2009-02-15 ZB1 TK's range block of
2009-02-15 ZB1 Operations Grassroots
2009-02-15 ZB1 The after-effects of RodWeathers and Bugler
2009-02-15 FF Kabuki Glossary plagiarism??
2009-02-16 FF FW: Big Brother is watching

The after-effects of RodWeathers and Bugler, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:18:37 -0800 (PST):

Okay all, we have seen both Rod and Bugler do their part to discredit
the site by subtle destruction.  I have read Rod's silly rant, but I'm
going to believe in his statements that 1), we can't catch it all; 2)
he's got a lot of socks through a lot of proxies; and 3) WE DON'T HAVE

By "expertise" I mean that some of us are good at a few things, and
lousy in others.  I have more knowledge of the Detroit Tigers than I
do of real tigers.  Does TK have any knowledge of what makes a
kangaroo tick?  Does Dean know how to compute pi any more than he can
make an apple pie?  We have to make some serious changes because
people like Rod and Bugler and Horace are getting in and making subtle
little inaccurate changes that all of us together still couldn't

Here's my suggestions for changes that we could make:

ONE: Connect with conservative friends; tell them about the site and
what they could do to help.  We need MORE conservative editors than
liberal ones.

TWO: Connect with conservative academia.  Suppose they could
contribute articles to the site.  We need experts in the sciences, in
sports, in politics, in health, in everything.

THREE: Connect with conservative websites and churches that could
spread the word about Conservapedia.  This is a major source of new

FOUR: Double-check those you block!  If good-ol LibbyLulz trashed the
evolution article and got blocked as a result, run his name and IP
through check user immediately; you just might pull up a hidden sock
or two.

"TK" <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:52:11 -0800:

Sound advice Brian!

I would add the following to your list:

1.     When blocking a proven parodist/vandal, always disable sending mail.
This should not apply to editors given short blocks, but people like Rod
Weathers, and known Rat Wiki trolls, we should not be enabling them to
contact our students or new users!  Blocking a vandal or noted parodist,
without disabling the email feature is like handing them an engraved
invitation to contact students and others to drive them away!

2.     I will repeat once again, my call that the Flagged Revisions
extension be installed post haste!  None of the recent exhibitions by the
liberal vandals and parodists' would have ever been viewable by the public
or non-Admins if we had it.  I think a trial period of a couple of months
would tell us everything we need to know about it, and if it proves worthy,
keep it.  If not, junk it.  At first, we could make only Administrators
capable of approving new edits.  Our daily change list from other than
Admins isn't so great as to prove a burden on anyone.  Later, we could add
others, like those who have night editing, to the list.  It is  highly
configurable and adaptable, and has been used for some time now on the
German version of Wikipedia, and believe me, they are liking it, and their
daily edits must be 100 times that of CP's.  

3.     Those of you who do not have Check User, ALWAYS ask when suspicious,
for one of us to check for you.  There is one of us with it around 24/7, and
if not immediately available, we can check and let you know, or do the
further blocking of other socks for you, and let you know.

The networking idea of Brian is something we all must start doing.


P.S.:  I do know what made a Kangaroo "tick", by the way.  He swallowed a
clock.  :p

conservative777 <>, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:39:58 -0800 (PST):

Brian you wrote:

"THREE: Connect with conservative websites and churches that could
spread the word about Conservapedia.  This is a major source of new

If conservapedians wants more Christian editors it needs to beef up
its stockpile of Christianity related articles and then ask people
whose articles are on the same subject to link to them.  In order for
people to want to link to them they have to be good articles.



Brian Macdonald <>, Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:22:44 -0600:

The point here is that there is safety in numbers.  Either we get additional
conservative/Christian writers and editors, or we become liberalized.

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 1:39 AM, conservative777

Jessica <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:12:33 -0800 (PST):

My thoughts on this:
- I agree that we do not have the expertise to cover all edits and it
is clear that some things do slip through the cracks. However, I also
feel that there are enough resources available on-line to allow us to
check up on facts. At present, all new edits have to be marked as
patrolled - I am not sure how many of us do so, but at that point, if
we come across something that looks odd, a few minutes with Google
should be able to resolve is issue. I have found a few while clearing
up the {{fact}} tags - the entry for slugs, for example, whilst
clearly parody, made me smile, but it took a few minutes to sort out
that there are not male and female slugs (bucks and sluggis
apparently). So we cannot be all things to all subjects, but we can
rely on other sources to verify facts.

