Ladies and gentlemen: We bring you, fresh from the source, two new stories of administrative mal
Firstly, this morning’s usual browsing of the Conservapedia logs revealed the following entry in the Block Log:
- 02:36, 22 May 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked “Wikinterpreter (contribs)” with an expiry time of infinite (intent to cause trouble here, as per https://cpcolumn.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/column-9-on-legitimate-authority-on-conservapedia/#comment-345_)
This is remarkable on two levels. Firstly, if we take a look at the comment quoted, it says the following…
Thanks for the heads up Icewedge!
…which is in reply to the immediately preceding comment:
This will all become moot tonight at 6 E.S.T., when the largest attack on the CP servers to date will be made.
Now, maybe it’s just because I’m a little dense, but I can’t for the life of me see anything related to Wikinterpreter here. As far as I know, Wikinterpreter has never posted here (EDIT: I should read the comments more thoroughly), and since I assume (or at least hope!) that the Conservapedia sysops do not have access to the IP addresses of people posting here, I wouldn’t expect them to know either.
Partly out of curiosity, and partly because this is something that at least tangentially involves me personally, I tried looking further into the matter, and came across another disturbing fact:
- 02:37, 22 May 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) deleted “User talk:Wikinterpreter“
- 02:37, 22 May 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) deleted “User:Wikinterpreter” (https://cpcolumn.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/column-9-on-legitimate-authority-on-conservapedia/#comment-345_ intent to cause trouble)
That’s right. Conservapedia sysops have now begun to delete the user pages of blocked people, making any kind of investigation of their actions through the use of page history virtually impossible. This kind of wanton destruction of, so to say, ‘public records’ really makes my historian’s heart bleed (does that make me a bleeding heart historian? Hm), and is a huge step backwards for transparency on Conservapedia.
I said this was remarkable on two levels. The other level is, of course, that it is explicitly stated on the official page on Differences with Wikipedia that,
15. We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users’ blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.
This must now be said to be factually incorrect, since Wikinterpreter was in fact blocked for making a comment elsewhere (disregarding for the sake of the argument the fact that I can’t actually find the comment in question). Perhaps optimistically, I expect that this policy will now be changed to reflect reality, or that Wikinterpreter be unbanned and some disciplinary action be taken against Sysop Karajou for this breach of policy.
This morning’s second story is about a edit made by Sysop TK on Aulis Eskola’s talk page. I would ask you to examine this edit before reading on.
Now, what is going on here? A Sysop is found altering an entry on a user’s talk page, where he changes two hyperlinks, the one to this Column, the other to Rational Wiki.
I am a little unsure about whether to call this an act of vandalism, but there is a pretty strong case in favor of doing so. If not, this still represents what I think is the greatest departure yet from the otherwise long-standing Conservapedia principle that “a user’s talk page is his castle”. As in the other story above, I expect that policy will either be changed or disciplinary measures taken.
(By the way. Here’s a fun little hypothetical supposition: What do you think would have happened if this had been Sysop TK’s talk page being edited by someone else? Something to think about.)
On another point, the edit confirms what I have suspected for a long time, that there exists a serious misunderstanding about who I am. Sysop TK seems to think that I am actually the same person as Sid_3050, who was banned back in April. I am not quite sure why this misunderstanding exists, because surely a simple examination of the server logs of Conservapedia should quickly be able to disprove that theory.
In any case, it is not correct. I am neither Sid, nor PalMD, Colin_R or any of the other people that TK thinks are associated with the so-called Icewedge Cabal*. I am User:AKjeldsen from Conservapedia, as I also state quite clearly in About the Author I am not a sock puppet of anyone, nor have I ever or will ever use a sock puppet. And given the amount of time and energy I spend criticizing TK here, I think the least he could do is to hate me personally, rather attributing the credit to someone else. If TK is still in any doubt about my identity, I invite him to email me at kjeldsen@villaluisarecords.com (see that? The address has ‘kjeldsen’ in it, too) so we can get this… very, very strange confusion cleared up.
For the rest of you, good night, and good luck.
*The existence of which I can neither confirm nor deny.
The Conservapedia Column 
I suspect the block was actually in response to this comment. Why the block message gives the wrong link, and whether that was [cp:User:Wikinterpreter], I have no idea.
I must conclude that I fail at searching on my own blog. But yes, that’s probably it.
-AKjeldsen
Paranoia rules, as TK browbeats a productive editor for correcting some grammar. Truly, there are enemies everywhere!
I think we’re on the verge of him just deciding any non-sysop who uses a talk page is Icewedge.
Didn’t you know that constructive critisism is the same at a personal attack? I learned this from TK, I had it wrong all these years.
And as for the wikinterperter block, it wouldn’t surprise me if TK or Karagoo posted that comment just so they could block him. Actually, I’m gonna play TK for a minute … YOU’RE ALL SOCKS OF SATAN, EVIL!!!!!
