sotnd conservaleaks

2008-12-31 ZB1 Review Committee proposal
2008-12-31 ZB1 block policy
2008-12-31 ZB1 5 new Sysops for New Year's
2008-12-31 ZB1 Concerns about CP
2008-12-31 ZB1 TK

5 new Sysops for New Year's

Timothy Svendsen <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:22:02 -0500:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?
title=Proposition_8&diff=563755&oldid=555785 is a more specific link
Mammon is an unforgiving God, I cast him away
I live my life to God, not to get paid
Money can't save your soul, don't think I can
I look to God and I feel like a little man.

Oh, let my pride fall down I'm a little man

   -The O.C. Supertones, "Little Man"

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:27:56 -0800 (PST):

Its all true, she just needed to add sources. Although it should also mention the LDS bashing that anti-8s engaged in.

Timothy Svendsen <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:30:27 -0500:

I support the nomination of hsmom.  She has also made a push for  
honesty on image attribution, which I think is a good idea.

Tim

"I have been crucified with Christ; and
it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me;
and the life which I now live in the flesh
I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me
and gave Himself up for me."
Galatians 2:20

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:23:07 -0800 (PST):

i would agree. Asking privately would be best. I am reminded of a user named Dpbsmith who was an excellent contributor but had no interest in administration.

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:50 -0600:

Hsmom is "mildly forceful", meaning she does confront admins at times if she
feels that something is wrong with an article or a heading, and most
especially on the main talk page.  But her confrontations are nowhere near
what would constitute starting a fight; she identifies what is wrong, and
offers solutions to the problem.  In that regard I have never once read
anything from her that would state "so and so is a moron" or something to
that effect.

RJJensen has contributed a lot; he is a prolific writer, but I have pointed
out that some of his writing is halting and 7th grade level.  We do need
more info from him as to his status, i.e. is he in fact a retired
professor?  If he is, then that means we have a major contributer to the
site.

Bert Schlossberg has also been proliffic, and when he does edit he makes
significant contributions to just a few articles; this has the effect of
making them better as well as extremely detailed.

In short, I am endorsing all three for consideration for sysop.

The others (JPatt, JessicaT, BrianCo, Duncan, Addison) are also endorsed.
The hangups that some of us have (like Bill Bagot's above vis-a-vis Hsmom)
can be resolved via email.

TK is not endorsed at this time.  All of us have to be sure of his
contriteness.

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>wrote:

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:42:50 -0800 (PST):

RJjensen has been confirmed as a retired professor. I still believe in asking him first, because he may want only to contribute.

Andy <Aschla...@aol.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:39:55 -0800 (PST):

(I meant to post the following here, but I see that it was posted by
mistake in the TK thread.  I'm posting it here now)

Thanks for all the comments above, which I reviewed carefully.  I hope
I don't forget anything major in my response:

1.  The point about whether RJJensen wants to be Sysop is a good one.
But only Sysops can protect images, and RJJensen needs to upload
images.  So I'd prefer to give him the privilege and let him object if
he really doesn't want it.  He doesn't have to use the other extra
privileges.

2.  User:Hsmom is borderline for promotion, and you can see at least
one objection above.  I took another look at her edits and it is
mostly copy-edit stuff.  That's fine and helpful, but Sysop privileges
are for more substantive work.  Hsmom will be a top candidate next
time.

3.  I have no way of reaching Jpatt by email, and did try.  But I
don't see any doubts about his authenticity.  Ditto for Jessica.

4.  TK has ruffled feathers on our side, but mostly on the other
side.  He's never vandalized the site and his self-initiated "double
agent" work (which Philip documents in another thread) was merely
that.  It was not a sincere effort to harm the site.  TK was defrocked
by Conservapedia and yet returned to volunteer more, something very
few people would do.  Our general policy has been to restore
privileges to those who make a good faith return and request for
them.  I've done that in the past as a matter of routine.  Given the
strong support by several in this group for TK becoming a Sysop again,
it seems appropriate.  It is needed to protect images.

I hope I covered everything.  I wonder if the promotions should be
accompanied by reasons, such as number or quality of edits, or
something else praiseworthy or witty.  Suggestions welcome for the
list of six.

Andy

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:24:39 -0800 (PST):

Tim, I wish you would stop picking on TK. Are you CPAdmin1? If so, you
have deliberately gone against site policy: you have unblocked several
people /immediately/ after Andy said no one should undo a sysop's
block.

Worse, you claim that since Andy hasn't stopped you it's legitimate.

You really should not be a sysop here any more.

Ed Poor

Timothy Svendsen <timo...@goodcomputerhelp.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:28:29 -0500:

I have not gone deliberately against site policy.  I did not undo  
another sysop's block.  I only undid blocks by non sysops, which is  
what was the consensus understanding of this group.  I asked if I was  
wrong, and Andy did not respond.  I think it is fair to assume that  
if I was wrong, he would have told me so.

Tim
Mammon is an unforgiving God, I cast him away
I live my life to God, not to get paid
Money can't save your soul, don't think I can
I look to God and I feel like a little man.

