sotnd conservaleaks

2008-04-10 ZB1 Guard Dog question
2008-04-11 ZB1 Conference
2008-04-11 ZB1 How long are we going to tolerate TK?
2008-04-11 ZB1 Allowing liberals to control Conservapedia content
2008-04-11 ZB1 Fair use - I don't want us to get sued

How long are we going to tolerate TK?

"Philip Rayment" <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:36:54 +1000:

TK's actions have been a problem in several ways.
  a.. He has always been very arrogant in responding to others
  b.. He's frequently tried to make arrangements in private, including with Andy then citing Andy as justification for what he does.
  c.. He tries to set one person against another, including sysops
And he's still doing it.  I've documented some recent examples below.

So my question is, what is TK's supposed parole officer doing about any of this?  Because if something isn't done soon, I'll take my own action against TK, and it's likely to end up as a permanent ban.

Philip Rayment

On both the Richard Dawkins talk page and the Liberal talk page, TK took further swipes at non-Americans.  He's previously taken swipes at me, accusing me of being anti-American, and the last paragraph below also appears to be directed particularly at me (apart from other things, I have made comment about "U.S.-centric" attitudes a few times, although he was replying to Humblpi and perhaps Europeanunion.  Even RationalWiki saw this as a "salvo against PJR".  They were longish rants, so I'll only post excerpts here (italics and underlining his):
  As this is an American Conservative/Christian encyclopedia above all else, foreign notions, the so-called "World View", internationalist approach isn't appropriate here.

  It boils down to a clear disagreement between Internationalists (and they are primarily liberal) and those of us who support CP, which was founded as a U.S. Christian/Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, to continue to be true to that. While I wouldn't want to ignore the world as Internationalists see it, or wish it to be, that outlook is already embraced by Wikipedia, several thousand times larger than CP, so the POV is more than adequately served.

  Some, mostly from other countries, while they might be Christians, certainly are not United States conservatives, and even they seek to impose their unique, anti (or contrary to)-U.S. point of view on CP, trying, bit by bit, to remove anything they consider "U.S.-centric". They are among those, like the liberals, who seek to fundamentally change the founding precepts of Conservapedia, and turn it towards the so-called "world view". While I don't seek to diminish what they believe (they cannot help it, being used to a "Wikipedian World" and not Americans) their role here, editors or admins alike, it seems to me, is either to get on board with CP's point of view, or at least stop the constant arguing that distracts from more content being made, and discouraging conservative editors from doing so. Since the actual practice of "conservatism" outside the United States, is fundamentally different, that puts CP automatically at odds with Europeans and others who might say they are "conservative" but in actual political practice their philosophy is closer to United States liberals.
TomMoore asked on the Main Page discussion page:
  Maybe I missed the discussion on another page, but I notice that you're removing this category, Mr. Schlafly. I was curious as to why?
Which brought the following response from TK:
  Conservapedia isn't a ''mobocracy'' and as long as I have been here, only since last March, policy decisions such as the category have never been a matter of editor vote, etc. So perhaps I misunderstand the original question?
On her talk page, Deborah expressed the following opinion:
  Category:United States Mayors should obviously be a subcat of Category:Americans
To which TK responded as though he was in charge:
  No, it shouldn't. Please stop.
On TK's talk page, Deborah asked a reasonable question:
  Why should Americans not be put under the Category:Americans?
TK replied politely enough, but with the "leave it to us" attitude, and claiming special rights:
  My previous decision on this, and to my knowledge Andy has not replaced me as the one to decide, was to label all things United States, with just that. So instead of Americans, we would use United States Citizens, etc. This is being discussed at this very moment.
I questioned where this decision was documented, but unfortunately didn't make clear that I was talking about TK's "previous decision", not the new one regarding Category:Americans.  TK responded politely (although RationalWiki saw it as sarcasm) including offering to help further if he could.  So I apologised for not being clear, and asked the question again.

TK's response was twofold.  First, he deleted my post with the edit comment "Private sysop business is not discussed here, Period.".  Second, he sent me a private e-mail titled "DO NOT POST TO MY PAGE AGAIN, EVER.  UNLESS YOU ARE MAKING SOME ADMIN DEMAND OR DIRECTIVE." and with the content being "Are you completely clear?"

Ed Poor <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:56:05 -0700 (PDT):


I agree about the "attitude" TK manifests. He needs to learn some

A permanent ban won't help, any more than a one-year ban. If you don't
like his remarks on CP talk pages, try erasing them - or use one of
the 'personal remarks' templates.

A good way to get his attention, and teach him a lesson, would be to
block him for violations of our "Avoid Personal Remarks" policy. A one-
hour block would probably suffice.

