Essay talk:A Parodist's Guide to Villainy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

University[edit]

It was Deborah who used the "my university is blocked excuse". --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:18, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Fixed; thanks!-Mex Max 14:21, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Nice[edit]

Good overview going here. Is this open to anyone to edit? One piece of advice I have is to stick to your new personality at all times. The best way to get support from Andy is to be an unreasonable sycophant no matter what. If you ever have the urge to call Andy one some batshit craziness that will involve questioning or contradicting him, even on a pretty obvious point (eg "when you say most achievements have been made by teens, are you perhaps overstating the case even a little bit?"), and you can't bite your tongue, get a sock from a different IP to ask the question. Inconsistencies can be very noticeable. While it is true that on some very rare occasions, a sensible statement has been known to emerge from the minds of Andy, Ed, and even Ken, you can't risk doing likewise. 100% agreement with Andy at all times should be a red flag, but Andy thrives on it. DickTurpis 14:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

PLEASE add that in, I was going to do it myself but some work to do first. To make it clear, this is not an essay. Anyone with experience is welcome to add points.-Mex Max 14:28, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks. Will do. DickTurpis 14:29, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Tipping your hand[edit]

Aren't you worried that they'll catch on to these tricks if you air them publicly? caius (spy) 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

You might have a point, but Christ, we spelled out Bugler for them on how many occasions and they never listened. In any case, it might serve to make them more paranoid, which can only hurt them. DickTurpis 14:39, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Trust me, it won't matter. Every conversation I had with people in charge about Bugler was either "I know he's a parodist but Andy likes him and there's nothing I can do about it" or "I know RW thinks he's a parodist, but that doesn't make him one so I'm not going to do anything about it". JazzMan 14:42, 4 January 2009 (EST)
This is why I waited to write this: I wanted to last year, but didn't want to give out hints. But Bugler proved there's no need to fear :).-Mex Max 14:48, 4 January 2009 (EST)
True. The MO outlined here really only exploits some systematic flaws in CP that are so fundamental that they probably aren't going to change anyway. Besides, aside from the unflinching devotion to Andy, there's so little difference between this and the way a genuine new user would behave that their only option is to treat all new users as potential parodists... oh, wait. They do that already. But it's a lose-lose situation for them, either way. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 14:50, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Lists of parodists and links[edit]

We should have a list of parodists and links to their lists of contributions. There are the 4 mentioned at the top of the page, but who else? SSchultz was a good one. My brief but over-the-top stint as TonyT might be educational (Lenski mentioned him by name which was cool, but I realized I sort of slandered the guy. Oops.); I think my dirty IP address did me in. There should be quite a few. Others? DickTurpis 14:48, 4 January 2009 (EST)

GOOD idea. Another one we forget: JJacob.-Mex Max 14:59, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Don't forget Auld Nick and Richard. --Gulik 15:07, 4 January 2009 (EST)
We've already got a list at Conservapedia:parodist. Please add to that rather than creating more duplicate content. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:11, 4 January 2009 (EST)
That's more a list of suspected parodists and and parody material. A list highlighting the career of true CP parodists would be a different thing. DickTurpis 15:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)
But including it in the same article would make a lot of sense. Then, when suspected parodists are revealed to be genuine parodists (as with Bugler), the content about them just needs to be moved from one section to another on the same page, not cut & pasted to a whole different article. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:42, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Essay or article[edit]

Mmmmm. I don't want to be a killjoy here, but do we really want to spell out how to mess up (or at least mess with) another wiki? Wouldn't this be better as an arms-length, one person's view, sort of thing? --Bobbing up 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Moving it to an essay might be a good idea, but I don't want it to be just mine: FP and a few others have some good "insights" to add.-Mex Max 14:47, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Repeat...[edit]

a lot of this reminds me of the old handbook stuff...TheoryOfPractice 15:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, which was - I think - moved to essay for the same reason. It's not official RW policy.--Bobbing up 16:59, 4 January 2009 (EST)

JJacob[edit]

How did JJacobs victims unblock themselves? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"Rusty-spotted catspeed! 16:57, 4 January 2009 (EST)

QVOD VOLVMVS FACILE CREDIMVS[edit]

Not all of us had the privelege of a classical education. Can we have an English translation please? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

" What we wish we readily believe." -- Nx talk 20:47, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Well done. I added it because it sums up so well why Andy, in particular, is fooled by parodists so readily. He wants to believe that there is some silent majority of people who think just like him, so when he sees one he embraces him enthusiastically, even when it is so obvious to us that it's parody. DickTurpis 20:51, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks. I've added the translation as a footnote. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:53, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Dealing with TK[edit]

I was thinking of adding a section for advanced players on dealing with TK via email, which is probably necessary if someone strives for full adminship, but I have little experience here. Anyone want to write a short treatise on his MO and advice on how to tread? As I said, for experts only. DickTurpis 20:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

If you start that up, I'll join! More as a "what not to do." This is really Bugler's area of expertise... FP?-caius (spy) 11:12, 5 January 2009 (EST)

One more[edit]

One I would add is something like "avoid self-promotion". Too many socks do something over there, then rush back here and WIGO it. Of course, the catch is, is that people watching could WIGO it straight away anyway, if it's worthy. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:14, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Move to essay space?[edit]

Just thinking, we don't really want to imply that this is our site's mission. I'm not sure what to do, so consider this a solicitation of ideas: Essay or CP namespace?-caius (spy) 11:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, I suggested this twice yesterday in the threads above. As I said before, I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but I feel this should be a bit more "the opinion of one" or, if you like "the opinion of some".--Bobbing up 12:23, 5 January 2009 (EST)
So what do we think - fun, or essay with a template disclaiming this as RW policy?--Bobbing up 03:32, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Dealing with Checkuser: TK's spreadsheet[edit]

From the current article: CP's checkuser log wipes after two weeks, so any edits from your IP address made more than two weeks ago won't show up.

Is that one of the constitutional limits hardcoded into MediaWiki, like the inability to range-block x.0.0.0/8? Or is it possibly subject to change?

I am 90% sure that several of my accounts have been blocked as socks of more-than-two-week-old accounts. The simplest hypothesis is that this article is simply wrong, and CP's checkuser stores information longer than two weeks. (Given that MediaWiki stores page histories forever, it's not far-fetched to assume it would also store IP/login pairs forever.)

A second hypothesis, more complicated but not necessarily more improbable, is that TK maintains his own spreadsheet of IP address/login pairs, updated every two weeks from the "official" checkuser logs. In which case the current article's advice is still pretty bad, unless you manage to confine your wandalism to a time when TK is on vacation. --Marty 03:05, 12 January 2009 (EST)

This screenshot seems to indicate that you can set it longer than 2 weeks. I think the 2 weeks comes from when we had it installed. The documentation seems a little short on detail about what you can and can't do with it. Other than installing it and taking a look we can't tell you much. As for TK's spreadsheet/database, he has said things in the past which indicates he does keep his own private set of records of who uses what IPs. - User \scriptstyle\sqrt{12}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1} 20:42, 15 February 2009 (EST)
It should be simple enough for someone to test this, even if he knows we're trying to. Hi, TK! PubliusTalk 20:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Checkuser[edit]

How exactly does this work? Does it only record edits from an IP, or does it also record when an IP logs into an account (assuming no edits are made)? Any help would be much appreciated. FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 17:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Mere logins are counted. PubliusTalk 17:25, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Dammit. How about this: I changed my IP Address and went to CP. However, I forgot to wipe my cookies so I was already logged in when the page loaded. Checkuser will probably record it right? FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 17:35, 15 February 2009 (EST)
I have no idea. --"CURtalk 17:38, 15 February 2009 (EST)
One thing: does checkuser only work on someone when they are logged in? --"CURtalk 17:39, 15 February 2009 (EST)
So far as I can tell, yes, checkuser will record it. PubliusTalk 17:53, 15 February 2009 (EST)
OK, Thank you for your help. FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 20:01, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Do RW have the checkuser ability? ~ JonG ~ 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Trent disabled it as it was considered too stalkerish. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Good, now I unknown else.. >.> ~ JonG ~ 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RW and parody?[edit]

Could someone clarify for me RW's policy toward CP parody? I know some vigorously object to this site being labeled "the vandal site", but with pages like this around it seems to me the epithet is not unearned. --TheRealMarkGall (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between vandalism and parody. Vandalism is stuff like blanking pages, inserting garbage, etc. Parody is stuff they willingly embrace because it fits their narrow worldview. With parody, they are their own worst enemy because they are so eager to see it as true. If Bugler, for instance, had been a vandal, he never would have got anywhere as they could have blocked him right away. But because he acted just like all the sysops there, only slightly worse, they not only tolerated him but nearly promoted him. Unlike vandalism, they could end parody today by not tolerating parody material, whether it is submitted by JacobB (a parodist) or Conservative (not a parodist), because in reality the only difference in their submissions to the site are who they are. There's a reason why parody is not a big problem at Wikiepdia (unlike vandalism) and that is because there is really nothing to parody there. What would a Wikipedia parodist add to an article? A statement that evolution is a widely accepted scientific fact and a reference backing up such a claim? That doesn't really work, for obvious reasons. Yet if an enormous picture of Hitler is added to the top of CP's evolution article they have to look at who added it. If it was Ken, it can stay, but if it was newbie JohnQ then it must be reverted and the parodist must be banned. An ounce of sanity on their part would put the parody issue to rest forever. DickTurpis (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Fine, it's a valid distinction. Conservapedia:Parodist still claims that "RationalWiki doesn't encourage parody". Yet here we find A Parodist's Guide to Villainy. Does RW support CP "parody" or not? --TheRealMarkGall (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
A fair question. RW, as a whole, does little "officially". Clearly some editors do and some don't. That's about the most I can say. Myself, I like some parody, if done well. DickTurpis (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, not that you asked (and it seems you have a clear distinction between vandalism and parody) but a metaphor illustrating the differences would be an art gallery which takes submissions from the public. Someone trashing others' works of art would be vandalism. Taking a shit on a piece of canvass, submitting it, and watching them say "great job! Blue ribbon!" would be parody. Conservapedia regularly does the latter. DickTurpis (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Even I wouldn't claim this is a vandalism hub, but it certainly is a hate site. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Essay[edit]