- Regarding flagged revisions. As I understand them it would mean that
no edits by unapproved editors would appear until they had been
approved by an admin. Whilst I can see the advantage behind this of
keeping out vandalism, parthian shots, etc, the biggest disadvantage
to me revolves around manpower - if we already are not following up on
patrolling edits and verifying facts, is keeping them all in a
separate space until they are approved going to help? Or are we going
to be faced with a massive backlog?

Let us be frank about this - looking at the long list of merge
candidates, afd, {{fact}} tags, etc, etc, it would appear as if
housekeeping is not our strongest point. Is adding yet another element
of housekeeping really going to help? We are either going to have to
increase the number of people who can perform these tasks, or make a
concerted effort to become more involved in the actual administration
of Conservapedia. Unless there is an efficient administration system
in place, adding more administrative duties will only lead to chaos.

On a related note, I now feel vindicated that my attacks on Bugler and
RodWealthers were warranted, even if I was shouted down at the time.

A secondary point, is that if checkuser is such a useful tool in
clearing out parodists, should all administrators not have access to
it, rather than some of us having to ask to check up on somebody?


"TK" <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:27:42 -0800:

The "Housekeeping" chores have never been enumerated, or the supposed need
for them to be done explained, Jessica.  Some of those lists, they appear to
be needless "make-work" chores, not important to proper wiki function.  I
would be content just to get enough help cleaning up the category mess!  But
if you have some explanation as to why these chores should be more
diligently attended to, I am completely open to working with you in setting
up a more formal procedure.

Flagged Revisions can be configured many ways.  At Wikipedia in Germany,
trusted regular editors get what amounts to be “votes” on each revision,
whatever number is set, then it is approved.  I don’t think Conservapedia’s
total daily edits would be so great as to cause us much strain, especially
if we allowed some of the regular editors to have voting input.  Admins of
course don’t have to vote, just approve.  You are making housekeeping chores
be your criteria for using the system.  At Wikipedia, they envision getting
most revisions visible within two weeks.  What is the rush?  Anything added
by editors, if they hadn’t come along, it wouldn’t be there, right?  So if
it takes a couple of days, where is the damage?  I submit you are letting
what you are use to dictate your perceptions of how things should operate.

Most merge candidates I have seen are senseless and a product of our enemies
desire to cripple CP.  Yes, that is a known method of theirs; confusion and

As for the new edits, simply clicking on the changes, and seeing them, will
mark them as patrolled (automatic) in the logs; you actually don’t have to
click the button, I have found.

As for Rod Weathers and Bugler, I don’t agree there.  If someone comes to
Conservapedia, and is mouthing conservative words, and not inserting parody,
according to conservative thought, how is that vindication?  Many of the
things you were against them saying, well, they were indeed said to vandals,
trolls and disruptors.  Have you found massive amounts of unjustified
blocking?  Now if you check, you will see I had several times publicly
corrected things both said, but usually subjected them to my displeasure via
email, as it should have been.  The last thing we need is Admins continuing
the errant ways of some, giving aid and comfort to our enemies, who most of
the time, started the argument in the beginning, or instigated it.

Check User is invasive, and as such is limited to a very few.  It wouldn’t
hurt most here to communicate more about their suspicions, so asking for the
information is of minimal bother, I think.


Ed Poor <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:39:07 -0800 (PST):


A huge amount of administrative effort goes into uncovering and
removing misinformation deliberately inserted by saboteurs. With
Flagged Revisions, we can actually spend LESS time uncovering and
removing this misinformation.

Consider: Once an article has an approved version, it simply remains
approved. Users without Approval Rights can post alternate versions,
but these are not shown to the public or scanned by search engines.
This lowers the incentive to do sabotage, because there will be no
visible result.

Imagine a warehouse visible from the highway. Kids have been breaking
windows and spray-painting graffiti on it for years. But the owners
now erect a fence around it, so only the inaccessible portions are
visible to people driving by. What's the incentive to tag the wall or
break a window? No one will see it.


Jessica Kotomi Tanaka <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:37:06 +0200:

Okay, let me start by saying I am not opposed to flagged revisions per
se - it will certainly reduce the opportunities for vandalism and most
parody to nil. However, it will mean a concerted effort from the
people given rights to check those flagged edits to make sure there is
not a huge backlog. Turn-around times are also important - people like
seeing what they have written being published and the longer somebody
has to wait, the greater the chances of them losing interest.

