sotnd conservaleaks

2009-01-09 FF Insubordination: the problem that won't go away
2009-01-09 ZB1 HIV/AIDS
2009-01-09 ZB1 HelpJazz
2009-01-10 ZB1 Film and television templates
2009-01-10 ZB1 {{fact tags}}

HelpJazz

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:21:31 -0800 (PST):

Why was HelpJazz given an infinite block and his home page deleted?  I
understand this course of action for vandals, but the man has 5,300
edits for our site over two years of productivity.  He's been in our
contests; he's been a judge with Geo;  Until recently he's been
discussed as a possible Sysop candidate.  We should be hoping he will
come back and edit, not rewarding long-term contributors with
debasement.

I am asking that this block be removed.

Bill  (Learn Together)

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:55:06 -0800 (PST):

TK's reason was, "Admin/sysop/member of groups causing harm to CP". I
assume this means "Rational" Wiki, which is engaged in a clearly
irrational campaign to discredit and sabotage our project.

You seem to be saying that being in rat wiki should be considered a
disqualification for membership in our project. Am I hearing you
correctly?

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:39:24 -0800:

I got confused with Ed's response, not knowing if he was asking me, or it
was a query to Bill, lol.

If it was to me, I will paste a recent response to "FernoKlump" that I just
penned, and perhaps it will enlighten everyone as to my thinking, and help
everyone here understand why I decided to make the block, and why Andy
approved of it.

If you cannot tell the difference between free speech and abuse of that
freedom, including the wholesale lies and distortions on RW,  made-up
conversations and the absolute worst kinds of vulgarities, that is sad.  To
make it even more hideous, their actions are not confined to CP, but to
attacking individuals, even kids.

Even a very liberal SCOTUS, back in the day, ruled free speech doesn't
include an absolute right to it.  This is the kind of argument that leads to
statements about liberal deceit.

Finally, one must ask themselves why; if liberal and not even Christian,
what are their motives (RW) for wanting to make people change their beliefs,
to make them see they are wrong, be willing to harass, hector and even
intimidate others who disagree with them?

I think you know the answer, and sadly have chosen to be with those on the
side of tyranny.

--Terry

Ed & Bill, I do not believe one can serve Satan and Jesus Christ at the same
time, to use a highly lopsided comparison, but the logical premise still
holds true.  One cannot faithfully and without suspicion be an administrator
both there and at CP.  In Jazzman/HelpJazz's case, he has also posted
doctored, altered and/or forged emails and instant messages, purportedly
from both Andy and me, and others.  Before his rights were removed on CP.
He accepted promotion there from Administrator to Bureaucrat.  Although he
cannot help who they promote, he could have objected if he wasn't ready to
support their goals and aims.

Let me specifically ask Bill about this situation.  You work for a prominent
member of the Christian community.  You have undoubtedly served him well,
faithfully and with your whole heart.  Undoubtedly you have made many
valuable contributions and are highly regarded.  If you started up a
personal blog, or joined an atheist group, and then proceeded to give them
private emails from your employer and co-workers that (worse yet) you
doctored to present them in the most negative light possible, would you
expect your employment to continue?

Now back to HelpJazz/JazzMan831.  Although I would object on moral grounds,
he could have become a member of Rational Wiki with another name.  Why
didn't he?  One must draw the conclusion, in light of his actions there, he
did not because he wanted people to know who he was on CP, use his
prominence at CP to help them in their campaign of subterfuge and sabotage.
Given his clearly stated ideological beliefs and hatred of Andy and other
Administrators of CP, including the nasty name-calling, he is not deserving
of being an editor at CP, or of trust.

--TerryK

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:25:27 -0800 (PST):

Thank you for your reply Terry, but there are a number of things I
have difficulty with:

1)  Decisions of that nature should be made within the group -- not
unilterally.

2)  I don't like the idea that you are making a rule, and acted upon
that rule, and only afterwards when it has been questioned are you
attempting to justify it and open it to debate.

In your absense we have tried to be open with reaching understandings,
give each other the utmost of respect even if different views were
presented, and acknowledge each other as peers and equals.  Doing an
end around has not been the method employed, and is a huge step
backwards from what we had built.

HelpJazz does not hate administrators on CP, nor does he hate Andy.
He has worked without trouble for over a year and a half, including
with you, until Bugler came on board -- and Bugler was a parodist.

If HelpJazz has reprinted private emails then please produce the link,
and where you believe it has been doctored.  In my own monitoring of
his activity, he has been a voice of moderation in RW.  Many times
when they were attacking us, he would point out their misunderstanding
of what we had said.  I've never seen him attack CP.

