sotnd conservaleaks

2008-11-15 ZB1 Bugler proves he is a parodist
2008-11-15 ZB1 A pathetic Parthian shot [Fwd: (no subject)]
2008-11-16 ZB1 Inappropriate block by bugler, followed by "edit warring" over it.
2008-11-17 ZB1 TK
2008-11-17 ZB1 Users with block rights but not sysop rights

Inappropriate block by bugler, followed by "edit warring" over it.

CPAdmin1 <>, Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:16:44 -0800 (PST):

Bugler has blocked User:Hotdog, who has done nothing wrong.  I
unblocked him a couple times, but bugler keeps re-blocking him.

CPAdmin1 <>, Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:27:31 -0800 (PST):

I am pretty convinced that Bugler is a parodist.  And this is just one
way that he can hurt the site.  By blocking and scaring away as many
users as he can.


CPAdmin1 <>, Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:57:16 -0800 (PST):

Email from User:Ema:
I looked at her block log:
18:35, 8 November 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Ema
(Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation
disabled) ‎ (Slandering CP editors) (unblock)
And I looked through her most recent edits to see if I could find any
"slandering."  I did not find any, though my search was not too deep.
I ran checkuser, and found nothing suspicious.  I propose an unblock,
unless someone can find a reasonable cause for a block.


Here is the email:

He usually blocks users while doing the same thing he's done. Like me,
he blocked for 5 years for "slandering CP editors", while directly
calling you an idiot several times and attacking others. It's best not
to even talk to him unless you mean to take action. While it's not
proof he's a parodist, his hypocrisy should be kept in check when he
blocks anyone.

I've emailed him and other sysops, and have yet to get a real reason
I've been blocked or get my block lifted since (Philip and HelpJazz
gave good advice, everyone else failed to respond)... much less any
explanation as to why he can get away with deplorable actions on a
daily basis. Its best not to check if the fire is out by squirting
lighter fluid on it!! :P

Thanks for keeping a level head, regardless of ideology! Conservapedia
really needs help xD


This e-mail was sent by Ema to CPAdmin1 by the "Email user" function
at Conservapedia.

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <>, Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:27:57 +1100:

You showed considerable restraint in not commenting (here at least) on his
re-block comments.  Even for Bugler they are bad:

After Tim had unblocked him the first time:  "Tim is an interfering fool who
should involve himself only ins such matters that his limited inttellect can
cope with"

After the second unblock:  "Is a troublemaker, as are his protectors.".

Frankly, I consider those comments grounds for stripping Bugler of his block

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

DeanS <>, Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:37:37 -0800 (PST):

After what I've seen today from Bugler, I agree with Philip and
believe Bugler should lose his blocking rights. I also withdraw my
previous support for his promotion to sysop.


Temlakos <>, Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:31:50 -0500:

And I second that. We can't have junior administrators talking back to
sysops, or taking upon themselves the right to judge the performance of
sysops. If Bugler had any legitimate complaints, then he needed to make
them straight to Andy. He never did, as far as I can tell.

This is TK all over again.

In fact...has anyone done an elementary thing like run CheckUser on the
TK and Bugler accounts to make sure that those two jokers are not one
and the same man?


CPAdmin1 <>, Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:44:32 -0800 (PST):

Bugler is from the UK,
TK is from arizona if I remember correctly

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <>, Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:58:59 +1100:

We've previously checked Bugler and confirmed that he was from England.  One
outside possibility that I had considered was that TK had moved to England.
However, I've just run CheckUser on TK and it resolves to Reno Nevada, so
that appears to rule out him being Bugler.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <>, Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:50:38 +1100:

Are you referring also to Bugler's talk page
(  I've only just
now caught up with that.  If that's not /asking/ to have block rights
removed, I don't know what is.  It's the Wiki equivalent of suicide by cop.

(I can't help wondering if there's some connection with TK's return, but I
can't see it.)

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

Geoffrey Plourde <>, Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:32:14 -0800 (PST):

Fallon, Nevada with ties to Southern California. I hate to say it but Bugler appears to be a real person.

Ed Poor <>, Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:14:55 -0800 (PST):


I just got off the phone with TK. (If area codes mean anything to
you . . .) And you thought he ... You really ran ... ?

<s m i r k> Oh, you guys!

Eddie Spaghetty

Ed Poor <>, Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:49:05 -0800 (PST):


I support your suggestion. Let's ask Andy to remove Bugler's blocking
rights - at least for a temporary period (say 3 weeks). He's got to be
reined in; maybe then he can go riding with us again?

Ed Poor
(always hopeful, always waiting for the prodigal son to come home)

DeanS <>, Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:51:11 -0800 (PST):

Yes, I was referring to Bugler's talk page.
I sent a personal email to both Andy and Bugler regarding this
disrespect. Andy is aware of the issue. I will leave it to him to
respond to this forum.


CPAdmin1 <>, Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:54:41 -0800 (PST):

Bugler is clearly not TK.  But I am almost completely convinced that
he is a parodist.  Conservapedia is part of his everyday religious
activities? please.  I think that his goal is to harm the project.
that is why he blocks people at the slightest provocation.


CPAdmin1 <>, Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:56:56 -0800 (PST):

I think he should have his blocking rights removed indefinitely.
Until he changes his ways and proves himself.  He has to stop the
bullying and namecalling, and all the personal attacks.


Andy <>, Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:24:26 -0800 (PST):

Bugler contributes good stuff, sometimes great stuff.  The questioning
of his block of a user who is plainly dubious ("Hotdog") was impolite,
and Bugler's strong objection was predictable.

Solid contributions can more than offset some insensitive remarks.  On
the front lines it's natural to expect people who are producing and
fighting the enemies to speak their minds.

In Christ,


"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <>, Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:39:10 +1100:

I think it should be open-ended (permanent, although not ruling out the
/possibility/ of him regaining them in the future), but even temporary would
be better than nothing.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <>, Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:40:54 +1100:

It was a case of checking out and eliminating possibilities more than

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <>, Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:45:29 +1100:

How is Hotdog "plainly dubious"?

And how is the predictabiliy of Bugler's strong objection relevant?  What is
relevant is not its predictability, but its nature.  His response was
unacceptable, and it is unacceptable for the site owner to appear to condone
his arrogance and rudeness.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

Ed Poor <>, Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:21:42 -0800 (PST):

Kind of like removing Patton from his position because he (one time
only!) slapped a soldier he suspected of being cowardly.

The tactic of using a minor thing (like unpaid parking tickets, or
paying your maid "under the table") to bring down someone whom you
oppose for a major thing - is this something we should do? Whether or
not it was the right way to bring down Al Capone, I don't think any of
us consider Bugler to be in the same category as a murdering gangster.
So let's cool it.

I've sent him some private emails asking him to be more genial, but
(as Andy just know said - and I belatedly agree) chopping off his
hands isn't going to make him a better person.

Let's not jump on the bandwagon of "justice" and "politics of personal
destruction" which liberals use to get their way and consolidate their
power. Let's see some Christian love and brotherhood around here.

Ed Poor (who loves preaching to the choir)

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <>, Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:57:56 +1100:

Yes, let's see some Christian love and brotherhood, but not just "around
here", whatever that means, but with all the editors on Conservapedia
(except the clear vandals).  Or is this Christian love something that we
reserve just for ourselves?

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

CPAdmin1 <>, Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:54:32 -0800 (PST):

I am totally against extremely harsh treatment of users, I think that
it is better to err on the side of less/shorter blocks, than more/
longer blocks.  TK and Bugler are no exception, I am not saying we
should infinitely block them.  A short one for TK is probably
appropriate, and a warning for Bugler.  User rights however, is a
different story.  When a user is given rights, they are given
authority to speak for/act on behalf of, CP.  In everything that they
do in that capacity, it represents CP.  If a user blocks somebody for
no apparent reason, or for simply disagreeing, or because they don't
like that user, or if they start name-calling, or bullying, it has to
be dealt with, because those actions represent CP.  It is CP handing
out the unfair blocks and mistreating people.   It has to be dealt
with publicly because otherwise, by our silence we are publicly
condoning those actions.  This is why I support the removing of
Bugler's block rights.

I am getting to be very concerned about the way we treat our editors
here.  We are treating them as though they are just simply tools that
we can use for whatever we want.  We aren't treating them with the
respect that is due to every human being.  Nobody is given the benefit
of the doubt (except TK) and blocks are handed out for anything from
disagreeing on some issue, to making any edit that is not exactly in
line with some of our more radical positions (Barack Obama), to
pointing out mistreatment of others.  Users comments are routinely
deleted if they are in any way tough to answer, or show badly on CP.
Instead of taking advantage of the fact that people point out
problems, and taking advantage of that to fix it, those people are
suppressed, and the problems are allowed to fester.  Even entire page
histories are deleted to cover up for these actions.  The project
seems to care less about TRUTH and more about politics, and what casts
conseratives in a better light, and liberals as evil.  Altogether the
project is starting to get an almost 1984 feel about it.  If you
disagree with "the party" you are done away with, and as much of the
evidence is destroyed as possible.  This practice is unfair,
unconservative, and unchristian.  And I am not sure that I can stay
much longer with a clear conscience if it continues.

As Christians, it is our charge to represent Christ on this earth.
Right now I feel like this project negatively reflects on Christ.  We
need to change the way we do things.

I hope I haven't offended anyone, but every word comes directly from
the heart, and I do not apologize for any of it.  If you don't want
people around who care about treating people in a christian manner,
then tell me so, and I will leave.

Please respond, I want to hear peoples take on this.  (especially

God Bless


Geoffrey Plourde <>, Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:54:04 -0800 (PST):

While I see some areas of concern with Bugler's conduct, I would assign him a mentor before firing him. We need to remember that removal of rights tends to lose contributors. Also, as he is in the UK, he watches during a critical window of time.

With regards to TK, the validity of the block depends on the validity of the statement. Helpjazz has indicated to me that he will not get involved if another decided to overturn his block, therefore the field was wide open.

"Bill Bagot" <>, Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:41:45 -0800:

Part of the problem we are encountering though Ed is that it's a continuous
string of slapping, and many of those being slapped include his superiors.

Bill  (Learn Together)

Ed Poor <>, Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:33:55 -0800 (PST):

Before you can rein in a horse, you must decide where you want the
horse to go. Several of us have the "gift of gab". Any of these can be
sent as ambassadors to B. Ugler or Terry K. and persuade them to
change their style. But we have to agree first on blocking policy.

I like Tim's heartfelt comment, but I'm sorry he feels (like DanH)
that he's made it a matter of "my way or the highway". I myself find
tons of things I don't like around here. But I haven't quit. I back
off, I negotiate, I attempt to educate and persuade.

Part of Christian doctrine is that, "If two are three are gathered in
my name," right? Don't let rat wiki be the only group that has unity.
Let us draw strength from God, and also from our brotherly unity (that
includes sisters, too, Justine :-)

Yes, some of us are too hasty (hello! that's me) or too abrasive (TK
mostly). But we are dealing with 90% saboteurs. We have sock puppets
and sleeper agents. If Andy occasionally barks a harsh word, must we
cut him down? Of course not.

If another sysop blocks a user and you disagree, should you simply
unblock the user? "Oh, but he didn't give a /valid/ blocking reason."
I teach at a private tutoring school. The principal said I can expel
any child from class for any reason. The subject of justifying the
expulsion to the remaining students never came up.

Children learn, by seeing what the adults tolerate. If a kid gets
kicked out of class, the /smart/ kids will rack their brains trying to
figure out "what he did", so it won't happen to them. The last thing
we need is to empower the /bad/ kids with a chance to distract the
class with a discussion (of unlimited length) about whether the
expulsion was justified. The whole POINT of the explusion was to
prevent distraction!!!

Let's not give in to our enemies. On the other hand, as Tim said,
let's not turn into them either. By all means, let us be innocent as
doves. But we /must/ be wise as serpents, because the Great Serpent
(otherwise known as Satan) "was a liar and a murderer from the
beginning" (John 8:44)

I don't have all the answers, but I daresay that publicly sniping at
other sysops on the wiki is /not/ the answer.

Ed Poor

2008-11-15 ZB1 Bugler proves he is a parodist
2008-11-15 ZB1 A pathetic Parthian shot [Fwd: (no subject)]
2008-11-16 ZB1 Inappropriate block by bugler, followed by "edit warring" over it.
2008-11-17 ZB1 TK
2008-11-17 ZB1 Users with block rights but not sysop rights

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.