Conservapedia talk:Sysops on Wikipedia

Has anyone any idea what username (if any) Andy used on wikipedia? Apparently he claims to have edited Renaissance but I can't find any edits that can be attributed to him. Is this a case of Conservative Deceit? Trashbat 08:59, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

He's apparently used Andysch and Aschlafly, although both of those post-date CP's start and don't match up with several of his statements about his WP past. --jtl^talk 15:26, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Haha, it's quite a refreshing change to see Andy getting pwned. --Stevo (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Does anyone have a list of RFA's that Conservative/kdbuffalo has gone through? Also, didn't he get outed by the LA Times, so there's a clear connection now? --Kels 10:09, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

If I recall correctly, Conservative wasn't mentioned in the LA Times, so he's not really fair game, I think. It's obvious (and his RFAs may be on his Request for Bureaucrat nomination...), but he keeps denying it, claiming that somebody else used that library computer and wrote in exactly the same style about the exactly same topics. --Sid 10:20, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, are we perpetuating the fiction that they're separate people? It's pretty obvious that they're the same, so is there any reason we're not including him? We could always add a disclaimer to the effect of "Conservative, under the username kdbuffalo which he has attempted to deny on CP, has been blocked..." and so forth. Only better written. --Kels 10:29, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

It looks like there were 2 RFCs [1] [2] which resulted in a block of 9 days [3], but no RFA. But unless there's proof Conservative is Kdbuffalo I'd say it probably shouldn't be go in. --Stevo 10:50, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

For the record, I am not Conservative and I am not KdBuffalo, though I am in possession of circumstantial evidence that Conservative and KdBuffalo at least lives in the same town and share some of the same interests. Heart♥Gold ^tx 12:24, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I've never seen Conservative actually deny that he's Kdbuffalo/Ken DeMyer; he just declines to confirm it and claims that it hasn't been proved. There is a solid chain of people using the names 'kdbuffalo' and 'kendemyer' claiming to be one another, all leading up to Creationwiki user Creationist who claims to be CP user Conservative, but Conservative then says we aren't sure that 'kendemyer' is really Ken DeMyer. --jtl^talk 15:26, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Wait, I remember Hoji publically confronting Conservative with the results of checkuser, proving that Conservative and kdbuffalo were the same person. Conservative can claim that there are two different people using the same internet cafe or whatever, but remember that according to Andy and TK that's impossible... --Kels 15:39, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

TK[edit]

I don't think TK's been permabanned; this is the only IP address I know of that he's used on WP, and its block log is empty. --jtl^talk 16:08, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Andy[edit]

I'm doubtful that Andy's close to a ban; the only names I know of he's used are Andysch and Aschlafly, and both of them are recent and low-usage. He has however talked about more substantive WP edits, so maybe we just haven't found his previous username. --jtl^talk 16:08, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I've had a look through the one article I know he's made claims to have edited (Renaissance) and seen no evidence of pre-Conservapedia edits from anyone resembling him. With nothing else to go on, finding out his old wikipedia identity seems pretty difficult. Trashbat 16:34, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, from my link above (where Andy gets pwned), he talks about editing at Wikipedia "years ago". AndySch and Aschlafly were both only created to talk about conservapedia and wikipedia bias. So I think it's possible that the story of him setting up Conservapedia because of his treatment at Wikipedia is false. --Stevo (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

That's pretty much the conclusion I drew after trying to track his pre-CP activity on WP based on interviews he's given and the like (what can I say, boring rainy Sunday over here!). I wouldn't be surprised if the "treatment at Wikipedia" he claims was simply a vehicle to attract more press attention to CP. After all, "man sets up wiki to combat censorship on CP and offer and alternative worldview to the evil liberals" is a better story than simply "man sets up wiki". Trashbat 16:55, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I edited the WP Conservapedia article thusly:"(No evidence has yet been found that shows Schlafly ever editing a Wikipedia article.)" Maybe this'll get the wedge out of the tyre. ~~ CЯacke® 18:40, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Good plan, that man. Tweaked to read "...prior to founding Conservapedia." ;) --Robledo 19:05, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, good addition there Robledo!~ CЯacke® 19:56, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Conservative[edit]

As discussed above, I have no doubt that Conservative is Kdbuffalo, but he's never acknowledged that. Kdbuffalo's had a variety of WP sockpuppets, including Kdbuffalo2 and Raisinman. There are some others that were claimed, but some of them at least aren't convincing to me. Kdbuffalo's original name was creationist, the same name I believe he uses at CreationWiki. --jtl^talk 16:08, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Conservative was not Kdbuffalo2. But based on IP triangulation, I do think he is Kdbuffalo (but he did not confirm or deny it when once asked). Heart♥Gold ^tx 18:02, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

What makes you say Kdbuffalo2 is not Conservative? The evidence seems to support the claim that he is. God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 01:20, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

He won't 'deny it since he's a good Christian boy and don't want to lie like that, (in public, so to speak)...and won't fess up to it because kdb is known far and wide as a quote-mining idiot. I almost got him (User:C) broken of the habit of placing two (or more) refs smack dab together with a </ref><ref> that screws up the diff pages making them REAL wide. ~~ CЯacke® 20:05, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

incredible[edit]

This is fascinating. All of the worst sysops of CP are notorious cranks on WP. It really doesn't get any better than this.--PalMD ^{-yada yada} 19:46, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

The Case of Ed Poor, and comments on the communist model of WP[edit]

Wow. I just read the material cited for Ed Poor. Ed seems to be much more intelligent on WP than he is on CP¹~~, are you sure they are the same two guys?~~ Ed Poor seemed nice on CP, to me, but a little strange and erratic.