An escalating series of blocks would not be good. Our purpose is not
to build a case for dismissal, but to rehabilitate a valuable

Everyone has their good and bad points (even me!)

Ed Poor

"Philip Rayment" <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:06:05 +1000:


If a permanent ban wouldn't help, why do we give out so many of them?

I might very well try erasing them or even using a Personal Remarks
template, and any blocks I do would start off as short ones.

However, I fail to see why an escalating series of blocks would not be good.
If the short blocks or other actions don't have the desired effect, then why
not make them larger?  And again, why give TK special treatment that we
wouldn't give any other editor?  As for being a "valuable contributor", I
strongly disagree.  He is far more trouble than he is worth, and is probably
single-handedly responsible for alienating more good editors than he could
personally ever hope to replace.

And this is totally ignoring his history of trying to sabotage
Conservapedia, which I wouldn't the slightest bit surprised if it was still
his goal.

But I'm still hoping that Geoffrey will do his job of being a parole officer
(and of reporting his actions in that regard back to this group).  But my
patience is all but gone.

Philip Rayment

Ed Poor <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:28:56 -0700 (PDT):

Philip, I agree about "trouble" only to a limited extent. Anyone who
wastes our time should be blocked for *LONGER* than the amount of time
they wasted. So if, for instance, you feel that TK wasted an entire
day of your time this week, block him for 2 days.

But don't forget to temper justice with mercy. A one week block for a
second offense won't change his pattern of behavior. I would stay with
blocks of just a few days, unless Mr. Schlafly himself recommends
longer periods.

He's a smart man, and he wouldn't give night editing rights to someone
that he thought was "more trouble than he's worth". TK is not any
other editor. He was made a sysop early on, and he did a lot of work
for Andy policing the vandals.

If we can make CP a place where there is a minimum of nonsense, then
we can attract serious writers. So far, they are staying away because
they don't want to have to deal with troublemakers like Ames. The
liberals who are *admittedly* trying to destroy us are the real enemy.
Men like TK may have they flaws, like being too quick on the draw
(with the blocking gun) or speaking in a hostile tone. But overall I
think Andy is wise to keep him around.

From long experience, I can tell you that they way to shape someone's
behavior is not with an axe but with a whip. Consistent, swift
reminders are what is needed. Tell TK in emails with a cc to Andy and
me, what you don't like. Keep the emails short! If it comes to
blocking, a series of one-day blocks will get his attention and keep
it. (We only use escalation when we have given up on rehabilitation.)

TK is a valuable ally to have, even if he rubs some of us the wrong
way. We need to figure out how best to employ his volunteer services.
If there are specific instances of annoying things he's said or done,
please don't save them up like a book of S&H Green Stamps which you
can redeem for a big prize. In other words, let someone know *each*
time he crosses the line - whether it's Andy or me or this group or TK
directly. Don't "be tolerant" if it's just going to lead to a big blow-

"Earnest advice from an Educator of Christan Adults"

Uncle Ed

"Brian Macdonald" <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:47:09 -0500:

To have him as an ally, he's got to stop his bullying of others, and stop
his lying.  I would do the few days ban, then increase it for longer periods
each time he engages in it.

Ed Poor <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:58:59 -0700 (PDT):

If Geoffrey's not going to do his job as parole officer, then I will
step up.

Personal remarks

Terry, you are my friend, and for that reason I must remind you to
read Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks. If you disagree with an
idea or suggestion, that's one thing, but remarks like the following
are out of line:

    * You are overly pedantic

Cheers. --Ed Poor Talk

The above is what I posted on user talk:TK just now.

Uncle Ed

Geoffrey Plourde <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:09:11 -0700 (PDT):

What rule has TK violated? UCLA is too much of a gray area to render a opinion

"Philip Rayment" <>, Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:19:47 +1000:

UCLA was black and white.  I clearly demonstrated that, and you offered nothing of substance in return.  I asked twice about where TK supposedly copied it from, but no answer was forthcoming.  And even if it wasn't from Wikipedia, it was a copy, and an unattributed one.

TK has also repeatedly violated the "Civility" section of the Guidelines page, as I also documented a short time ago.

Philip Rayment

Geoffrey Plourde <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:14:45 -0700 (PDT):

When did Andy specifically approve civility? It provides a stick for RW to hit us with.

Geoffrey Plourde <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:18:51 -0700 (PDT):

This is a good idea. TK is still a valuable contributor. He did a lot of the major category work with Aziraphale.  

"Dan Holmes" <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:09:10 -0500:

In the original post,  Phillip wasn't talking about UCLA at all. He
set out a number of specific instances of other instances specifically
relating to other accusations relating to bullying and the like.
On 4/11/08, Geoffrey Plourde <> wrote:

"Philip Rayment" <>, Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:23:03 +1000:

Come on, Geoffrey!

