Sysop:Talk/Archive 1

A hangout place for Conservapedia Sysops

(Sysops: please mark this page as watched)

You might wonder who our Sysops are. We have 33 Sysops. Only one of them is related to me, and we often disagree with each other.

I first met most of our Sysops online through this website. Our Sysops reflect all political views, and nearly all time zones. We have several from Britain, several from Australia and at least one from Canada.

Some of our Sysops are high school and college students.

Sysops are promoted based on initiative and merit, not ideology.--Aschlafly 21:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

User:SirCliff

I've blocked this user indefinitely, mainly on the basis of an article that he created titled Membrum Virile and with content claiming that it was an ancient lay Catholic order with some unusual practices. However, all I can find on the topic via Google is that Membrum Virile is a reference to the penis.

His other edits do appear from a quick look to be reasonably accurate if a bit flippant, but I wonder if someone should investigate them a bit closer. Also of some concern is the favourable post about that article that user:CatWatcher put on SirCliff's talk page.

Philip J. Rayment 05:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I'll investigate further. It's fine to block an account when in doubt, as we can always unblock it further investigation warrants reinstatement.--Aschlafly 08:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

He has several sockpuppets. Geo.Talk 17:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Vulgar metaphors on the page Talk:Theory of evolution

Ladies and gentlemen, the debate on the above page is getting increasingly vulgar. Here is the latest example:

Vulgarity TerryH? Are you as clueless of the definition of that word as you are of evolution? Please.

In any case, both Dimensio and Murray are quite right (as was I): evolution does not give a rat's behind whether a god or gods exist or don't exist, it is utterly irrelevant to the theory.

Now, what Dawkins writes regarding theology is his own opinion and has no bearing on the science of evolution. As Dimensio says, Dawkins is a piss-poor theologian and his arguments, poor as they are, are his own. In my opinion, both theists and atheists, especially of the rabid variety (Benny Hinn and Richard Dawkins) are intellectual fools: as any deities would exist in the realm of the paranormal, there is no way to either prove nor disprove their existence -- arguing vehemently and vociferously on either side of the equation is a waste of brain cells. Personally, I don't care if deities exist, I'm more concerned with being a good father, good friend, etc. NousEpirrhytos 07:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Urine, ladies and gentlemen? And the pudendum of Rattus rattus? And the saliva of hamsters, which was what I originally replied to and cited as vulgar? (In addition to User NousEpirrhytos, the other offender is User Dimensio.)

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm too close to this. But if someone is going to use vulgar metaphors, then I think perhaps some short-term blocks would be in order--perhaps for a day or two or three. But rather than take that action unilaterally (because it might appear to be self-serving), I now lay it before you all.--TerryH^Talk 08:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

"Pudendum - The human external genital organs, especially of a woman. Often used in the plural". Explain yourself Terry.

In any case the use of "behind" in "rat's behind" is a euphemism. I would tell what we would say in Australia but I suspect it might cause trouble. --Horace 08:28, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps I ought to have said "haunch." In any case, ought we to permit people to use metaphors that speak of urine and haunches and saliva? I thought that minors used this site.

Oh, and one more thing: shouldn't this page be protected?--TerryH^Talk 08:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you mean protected from me? --Horace 08:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

No obscenity is allowed, even on talk pages. This is an absolute rule. The user above is going to be warned of blocking, at a minimum. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, the continued fighting there is permeating the site, and many are just growing weary of a few who just cannot stop arguing the issue. Can't we just lock it all down until the Students come up with an answer? --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 08:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

TerryK, you never cease to amaze me. --Horace 09:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? You should try my Gin Fizzes! --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 09:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought the evolution page was locked until the students address it (they have made progress). If not, feel free to do so. This page is now locked since it is a Sysop page. User NousEpirrhytos has been warned of blocking, and I'll warn User Dimensio next. Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

FYI, the article is locked, but the talk page is not locked.