Woohoo, I’m mentioned. I’d like, here, to refute TK’s claim that I haven’t set up my email.
This (http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c54/BlindObserver/?action=view¤t=Picture9.png) would be proof of that, as would my conversations with JLindon (who posts here, so he may be able to confirm it). I now realise to be true what I expected; he just wasn’t listening. See, that’s what happens when you try to bring your ickypedian ‘assume good faith’ here. By the way, here’s the text of that email, so it can be told that it wasn’t spam or hate:
‘Hi!
Anyway, about the blocking thing; I would completely understand if you wished to keep your sources private, but I’m concerned that I might be accidentally suspected.
Is there anything us non-Sysop conservapedians can do to help?
In hope,
Wikinterpreter’
Cloyingly conciliatory, one might say.
Oh, and Karajou, if you’re reading this look between the words ‘some’ and ‘trouble’ on my comment. You’ll find the words ‘perfectly legitimate’ there. That’s just normal editing, by the way.
See normal editing for you means quote mining for them. I don’t think they even do it on purpose, but they can’t process that many words at once, so certain things disappear to make sentences easier to comprehend.
As far as “difference 15”, it was the inversion or perversion of that claim that got me banned. Along with probably half of those who fell on the Night of the Blunt Knives.
Funny … they immediately assume Wikinterperter’s statement (which wasn’t even a threat) was him, but when this:
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=172738
happens, reassurances that its ok fly. Good to see them favoring their own and immediately outcasting anyone with a brain who can think independently.
Meh, sorry, it really was me.
Oh well … it was much more fun to think that TK or Kakagoo framed you. But welcome to the dark side!
Yes, I can confirm that I got the first mail from Wikinterpreter more than a week ago.
And it’s still interesting to see how they “know” who did or didn’t do something, based only on initial attitude. “Oh, I don’t like you, so you said that! You be banned! But that guy is cool with me, so of course that was an impersonator!”
Manipulation of my talk page by operator is unbelievable and not understandable. My virtual personal area has been touched roughly. No common manners there – these are not only wikipedia manners, respecting personal area belongs to generally known manners! I am confused, I don’t know how to continue if I don’t get a ban. Earlier I had some demands in that community how people should behave there and I talked about that but now all has gone so wild…
If one looks at the CP guidelines, it clearly states while a use can put anything they want to one their own pages, they cannot use them to attack/insult/defame other users, or CP.
Someone linking to Rational or this blog, which does nothing but attack/ridicule/defame CP and make personal attacks on the Sysops, would not be allowed. Therefore I can see the alteration of the URL’s, to make them non-functioning, but preserve and not censor the rest of the posts, a viable alternative to deletion.
“Someone linking… this blog, which does nothing but attack/ridicule/defame CP and make personal attacks on the Sysops, would not be allowed.” So my discussion here is “not allowed” because it is “all attacking” – sounds funny when I found nearly all deleted people who had discussed with me. Someone chasing me around net and watching where am I discussing and what (it is easy because I write with my own name)…
Genius!!! Censor ANY MENTION of cpcolumn or rw on cp! Wow! It’s like a divinely inspired idea. We should also consider locking our kids in closets (not a gay ref), burning yucky books, and sewing up everyone’s assholes, cuz their dirty.
Now now, CP can’t get rid of assholes, or how would they discuss anal sex at, uh, “length”?
Plus, without assholes the only sysop left would be Hoji. Just sayin’.
Aulis, remember back in late 2004 when there was that website called “we’re sorry”, and tens of thousands of Americans apologized to the world for somehow letting GWB get “re-elected”? The “people” who are running CP were the ones we were apologizing for.
I am sorry you have had to get a first hand taste of their foul world view and tactics, but I suppose it is sometimes better to know the “enemy” up close.
Luckily, their politics and views are rapidly falling out of favor in American society and politics, the pendulum always swings. And I say luckily for the whole world, as these wingnuts have done irrparable harm to the entire planet and its people, not just us, over the last 6-1/2 years.
can I buy an “e”? irreparable….
TK,
There’s just one thing I don’t understand. You altered the links on Aulis’ talk page to prevent people from coming to the Column. But then the link was placed on your own talk page, which gets a lot more traffic, and you did nothing. I’ve gotten dozens of referrals from both yours and mr. Schlafly’s talk pages, but only a few from Aulis. That does not seem… very consistent, somehow.
-AKjeldsen
Just sgart dropping word at different Nazi/Aryan sites that CP is a good place for them to help educate the people on white supremacy. Nothing makes a group/organization look crackpot faster than support from skinheads.
Ugh. Let’s not, OK?
I’ve got to agree here. We can ‘win’ through the strength of our convictions, not by getting involved in ad hominem arguments and mucky pro-racist websites.
I know, it was a bad joke about vandalism. I would never do such a thing. From what I have been seeing over there, they are attracting some skinheads already. I wonder if CP even realizes some of that stuff is there. Probably not, too busy hunting down the Liberal Dark Army.