The idea that he's passing on secrets sounds odd.  What secrets?  The
man doesn't know anything.

I am open enough that a user posting on a Christian website that is
also on an atheist one is ok as long as he makes thousands of edits
over a 2 year period that add informaiton and make improvements that
would not otherwise have been done.  Especially if his contributions
of the 'atheist' site are negligible.

Bill  (Learn Together)

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:36:42 -0800 (PST):

Oh, I almost forgot this part -- sorry.

To me it is being nefarious if someone pretends they're not on RW when
they are.  How being open can be seen as a negative perplexes me.
Tying a negative to this seems to be the foregone conclusion no matter
which direction he chose.  It makes me think of the global warming
example.  If it gets hotter it's due to global warming; if it gets
cooler it's due to global warming.

Bill

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:27:36 -0800:

Thanks Bill.

Point by point, here we go..

1.     Decided within this group?  Blocking?  Hooey!  This group was not
founded to be a legislative or judicial body.  Its sole reason for being was
and is to give advice to Andy. If you think, thought or were told
differently by any member here (other than Andy directly) it is wrong.

2.     I have no idea what false impressions you are operating under. We can
each block as we see fit, because of the confidence Andy has in our actions.
In the case of Jazzman/HelpJazz, I have not "made a rule", but rather
followed one.  A few days ago, you used the same kind of mistaken idea to
claim Administrators could remove the blocks of another.  It took Andy to
post that not undoing blocks has been a long-standing rule, not a new one,
before you let go of it.  And I am telling you now; it has always been our
policy to block administrators and members of RW whenever we found out.

3.     And yet, I didn't see you posting about now removed members arguing
with Andy publicly, making an "end-run" around this group.  Forgive me, but
that alone undermines the logic of your comparisons.

4.     In my absence you have tried to be open to reaching understandings? I
don't recall your membership in the predecessor of this group, Bill.  If you
had been, we did attempt to do that as well. As for taking a step backwards,
I cannot even fathom what you are saying, given your misconceptions about
what this group is, what its charge by Andy was.  From its inception in May,
2007, it was mainly concerned with security, sharing of information about
vandals, trolls and parodists, and Andy occasionally asking our opinions on
CP wiki matters.

5.     Your "monitoring" of Jazz is evidently pretty sloppy, if you missed
his posting of a purported IM with me, completely doctored, and various
emails from Andy on his talk, user, and other pages at RW. Tell me, Bill,
have you ever actually gone to his contribs there, and clicked on each and
every difference?  I have, other members here have as well.   Several times
he has publicly called Andy a moron and an idiot.  It is not my
responsibility to prove to you or anyone that he did.  It is so completely
common knowledge that he did, it defies credulity that you claim not to know
that.  

I hope I was able to clear up several misconceptions you seem to have, Bill.
Perhaps now knowing what they are, and being told they are wrong, will
enable all of us to be on the same page, my friend.

--Terry

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Fri, 9 Jan 2009 23:40:28 -0600:

I'm going to back TK in this instance, as it looks to me like Andy was
informed and advised prior to the block taking place.

But let's try more group involvement on blocks of people who were in
Helpjazz' place, just in case.

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Fri, 9 Jan 2009 23:09:09 -0800:

Thanks, Brian.  He was informed before, and he did voice approval of the
blocking.

I think it's important we discuss such things, and use this venue to keep
each other informed as to the actions of parodists, vandals, troublemakers.
I don't know, and I have read everything here, where it went off-track, and
became some quasi-governmental body.  It seems like it was somehow gradual,
and a few members just felt we should act only by consensus, when that
wasn't ever the intent of making a place where the administrators could
speak freely.  Reading some of the old threads, I got the feeling it was
discussions sans Andy. As if anyone not specifically opting out, or
objecting, was voicing approval.  That's kind of the way liberals think,
isn't it?

We need to remember we don't have any collective power(s).  We weren't
intended to.  Andy asks for opinions, reads those proffered, and makes his
decision.  

As for RatWiki, one must ask themselves why?; if liberal and not even
Christian, what are their motives for wanting to make people change their
beliefs, to make them see they are wrong, be willing to harass, hector and
even intimidate others who disagree with them?  How could one possibly,
logically, assume good faith?