And (*sigh*) I find this next report almost as distasteful as my earlier report on vulgar metaphors. But have any of you had a gander at this latest highly disrespectful side discussion? Il Unione Siciliano, AKA La Cosa Nostra ("Our Thing")? Please. Argumentum ad hominem is bad enough--but how much blatant disrespect for authority must we tolerate?--TerryH^Talk 10:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The likely problem with this sort of thing is in deciding what is vulgar and what isn't. I know that some things that Americans consider vulgar Australians wouldn't, and vice versa, and some things I consider vulgar other Australians wouldn't (Horace, I know what you are referring to, but personally I wouldn't use that term. By the way, I didn't realise that you were another skip; have you seen the {{Aussie}} template?). Some terms there would be no question about, but other, more borderline ones, might genuinely be considered acceptable by some and not by others. Is there any way of having a Conservapedia standard on what's acceptable and what's not short of drawing up a list of unacceptable terms? Philip J. Rayment 10:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Guidelines would be fine, we do want to keep the rules and regulations to a minimum here, in contrast with Wikipedia. Sysops have discretion and authority, and we do ban obscenity. Generally unintellectual comments are disfavored. A comment like "Piss-poor" wouldn't be tolerated in a good university homework assignment, so why should we?--Aschlafly 11:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I smell a Conservapedia:Standard emerging:

unintellectual comments are disfavored
good university homework assignment

I'd translate this into a guideline as, "Avoid unintellectual article comments and strive to make articles of a quality which is on par with a good university homework assignment." I'll settle for a good high school homework assignment, especially when starting an article (see stub). --Ed Poor 05:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Namespace Filters for Contrib Pages

Ladies and gents, can't we have a namespace filter for the special pages on user contributions? How can we judge an editor's substantive contributions when, half the time, we can't even find any among the most recent fifty contribs, because that editor has spent so much time getting hot and heavy in the Talk or User talk namespaces? I realize that this might constitute a valid criticism of that editor--and I intend no special pleading on my own part for having begun in this project largely by engaging in futile and unseemly flame wars (for which I apologize). But in all fairness, we ought to be able to find the pages that any user has made substantive (i.e., non-minor) edits to, or better yet created, so that we can better judge the value of his contributions to the project.

I propose that when you look up contributions, you have the option of searching either all namespaces, or just the main (article) namespace, or any other namespace you want to pick. And if we have that capability already, I'd like to know what I'm missing, and suggest that the method appear on this page so that every sysop knows how to conduct such a filtered search.--TerryH^Talk 09:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Directions Provided

Well, after publishing the above, I got the instructions--and from Sid 3050. Give that man credit for a very helpful suggestion.

In case anyone hasn't seen it yet, whenever we search any page for user contributions, keywords, or whatever, we can select either all namespaces, or any particular namespace. The filter appears immediately below the set of links to various logs. The minor edits still present a problem--but such filtering is a powerful tool indeed.--TerryH^Talk 09:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate Topics Falling Into Main Namespace

I hate to tell everybody, but prefixing "Debate:" in front of various debate-topic titles succeeds only in throwing it back into the Main namespace. Somebody needs to create a new, specific namespace for debate topics. The chief benefit would be to allow people to search for debate topics more readily (in case they didn't get added to the Debate Topics page), and to allow those of us who want to judge people's contributions, to separate article edits from debate postings and judge these separately.--TerryH^Talk 12:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Novel Cover Art

User Additioner has been uploading some book-cover images to Conservapedia. Now I don't have a problem with that, so long as we restrict the use of those images to articles about the books themselves. Under United States law, such use constitutes fair use. But the uploader ought to state that explicitly in the image summary when he does an upload.--TerryH^Talk 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed! There are many images, seemingly belonging "nowhere". --~ TK ^MyTalk 17:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest putting the images on watch. Don't delete yet, someone may be working on articles for them. ColinR^talk 17:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, especially images of "donuts"! --~ TK ^MyTalk 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocked Users

Please take special care to protect the pages of blocked users, to prevent vandalism and such. Especially if the ban isn't infinite. Additionally if not protected, it seems to be a posting spot for socks, etc. --~ TK ^MyTalk 18:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Sock Ring

If you review my recent blocks, you'll notice a large number of accounts with names on a similar pattern; generally six characters long, first and fourth characters capital letters, the rest random letters/numbers. Each of these accounts shared an IP with at least one other in the same group. If you notice a similar username in the User creation log, it might be an idea to run them through CheckUser. Tsumetai 04:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

