Results of current blocking strategy

kara...@gmail.com, Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:36:28 -0700 (PDT):

During the past several months the number of serious disruption
attacks on Conservapedia have decreased sharply; all we have now is
petty vandalism essentially caused by whiners.  I think we can chalk
this up to the following:

1. We are getting better adept at picking out and removing trouble-
makers and their socks.
2. We are removing and identifying proxies; they don't like it when
their cover is blown.
3. They don't like being pegged with the names they employ against us;
if they break into the site and leave an edit which seams we are
racists, they don't like it when we throw it back at them (correctly,
I might add) as they get removed and their edits reverted.

We still have this liberal problem, however.  Myself and Jessica
removed RonaldM, who saw fit to post "Conservative Logic" on the site;
they still won't give up.  Still, the best way to counter this is to
get more and more conservative editors working here; more advertising
within conservative and Christian websites, newsgroups, talk radio,
etc.

The libs mean to control us or shut us down; that cannot be allowed to
happen.

Andy <Aschla...@aol.com>, Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:24:46 -0700 (PDT):

Superb insights, Karajou!  The site is MUCH more pleasant do to the
improved blocking by you, TK, Dean and others.

Also, it's possible that our entry on vandal behavior on Conservapedia
has an effect of exposing them and shining a light on their
wrongdoing.

If I may, I think the courses have a positive effect too.  The vandals
see that the train is leaving the station, and it's not so much fun
trying to stop it anymore.  After a month goes by, several dozen
students have learned something but the vandals have learned nothing.
That contrast has to affect some of them.  Or let's hope it does!

Thanks for everyone's contributions, each of which helps in their own
ways.

In Christ,

Andy

"TK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:46:38 -0700:

I agree, Andy and Karajou...the answer is most certainly (D) - all of the
above!

Let me share with you a recent email from DinsdaleP/SpinyNorman who wrote
this to me about a news item I placed:

From: Ray (jcinjersey2001) [mailto:jcinjersey2...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:26 AM
To: TK
Subject: Re: Disgusting

"How different their example is from the Internet Trolls and [[vandals]]
most of us must interact with daily, who ''claim'' to be [[rational]], yet
seek to deny those who disagree with them the right to their own voice."

As someone who's right to voice respectful disagreement on Conservapedia was
denied, I find this statement ironic to say the least.

I Responded with this:

Ray, DinsdaleP, SpinyNorman:

That is because you continue, absent all logic, to mistake an encyclopedia
project for a forum or discussion board.

Conservapedia is an online encyclopedia project.  Projects, by their very
nature, are collaborative efforts by at least minimally like-minded
individuals, to achieve an end result. Discussion forums or boards are
open-ended conversations or debates, without a set goal.  Discussion (Talk)
pages on a project are for those who generally agree on the validity of that
project to iron out the technical or small shades of disagreement they might
have, but they are not a platform for those who disagree with that project
to express their opinions, or argue they are "wrong".

That you will not see this marks you as a person who cannot allow those he
disagrees with to proceed with their project without hectoring.  That is
intellectually dishonest, a stubborn, egotistical insistence that others owe
him some platform to express that disagreement.  Again, that is completely
absent any acceptable form of logic.  

Mr. Schlafly and CP's Administrators have defined the scope and goals of our
project.  That is our right to do so.  That you, and others on RW, insist
you will not accept what those goals are is totalitarian thinking.  While
anyone has the right to disagree with us, and most certainly that includes
making a site, board or wiki to express those disagreements, you do not have
an intrinsic, natural right to come to our project, which you have already
said you disagree with, to argue about it. That is why even bonafide
liberals have said what you guys are doing is wrong, and even a liberal
reporter, from a liberal newspaper branded Rational Wiki as a "vandal site".

--TK

From: cp-fab-five@googlegroups.com [mailto:cp-fab-five@googlegroups.com] On

Behalf Of Andy
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 12:25 PM
To: The Fab Five
Subject: {cp-fab-five:211} Re: Results of current blocking strategy

Superb insights, Karajou!  The site is MUCH more pleasant do to the

improved blocking by you, TK, Dean and others.

Also, it's possible that our entry on vandal behavior on Conservapedia

has an effect of exposing them and shining a light on their

wrongdoing.

If I may, I think the courses have a positive effect too.  The vandals

see that the train is leaving the station, and it's not so much fun

trying to stop it anymore.  After a month goes by, several dozen

students have learned something but the vandals have learned nothing.

That contrast has to affect some of them.  Or let's hope it does!

Thanks for everyone's contributions, each of which helps in their own

ways.

In Christ,

Andy

Andy <Aschla...@aol.com>, Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:21:42 -0700 (PDT):

The more difficult Captcha has also helped a bit.  Some vandals hate
trying to read and type that repeatedly.

But most of all it has been the superb blocking by TK, Karajou, Dean
and others.  You have really mastered it!

In Christ,

Andy

Brian Macdonald <kara...@gmail.com>, Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:49:16 -0500:

Doing these blocks, being aware of the Ratwiki behavior, has proven one
thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: evolution does work!

Now, how can I say that with authority?

Simple...

Just take a deep, hard look at the various pages of RationalWiki....

Then think of the many-years-old statement of "place a typewriter in front
of a chimp"...

And there you go...!