I didn't make Jazz join RW, or make him call Andy and others here a liar,
idiot or moron.  Once he used his celebrity and position at CP to denigrate
and lie there that was it.  Some of you seem to have forgotten why Andy
never let him have night editing, never promoted him to Admin.  The reason
is, he never really trusted him after a horrible vandal bot came from his
IP, almost two years ago.  Even though some of us (including me) came to
appreciate his help and reasonableness, and actually petitioned Andy to give
him blocking and night editing, Andy's insight and feeling about him has
been proved correct.

Our policy has always been to block such users, nothing has changed.

--TerryK

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:37:03 -0800 (PST):

We still have some differences Terry:

1)  This group is a coming together of peers who Andy has given the
highest authority to work together for the common good of the site.
In an organization where you have 10 Vice Presidents, it's important
they talk and work on unified fronts.  That is the atmosphere we have
had since I came on board 9 months ago.  I would hope that is not a
thing of the past.

2)  Of course you made a rule Terry.  You decided that anyone who has
an account on RW will be blocked indefinitely and their user page
deleted and protected even if the user has 5300 edits to our site.
And what in the world are you talking about after that?  You believe I
said Sysops could remove the blocks of other Sysops?  Hardly.  If you
are that far off on what I say, which is fairly straight forward, how
far off are you in evaluating HelpJazz?

3)  If you are talking about Philip, I was the one who wrote up the
rules for his return -- and, I actually got approval for it from my
peers before sending it  It's all part of that working together
thing.  After that I continued to talk to him through email to see if
I could help him to understand what was required.  Believe it or not
Terry, things do happen when you're gone.

4)  Already answered above

5)  If HelpJazz has been so horrible it should be pretty easy to find
it instead of this nebulous, 'I should already know he's like that'.
It's silly to say that HelpJazz hates Conservapedia or Andy.  He has
gotten very frustrated, but he always gives specific reasons --
usually you  It is true he hates you Terry, but not Conservapedia.

Bill

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:27:03 -0800:

Bill, this place isn't about anyone's differences.  They don't matter one
bit.  This place, and CP, is about Andy Schlafly, and what he wants.  You
keep ignoring the points where you have been proved wrong, and adding
others.  That isn't a dialog or collegiality, that's a jack boot.  If I had
10 Vice Presidents, one thing I do know is, they darn well better be
supporting me, and my actions.  Philip wouldn't and is gone. Anyone who
doesn't publicly or privately support his policies should be as well.

Justine has posted here that it was/is her practice to delete and lock the
pages of those with infinite blocks.

Karajou has too.

We started doing it, because that was what Andy did; clear them, slap up a
"retired" banner and lock them down.  It was also the practice of Dean, Geo
and TerryH, if I remember correctly. That is what we have always done.
Hoji's pages were treated the same. You have failed to provide me with any
evidence whatsoever that policy was changed. Just because Jazz didn't post
some parting shot, doesn't save him the same fate, because he is an
administrator at a site dedicated to promoting vandalism, disruption and
trolling at CP. That is why Andy approved his removal.  Why don't you email
him and ask him?  Brian posting his agreement means nothing to you as well,
it seems.

I know all about the negotiations' for PJR's return.  He, like you Bill,
couldn't even muster the class to support his decisions on who should be an
Admin, and who shouldn't.  Your constant chiding and clucking about how
things continued to work without me, is insulting, and highly arrogant.  You
were not a part of the other Admin groups we had, but somehow appear to
believe this one works any differently than the others did.  It doesn't. I
know because I have read almost all the previous posts. The past history of
this group isn't any better, any worse, than the last one.

As for HelpJazz, in my first go-around as an Admin, I consistently supported
most of his efforts, and had many times emailed Andy asking for him to be
promoted.   Several others who were also Admins at that time did as well.
Once he had blocking, I was among those here who suggested many times that
he get night editing and be promoted.  Now, according to his own posts at
RatWiki, and emails to others, says I am a liar, and never did support him.
I wonder where those lies he believes come from, Bill?  Certainly no one
here.  So, he must have made it all up, for pretty obvious reasons.  He is
another, like PJR, who simply refuses to accept Andy's wishes.

The bottom line is, Andy approved of Jazz's blocking, and brought me back
for a sound reason, which he posted to all of you here.  You don't like
that, fine.  But stop arguing forever like PJR.  

By the way Bill, since you cannot be bothered to research your "client" in
any meaningful way, I have pasted only some of his most recent comments
about Conservapedia Admin's and Andy, starting with just one of many times
he publicly called Andy a moron, and I even threw in just one of the times
he calls him an idiot.  What is below took me exactly 20 minutes, including
the cutting and pasting.  