In any event, wp:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2 is another case of wp:User:JoshuaZ gaming the system to protect liberal POV in evolution related articles.

This is reminiscent of and far too eerily similar to the public interrogations (loosely translated, "struggle sessions") ostensibly intended to once and for all root out bourgeois counter revolutionary influences from the peoples republic of china during the cultural revolution. The vast majority of these struggle sessions did not end violently, from my information, but the psychological pressures that they created did push some to suicide, and others to behave like flee bitten dogs.

So, based on this observation, it is clear to me that WP is modeled on some of the worst of communist China, to the point that they are now eating their own, as China did (both figuratively during public struggles, and literally during times of famine).

While CP will never supplant WP, I do hope something better comes along. (WP is great for non-controversial articles, but the toll on editors who try to bring balance to controversial articles (defended with religious fervor by the left) is great, and the fruitfulness of these efforts is miniscule.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:40, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Notes:

¹At least with regard to defending himself. I looked at some of his edits on the creation-evolution controversy article, and concur that he was not being reasonable. Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:20, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Um, hate to break it to you, fella, but what you describe as "wp:User:JoshuaZ gaming the system to protect liberal POV in evolution related articles" is in fact an editor attempting to ensure that certain scientific articles in an online encyclopedia accurately reflect the current scientific consensus. Which is, of course, entirely laudable. --Robledo 13:22, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

TimSvedon and wossername[edit]

I'd like to add back the bits about TimSvedon and the irish dancing girl, for completeness' sake, but I understand the objection that they don't really fit with the theme. Andy's doesn't really either, though, at least as far as we know, but he obviously needs to be listed. How about splitting the article into two sections, something like 'CP Sysops who have been Blocked at WP' and 'Other CP Sysops at WP'? --jtl^talk 17:24, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

In that case I'll copy this discussion from my talk page: --Stevo (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

I have no real problem with you removing SharonS and TimS's efforts as they were minimal but I originally posted them under Andy's puffery as they were obviously acting in concert with him. God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 15:52, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, well at first I thought they had far to big a mention since all their edits were rather trivial and there was nothing particularly remarkable about them adding to the Conservapedia article, which is why I cut down the amount of text on them and moved them to the bottom of the list. Then, while also being slightly squeamish about "attacking" minors in this way, I read the intro to the article again, which declares that the article's about sysops that have caused trouble etc. on WP, so I felt that there wasn't a case for them being in there. --Stevo (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh, good point with the intro text; that would need to be re-written too. The fact that wossername's a minor doesn't bother me, for a couple reasons: 1. she's not really being attacked, just documented; 2. by being a sysop on CP, she's made herself at least somewhat notable. I realize I may be in a minority on that, though. I'll put together a sandbox version of the article to see what it would look like, and see if anyone has comments. --jtl^talk 17:53, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Instinctively, I'd say lay off on particular criticisms of the kids, other than to mention that, in general, they're being promoted very quickly on the basis of little more than blind obedience. I think this has already been said elsewhere, though we could have some fun on an Assfly Youth article.

I reckon this article should document bona fide misbehaviour on WP, i.e. sufficient to warrant at least a warning. If they're just editing within the guidelines, I don't see that it's notable. It'd also be interesting to compare block lengths between WP and CP: Karajou, RSchlafly and RobS would all have been infinitely blocked from CP if they behaved as they did on WP (and weren't sympathetic to the CP cause). This may have already been said elsewhere, too. --Robledo 17:59, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, if the article were just a documentation of activity on WP, then they could be included, and I suppose that article could have a clear section for those have "misbehaved". Though since just about everyone's made some sort of edits to WP I'm not sure such an article is needed, unless we find some more "interesting" edits from other sysops. --Stevo (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

I've made a cut at a more complete / less-inherently-accusatory version at User:Jtl/Sandbox. Any comments? Maybe the non-troublemakers just aren't interesting to anyone else? --jtl^talk 19:20, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

~~Based on a quick scan I'd say it's a goodly fork, whack this a-one down to only include the nazis-in-training younger, more impressionable sysops and call it a day.~~~~ CЯacke®

Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean -- only include the younger, more impressionable sysops? Or exclude them? --jtl^talk 20:28, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

PS, I'm going to predict that if we ever find out RobS' real name it'll be more akin to Stan O'Brien than to say Robert Smith. I'm putting this down to "tradecraft" a la LeCarre. CЯacke®

