One thing about taking a break from Conservapedia is that I managed to miss out on a whole bunch of fun stuff, such as Andrew Schlafly defending his “best of the public” nonsense, Terry Koeckritz blocking everybody who called him out on his plagiarism (again!), Andy and his “Fidel is dead” lunacy and Ed Poor’s rampage, following his smacking at Wikipedia (Again. Way to go user 188).
However, I’m going to kick off with a trip down memory lane, courtesy of my secret sources. Now what makes this interesting is you need to remember that Conservapedia is quite happy to block editors for period of 5 years (or most often infinity) for such misdemeanours as daring to disagree with an administrator, point out that they made a mistake, or imply that Terry Koeckritz actually stole the image he claimed as his own. Needless to say, the most block-happy is said Terry, as this example shows.
Now what’s interesting, is how the sysops react when the target of the block is Terry himself (this back in the day when he’d returned from losing his rights and opening the Special Discussion Group to all and sundry). If “mind your own business” warrants a 5 year block, what would Terry’s abusive comments and plagiarism earn him? Well, seeing as Geoff Plourde (he who deleted the abuse desk as well as the “stub” template) is very much Terry Koeckritz’s bitch, not much.
All I’m going to do is post the actual comments made by each sysop, with any comments of mine in bold afterwards.
The mail is headed “How long are we going to tolerate TK?”
Philip Rayment (former CP sysop, who has since packed it in)
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.
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. (Now we know where the multi-culturism block reasons come from)
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?” (What a nice man our Terry is).
I agree about the “attitude” TK manifests. He needs to learn some humility.
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. (This from a man who has the gall to move a user’s comments from his user page to his talk page, then block him for violation of the 90/10 rule)
An escalating series of blocks would not be good. Our purpose is not to build a case for dismissal, but to rehabilitate a valuable contributor.
Everyone has their good and bad points (even me!)
If a permanent ban wouldn’t help, why do we give out so many of them? (Amen to that Philip!!)
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? (Good question… probably because Andy and Geoff are Terry’s bitches) 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. (Once again, amen to that! With such insights it’s no wonder Philip had to go!)
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. (Right once again, Philip!)
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, 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. (Wow Ed, so most people waste your time for half of infinity?)
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. (Don’t forget he tried to challenge Andy for control of CP, and when that didn’t work, opened the private sysops’ forum to all and sundry).
If we can make CP a place where there is a minimum of nonsense, then we can attract serious writers. (Sorry Ed, seeing as Andy produces most of the nonsense, you’ve got a long way to go) So far, they are staying away because they don’t want to have to deal with troublemakers.
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.) (Really Ed… show me one other editor you’ve tried this with. One. Just one. I’m waiting.)
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. (And this is something you do on a regular basis, isn’t Brian?)
What rule has TK violated? UCLA is too much of a gray area to render a opinion. (Wow! Way to step up to the plate, Geoff)
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.
When did Andy specifically approve civility? It provides a stick for RW to hit us with. (Wait… what?? Geoff doesn’t like people being civil to each other?)
Dan Holmes (another former sysop who quit over Andy calling Obama a Muslim)
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.
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.
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. (yes, Geoff, just like you do for all the other editors.)
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. (Exactly!)
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). (And what about the infinite blocks every other editor receives, Ed??)
And so on and so forth. Here’s links to the full discussion here and here. Still, suffice to say, that there is very clearly a double standard in force at CP and that Ed Poor and Geoff Plourde have totally ignored their responsibilities as administrators and shown themselves to be the true hypocrites we all know they are. Still, at least it has given us the pleasure of watching Terry Koeckritz spread his own special brand of deceit and poison throughout CP.