Column 13: 1934, Revisited

Ladies and gentlemen. A day has come, a day which we all knew had to come sooner or later. The page Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse has been locked, along with its Talk page. As of today, there is no official place on Conservapedia where users can publicly complain about misbehaviour on the part of Conservapedia Sysops. (As an aside, it will come as no surprise to see Sysop:TK acting as the locking sysop.)
This was a logical move. The administrative history of Conservapedia shows – as has been extensively covered in previous Columns – a long and consistent trend towards favoring the rights of Sysops and diminishing the rights of common editors. High points in this was the the establishment of the almost farcial Student Panel, the gradual introduction of the Guidelines, and of course the completely extralegal Nights of the Blunt Knives on May 16th and 17th. The locking of this page is simply the logical conclusion of this development.

Actually – and this may come as a surprise – I think this locking is a good thing. More or less everyone who has spent just a little time with Conservapedia will know that the Sysop Abuse page has always been a complete scam. No user has ever gotten anything out of posting complaints on that page; except for a quick boot to the backside, of course. At least now, the management has stopped its futile attempts to delude the editors and is saying straight out in the open: “You have no rights.” This is, strange as it may seem, a move towards transparency. RobS makes it quite clear in a comment on RationalWiki:

Wow. You finally figured that out. I thought it couldn’t be more plain [2]
Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks
This a guideline. It has received approval from senior staff and Mr. Schlafly. It is an adjunct to the Commandments.
  • Sysop’s and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked. RobS 12:00, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

In other words: Sysops are infallible and incapable of misbehaviour, and their word is law. Thus, there is no possible reason why anyone would need to complain about any one of them.

Actually, this subject has already been discussed in a Column. As has pointed out back in Column 9: On Legitimate Authority, authority on Conservapedia has never been based on the legal rules. Rather, it is based in a shared charisma that originates with the leader, mr. Schlafly. Charismatic authority is almost by definition opposed to impersonal rules and the rule of law, so this whole development is all too natural.

I would suggest that Conservapedia continue this development by removing the rules pages and those silly Guidelines, and instead simply introduce a new rules page that says: “The only rules on Conservapedia is the Will of the Leader and the words of the Sysops. Conform or leave.” At that point, few people will be in doubt of exactly what is going on and that, at least, must be called a victory for transparency.

Good night, and good luck.


59 Responses to “Column 13: 1934, Revisited”

  1. 1 PalMD June 12, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    BTW, your article on legitimate authority was brilliant. And I get nothing for kissing your ass either.

  2. 2 conservative June 13, 2007 at 12:16 am

    I checked out the claim that Sysop abuse article/page was locked and it appears to be semi-locked (only open to registered users). It seems to me that a Wiki called RationalWiki would do a better job of fact checking and not engage in the dissemination of “crank ideas”. Pehaps you do not live up to your name? Say it isn’t so!

  3. 3 conservative June 13, 2007 at 12:24 am

    By the way, I am sending a message to TK regarding this latest instance of the “Rational”Wiki/Conservapedia Column crowd making fools of themselves.

  4. 4 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 12:38 am

    You comment would appear to be true. Oops, did I just admit I was wrong? That means there is a 99% chance that I’m a conservative, because I admitted my error…wait, actually, I MADE and error, so there is a 97% chance im a liberal…wait, Im using mockery, so that’s up to 99%…wait, im confused..

  5. 5 Todd Larason June 13, 2007 at 12:39 am

    And boy, did you send TK that message. And send it, and send it, and send it.

    Did you check the edit history of C:SaAA while you were there? If so, you might have seen:

    15:30, 12 June 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) m (Protected “Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse” [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
    20:37, 11 June 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) m (Protected “Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse” [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

    In other words, TK did in fact protect the page, then (after this column was published) unprotected it.