You say "Some of those lists, they appear to be needless "make-work"
chores, not important to proper wiki function." to which I respond
that Conservapedia is not a normal wiki. We are purporting to be an
encyclopaedia and there has been talk of trying to attract notable
conservative commentators here. Having articles with unsourced
statements - be they spurious or not - does not look good for an
encyclopaedia. Likewise the articles for deletion and merge
candidates. Saying we are going to ignore them because it is a ploy by
our enemies is, frankly, silly. Yes, it might be time consuming, but I
have already illustrated that if each of us do one or two a day, the
list can be rapidly reduced. Surely that is not too much to ask. We
are, after all, administrators - administration should be one of the
tasks we perform.

There does not need to be a formal procedure, but we need to make the
effort to clean up Conservapedia. The longer it is delayed, the more
things will build up. Either that, or things like the {{merge}} and
{{delete}} templates should then be removed, if we are not going to
follow through with them. Even if most merge candidates you have seen
are spurious, then the merge tag needs to be removed from the article
in question. Likewise, articles for deletion - either they need to be
deleted, or the tag removed. There is no sense in leaving them there.
All it takes is teamwork - Addinson and I cleaned up the move
requestion section in a couple of hours, likewise the debate

It is only our edits (i.e. administrators') that are automatically
patrolled. Any that appear in recent changes with a red "!" alongside
them need to be tagged as patrolled.

Whatever else Bugler and RodWeathers did, they were a disruptive
influence here and I called them out on that, not because of what they
wrote. There is a difference between being conservative and being
abusive - and when I felt they had overstepped that mark, I felt I had
to take action. Ironically, I had to wait until Andy promoted me to do
so, or either of them would have blocked me for saying so.

Temlakos <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:19:03 -0500:

All right--now let's talk about certain subjects that are treated on two
different sites.

Conservative, if you told me once you told me a dozen times that
treating the same subject on two different sites harms the search-engine
rankings of one or both. That is why I have not been submitting anything
to Conservapedia for quite some time, though I have been hard at work
creating or revising biographies on CreationWiki.

Now when I submit something to any given Wiki site, I flatter myself in
the belief that I have written the best words that I can write. You
would have me start all over again! Or so it would seem, when you tell
me that 70% of the words have to be different. Tell me this, if your SEO
mavens can tell you: How comes it that Wikipedia and, which
very often have identical content, often have articles separated by
maybe four or five steps in the rankings? More to the point: if I do
submit something to both sites, what do you require to avoid what you
might perceive as interference with your SEO plans?

We also need to agree on something else. As I said, I have imported into
CreationWiki two sets of basic template code that I have hesitated, thus
far, to import into CP. One is a set for creating family trees; the
other is a set for creating succession links. Licensing issues have held
me back. Now I'm perfectly willing to put on my Template Documentation
page a statement that any particular template code is released under
GFDL. But I need to have that confirmed by Conseravpedia's own license,
and clarified. I suggest a clause to be added to our own license that
allows the administration to designate a template as released per GFDL,
and the creation of a special licensing tag, perhaps with the GFDL logo
of a backwards capital C in a circle.

Here's the bottom line: At the risk of standing accused of unseemly and
idle boasting, I appear to be the resident expert on the Bible and the
various persons in it. That actually makes the problem more difficult,
because I could certainly use a collaborator, with whom I would gladly
share the insights of my own research. Until I get one, I am faced with
a task having two competing imperatives, and I could use some help
sorting them out.


John Patti <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:56:51 -0800 (PST):

I am not sure of what you are asking TerryH but  I can be of some
assistance on Catholicism if needed.


John Patti <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:11:35 -0800 (PST):

As for the Bugler / Rod Weathers (parody) problem, if we had code
writers then virtual page lock could be created. A page lock only seen
by administrators. Not really a lock but if we were able to determine
the content of a page was valid, add the virtual lock. Then at some
point in time, we would be able to review the page changes since the
virtual lock. Parody content, false insertions, untrustworthy
additions can be reviewed. Every page a lock? Definitely not but major
pages, content pages, important pages could be monitored. It doesn't
have to be a virtual lock so to speak. It could be just a special
category that marks the page as monitored. Subtle false insertions
like date or name changes could be more easily caught.

Just throwing it out there on a wish list.