Oh, let my pride fall down I'm a little man

   -The O.C. Supertones, "Little Man"

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:26:32 -0800:

He didn't undo any Sysop blocks Ed.

Bill  (Learn Together)

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:35:42 -0800:

You followed what you were supposed to as written and even queried the group
for input.  Normally there would be no condemnation for that and instead you
would be viewed favorably.  This is a rather odd setting and I'm afraid we
haven't done much to help prepare you for your future.  Please realize as
you go forward in life that if you do the same thing that you did here, it
will go well for you.

Bill  (Learn Together)

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:41:37 -0800 (PST):

bill you might want to email him directly as he has been removed from this group.

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:59:06 -0800:

Thank you.  I did email him this correspondence as I felt it was important
for him to know.  Sometimes the dynamics here do not mirror the outside
world, and that is something he should be aware of.  Most of us are a bit
worn under the collar, but especially for the younger set who hope to learn
from us, it's part of our responsibility to guide them the best we can for
their own futures.

Bill  (Learn Together)

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:38:54 -0800:

Now that Bugler has admitted that he was a parodist, it brings up an
interesting point -- Tim was right.  It was a position for which he received
little support, but much condemnation, when he undid unwarranted blocks that
Bugler laid down.

It also makes me question my own role that while I recognized Bugler for
what he was, I did far less to confront it than Tim did -- limiting myself
to raising questions about his nomination for sysop and a need for him to
work well with others (which of course he never did -- a parodist wouldn't
want to).      

Parodists believe they have found a 'blind spot' in Andy's vision where they
can hide and he can not recognize them.  It is up to each of us to help and
give clear vision when we recognize the signs.  Now that they believe they
have found a formula that gets by Andy, we can expect many others to pick up
the same mantle for the detriment of our site.  It is important that we are
on our guard in this area.

Bill  (Learn Together)

"Jessica Kotomi Tanaka" <kotomi.tan...@gmail.com>, Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:33:50 +0200:

I must admit, as one who tangled with Bugler (and RodWeathers), I have to
agree with LearnTogether, Bugler was allowed to get away with chasing away
an untold number of editors (although he did his fair share of removing
other vandals and parodists too). That was one of the reasons why I started
highlighting the need for some sort of review process, or at least a system
where those who were blocking unfairly (as Bugler was) can not ride
roughshod over the appeal process via the 'abuse page'.

Maybe their departure has reduced the need for these processes, but we need
to be very careful in future.
Jessica

2009/1/2 Bill Bagot <wbag...@san.rr.com>

"Terry" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Fri, 2 Jan 2009 05:10:50 -0800:

Well, Tim was partially right.  Undoing blocks has always been wrong.  And
in spite of what I am reading from others here, Andy was correct in stating
it is against long-standing policy.  When I first became an Administrator,
in March of 2007, the practice was common and it was utter chaos. A week
later Ed Poor was promoted. Colin Reimer who came in about that time was one
of the founders of RatWiki.  His constant arguments without end, along with
those of that horrid AmesG and Sid, had the place a constant battle ground.
Their tactics are little changed.  The commonality with recent history is
Admins reverting blocks without consultation, and constantly, publicly,
arguing policy and ideology.

I am confident Brian and Dean will concur, we don't have the luxury of
relying only on editor "assurances" and/or merely looking at contributions.
We have had a few, like Colin, Hoji and Tmtoulouse reach this level and have
been proved later to be imposters, parodists and vandals.  All three are now
RatWiki bureaucrats, and Tim's editing there has picked up considerably, and
don't be surprised if he is soon a sysop there.  Many of the blocks that
others think unfair that Tim (and others) have objected to recently when
checked, are good and very valid.  Those of us with Check User know how it
works, and we can see the long lists of blocked vandals and parodists
editing from the exact same IP, going back months.  Sometimes there is no
activity at all for a month or two, then it is used again and fresh batches
of vandal/parodists arrive.  That is when we range block. We can see what
IP's are confirmed proxy servers used and even listed on RW.  And face
facts; if we blocked the entire country of Syria or Russia, have we really
lost good editors coming to us?

In looking at Bugler's blocks, randomly, I don't see any "good" editors
driven off.  Many of them were most likely good socks of vandals and
parodists, possibly socks of Bugler himself, who isn't really "Bugler"
anyway, but rather most likely our old friend Sid. The point is, their goal
is to reach this place. Aside from being bombastic perhaps, their role is to
be conservative, be Christian and not obviously or often block known good
editors.

For the uninitiated here, I have downloaded to our file area: "The
Information Warrior's Handbook" that first appeared on RW in June of 2007.
It is as good a guide as any for you to learn many of the tactics employed
by RatWiki, and perhaps you will recognize some of the ploys.

*       Terry

2009/1/2 Bill Bagot <wbag...@san.rr.com>

Now that Bugler has admitted that he was a parodist, it brings up an
interesting point -- Tim was right.  It was a position for which he received
little support, but much condemnation, when he undid unwarranted blocks that
Bugler laid down.

It also makes me question my own role that while I recognized Bugler for
what he was, I did far less to confront it than Tim did -- limiting myself
to raising questions about his nomination for sysop and a need for him to
work well with others (which of course he never did -- a parodist wouldn't
want to).