  6. 6 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 12:39 am

    OK, got it now…if the sysop complaint page comment was made in error, then Im conservative, if it was a deliberate deception, then Im a liberal, unless i simultaneously believe in school prayer, in which case, im AC/DC

  7. 7 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 12:39 am

    Ok, wait, I made a confession that I didn’t need to..that makes me…Catholic!

  8. 8 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 12:44 am

    “Where’s your Messiah now?”

  9. 9 Cracker June 13, 2007 at 12:45 am

    Hello User:C.
    You will not notice that it has been locked since you are a sysop and the locks won’t show up as locks.

    Here follow this here link:


  10. 10 conservative June 13, 2007 at 12:57 am

    Todd Larason, CP was hiccuping and caused the multiple entries. It must be the relative high demand on our computer system compared to RationalWiki. I think the old Atari computers could handle the processing demands of RationalWiki!

  11. 11 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 1:01 am

    Well, as far as I could determine from the page history, it was locked when I wrote the Column. Conservapedia seems to be unavailable at the moment, so I can’t see the status now.


  12. 12 Todd Larason June 13, 2007 at 1:20 am

    That’s an impressive hiccup — not only did it duplicate the post, but it added quotes around “enemies” on a couple of the dupes.

    And I see you’ve been taking lessons from RobS — focus on the side matters rather than the simple fact that you were flat wrong.

  13. 13 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 1:26 am

    Alright. So now it is [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]. I assume that means those who have been granted those new special privileges are allowed to edit it. It seems to me that they are going to be the exact same people who will have the *least* reason to complain about a Sysop, so I’m going to stand by the essence of my point.


  14. 14 conservative June 13, 2007 at 1:34 am

    Todd, methinks you protest too much. My terminal wasn’t letting me know the previous entries were entered.

    As far as TK protecting the page in question, I do know that the previous complainers did not cite their alleged abuse complaints but were rather vague. I will also note that the “Queens” who well may have been socks ( ) were making a nuisance of themselves with their vague complaints. Perhaps that is why TK locked the page.

  15. 15 Aziraphale June 13, 2007 at 3:14 am


    I’m not usually a part of the argue-y crowd, but…

    “methinks thou dost protest too much” is usually used to mean “you’re claiming you didn’t do X so much that it indicates you feel guilty about doing X.” He’s not claiming not to have done something, he’s repeating the charge that you sent your post several times, pointing out that an edit occurred at some point in the process. On the other hand, you *did* repeatedly claim that there was no “hard” (my word, not yours) lock. Several times. In fact, the post that you mistakenly multi-posted to TK was pointing to the “mistake” here which you felt proved the “bungling” of this crowd.

    A bungle, by the way, that you just conceded wasn’t a bungle at all: “Perhaps that is why TK locked the page.” Concession or not (I can smell the rebuttal coming), a simple plain-text reading of the logs (a “literalist” interpretation, even) confirms the earlier, “hard” lock.

    Honestly, if you spend some time re-reading the thread to refresh your memory, and re-read your own posts once or twice before submitting them, you’ll avoid these sorts of things. PalMD was actually trying to have a reasonable conversation earlier with you, and you were doing the same. This backsliding thread for you is disappointing.

  16. 16 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 3:21 am

    BTW, my “where’s your Messiah” comment isn’t some anti-Christian joke, just an ironic movie quote. I assume you know the movie.

  17. 17 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 3:23 am

    Hint, starts with “The” ends with “Commandments”, stars Charleton Heston

  18. 18 Todd Larason June 13, 2007 at 4:01 am

    Oooh ooh, I know this one! It’s a number, right?

    20! The 20 Commandments!

  19. 19 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 4:06 am

    623 you moron

  20. 20 human June 13, 2007 at 4:10 am

    Doc, your meds are showing 😉

  21. 21 human June 13, 2007 at 4:12 am

    God Hates Trilobites

    so much so that he exctincted them before creating the Young Earth.

    Ooh, that’s a good name for a TV show. Only the British could get it right… “The Young Earth”… picture the Young Ones crossed with a typical megachurch-going family…

  22. 22 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 4:16 am

    Your right, i over estimated a little. It’s 613.