Like the layout and agree Conservative should be in there. Not sure about TK if that's all we can find (dammit! ;). As for the rest and balance in the article, I think a section listing active and productive Wikipedians (Crocoite & Hoji) would suffice, coupled with a statement saying that all other sysops appear to be contenting themselves with CP. --Robledo 20:12, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

I'd be okay with that, but I'm not sure what we'd do with TK then -- he's neither an active & productive WPian, nor contenting himself solely with CP. I think we have to call him out as a special case, even if there's apparently not much to say. --jtl^talk 20:28, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

How's the current version look? It includes all the relevant information, but doesn't make a big deal about the un-interesting cases, and doesn't duplicate the sysop list. --jtl^talk 20:43, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Hmm... I'm sorry, you've done a good job there, but to me the whole concept of an article trying to document the WP activities of all the CP sysops just seems too "stalky". However, the consensus seems to be towards the new version so I'll go with it, though I'd make a couple of changes: The intro to the "Non-active" section is too negative; in fact I'd change the last part of the article just to something like this:

== Other sysops ==

SharonS: has made some edits.

CPAdmin1 (TimSvendsen): has made some edits, including reverting vandalism.

TK: the only known activity is comments attacking Tmtoulouse on the Conservapedia talk page.

The other change would be to just have the names in bold rather than L3 headers, and have them in a similar order to this version, or have them alphabetical; the point is I think both Ed Poor and Aschlafly should be near the top.

--Stevo (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

KooKoo[edit]

I never realized until I read Trent's WP page that KooKoo and TK were as unpleasant to him as they were to me. I got the same FBi-talk to your boss type threats. I almost forgot how much I hated them...It's a good thing Im not a Christian and required to forgive.--PalMD ^{-yada yada} 21:21, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia / Conservapedia editing correlation?[edit]

Correlation? Something else?

--Shagie 03:52, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

That's an Indian IP address, and I thought Fox was in the UK? I could be wrong, or it could be a proxy. The other amusing thing is the complete misunderstanding of Google's hotness index -- CP wasn't even close to the "number one Google search". It doesn't have enough searches to show this directly, but look at this comparison of the #3 hottest search term, 'christa worthington', with 'wikipedia'. Christa may be hot, but WP is searched for a whole lot more. --jtl^talk 04:09, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm thinking coincidence. If this edit is from Fox/Lulz, he's a sockmaster to reckon with. --jtl^talk 04:11, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

That's so unfair - why on earth would you think Fox was a sockmaster?? He seems suchh a nice clean cut young man :D 83.170.97.219 04:19, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree 209.200.19.180 04:22, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

The writing style on WP for the Indian IP address is not Fox. However, two things stick out from the links. The Indian IP address refers to a blog talking about sulphur hexafluoride (English spelling as a heading, then sulfur - US spelling - in rest of text), which became a hot search item after being featured on the Tonight show. Conservapedia appears to have become a popular search term after being mocked on the Daily Show. I wonder if they realise that over at CP? God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 04:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

According to my chemist girlfriend, there was a meeting and the official, scientific spelling of sulphur has been changed to sulfur. Damn americans. ^ɢ^{^яаѕs}_yodel 05:05, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Official? - who makes the official rule about science using sulfur as the spelling? Citation needed methinks! God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 05:09, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Apparently the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) do. Check out page 80 in this pdf. Though it seems we won the aluminium and caesium debate.^ɢ^{^яаѕs}_yodel 05:20, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

UNINDENT OK. Your ref is only a draft even though it is dated 2004. Whether the IUPAC commands all science rather than just chemistry is debatable. But hey, if we win with aluminium then I'll go for it! God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 12:47, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

I was more thinking of the timing of the article edits. Unless I have my timezone off - those two edits were within a very few minutes of each other - thus the coincidence. Possibilties:

Fox is watching the WP article like a hawk and immediately reported the information to CP
Fox and the anon wp editor are both watching another source like a hawk
Fox is the anon wp editor
Pure coincidence

--Shagie 12:51, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

I think in fact it was a hours difference - The WP edit at 07:17 UTC & the CP edit at 08:19 UTC -- Stevo (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeh, i'll spell it sulphur and pronounce it aluminium. I think there was supposed to be a point to me mentioning the sulphur thing but i can't remember. maybe something about not being able to tell geography because of that spelling. i dunno, i don't think it matters :-) ^ɢ^{^яаѕs}_yodel ^{βЯæкΔωwΝ} 12:53, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Karajou[edit]

Karajou claims to have been involved in a WP edit war over the name of an ironclad battleship, with one of the board members of the history project. That should be enough to find a WP username from, I'd think. I'll try later or this weekend if nobody beats me to it. --jtl^talk 12:46, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

[4] You should have just asked Ames -- Stevo (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

If you like this guy, you should tell him about Wikipedia's How do I delete my user and user talk pages?. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:58, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

It looks like he's already had that done. --jtl^talk 00:20, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Hmn, wonder why it was not successful. (I couldn't really tell from a brief look at his contribution history why he decided to leave.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:24, 30 June 2007 (CDT)