What is the "check user" function? --~ TK ^MyTalk 05:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

CheckUser allows sysops to see a list of IP addresses used by any given account, and a list of accounts which have used any given IP address. Tsumetai 05:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Update: That makes 30 accounts in the last three days. Tsumetai 09:18, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This might sound kind of crazy, but I think we're being raided again. Or someone's trying to prepare for a raid and you just shut them down heh.NSmyth 9:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Very well done, Tsumetai! I had not caught that myself.--Aschlafly 09:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Block Policy

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Plase Vote on the Policy Here.--CPAdmin1 10:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you had better start communicating. I think if you did, it would be explained to you, so you won't embarrass yourself further. --~ TK ^MyTalk 23:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am Attempting to comunicate here, i am proposing a block policy to make things easier for everyone. --CPAdmin1 10:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

This is the best thing to come along about this topic/problem/issue which I've seen since I got here. Regardless of whether or not this policy proposal gets elevated to a guideline, it's an excellent effort. It's also a creative masterwork of compromise and negotiation and balance. It's what *I* wish I had come up with, but I am frankly not a good enough writer to do it. I may not agree with every jot and tittle, but it is certainly something I can live with; I've already started to try to conform my actions to it. --Ed Poor 20:52, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the compliment. If there are any changes you would propose please post them on my talk page or the talk page for the proposed policy. --CPAdmin1 20:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I am happy Ed, you were asked for input. Not all of us were. That is the problem I have with it, same as Andy. And, since it has already been moved to vote, it is disingenuous and corrupt to make changes after people have voted. Since I am their primary target, and they refuse to communicate with me, but just post public charges and defamation's here, and privately denigrate and disrespect me, I have told Andy I will be fine with it, if he feels the need to remove me, or ask for my resignation. --~ TK ^MyTalk 20:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what I just posted on the talk page for the proposed policy.

I posted on the Conservapedia:Sysops Page asking all of the sysops including you for input Here, and I asked you personally for input Here. I meant to post the first message on your talk page when I posted it on others, but I accidentally missed you. I am doing my best to try to involve you in the development of this policy, but all you have offered so far is insults. Please make suggestions. --CPAdmin1 23:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of what you think of my proposal, do you see recognize the need to have a block policy? --CPAdmin1 00:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do. One considered by Andy, Bureaucrats and Sysops and hashed out at least a bit, before springing it publicly. That way keeps people from feeling they have been backed into a corner, Tim. You are so snide! I posted several times in the beginning about needing some codified rules of procedure for Sysops, before and after being made a Sysop. Ask Ed Poor, it is a constant subject of our conversations! Since you only communicate with other "elites", you wouldn't know the great lengths I always go to before blocking others. I check with other Sysops, via IM or email, or in IRC. I check with Andy. And then after all that, along comes "Elite CPAdmin1" and Benjamin, making a snide remark in the summary, and undoing it. And if that wasn't enough, you denigrate me to others, questioning my mental state. You messaged with others about drawing up the "proposed" rules, but excluded others. That is not exactly bridge-building, or being fair. And through all these dozens of posts, you still refuse to make contact, and resolve it, as Ed Poor suggested to you. --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Malicious Redirect

Someone has set up right-wing-masturbapedia.com as a redirect to conservapedia.com; take a look here for more info. Tsumetai 07:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think there's anything we can do about that... MountainDew 23:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

No, there really isn't. If they want to spend $5 a month just to do that, I could care less. --<<-David R->> 23:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

This is defamation. i will bring this to Andy's attention. Geo.Talk 18:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the redirect simply sends us new visitors. As said above, if they want to spend their money and time doing that, albeit in an offensive way, I'm not sure why we should care.

Thanks to User:Conservative for blocking one of the perpetrators promptly from this site.--Aschlafly 18:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It means that, hopefully, someone will some day find a Conservapedia page on Google that points to a right wing masturbapedia URL. Copied from blog entry by owner. Geo.Talk 18:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

That's already happening. The redirect is showing up in various Google searches on 'conservapedia + (something else).' One would think DreamHost would have a policy against this. Tsumetai 18:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)