  23. 23 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 4:18 am

    Apparently Ken has a life and decided not to stay up and educate me about the history of medicine.

  24. 24 Todd Larason June 13, 2007 at 4:51 am

    How many of these do I have to follow to be a good Jew?

    I’ve managed not to break #s 601 or 603, at the very least.

  25. 25 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 4:56 am

    Apparently ALL of them. Don’t forget to read the various commentaries and interpretations. You can pick up a used Talmud for cheap, if you find a big enough truck.
    And ignore the part about turtledoves

  26. 26 Todd Larason June 13, 2007 at 6:39 am

    Whoever wrote these really seems negative on idols.

    139 through 156 are oddly specific. Are other relations okay?

    re: #185 — are there kosher maggots?

    For #602 and 603, is one required to besiege a city in order to affirmitively abide by the rule, or is one okay if one simply doesn’t besiege any cities to begin with?

    This is more complicated than the Unitarianism I grew up in.

  27. 27 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 7:09 am

    If you really loved God, you’d stop asking so many questions.

  28. 28 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 7:38 am

    Judaism has lots of rules, both written and unwritten, but is often quite flexible about them as well.

    There are some funny stories about that. If I had gotten more than about four hours sleep tonight, I might even have been able to remember some of them.

  29. 29 RobS June 13, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Kjeldsen says,

    “this whole development is all too natural”

    Wow again. “New development.” Very good, very intellectual-like sounding, only it is not a “new development”. It has been in place for months, near the founding of CP.

    What are we to accredit the slow learning curve exhibited by premier analysts of the RW cabal to? My mother taught me to play nice, so sarcasm and insults are out of place. Please, if you had any questions, CP Sysops have always been available to assist, only many if not most of the RW cabal has seen fit to spit in the eye of any good faith CP Sysops and editors have extended. So be it. It’s been you choice and decision.

  30. 30 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Welcome, RobS. I hope you’re going to stick around and offer your opinion on the posts. It’s so boring to only preach for the choir.

    I don’t agree with you that there hasn’t been any development in the administration of Conservapedia. Sure, there may have been a consistent unspoken policy all along, but it’s more the public impression I’m interested in here.

    After all, the Sysop Abuse page was created at one point, and existed for quite some time, and as long as it did, it also implied that it was possible to file a complaint about a Sysop. The

    So the ‘development’ I’m talking about is more one of a sort of gradual movement away from the preconceived notions of editor’s rights that new members bring over from especially Wikipedia, and towards the more authoritarian ideal that you were aiming for.

    It’s quite pedagogical, actually. If you had just stated right from the start that, “This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia, and YOU have no rights”, you probably wouldn’t have attracted many members.

    But instead, you have said, “This is not Wikipedia, but we have a few simple rules, and you have some rights to do this and this”, and then proceeded to gradually erode those rules and rights so it wouldn’t be as noticeable. By now, you have actually established a status quo that new members are more likely to just accommodate themselves to, rather than question it.

    That’s the kind of development I’m talking about, and I’m actually quite impressed with it.


  31. 31 Raptor94HD-C3 June 13, 2007 at 6:24 pm


    Always nice to waste time reading posts by EuroSocialists….I think you are full of [[deceit]].

  32. 32 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 7:00 pm

    Sorry, raptor, cant wikilink here.
    Anyway, User:TK has always been clear that there are really no rights as an editor. He, at least, has been forthright. I do not think that others have been quite so honest. Rob, as usual, I have difficulty parsing your prose, but AK seems to have cleared it up. Please, continue to contribute.

  33. 33 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    I may be a EuroSocialist, but – and I find this quite ironic – they did actually teach me about the Ten Commandments in school. As a matter of fact, we have a whole subject for several years in primary school devoted mostly to teaching Christianity.

    So by the Conservapedia logic, that should make me incapable of deceit, right?