---TerryK

:::Wha?? AKJ, I'm guessing that was a typo or something? Trust me, not only
are they not libertarian, but they marginalize libertarians (and in fact
makes really really really really
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Libertarian_censorship&d...
ev&oldid=434718 stupid, baseless and painfully obviously wrong attacks]
against them, instead of trying to make allies with them against liberals.
[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:59, 8 December 2008
(EST) (PS: I thought this was funny. Check out the link above, and compare
it to
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Libertarian_censorship&d...
ev&oldid=560533 this]. Andy liked the statement before it was cited, but as
soon as someone verified that the statement was at least partially true, he
deletes it. What a moron.)

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:What_...
g_on_at_CP%3F
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:What_...
ng_on_at_CP%3F&diff=prev&oldid=272990> &diff=prev&oldid=272990

UUUUUUUUUUUGH I just saw that Ed blocked me (FOR A FREAKING WEEK) for
"personal remarks", after I pointed out that he DIDN'T block Bugler for
personal remarks. Seriously, Jessica, leave now. There is no saving the
site, and it's best just to avoid the frustration and complete idocy of the
man. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:19, 13 December
2008 (EST) http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:TokyoRose
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:TokyoRose&diff...
oldid=275699> &diff=prev&oldid=275699

Part 4: Andy Shlafly

It has to be said. He may have started the site, but he is not the best
person to be leading the site. He never admits when he's wrong, he ignores
problems and he only supports people who agrees with him. He is an
incredibly illogical person, and refuses to believe anything that goes
against what he thinks he already knows. Worst of all, after creating a site
which is supposed to be from a conservative perspective, he barely
understands the definition of "conservative", refuses to understand that
"conservative" can mean different things in different contexts and
completely doesn't understand the definition of liberal. He doesn't know why
he believes what he does, just that he believes them, and as such, he can't
back them up. Instead of trying to change minds, he has given up on every
single person who doesn't fall 100% in line with him.

What the heck? How can you possibly rectify this
<http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=5...
oldid=554228>  with this
<http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=555042...
=554996> ? How do you rectify this
<http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&p...
er:Zoidberg>  with this
<http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751...
555044&oldid=555042> ? What is going on around here?
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Jazzman831/leaving
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Jazzman831/leaving&...
rev&oldid=275961#Part_4:_Andy_Shlafly>
&diff=prev&oldid=275961#Part_4:_Andy_Shlafly

::::::Theoretically, the rest of them could self-regulate underneath Andy.
The problem is it's parodists and people trying to destroy the site while
claiming they are for it against known liberals and people who really don't
agree with the party line. CP is such an illogical place, that the people
who are supposed to be ''denouncing'' the site are the ones who are
''defending'' it, and the people with all the real power desire to see the
project fail. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:50, 13
December 2008 (EST)

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:TokyoRose
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:TokyoRose&diff...
oldid=275778> &diff=prev&oldid=275778

"Really, I don't think I've ever done anything to deserve getting blocked
(even by CP's stretched standards). I followed the rules rather firmly, and
didn't make much of a stink. I've had some disagreements from time to time,
but more often than not I realized the futility and gave up. (I caught on
early on that Andy wasn't exactly the bastion of logic).
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Jazzman831/Archive2#Have_you_l...

EZ edit button - (EC: I like mine more :) ED POOR YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT
AND A LIAR. Just like TK. Whom you only came back to the site to defend. In
a TK-like style.)
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia:What_is_go...
at_CP%3F
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia:What_is_go...
_at_CP%3F&diff=prev&oldid=275166> &diff=prev&oldid=275166

This is the real reason why conservatives love Ann Coulter. Jazz
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Jazzman831> Man
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Jazzman831>  20:12, 23 November 2008
(EST)

Yup. Penis envy. Conservatives have small dicks. PFoster
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:PFoster>  20:15, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Sure... that's what I meant. Jazz
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Jazzman831> Man
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Jazzman831>  20:21, 23 November 2008
(EST)

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image_talk:AnnCoulter2.jpg
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image_talk:AnnCoulter2.j...
f=next&oldid=265906> &diff=next&oldid=265906

You are now a sysop. Use your powers wiselyish. There is a help file
somewhere. -  <http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:3.14159> User
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:3.14159> \approx
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/3.14159> πFor best
results also use RationalWiki moisturizing conditioner 23:30, 9 October 2008
(EDT)

Wow that's... unexpected, to say the least. I wonder if it will last? (And I
wonder if a certain someone on a certain other site will have a fit when he
finds out...) Jazz <http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Jazzman831> Man
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Jazzman831>  23:40, 9 October 2008
(EDT) http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Jazzman831/Archive2#Sysopship

On a (slightly) related note, what has happened to CPAdmin1 and HenryS. Have
they disappeared from both here and there?--Damo
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Damo>
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Damo> Hi 23:00, 9 November 2008
(EST)

I wish I knew why CP was so slow. Earlier when I was reverting the vandalism
it was physically painful (as I alluded in an edit comment). It took me 6
minutes to undo 3 pages. I can't ask today (surprise, surprise, editing is
off!) but I'll definitely see tomorrow.