Temlakos <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:24:42 -0500:

Actually, the biographies I'm talking about are of Biblical persons, and
more particularly the Patriarchs, the Judges, the Prophets, the kings,
the high priests, and many of their assorted relatives and associates.
Now here's one thing that you might do: to any article that I submit, if
Catholicism says anything about the subject that I haven't said, then a
section that gives the Catholic "version" in detail would be valuable.
We'll probably have some differences of opinion on what is actual fact,
but I would want the article at least to /represent/ Roman Catholic
tradition, and to do it faithfully. Because I know nothing of Roman
Catholicism other than what I sometimes see in motion pictures (like
/The Agony and the Ecstasy/), anything I have to write on Roman Catholic
tradition would probably miss something.

And on matters of Roman Catholic /history/, I would probably defer to
you--though I doubt that I will submit very many articles on famous
Roman Catholic figures. (Exception: certain persons commonly regarded as
"saints." Nicholas of Myra, for one, or "Saint Nicholas" as the article
might still be titled. I chose him because he has become a
God-substitute in the Western world. I know of a tradition connected
with his body and why he was canonized. But you might know more about
that than I do.)

In sum, I am looking for anyone willing to contribute something that I
didn't think of, or even to /express/ something in a different
manner--sufficiently different to avoid search-engine "pessimization,"
for lack of a better term.


Jessica <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:04:56 -0800 (PST):

Just a few more thoughts from me on this. If we add flagged revisions,
the intention is to check all new entries to make sure they are not
parody, etc, etc. Why then the seeming reluctance to check existing
entries, where facts are being disputed, for the same? We can not have
one without the other

Also, if they are implemented, then anything other than a one-day turn
around time for edits to be visible would be unacceptable. How can we
expected to operate if there is - for example - a 2-week delay between
and edit being made and it being visible, then another 2 weeks after
the next edit is made. That would dry up contributions eventually.
This process needs to be thought through very carefully before it is

"TK" <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:05:34 -0800:

Are you actually meaning to say people would stop contributing if their
contributions were not publicly visible almost immediately?  I think Jimbo
Wales, and the Wikimedia Foundation, the people who actually have ordered
its use on all versions of Wikipedia, did think long and hard about this.
Don't you?

As conservatives, we are not going to pander to the "conventional wisdom" or
thinking.  If the reason people contribute is to be instantly viewable by
the public, they shouldn't be editors.  Accuracy and conciseness should be
their concern.  

I think you will find, as time passes with it, people will soon forget the
days of "instant gratification" are not remembered, and the new normal will
be just that.


Jessica Kotomi Tanaka <>, Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:15:35 +0200:

No, Terry, what I said was that if the delay is too long, they will lose
interest. There is a difference.

Temlakos <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:52:19 -0500:

Jessica, I understand your concern.

But how long is "too long," really? How do you know that it's going to
take two weeks to review all the flagged edits?

And what about the prediction that others have made on this list, to the
effect that the time we will /save/ in having to revert vandalism, is
/more/ than the time we would /spend/ in approving flagged edits?

Jessica, I think a conservative editor will /welcome/ such flagging. The
approval process will give him confidence that he is writing for a site
that really cares about quality and the truth, and that his own writing
is good enough to meet the quality standard. The kind of editor we want,
/wants/ his work gone over, so that when it gets through, he can say, "I
wrote something that passed inspection. They at Conservapedia won't
accept just /any/ old submission!"

Now I can't promise that I will be able to review each and every flagged
edit. But I'll tell you this: as I sit at my console, with another
computer beside me running GuardDog and, every now and again, raising a
howl because some joker has replaced a page with the sort of content
that does not bear mention here, I also catch myself wondering about all
the new users who put something in right away. The way I have GuardDog
set up, they raise low-level alerts. Now at the moment I look for signs
of trouble, and if I find none, I mark the user as "Semi-Trusted" so
that I don't get low-level alerts every time that user creates a new
page. But wouldn't I just love to have a system that allows me to tell
definitively when a user is /worthy/ of semi-trust, or even that level
of /full/ trust that I normally reserve only for our fellow administrators?

Come to think of it, GuardDog might not have as much activity. And then
we could get Philip J. Rayment back in here long enough to get him to
write a version of GuardDog that will work with Flagged Revs. (I say
that because the Special pages for blocking can be awfully slow
sometimes. I like being able to push one button and block somebody who
has just stepped in it. If the Special page that goes with FlaggedRevs
will afford me that kind of speed, great; if not, then let's get
/somebody/ working on an auxiliary program for sysops that will handle
FlaggedRevs commands.)