  34. 34 darkshadow June 13, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    And it makes you a Conservative too.

  35. 35 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 7:54 pm

    You’re right!

    Oh noes!

  36. 36 Todd Larason June 13, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    But which numbering of the 10 commandments did they teach you? If they used the wrong one, it may not count.

    I went to religious-affiliated schools from 3rd grade through college graduation (Presbyterian, Catholic, and Methodist). Only the Catholic highschool had prayers in the classes, though, so that may be why I didn’t get saved.

  37. 37 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 9:31 pm

    The numbering of the Commandments is certainly different in different religions. And as far as living by them, what a SHITTY idea…i COMPLETELY disagree with those who say that they are a reasonable non-denominational starting point for morals. For instance, ILL MAKE ANY IDOLS I WANT, THANK YOU. The decalog just doesnt fit into a pluralistic society.

  38. 38 RobS June 14, 2007 at 1:52 am

    Thanks all for tbe kind reception. The Sysop page was created at a point when we had two identified subversive infiltrators among the Sysops. One of them may have even been the one who created it, off hand I’m not sure. One of them infact made a policy proposal on blocking, which would have severely restricted the power us Sysop had. Some Sysops may have not realized how detrimental the proposal would have been, and tentatatively voted for it. But the policy proposal itself was a dead give away of the infiltrator–it was asking Andy to change what he had implemented, and turn it into a bickering bureaucracy like WP, with a facade of rules for editors, when we all know who’s really in charge anyway.

    The WP entry on CP basically has it correct, WP has NPOV, and CP “does not block for ideology”. In WP supposedly everything is “neutral”, but we know that’s BS and a “cabal” ultimately dictates what is retained and what gets deleted, and who is in favor and who is a “problem editor”, etc. By contrast, CP is moreless setup as a battleground, I only wish civility was more of a rule. It seems to encourage trolls more than reasoned debate, which is disheartening.

    Andy’s overall objective is KISS, keep it simple, and he doesn’t want to become overburdened with rules. So much is delegated, and not delegated directly. Sysops just step up where their talents lie. We’re having a challenge right now, one Sysop is rather adament about drawing a hard partisan line in a debate over what does it mean to be a Christian. This is where implementing the idea that WP pretends to have, that ArbCom doesn’t get involved content disputes (though we know it is a all a matter of who your friends are) needs to be taken seriously. In this particular case, the Sysop not having WP experience, is a drawback. None of us wish to debate who is and who isn’t a Christian in public (and we wouldn’t in private either). So we’ll just have to suffer through the growth process, and if it means airing dirty laundry in public occassionaly, that may happen.

  39. 39 RobS June 14, 2007 at 2:14 am

    ADDENDUM: In fact it was ColinR who created the Sysop Abuse page. Now, not to be critical or crowing, this attempt was exposed for what is was several weeks ago. Nobodies taken that Sysop Abuse page serious (then or now, to be frank). It probably ultimately will be deleted (we’ve already joked how next time it gets attacked, rather than lock it, we’ll just deleted, cause locking it sure seems to upset whoever’s trying to get at it.

  40. 40 PalMD June 14, 2007 at 2:16 am

    Been watching that one. I think it hurts everyone, but it’s Andy’s playground. He can always take the kid’s ball away. When we put up the (IMHO) good articles about scientology, they actually prevailed over the one contentious editor, but I suppose other pressures dictated their removal. Pissing off Mormans probably isn’t nice, but some people are stubborn. I’m pretty much a hard liner here…all religions seem goofy if they aren’t yours. If it isn’t clearly a fringe cult, let it be. Mormons have unusual beliefs, but really, not that much weirder than mine or yours.

  41. 41 Linus June 14, 2007 at 2:31 am

    Any chance of adding BLogs 4 Moonbats to the blogroll, AK?

  42. 42 Todd Larason June 14, 2007 at 3:38 am

    RobS, I’m not sure I’m interpreting you properly, but you seem to be saying that Conservative doesn’t have any Wikipedia experience.

