the record can see that. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Very good, Sid Rob, but was does that have to do wit improving the Conservapedia:Great Purge article?" ;)

Maybe you should port this discussion elsewhere? Maybe to the Conservapedia (talk), the Debate or the Forum namespace? Your simplifications are understandable, but again, things aren't that simple, but this talk page isn't the proper place for it - you just used the Night of the Blunt Knives as a starting place for this general discussion. --Sid (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You got us off the track. Point is, Andy opposed mass blocking, blocking for ideological purposes, and still does. The problem seems to be misinformation on RW talk pages rather than in mainspace. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. I emailed him today to request that he fix my 403 IP block, something you seem to be able to do nothing about. And really, if Andy disapproved of TK's shenanigans, why didn't Andy reel him in or undo them? The same question applies to the rest of the open-minded innocent sysops on CP. ħuman 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He did remove TK's rights for quite an extended period. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

But that was only because TK used profanity in an email to him, not for on-wiki activities. He didn't undo any of TK's stupidity - and then let him back on board. And still hasn't undone the round of 403 blocking as far as I can tell. ħuman 06:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No Human, that narrative is quite different from what Conservaleaks shows. I'll give a theory: I was indisposed for an extended period for many months (I had to retake a note on a business I thought I washed my hands of just when the recession hit and was working about 84 hours a week). I think Andy didn't have anyone else willing put the time in, so he handed the keys to TK. But Andy alway knew nobody liked TK, not CP sysops, or anyone else, and he was a double-dealing, backstabbing piece of crap, but he was available. I think I was probably about the only user who could at some level reason with TK. TK tried to challenge my influence with the Kevin Conley-AmesG thing, but that failed. In rereading much of this material, I see TK always treated me very different than most other users, save Andy. Probably cause he knew if I told Andy get rid of him and I'll do his job, Andy would've done it. But I just don't have the time to dedicate to it. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Lelz

That 90% number is just a perennial favorite over there, isn't it? 104.5.9.13 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy aniversery

May 15 Commie Lib (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)