Insanity 1 Integrity 0


Wiki: (n) A Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content.

There have been some really amazing scenes over at racist bigot Andrew Schlafly’s little hate-blog, Conservapedia, lately – and I don’t mean the spectacular drivel that Ken Demyer smears all over the main page either… although it does involve Conservapedia’s very own OCD afflicted dribbling idiot. You see, it would appear as if somebody has finally stood up to that semi-literate man-child- that somebody being fellow Conservapedia sysop, RobSmith.

It all started when RobSmith, presumably trying to encourage a resurrection of Conservapedia’s fortunes in the wake of the late Terry Koeckritz’s successful efforts to turn CP into a barren wasteland, recreated the “Community Portal”, which he described as “the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.” What was interesting was that many of the first posts dealt with the actions of Ken Demyer – in particular his constant deletion and recreation of articles and talk pages (the latter usually to deceitfully hide stupid comments Ken had made) as well as his habit of locking every article he touches, as well as redirecting the talk pages of his insane essays (shining examples include “Essay: More kimchi please” and a spin-off of that all time classic, “Essay: The flying kitty dinosaur) to the main pages of his “flagship” articles on Evolution or Atheism.

Rob took this to heart and effectively made Ken unlock to talk-pages, which opened him up to mass criticism of his “work” – if that’s what you can call copy/pasting random quotes and pictures into an article over and over. Now there’s a few things you need to bear in mind when it comes to Ken:

  • Calling him a team player is like calling Hitler a humanitarian;
  • Calling him insane is like calling a certain M. de Sade “slightly kinky”;
  • Ken is immensely sensitive to criticism, hence the locking of everything he touches;
  • Ken is incapable of staging an intellectual defence of the crap he writes, ditto the locking of his pages;
  • Ken has an ego to match Andrew Schlafly’s – a puffed up balloon, filled with his own belief in his own (non-existent) abilities, whilst knowing that it would only take one well-aimed barb to pop his little bubble, which is why he retreats from contact with the sane world;
  • Ken cares about one thing: Ken. He couldn’t give a stuff about Conservapedia. It only serves as a medium for his own insane outpourings. This is evidenced by his ever-greater attention seeking devices – culminating in the ever more bizarre essays and his frequent shout-outs to the people at Rationalwiki. This also explains – to a degree – his editing behaviour; the multiple edits to move a full stop, the complete ignorance of the “preview” and “minor edit” buttons

Suddenly Ken found himself exposed – people were daring to ask questions of the crap he wrote. Good examples are on the talk pages of his latest masterpieces: “Essay: Penn Jillette’s walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers” and “Essay: Indian Christian culture is better than low class atheist “culture”“. Here, it’s clear that Ken quite simply cannot defend himself in any logical manner.

A good example is when an editor questions his use of a picture – purportedly to be of a “Christian Indian dancer”, but who, a Google search reveals is actually a Hindu. He cannot stay on topic, returning instead to his pet theme of the moment, namely “Atheists are fat! Hur! Hur!” – ” Next, you’ll be claiming that Western atheists are thinner than Hindus!” That is the mentality you are dealing with.

Another great example occurs when an editor points out some of the darker sides of the Indian culture Ken appears to be lauding, as well as the fact that “the atheist community which has a major nerd infestation has not developed atheist dance music whereas Indian Christians have dance/music proving once again Indian Christian culture is superior (see what I mean about insane?) is inane, considering most pop and dance music is written and performed by people that are most likely not religious in the Ken sense of the word.

His response on being called out is priceless: Clarification: “By atheist dance music I meant “atheism dance music”. Music about atheism which is dance music in terms of its classification. Yes, he meant “atheism dance music.” I apologise if your forehead has just made contact with your desk at this point.

Now there’s one point I left out of the above list:

  • Ken is a vicious little shit and a vindictive little bully (ideal qualities for a CP sysop, of course!)

He certainly didn’t like Rob exposing his vast stupidity and the whispering campaign commenced. There was a huge amount of irony when Ken – whose talk page is usually locked for obvious reasons, insisted that Rob stop posting on his talk page… by posting that message on Andrew Schlafly’s talk page. That’s nothing new for Ken – he’s used to crapping all over everybody else’s personal space – even deleting and recreating their pages, to hide his latest dribble. It’s safe to say that Ken doesn’t know the meaning of the word hypocrisy… nor many other 4-syllable words either.

Sadly, once again displaying his abysmal managerial skills, Schlafly has somehow managed to ignore the shit-storm going on under his nose. Presumably he hopes that it will go away by itself. Of course, he tried the same tactic when Bugler and TK were running amok, to devastating effect on CP’s morale and editor base. So instead of nipping it in the bud, he lets it fester and spread across the Community Portal and several users’ talk pages.

It also gets personal very quickly. It seems that’s another of Ken’s debating styles – if you can’t win, call the other person names. Suddenly, the “fat atheists” meme is explained. Ken also unveils his other debating tactic – the “I’m far too busy” to talk tactic. This allows him to chicken out of a discussion by claiming that his time (all 18 hours per day that he spends moving full stops on CP) is far too precious to spend on silly arguments like this. It’s not the first time he’s done it either:

  • When he made an hysterically abortive appearance on A Storehouse of Knowledge, he claimed that he would be really busy for the next 12 months, when asked to provide a citation for one of his claims – to do with a Swedish creationist who was apparently head of some scientific organisation that doesn’t exist. When the request was repeated 12 months later, Ken was magically too busy to respond
  • He issued a challenge for a debate, insisting that his challenger put up $27,000 to the charity of Ken’s choice before debating. Clearly Ken thought this would deter any takers, allowing him to claim victory by default. However, the challenge was met, whereupon Ken immediately declared he would be busy for the next 90 days… although it didn’t change his editing habits at CP. The lying skunk just overshighted his edits.