    Are you not aware that he’s WP user Kdbuffalo?

  43. 43 Fabio June 14, 2007 at 7:49 am

    AlanE has just lobbed a powerful incendiary devide through CP’s front window. I hope he remembered to put his helmet on:

    Who was the complete and utter IDIOT who wrote the Hitler thing? Whoever it was, he should get his head out from wherever it is, and apologise to the families – the millions of families – who lost loved ones fighting that monster before America decided to get off its arse and do the right thing. My mother was at Dunkirk. My Australian father was in North Africa nearly a year before America was forced to enter. He didn’t have to be, but he was! What was your family doing? Where they rushing to join up in 1940? Or where they one of the many Americans who sympathised with the Germans. My father’s brother who joined up in 1940 when he turned 18, was machine-gunned in the water BY AMERICANS when the Jap POW ship he was on was sunk. The Yanks admitted that it happened. We never got an apology though. Maybe one of your relatives had joined the war. My family never held it against America, but my God, I think we should have, after reading that cheap, ignorant and utterly gratuitous remark! Whoever wrote that crap has the sensitivity of a housebrick and should be blocked forever! AlanE 03:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

    Retrieved from “”

  44. 44 RobS June 14, 2007 at 9:41 am

    That user, while he may have a point in his angry ranting, needs to cool down for a little while. No one gets a point across by walking into someone’s office or room and yelling incoherently. He should consider taking a voluntary break for a while, and come back calmer.

    EDIT: Please abstain from impersonating other people, kthxbai.


  45. 45 Fabio June 14, 2007 at 11:42 am

    On the contrary, he got his point across very well. Users who have tried reasoning with the authors of the disgraceful comments that regularly appear on the front page are typically treated with contempt. I found AlanE’s comments refreshing attempt, all the more so when I discovered he’s an older chap who has been putting some good edits in. I don’t suppose he’ll last long now!

  46. 46 RobS June 14, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    Have you read anything about how power works at CP? I think not. You do not seem to understand that it is not a mobocracy. There is a stated purpose to the site. If he doesn’t like it, he can go somewhere else.

    EDIT: Please abstain from impersonating other people, kthxbai.


  47. 47 darkshadow June 14, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    RobS, have you read anything about how reality and the real world works? Your power trip there won’t help you anywhere else, unless Andy is hiring teachers for his students.

  48. 48 RobS June 14, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    I’m being trolled here; the above two posting

    Jun 14th, 2007 at 9:41 am
    Jun 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    using my name were not made by me. It’s too bad, I came here in good faith, but now I can’t come back.

    So to Summarize, PalMD, you seemed to indulged somewhat in the contents of the dispute, and named names. But really Christianity is an individual choice, decision, and commitment, to which the Lord ultimately decides if an individual is sincere. It’s not up to us to debate and decide which denomination represents this best. Denominationalism is just the collective church, some have good leadership & phonies in the pews, some have phonies in the pulpit and good people in the pews. So its not for use to boot anybody out of the Christian camp who calls upon the name of Jesus. Andy agrees with this.

    I didn’t know Conservative was in WP; that my explain why he is a little more forthcoming with his personal views, I suppose.

    As to the AlanE thing, I know nothing of it, what I read here is the first I’ve heard. If the question is directed at me, my father dropped out of high school to fight at Iwo Jima, and was a Korean War Marine Corps Drill Instructor at Paris Island. He was a killer, a trained, professional killer, who trained people to kill, professionally. I had 18 years of Marine Corps boot camp, and one thing I learned from that high school drop out was how to study a threatening person, and when the irreversible decision has to be made that you both will regret.

    So long all, unfortunetaly, this has to be my last posting here because of some incivil idiot who thinks he’s cute.

  49. 49 PalMD June 14, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Consider staying…pretty much all of us have been spoofed on here. I think TK probably has the record, having been at least subtly spoofed maybe dozens of times. It’s a hazard of blogging, and I wouldn’t worry about it.