Can a community piece like this be moved to essay? Or should it be moved to fun for posterity? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just create some sort of "grand fathered in clause" template and slap it on these older pages that no longer really work with current community standards? tmtoulouse 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer essay space. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't really matter to me, just rather not see "established" article deleted due to changes in sensibilities on the site. I for one, have never been a big fan for the CP parody type guides and never really participated in them, but they used to be far more acceptable than they are now. While evolving community standards are good, and part of the great experiment that is RW, we should have a system in place that allows us to keep are old "warts" around. tmtoulouse 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
That is a good point. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Might rub some people the wrong way...[edit]

I know this'll cause some bitching... but as long as this exists, RationalWiki really is a vandal site. Has it come to the point where this should be removed. Can we ever hope to be more than an overgrown site of Conservapedia vandals when we host this. DalekEXTERMINATE 22:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

At least it is no longer in mainspace, but I agree. ТyTalk. 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if any rationalwikians vandalize anymore - I certainly know none of the "big players" do (having all been blocked, 403'd and grown bored with it- all three in my case and to even view CP I need proxies). Ace of Spades 22:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I realise that I may be being overly sensitive. But I think that while you're right, none of the big players do vandalise CP anymore, really... I just think that as long as we 'watch' CP and WIGO talk:CP is so active, having this with the "NOTA BENE" and the whole article made from experience with CP... it cheapens us, and makes us the vandal site that they call us. DalekEXTERMINATE 23:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I consider it a piece of historical interest, not current policy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Even if it's not policy, and is has historical value, it's still as useful and meaningful as it was when it was fully meant. Hosting this guide cheapens the site. To those who are still obsessed with Conservapedia, it might seem relevant and useful. To those who were around at the time, but over Conservapedia, it will seem of historic value. But to a newer user, who's only interested in the actual mission of the site, it will hit a real nerve. It does with me. If this site is truly about the mission, they might ask, why is it hosting a guide to deceit, subterfuge and vandalism? How can a wiki be taken seriously like that? I know what it means to people, but it cheapens the wiki: And it makes it true, that we are, in a sense, a vandal site. It reveals the dirtiest side of the whole site, the hatred (and I mean hatred) of Conservapedia. I'm not TOO fussed about it, but I think it's a big deal. DalekEXTERMINATE 01:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It has intense historical value to the site, but it would be a sign of how the project has grown and moved on if we were to get rid of it. P-Foster (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've marked this for deletion, because whenever a n00b turns up saying "w00t I've got an account on CP how should I wreck the site?" the conversation generally goes thus:
  1. Dipshit: "Vandalise the shit out of it"
  2. Regular user: "We don't support vandalism"
  3. Troll: "Yeah, well you do support vandalism, look: [link to this page]
The above has happened numerous times and we'll never shake the "vandalism website" label while this page exists, regardless of whether it has a disclaimer at the top or not. Latest example here. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Ding dong the witch is dead.jpg

Ding! dong! The witch is dead!

Huzzah! The wicked witch A Parodist's Guide to Villainy is dead!
The denizens of Munchkinland Rationalwiki will be partying tonight!

On account of this being in the essayspace, things are a little complicated. However, I agree it needs to go. Disclaimer or otherwise. ADK...I'll crystallize your classified ad! 11:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's long since become outdated, and the original author has moved on to other things. It certainly doesn't help us when we say we're not a vandal site. Then again, neither does Essay:The Information Warrior's Handbook so that should also go. --PsyGremlinParla! 11:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that should go too. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with deletion. It already has a disclaimer, but it sounds more than just a little hypocritical - "We don't condone parody, but if you absolutely must infiltrate CP, here's what to do in exquisite detail..." Röstigraben (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I concur with the proposal to delete although it would be like throwing my flares and flower-power shirts away. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 11:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I fully support deletion. If historical value is the only concern, capturing it on RWW should be enough. --Danfly (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As one of the strongest supporters of Operation Get-The-Fuck-Over-CP, can I press the button? ADK...I'll murder your raid! 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You all have outstanding logic. It's two and a half years old and on this July 5th in the AM, we all say it must GO NOW!!! Genius.
Is it time for postconservapedian sellebrayshun? I gets the beer. --Danfly (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep.Party.gif Esp. when its sister essay got nuked as well. Huzzar. ТyYAUA 12:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am delighted to see the back of this.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)