Damo: both of those editors have a history of disappearing for long periods
of time.

  image001.gif
1K View Download

Andy <Aschla...@aol.com>, Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:19:54 -0800 (PST):

I've responded privately to Learn Together, and I'll repeat its
essence here:

I've never had confidence in HelpJazz, nor have I ever learned
anything insightful from him.  Yes, he has done lots of edits, and
those have been appreciated, but I think only a small percentage have
been of a substantive nature.  I recall that he constantly sought
greater privileges, such as night editing, even though he is in the
Eastern time zone, which I found suspicious.

His user name and location reminded me of a particularly hurtful
vandal.  I think he was even a bureaucrat at RW.  He's a recent
graduate of the liberal college Bucknell, I think, where there was a
mass destruction of a new conservative newspaper.  I certainly not
suggesting HelpJazz was involved in that, but I recall that he did not
object much to it either.

So I'm not willing to stick my neck out for HelpJazz based on the
above.  Please let me know if I'm mistaken about any of it.

In Christ,

Andy

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:42:24 -0800:

I have found several like this, but it will give the uninitiated a good example of what HelpJazz did very subtly:

20:00, 5 November 2008 HelpJazz <http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:HelpJazz&action=edi...>  (Talk <http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&actio...>  | contribs <http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/HelpJazz>  | block <http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockIP/HelpJazz> ) blocked DavidA <http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:DavidA&action=edit&...>  (Talk <http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DavidA&action=...>  | contribs <http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DavidA> ) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (at least I get to block someone for this....)

It is a block.  But he didn’t check to block the IP.  Therefore, AlbertW, PShivers, MarkB all signed up afterwards. Same person, same computer.  I found this because on recent changes at RatWiki, (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:What_... <http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:What_...> &diff=prev&oldid=291725 ) posted.  When I checked that IP, all these other users showed up.  

It is very important for users who have vandalized or inserted parody, troublemaking, that the second box, auto block the IP is always checked!  It was a trick, a gimmick, always used by HelpJazz and others.  They blocked the troublemaker of the moment, yet left the door open for others.

Andy, perhaps you or Webmaster can make the auto block default?

--TerryK

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:23:26 -0800 (PST):

Your entire first paragraph makes no sense.  Of course CP moves to
Andy's wishes.  No one is disputing that so why do you bring it up?

I am going to repost this because it appears you merely ignored it and
went off on tangents:

1)  This group is a coming together of peers who Andy has given the
highest authority to work together for the common good of the site.
In an organization where you have 10 Vice Presidents, it's important
they talk and work on unified fronts.  That is the atmosphere we have
had since I came on board 9 months ago.  I would hope that is not a
thing of the past.

The group adhered to this Terry.  So far you do not.

I see you have now made an odd claim that I didn't support my
decisions on who should be a Sysop.  Where are you getting this from
Terry?  Do you simply throw things and hope something will stick?

Brian says it appears you got Andy's permission, but he also feels you
should have brought it up with the group.  What makes me think you're
going to ignore the second part?

Thank you for the information on HelpJazz.  While I could see that
could keep him out of sysop contention or even night editing, that's
still a far cry from an infinite block.

Bill

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:30:30 -0800 (PST):

Thank you for your thoughts Andy.

For me it's not as much the outcome as the process.  If it was brought
up to the group you could have chosen to give Terry the go ahead for
the block, but at least you would have done so after hearing the input
from the anyone in the group who wished to add their insights.  Then,
at the same time, everyone would hear your thoughts and we would all
be privy to that understanding.

It would also have given the opportunity to question the idea of
making a new block rule and what your thoughts would be on that.  The
more knowledge we can all obtain, the better it is for the site.

Bill

DeanS <dean.conservat...@gmail.com>, Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:12:50 -0800 (PST):

TK is right.

Even when you check "Prevent account creation", it only does it for
one day. The socks wait until the IP block expires and then sign up
under a new account and start their vandalism anew.

Let me give an example:

Inbloom was blocked by JY23

13:04, January 11, 2009 JY23 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Inbloom
(Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation
disabled) ‎ (Moronic vandalism)

for these edits:

13:04, January 11, 2009 (hist) (diff) George W. Bush‎ (Replacing page
with 'TWAT. (see john mccain)')
13:02, January 11, 2009 (hist) (diff) m John McCain‎ (Replacing page
with 'TWAT')
13:01, January 11, 2009 (hist) (diff) God‎ (Replacing page with 'God
is a liar')

I did a checkuser and found this:

143.117.143.13 (block) (13:00, January 11, 2009 -- 13:04, January 11,
2009) [4] (~4 from all users) (Blocked)

All "Prevent account creation" does is block the IP for one day
(expires 13:05, January 12, 2009):

13:05, January 11, 2009, JY23 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked #47815
(expires 13:05, January 12, 2009, account creation blocked)
(Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by
"Inbloom". The reason given for Inbloom's block is: "Moronic
vandalism")

Since the IP is not blocked, all Inbloom needs to do is wait until
13:06 on Jan. 12th, create a new sock account and keep on doing more
vandalism, etc.

Let's see an example of this scenario:

Today, Addison blocks Dotchomsky for vandalism.

17:20, January 11, 2009 AddisonDM (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
Dotchomsky (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 6 months (account
creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism)

A checkuser for Dotchomsky reveals this:

98.206.151.105 (block) (17:14, January 11, 2009 -- 17:15, January 11,
2009) [2] (~7 from all users) (Blocked)

When I see the [2] (~7 from all users), this tells me there are
multiple users on this IP. Now we cannot automatically assume this
user is abusing multiple accounts per IP because sometimes we block
their account for unacceptable username and tell them to create
another one with real first name and last initial:

11:53, September 3, 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
Goodchristianlady (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week
(autoblock disabled) ‎ (use your real first name and last initial)

If we look at the results of the edits by checkuser for Dotchomsky we
get:

January 11, 2009
(diff) (hist) . . Jesus Christ . . 17:15 . . Dotchomsky (Talk |
contribs | block)
        IP: 98.206.151.105   Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0;
Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
(Logs) . . 17:14 . . Dotchomsky (Talk | contribs | block) New user
        IP: 98.206.151.105   Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0;
Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
January 5, 2009
(Logs) . . 18:29 . . Yukikorules (Talk | contribs | block) New user
        IP: 98.206.151.105   Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0;
Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
December 19, 2008
(Logs) . . 17:54 . . Andrewsch (Talk | contribs | block) New user
        IP: 98.206.151.105   Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0;
Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
December 3, 2008
(diff) (hist) . . God . . 18:54 . . Margaretmailey (Talk | contribs |
block)
        IP: 98.206.151.105   Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0;
Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
(Logs) . . 18:53 . . Margaretmailey (Talk | contribs | block) New
user
        IP: 98.206.151.105   Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0;
Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
November 22, 2008
(diff) (hist) . . God . . 15:58 . . Goodchristianlady (Talk | contribs
| block)
        IP: 98.206.151.105   Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0;
Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:CheckUser"

When we check each of these users we get:

17:20, January 11, 2009 AddisonDM (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
Dotchomsky (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 6 months (account
creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism)
18:31, January 5, 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
Yukikorules (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account
creation disabled) ‎ (Inappropriate or vulgar name)
17:55, December 19, 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
Andrewsch (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account
creation disabled) ‎ (Inappropriate or vulgar name)
18:55, December 3, 2008 Jallen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
Margaretmailey (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite
(account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Vandalism)
16:05, November 22, 2008 BrianCo (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
Goodchristianlady (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks
(account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting nonsense or gibberish into
pages) (unblock)
11:53, September 3, 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
Goodchristianlady (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week
(autoblock disabled) ‎ (use your real first name and last initial)

What happened after Goodchristianlady is blocked (but not her IP) on
November 22, 2008 is this:

1. Margaretmailey account is created and blocked for vandalism
(December 3)
2. Andrewsch account is created and blocked for Inappropriate or
vulgar name (December 19)
3. Yukikorules account is created and blocked for Inappropriate or
vulgar name (January 5)
4. Dotchomsky account is created and blocked for vandalism (January
11)

Once I saw this charade was happening, I gathered the evidence I
listed above and blocked the IP:

17:42, January 11, 2009, DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked
98.206.151.105 (Talk) (expires 17:42, January 11, 2014, account
creation blocked) (IP of vandal(s): Abusing multiple accounts +
vandalism -> Dotchomsky, Yukikorules, Andrewsch, Margaretmailey,
Goodchristianlady)

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:47:13 -0800:

Bill,

I didn't ignore it, I answered you very directly.  This group was not
intended for the use you claim.  Can I put it another way, so that you will
understand?  I brought it up, because you, like Philip, seem to have a
really weird idea about why this group exists.  You want a steering
committee, some discussion group where things, common things like blocking,
are run through a committee.  A peer review.  

Are you saying that a sneak like Jazz should somehow be elevated to such a
high level, that it actually deserved some sort of debate/discussion here?
Utter nonsense!  While I blocked him, for cause, as you have somewhat ,
grudgingly admitted, it was Andy who first removed his privileges.  And I
don't remember you posting here saying he was wrong to do that without first
discussing it here in these august surroundings.  But somehow my blocking
him for the very reasons we have always blocked RW members for, is somehow
deserving, somehow needed?  Why?  Did you feel slighted, really?  Or are you
bothered because you didn't understand, realize, or want to face the fact
that the person you have been defending wasn't really as innocent or
maligned by mean old TK as you thought?

The recent discussions here between Dean, TerryH and Conservative, Jessica
posting about all the pictures still unlocked, or the {{fact}} abuse are
what this place is really about.  While our job for CP is really that of a
traffic cop.  We write tickets, enforce the law, and keep the hordes of
vandals at bay, all the while contributing content.  If we notice someone
who has potential, yes of course we should also endeavor to make the time to
encourage, mentor, compliment.

Bill, your point number one is just plain and simple bogus.  What, exactly,
did I not adhere to?  Allowing you to make patently false statements about
HelpJazz being innocent?  I don't like all this endless talk, talk, talk,
Bill.  Have you ever actually read all the old threads?  There isn't some
universal harmony displayed 100% of the time.  You are as off-course as
Philip Rayment was, about the purpose of this place.  And judging from the
lack of responses, most here are as tired as I am about talking stuff to
death.  This group was not started as a peer review committee.  Why in the
world would I have come here about blocking Jazz?  Andy had already told me
he approved.  He had already removed his rights.  If I had, what then?  You
have already most eloquently posted your  opinion, and all that would have
happened is his block would have been delayed by more endless talking, until
I fetched for you, because you refused to open your eyes and look for
yourself, the evidence I finally did.  And my "evidence" wasn't doctored
emails or IM's, it was the man's own posted words, along with the links.

I never said you didn't support your decisions about who you wanted for
Admins, Bill.  

Andy's own post here, gave you his thoughts on HelpJazz.  They were 100% in
line with what I told people here, and via email.  What is your beef?  I
think it is with Andy, not me.  None of us were given blocking rights, with
a proviso we should block only after coming here to get your support, or
anyone else's.

This is a good place to discuss not petty vandals and their entourages, but
long term things.  We aren't going to rehabilitate RatWiki people, Bill.  No
matter how much you wish and hope, it isn't going to happen. Their intention
is to destroy CP, and keep it in turmoil.  In the time I have spent
responding to your seemingly endless list of complaints about me, we both
could have created lots of content, and thrown out even more vandals and
parodists.  Our policy, has always been to block RatWiki people. That is why
Andy blocked "Human". He is a Bureaucrat at RatWiki, no less than
JazzMan831/HelpJazz is.

Now I am done responding to your well-meaning, but off course concerns. I am
sorry you have been so mistaken about why we block, and who.   Your totally
fallacious statement  "That is the atmosphere we have

had since I came on board 9 months ago." Doesn't deserve a response, but I
will.  The proof it is fallacious is in PJR's removal.  He did nothing but
argue, disrupt and cling to his narcissism, his stubborn insistence he was
right, and Andy was wrong.  I get along quite well with several people in
this group, and speak with them often. I have supported most here, even when
I disagreed, out of mutual respect.  If you just don't like plain speaking,
well, sorry, Bill.I do call a spade a spade.  I won't sit around debating
what a better name for that spade is.

When I returned to CP I was shocked.  There were dozens of arguments raging,
an Admin openly rebelling against the site owner.  Did this group do
anything about it?  Were most of you publicly telling him to stop?  Why not?
What you do with endless arguers', Bill, is show them the door.  Supposedly
they come because they agree with the idea of CP, endorse conservative and
Christian values.  If they don't, they can still edit, still make articles
on things that don't even touch on liberal or conservative, nor on religion.
I am fine with that.  But if they want to constantly talk, talk, talk,
argue, argue, argue, dispute our ideas, our religion, our values, then out
they go.  Period.  I would prefer 12 good editors to 300 comprised of RW
trolls.  Shoot me.

--TerryK

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:37:25 -0800:

Like the "new rule" about not undoing other's blocks?  It isn't a new rule.
We have had it at least since early 2007, that's almost two years, Bill.  I
don't care what anyone else's understanding was.  I don't care if one, two,
even three decided they wouldn't do it.  I know most certainly, in
explaining to you, even before you had blocking, that was what we did.

HelpJazz/JazzMan831, had already posted, the same night Andy removed his
blocking, that he was never returning to CP because of that.  

Perhaps before you allow yourself to become disgruntled, you should spend
some time asking what our procedures have been?  If Andy decides some other
way of dealing with the Rational Wiki trolls, vandals and parodists are, I
(and I assume everyone else here) will make adjustments, and do as he says.
In the meantime, all of our experience with those horrible people show they
never accept compromise, never keep their word, and will settle for nothing
less than CP renouncing its conservative and Christian values.  Thinking
otherwise is akin to inviting Hannibal Lechter to dinner, and expecting him
to play fair.

--TerryK

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:32:09 -0800 (PST):

I believe it is best to put my comments directly below.

Bill

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:34:53 -0800 (PST):

Terry if that was the case then he would have been blocked a year and
a half ago.
And where do you believe HelpJazz said that was the reason he was
leaving?  I could have missed it, but I don't see it.

Bill

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:36:31 -0800 (PST):

Bill,

You've made it clear that you disagreed with TK. However, Andy appears
to be backing him up.

Why all the negative personal remarks about TK, then?

I'm not going to put up with another year of Andy's advisers attacking
each other in print. If TK attacks you, please respond mildly (keep
your slate clean). Otherwise, let Andy or me to any rebuking needed.

What we need to keep getting from you is good advice, and plenty of
cheery kind words.

Ed Poor

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:01:37 -0800 (PST):

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:14:56 -0800 (PST):

In case you missed Andy's remarks on HelpJazz, I'll quote them here:

"I've never had confidence in HelpJazz, nor have I ever learned
anything insightful from him.  Yes, he has done lots of edits, and
those have been appreciated, but I think only a small percentage have
been of a substantive nature.  I recall that he constantly sought
greater privileges, such as night editing, even though he is in the
Eastern time zone, which I found suspicious.

"His user name and location reminded me of a particularly hurtful
vandal.  I think he was even a bureaucrat at RW.  He's a recent
graduate of the liberal college Bucknell, I think, where there was a
mass destruction of a new conservative newspaper.  I certainly not
suggesting HelpJazz was involved in that, but I recall that he did not
object much to it either.

"So I'm not willing to stick my neck out for HelpJazz based on the
above.  Please let me know if I'm mistaken about any of it."

That's what Andy said.

Ed Poor

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:01:43 -0800 (PST):

Thank you Ed.  Here was my reply.

"Thank you for your thoughts Andy.

For me it's not as much the outcome as the process.  If it was
brought
up to the group you could have chosen to give Terry the go ahead for
the block, but at least you would have done so after hearing the
input
from the anyone in the group who wished to add their insights.  Then,
at the same time, everyone would hear your thoughts and we would all
be privy to that understanding.

It would also have given the opportunity to question the idea of
making a new block rule and what your thoughts would be on that.  The
more knowledge we can all obtain, the better it is for the site."

Learn Together <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:06:36 -0800 (PST):

Thank you Dean.  I remember first seeing this a couple of months ago
-- in fact I thought you might have been the one to point it out.
Personally I hadn't realized at the time that IP addresses blocks
expired in 1 day.  Especially as we get new people in the group, it's
good for them to hear it or anyone else who may have missed the
original message.  Thanks to both or you for brining this up again.

Bill

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:55:29 -0800:

Well, except that isn't so, I guess it's good for others to hear.  Anyone
here is welcome to block yourself, and try it. For 2 days, and see if you
can log in after 24 hours, after 30 hours.  I have, two years ago.  Please
ask AmesG if he is still blocked @ NYU. ;-)

--TerryK

2009-01-09 FF Insubordination: the problem that won't go away
2009-01-09 ZB1 HIV/AIDS
2009-01-09 ZB1 HelpJazz
2009-01-10 ZB1 Film and television templates
2009-01-10 ZB1 {{fact tags}}

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.