    I found you comments much more insightful than I thought they would be. Shame on me, I guess. I find some of your articles to be a little odd, but I know most folks would still like to hear from you.

    I’m not sure about AlanE, but I think I understand his general point. Those of us who grew up here in America were insulated in many ways from WWII, even though most of our male family members who were the right age were serving. The Soviets actually suffered the worst losses on the ground, and the Brits basically lived under siege for years. Contrary to popular US belief, while the war could not possibly have been won without us, we were hardly the worst hit, and this point of contention is well remembered in Europe and the old USSR. Not that many Europeans aren’t grateful…they are, but they were living there and feel a little scorned.

  50. 50 PalMD June 14, 2007 at 8:53 pm

    Oh, and for the record, I’m pretty sure that it was Stephen Colbert who coined “cheese eating surrender monkeys”; and it’s still funny.

  51. 51 Fabio June 14, 2007 at 9:10 pm

    Looks like AlanE has sparked a bit of a turf war over there. Fox weighed in in his defence and got blocked by… wait for it, wait for it… TK, but was subsequently unblocked by Andy with some kind (if somewhat myopic) comments about Fox’s post. There’s been a bit of this between those two in recent weeks, and that’s just what’s in public.

  52. 52 lanfranc June 14, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    RobS, I’m afraid that it’s not possible for me to monitor the comments, since I’m just one guy, but you’re welcome to let me know if there are problems like this. I for one hope that you will stick around. Cheers.


  53. 53 RobS June 14, 2007 at 9:23 pm

    US casualties were 172,000; what’s that compared to 17 million? Although I’ve spent many years studying World War II, and what precitpated it, and what precipitated the events that preciptated the events that precipitated World War I, as well as all the background material on that, I’m probably in a minority on my views of the War. My views always more paralleled European understanding of the War, rather than the US/Hollywood version. And in recent years, it appears a younger generation of Europeans now hold the US view and version of the War, perhaps because their elders were loathe to talk about and they’ve been innundated with the Hollywood version.

    I’m from a part of America where the War really did tear apart families, where “Volkish” sentiment, as it was called, was a distant memory of oldtimers who always were somewhat hesitant to talk about. But Germanophobia hit its apex in the Erste Weltkrieg, when many Germans Anglocized their names and the younger generation spoke English. By the 1930s, there already was a generational divide between Americanized kids and their volkish parents and grandparents.

    The trade union movement was a curious thing. That’s where the War really was fought on the home front, and it certainly started much earlier than 1941. What’s odd is, by the late 1940s it seems many an oldtime trade unionist was thoroughly disgusted with it. I don’t pretend to understand all what happened, but this is an area I’ve been looking into in recent years, and I’m still not sure I’ll ever understand why their attitudes had changed as they did by War’s end.

  54. 54 Tim Smith June 14, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    The person who posted as RobS in the 2 impersonation posts above was TK. He plays both sides, has allegience to neither. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  55. 55 PalMD June 14, 2007 at 10:49 pm

    Don’t be so fast to blame TK. I know I’ve been saying that a lot lately, but, really, maybe we can lay off him for a little bit.

  56. 56 Todd Larason June 14, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” is from a 1995 Simpson’s episode; Groundskeeper Willie is subbing in the French class and greets the class with the phrase, in an outrageous Scottish accent.

  57. 57 lanfranc June 14, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    It wasn’t TK’s IP that did the RobS impersonation.


  58. 58 PalMD June 14, 2007 at 11:11 pm

    Oh, yeah, SImpsons…must be the medication.

  59. 59 human June 18, 2007 at 12:51 am

    To offer the pithy aphorism that PalMD paraphrased in greater depth, WW2 was won by the British providing the time, the Soviets the men, and the US the money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

View Andreas Kjeldsen's profile on LinkedIn

Be a patron of the arts!

Support a poor writer.


%d bloggers like this: