Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Waiting for Andy to Die[edit]

Real nice Ken https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamHB&diff=next&oldid=1509674 — Unsigned, by: 91.207.175.101 / talk

I think that was a mistake. I don't think he meant to say, "the owner of Conservapedia". I think he meant to say, 'the owner of the Conservative account". So Ken isn't waiting for Andy to die. Ken is just waiting for Ken to die. Of course, it could have been a Freudian slip. Spud (talk)

Ooh Ken, That's Gotta Burn[edit]

Andy doesn't approve of you mentioning us on his blog. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m a previous user of the User:Conservative Account. AMA[edit]

As above, I previously edited using the User:Conservative Account. My access was revoked when I had issues with the latest string of ad hominem articles, and because I wouldn’t get up at 3am to review and help edit them. -ConservativeEditor (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Prove it. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Conservative (which redirects to User:Newton) is still a Sysop[1] and is not currently blocked.[2] Bongolian (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
[3]We need to be careful here because apparently there are "There are plenty of ethical and lawful methods resourceful people can make insure that there are consequences to ill behavior." Even if he had grounds, which he does not, taking action would mean that he would have to reveal himself to the "accused" which he is far to cowardly to do. It would also be a perversion of justice if he were to file such a report. Come on Ken, I dare you.--Mercian (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
He just deleted and burned the whole episode. A recap.

"There are certain individuals who have chosen to continue to engage in cyber harassment. Engaging in cyber harassment towards a resourceful person or persons is an unwise course of action. There are plenty of ethical and lawful methods resourceful people can make insure that there are consequences to ill behavior. You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with resourceful people! "

Resourceful? LondonGrump (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Here’s some more background. I was contacted in a Christian subreddit by another member to join a Discord server. The purpose was for editing / writing content for Conservapedia. I used to editing at a previous job and I had some free time (I work in consultancy and this was around the holidays so business was very slow). There were 6 of us, including the leader who just went by Conservative.
As I would later find out, apparently some time ago the other leaders at Conservapedia were extremely concerned about Conservatives editing habits, to the point that they were threatening to limit his time editing. He then decided to lie and say he was really multiple people, and recruited others through message boards, blogs and other areas to help write content.
Except we weren’t writing content. The idea was we were supposed to login at different times and copy/paste what he had written for us. We did do some copy editing, but I quickly found out that Conservative was very particular. One user pointed out that one article was exactly the same as a previous one, and she was banned, and her messages purged, along with all of us receiving a new password. The same thing happened to another user who pointed out an article didn’t make sense.
He also wanted us to post stuff all hours of the night, claiming that this would prove multiple people were editing and that it would make the site as a whole look more active. I helped when I could but Conservative was very perturbed I had to curb back once work picked back up.
I’ll be honest, I felt bad for the guy. You could tell that this was his entire livelihood and the only source of purpose he had in life. There definitely is something mentally wrong with him, and I hope he gets the help he needs.
The straw that broke the camels back was yesterday when one of the biggest and grandest achievements in Christian architecture was burning down, that he wanted us to post articles about a user here. I refused saying we should really work on improving the Notre Dame article, as it hadn’t been updated since 2016. And that ended in my block, and no more editing for me.
I do wish luck to the 2-3 people who were left. And Conservative, I hope you seek treatment soon. -ConservativeEditor (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
He's obviously not well and occasionally I feel bad about taunting him into displaying his worst habits but he's a guy that has no problem in linking atheism to necrophilia so he's fair game. How often did you speak with him? Ever by phone? Acei9 21:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe you. How would you prove you were in touch with Ken or used that account? 2601:241:8E00:2F7D:45D0:D7F1:7B47:90AD (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn’t take any screenshots because I didn’t join the account to do any ill will to Conservapedia. I do know that it was Conservative because the writing style is unmistakeable. I originally thought much of what was written here was slanderous, and there were some (now blocked) users who told him to ignore this site. He does think that his articles are doing irreparable harm to your website, mostly because he can post whatever he wants without getting in trouble, and we were always instructed to protect any article written immediately; Conservative (whom I’m guessing is Ken?) would immediately block and oversite any objections.
I do feel bad about the articles written about users here. We were under the impression that there was serious vandalism/harassment going on against Conservative, but it appears the opposite was true.
He did not provide me with a phone number, but he did in the past apparently. Talking with other previous users, he would text them or call them all hours of the night to post content, but then it ended abruptly, and his phone number started giving out of service bounce backs. -ConservativeEditor (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Did Ken ever tell you what his ultimate goal was? Acei9 02:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Conservative has a worldview that if one thing is wrong about a statement, the whole thing is wrong. For example, if I said “I saw a 737 fly over the airport”, and he finds out that it was really a 747, his thought process indicates I really never saw a plane or an airport. He does the same thing with atheism and critics of religion. If they say/do one thing that is wrong, he finds the smallest thing to find them wrong about. In fact he gave me a shoutout yesterday that he quickly deleted and now one on the main page that it’s atheists fault that Notre Dame burnt down, to excuse the fact he was more concerned in writing libelous essays about members here then Notre Dame burning. He thinks if he lets any statement you put out stand, that he’s lost the somehow, so he needs to have the last word. -ConservativeEditor (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm still calling bullshit on this. It's funny how one of Ken's minions magically appears just as Ken is making vague noises about cyber harassment. It's funny that they all write in exactly the same style as Ken, and even eschew the use of the preview button when editing. Provide us with a copy of checkuser, showing Conservative's account posting from all over, or even better, tell us which name you used to post to the secret sysop groups (because Ken used several) or fuck off. This is probably nobs thinking he's being a soopah seekrit cointel. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
either way its pitiful - a lone loon babbling on cp or a group of people to achieve fuck all. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
An explanation has been given as to why they all write exactly the same as Ken. It's because Ken gave them the text and just told them to put it on Conservapedia. All of the writing was done by Ken. But I also find ConservativeEditor's claims to be highly unlikely. It would mean that Ken was bossing other people about and ordering them to post on Conservapedia in the middle of the night. Why would they follow the little shit's orders? What incentive would they have? Spud (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Not just that, but given how Andy has locked down sysop rights over the past few years, I'm sure news that Ken has been been letting random people, selected by him, log on to CP as sysops, will go down like a lead balloon. If it's true. Which it's clearly not.
As for incentive, maybe they get a mention in Question Evolution. Or Ken lets them out of his cellar for a bit. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That ain't Ken. It ain't his writing style. It could be a wind up but it could, genuinely, be one of his "useful idiots", motivated by the idea of being a Christian Soldier. I opt for the latter. LondonGrump (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Tiger Woods[edit]

I wonder if Tiger Woods will still be considered an overrated sports star now that the Blessed Leader plans to award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom? MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 14:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Tiger Woods is conservative. Has always been conservative. We have always been at war with East Asia--"Shut up, Brx." 01:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You know what, though, Ken?[edit]

Whachu tawkin bout? Conservapedia has "0 mental health problems by its contributors."

[4] Most of us just check in here once in a blue moon. You obsess over us, hours on end, every day. It's sad. Really. I feel bad for you. This is your life? Get help, Ken --"Shut up, Brx." 18:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, you're on rationalwiki using it as a place to reply to him on that site. I know the urge to defend yourself is real, but it's not exactly a good sign that you're doing it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah... the Ken to brx ratio is astronomical. I'm not ashamed to occasionally pop in and mock him/express concern about his mental health. --"Shut up, Brx." 06:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I just finished skimming over Ken's... Missive? Screed? Literary vomit? He truly has mastered the art of saying almost nothing in as many words as possible. The general gist (as far as I understand it) is that his personal worldview is good, and all other worldviews are bad. Which is basically what he's been blathering on about for years now in highly obsessive and repeatitive manner was definitely worth the time it took to read his flaming dumpster fire insights. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This
2007 source suggests
that Ken was 45 then.
That makes him
57
in 2019.

I check in here a few times everyday, but I`m only in high school so I have an excuse. Ken, a full grown adult who's presumably at least in his 30's by now? Not so much. Oxyaena Harass 20:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe Ken is in his 40's actually. Anyway - all it took was a couple of comments from me and he has been going for nearly 5 days. Get help Ken, get outside and make some friends. Acei9 20:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm seriously considering making a CP account in order to try to talk the Ken. I mean, I detest the man, but I'm also genuinely worried about his mental health right now. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Fuck him. He's a shit of the highest stripe and deserves every bad thing that happens to him. --MtDBogan 20:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You can’t talk to him there, he’ll just block and oversight anything and he is too much of a weakling to come here. He does have an account here but you can only talk to him secondhanded here. Acei9 20:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
What happened to Schlafly? Has he gone the way of his evil old slag of a mother? --MtDBogan 20:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Andy is also a weakling - he is too weak to reign Ken in despite having feces smeared all over his Wiki. Acei9 20:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Now there's an image to keep a young bloke warm at night. --MtDBogan 20:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
He is worse than Ken, do not be fooled my his upper-middle class polite persona. This is the man who supports the stoning of homosexuals after all. I honestly believe Ken means no real harm to anyone. Andy however is a thoroughly nasty piece of work.--Mercian (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
[5]Nice quote mine Ken, conveniently omitting the part about supporting stoning.--Mercian (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Ken. I know nothing of machismo because unlike you I don't sit editing a website for 15 hours straight, often all night. Because my nights consist of either meeting friends, enjoying a walk on the beach with my lovely girlfriend or taking my daughter to the movies I'm just a limp-wristed girly-boy. Unlike the manly John Wayne who used spend all his time in front of a computer too afraid to engage with anyone and making thousands and thousands of edits to a website. Machismo indeed.....Acei9 00:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Only Ken is brave and manly enough to lead the ascetic lifestyle of staring at a computer screen at all hours of the day, eschewing all relationships and effectively forsaking women. Question: is he on welfare? Does his family support him?--"Shut up, Brx." 06:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think anyone needs to know that much detail about his life except for the fact he probably doesn’t have much in the way of a social life nor does it appear he has a significant other. I appears he is very isolated and probably somewhat mentally impaired. He could probably use a few days, weeks, away from CP and out in the sun with other humans. To be honest I think it speaks volumes about Andy and the other sysops that they let an obviously unwell guy off the chain like they have. On RW I’m sure someone would have cared a little more and been more concerned. Acei9 07:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
And now Ken is on Sabbatical. Ken, make it a long one. Get outside and enjoy the spring air. Meet a girl and treat her right. Life will be better if you do. Acei9 09:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
We should feel good about ourselves. We encouraged him to do something healthy--"Shut up, Brx." 16:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Attention, Ken[edit]

I accept your challenge. First and foremost, fertility rates don't have anything to do with religion per se, choosing one's religion or lack thereof is a choice, a personal one, and while what religion your parents were is an important factor in determining the religion you grow up with and might ultimately believe in, it is not the only, or even the foremost, one. Other factors like education, personal interest, disillusionment with the status quo, and others affect one's personal belief system. Now we move on to my second and last point, if atheist fertility rates are decreasing as you imply, how come more Americans are now irreligious than ever before in history? Fully a quarter of Americans identify as being of "no religion," the so-called "nones," and this is only expected to increase in the following decades. Why is that? Could it be the will of God? Could the atheist-agnostic wager be true, rather than Pascal's Wager? Maybe... Oxyaena Harass 21:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Leave him alone, he's on sabbatical. It's good for his health. This guy edits Conservapedia 20 hours a day seven days a week. Don't goad him back to staring at the screen, be compassionate. He isn't a monkey dancing for our entertainment, you know?--"Shut up, Brx." 00:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
That’s where you’re wrong. If he can give it, he can take it. Acei9 01:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
What makes you think he isn't still staring at the screen, drafting stuff and not posting it so he can feel even more like Sun Tzu? LondonGrump (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Ken, instead of back and forwarding why don't you either A) use your account here and have a proper discussion or B) Let Oxyaena (or myself) debate you on CP. Why are you so afraid? Acei9 22:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My response to Ken's latest tirade. Oxyaena Harass 23:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The fall of humanity in the end of days is actually Biblical... 2601:700:8002:8AB5:1AC:A152:50C:9BD8 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
You're arguing with Rainman about his driving skills. What's the point? Whoover (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Whoover Mostly for my own personal amusement, I know nothing productive will come out of this. Oxyaena Harass 02:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I gotta say, oxy, you really got under their skin. That is some quality bellyfeel duckspeak they coughed up. 1000 points to Gryffindor. Semipenultimate (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)