Parodists believe they have found a 'blind spot' in Andy's vision where they
can hide and he can not recognize them.  It is up to each of us to help and
give clear vision when we recognize the signs.  Now that they believe they
have found a formula that gets by Andy, we can expect many others to pick up
the same mantle for the detriment of our site.  It is important that we are
on our guard in this area.

Bill  (Learn Together)

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:58:11 -0800:

Only undoing blocks of other Sysops has been wrong, and Tim was adhering to
that policy.  Tim said he was only unblocking the people who obviously
shouldn't have been blocked.  The first one I found met that criteria.  I'd
imagine if I looked further I would find others.  That's the nature of the
role that Bugler chose - go way overboard in blocking people and see if
anyone notices it since he's also blocking vandals.

Bill  (Learn Together)

"Terry" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Fri, 2 Jan 2009 13:00:56 -0800:

That is patently false, Bill.

Several of the un-blocks I forwarded to the other Senior Admins.  If he
didn't use CheckUser, than it is worse than I imagined, but two of the most
recent were indeed socks of proven vandals.  He undid range blocks that
covered a known anonymous proxy.  And you are also wrong about the
unblocking issue.  When I was an Admin the first time, we specifically said,
and Andy agreed, contact the blocker first, and ask about it.  At that time,
we didn't draw some silly line between Admins and those with only blocking,
etc.  That was because Andy was concerned about the message publicly undoing
another's blocks sent. It is insulting and high-handed, and certainly
wouldn't be tolerated without previous discussion, in business, as Andy
stated.

*       Terry

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:30:12 -0800:

No my friend.  Sysops have always had authority over non-sysops.  I
understood that when I had blocking rights before becoming a sysop.  You may
wish to look at your own block history.  When you were blocked not long ago
how quickly did sysops jump in and unblock you?  Are you saying they were
breaking the rules and your block should have stood?  Forgive me my friend,
but I can't remember you making that point at that time.

Bill  (Learn Together)

"Terry" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:36:11 -0800:

Bill as the person who was here before you, I must inform you, that you are
wrong.  We had authority over, but Andy always maintained, we should discuss
before undoing blocks of those with blocking ability.  PJR, Fox, others
always insisted it was their right to do so.  It wasn't.

Given what Andy recently posted here, about my activities, so much discussed
back then, there was absolutely no foundation for my block, either in secret
rules here, or those posted on CP.  PJR has been refuted and ruled
incorrect.  Fox has been found to be an imposter, as I told you and all
Admins, over a year ago.  So I would think you especially, having the
benefit of my counsel all along, wouldn't doubt me when I say BrianCo is
also a sock, since I was 100% correct about Fox, and anyone reading RW even
casually, and his admissions since being booted there, would know it.

Do you really want to insist on bringing all this up again, Bill?  That is
exactly what PJR insisted upon.  I think it is extremely unfair for you or
anyone else here, to keep alluding to how I was treated, over and over.  Did
I come back here, and instantly keep making the point that I was treated
fairly by only Andy, Ed, Geo and Dean? No.  I left the past where it
belongs.  And I am still trying to.  Tim and Philip couldn't manage it.

I beg of you and others to accept Andy's judgment and decision to bring me
back.  If you cannot, I will leave because I don't think it right to impose
my presence on any of you, if you continue to feel so strongly.

*       Terry

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Fri, 2 Jan 2009 23:16:44 -0800:

My friend I am not in any way questioning your return.  You misunderstand
the post.  And I am aware of your strong convictions in regard to Fox and
others, but I must respectfully disagree.  Fox was a difficult editor, not
an impostor.  You and he certainly had troubles with each other, but even
that is unimportant.

I was only pointing out that under the standard that you say has been in
place, you could not have been unblocked.  That you were, and presumably
were pleased to have that occur, shows that there has been a long term
understanding that sysops do oversee site activities and have authority over
non-sysops.  In the case of a parodist with blocking powers, this is
especially important.

Peace to you,

Bill   (Learn Together)

Ed Poor <uncle_ed_p...@yahoo.com>, Sat, 3 Jan 2009 06:09:14 -0800 (PST):

Please use the Zeuglodon interface - rather than posting from your
email program. It formats things more nicely.

And speaking of "more nicely", let's leave the treatment issue in the
past, where it belongs. Andy has reinstated TK, and as far as I'm
concerned that means he starts with a clean slate. (Whether it's
because it was wiped or because it had been clean all along is not a
subject we need to be concerned with: that is between him and Andy.)

Fox was not a good sysop. TK discovered that, with some help from me.
Although some of his contributions were good, they weren't good enough
for Andy. It is not this group which promotes or demotes, but Andy
himself. We merely advise.

Let's give it a rest, and turn to more important business.

Ed

2008-12-31 ZB1 Review Committee proposal
2008-12-31 ZB1 block policy
2008-12-31 ZB1 5 new Sysops for New Year's
2008-12-31 ZB1 Concerns about CP
2008-12-31 ZB1 TK

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.