Amazingly, the man who always accuses Richard Dawkins of hiding in an “intellectual bunny hole” does exactly the same thing with Rob – except not only did he claim he had no time, but that he was limiting the amount of time Rob could use to contact him to 5 minutes per month! He would also say things along the lines of “I have said my piece on the matter and have decided to move on” before starting the debate up again a few minutes later.

Things took an ominous turn when Ken began posting comments along the lines of “Another sysop agrees with me that RobS should be stripped of his rights.” The total is currently up to three sysops – all nameless of course – plus Ken, in favour. Now, with it being Ken, I’m inclined to think that these other three exist only in his head.

If they are real, then it really is a very sad indication of just how spineless the sysops are if they are too craven to come out in public support or condemnation of Ken. Once again, this is in a way Schlafly’s fault. Until he pronounces on the matter, they have no idea which way he’s leaning, they will be too shit-scared to move. You see, staying in Andy’s good books is vital for them – being a sysop on CP is the only bit of authority they’ll ever have in their lives ever and they’ll cling to it come hell or high water. They’ve seen what happened to people like TimS and PJR, and certainly won’t risk their necks for another sysop.

So, while I believe that Ken is lying like a $3 hooker, there is a possibility that he has some support – they’re just too gutless to come out and say it openly.

Possibly the most amazing quote to come out of this exchange is from RobS, who finally came out and said what everybody else has been saying about the powers that ruin… I mean run Conservapedia all along:

The difference between RW & CP is, RW has a community, and CP sysops are hell bent on destroying any sort of collaborative cooperation. RW started from nothing but foul-mouthed troll to open, thriving, talented and successful wiki project, while while anti-social elements such as yourself have recklessly abused willing volunteers who wanted to help. You’ve destroyed your own reputation, and the reputation of the Conservapedia project along with it. RW is a community, despite nasty differences between users, they can function. As long as mean-spirited dysfunctional outcasts such as yourself continue to wield sysop & oversight tools on this site, I pity any poor fool who comes across it and tries to get involved. They’d have a better chance — with no talent — surviving at Wikipedia.

Of course, RobS’s mistake was daring to mention RW on the hallowed soil of Conservapedia. Things like that cause resident swabbie Brian Macdonald to roll on the floor and froth at the mouth. Sadly, it also results in his brain (what there is of it) switching off and he leaps into Angry Bear mode, forgetting everything except “Rationalwiki bad! Hulk smash!”

“Willing volunteers” wanting to work here? Is that what you say about RW, RobS? A “functioning community”? I looked on your user page in that freak show that is RW, and my question to you must be said in front of all of these witnesses: who authorized you to take private email accounts from private Google groups that we were all a part of and post them to Conservaleaks? You claim we’re the problem? You’re part of their little trolling world, you’re part of the problem, and you’re the cause of a huge amount of damage to this site and the raising of hate and discontent among us, and all because you decided on your own to abandon reason for madness. You’re done here, RobS.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Sadly, I feel that Rob is doomed. He’s up against a site owner with his head up his arse, an obsessive-compulsive pathological liar and a bunch of spineless half-wits. Brian’s comments above are pretty clear – if you dare to speak up against the status quo then you’re their enemy. Being a Conservapedia sysop means keeping your head down, ignoring what the other sysops are doing, beating up the helpless editors and never, ever speaking out of turn.

Anything else would require a backbone.

Still, with Ken seemingly having won this battle, I predict that he’s going to become totally impossible to manage. The sysops and Andy, through their lack of action, have a set a dangerous precedent. Ken will have a free reign to do what he likes to CP, which given the quality of his latest “essays”, is going to turn the main page into a quagmire of moronic stupidity.

And nobody will say a word, because it’s more important to have a little bit of power on a third-rate, backwater wiki, that’s being shat on by a madman, than to have a backbone.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Administrators, Andrew Schlafly, Brian MacDonald, Conservapedia, Karajou, Ken Demyer, Rationalwiki, Rob Smith, Terry Hurlbut and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Insanity 1 Integrity 0

  1. brxbrx says:

    Who took up the 27k challenge?

  2. brxbrx says:

    Also, great post. Very insightful.
    You should include some of Larron’s graphs to highlight Ken’s 18 hour editing sprees.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Both Jeeves and I took Ken on, he declined both us.

    • brxbrx says:

      You forked over 27k? Hardcore.

      Who are you, anyways? An anon?

      • PsyGremlin says:

        They didn’t fork it over, but informed Ken that they had the money. He then flannelled over a suitable choice of person to look after the money, before declaring he would be very busy for the next 90 days…

  4. Black Pelican says:

    Somebody told me that Ken thinks Richard Dawkins is a very handsome man, despite his atheism.

  5. Fat Albert says:

    I don’t think it was $27k; it was $17 later upped to $20k.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Debating_Kendoll

Comments are closed.