Now as I understand it, certain kinds of editor will be trusted
implicitly in the FlaggedRevs system, and furthermore, the system is
designed to recognize someone as trusted after a certain amount of his
edits get approved without comment. (Let's be careful of this sort of
thing! I'm not sure that I like superseding the function of a human
Bureaucrat. I'd just as soon have SharonS join Andy in being an active
promoter, or have Andy create another Bureaucrat or two among us.)

Do you see what I'm saying? We're talking about details here. And when
someone uses details as a deal-killer--well, forgive me for not being
able to find a gentler word for that, but that is the classic definition
of quibbling. We are the Board of Regents for what is, in effect, an
on-line school. So let's act in a manner that befits our station!

Now back to my original question: How long is too long? I'll toss a
figure out right now: forty-eight hours. That's how long I have to wait,
sometimes, for customer support when I ask for it in e-mail. How about
it? Can we guarantee to vet an edit in forty-eight hours? Can't a
conscientious editor wait that long? Is anything I've said unreasonable?
Let's talk.


"TK" <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:58:46 -0800:

“Also, if they are implemented, then anything other than a one-day turn
around time for edits to be visible would be unacceptable. How can we
expected to operate if there is - for example - a 2-week delay between and
edit being made and it being visible, then another 2 weeks after the next
edit is made. That would dry up contributions eventually.”

That is what you said, second time around.  And I repeat what I said, and
what TerryH just said; there is no imperative for editors to see their work

My example of two weeks, was Wikipedia’s estimation of the max amount of
time it would take them to approve edits by editors not given a specific
level of trust.  The extension is able to allow a certain amount of time go
by, to see if an editor agrees with the majority, to auto-promote them.  We
don’t have to enable that function, its up to us.


conservative777 <>, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:51:59 -0800 (PST):

Dear TerryH,

Wikipedia has a ton of articles.  I have no idea how frequently both
Wikipedia and show up near each other.  I do know that was appearing for a while in the Google top 10 for atheism
and then dropped off the radar.

Secondly, it does make sense for search engines to filter duplicate
content.  It would be annoying to click on entries in the top 20
ranking and have many of them be the same and that is why they filter
duplicate content.  My guess as why entries that are very similar show
up once in a while is that perhaps the search engines give consumers a
chance to "vote" on which one they like better.  However, this is
obviously only a guess.



Jessica Kotomi Tanaka <>, Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:52:33 +0200:

Terry (H this time *g*), I am going to say again, I have no objection in
principle to flagged revisions. What does concern me is firstly the turn
around time - however, if the delay only applies to new and "untrusted"
editors then I do not mind, so that is that problem out of the way.

However, I still have a concern that we are adding another layer of
housekeeping, when we are already rather poor in our current house keeping
duties and unfortunately, some people can't seem too see that, or even the
need for it - which worries me greatly. With a wiki being such a flexible
amorphous thing, good housekeeping is essential.

Brian Macdonald <>, Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:10:26 -0600:

If both TK and Jessica pleases, we need you both to take a step back for a

First, let's save the anger for the legitmate trolls who still try to damage
the site.

Second, none of us need fighting between ourselves.  We have to work
together to make Conservapedia better than Wikipedia (which is my goal
anyway!), and any idea that would further that end is a good idea.  If
"flagged revisions" are good, let's implement it; if it turns out to be no
good, we get rid of it.

And we do have to abandon this "seniority" thing.  Only buerocrats (sic sic
sic!) are senior to us, and as far as I'm concerned, us sysops are equal
with each other.  I won't play this seniority thing on TK anymore than I
would play it on Jessica or Dean or JPatt.  There's just too many egos
involved if that happens.

Justine Allen <>, Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:50:56 +1100:

I don't think I've ever played the "seniority" or "junior" card on any other
admin. Just because Brian, Dean, Philip and myself have the oversight tag,
does not mean we are any more senior or have any more authourity over
others. Having said that, I don't think that this rules out the ability for
any admin to question another admin's actions.

I have seen Andy use the term "senior administrators/sysops" on the wiki a
numerous amount of times, but I only think that this extends to admins
promoted in the rush period (February/March/April 2007).

2009-02-15 ZB1 TK's range block of
2009-02-15 ZB1 Operations Grassroots
2009-02-15 ZB1 The after-effects of RodWeathers and Bugler
2009-02-15 FF Kabuki Glossary plagiarism??
2009-02-16 FF FW: Big Brother is watching

Last updated 12 Apr 2011