Again, you are doing all you can to find excuses for the bloke, instead of acting as the parole officer you appointed yourself to be.

Are you really suggesting that users don't have to be civil?

And if you really want to know if and when it was approved and by who, try doing some research yourself, like checking the history.

Philip Rayment

"Dan Holmes" <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:47:13 -0500:

Geoffrey, I'm not taking a side here, but I think it's clear that you
didn't read the initial email Philip sent out.

Geoffrey Plourde <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:41:06 -0700 (PDT):

OK, I am going to side with Ed here. Whacking TK like a pinata will not solve the problems we are seeing. I do think that he is showing improvement. If you see him being extremely uncivil, warn him, then block him for a couple hours.

Geoffrey Plourde <>, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:03:39 -0700 (PDT):

Philip, I am sorry for the response time. I have been deluged with email on a multitude of subjects. Apparently this got swept with the garbage. :(

In cases like these, a permanent ban will not rehabilate the offender, which should be our primary aim. TK has done much for CP. I am not at liberty to state specifics but some of TKs behavior may due to physical conditions.

We need to immediately de escalate and defuse the situation. TK is showing improvement in that he was actually polite to you.

"Philip Rayment" <>, Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:25:10 +1000:

Are we also going to put as much effort into rehabilitating other editors?  I'm not opposed to the effort being put in, but as I've said before, I don't think he can be, at the present time.  And you are still totally ignoring the fact that he was setting out to bring Conservapedia down.  Why do you keep ignoring that?  Why do you keep just claiming that he's done much good, whilst ignoring the bad?

I suspect, as did RationalWiki, that TK was merely feigning politeness.  And the message that DanH got from TK wasn't exactly polite, was it?

Nevertheless, as long as he is polite, whatever his motive, then I will not have reason to take action against him on the grounds of civility.  In other words, any actions I take will be because of his actions, not because of what I suspect his motives to be.

Philip Rayment

"Philip Rayment" <>, Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:16:02 +1000:

I wrote this previous message before I saw TK's latest rants.  I blocked him for six hours for his post on the Mind/body talk page, then saw his comments on Andy's page, claiming that he was leaving.

I don't want to make speculative accusations, but I can't help wondering if Joaquin's departure resulted in part from TK feeding him misinformation about me.

Philip Rayment

Geoffrey Plourde <>, Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:35:11 -0700 (PDT):

I understand your objections. Why are you using RW as a credible source?

"Philip Rayment" <>, Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:13:54 +1000:

Because in this case I could see no sign of an ulterior motive.

I also wasn't building a case on it.

Philip Rayment, Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:06:25 -0700 (PDT):

The situation is confusing. Aside from this topic, we have a user back
in the project on "probation" who has clearly stated that they did not
accept the terms of probation. Point 1

We have a parole officer sysop vs. another sysop with conflicting
views on the user. Philip is making substantial arguments while the
parole officer seems to be defending using the "didn't break any CP
commandment" defense. Point 2

The user on parole has had a history of questionable acts of abuse of
power / intimidation / harsh behaviour / possible troll / opening of
the previous discussion group. Whatever else you'd like to add to the
list. This behaviour has been directed to other editors and towards
some sysops of the project. Point 3

Whatever the outcome of this probation/parole, late-November to early
January was a breath of fresh air for me and perhaps also the project.

"Philip Rayment" <>, Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:27:23 +1000:

No coincidence, I believe.

The one thing that you overlooked (or didn't think worth mentioning) is that
said user has now said that he won't be back.

Philip Rayment, Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:53:26 -0700 (PDT):

Since when? I haven't noticed any statement...?

"Philip Rayment" <>, Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:59:27 +1000:

Ah, Ed wiped it.


Philip Rayment

"Dan Holmes" <>, Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:37:09 -0500:

I don't understand why other users can receive infinite blocks for
"personal remarks" but TK can curse at me and call Philip and I names
constantly and be tolerated.

Ed Poor <>, Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:41:04 -0700 (PDT):

You are free to block TK for cursing or name calling. I told him on
the phone to mind his manners. If he thinks he's immune, he'll find
out the hard way.

I suggest blocks of 1 to 3 days for each offense. That way he'll learn
(I hope).

Ed Poor

2008-04-10 ZB1 Guard Dog question
2008-04-11 ZB1 Conference
2008-04-11 ZB1 How long are we going to tolerate TK?
2008-04-11 ZB1 Allowing liberals to control Conservapedia content
2008-04-11 ZB1 Fair use - I don't want us to get sued

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.