| Chapters Appendices | RationalWiki contentThis is part of a user talk page of RationalWiki Mk I, demonstrating that at least some users there were planning on deliberately trying to undermine Conservapedia.1 Ok, I'm new I'm trying to get a handle on what to do over there. Yesterday I just tried a little rabble-rousing by bringing up [rubbish] that was addressed previously-- e.g. the whole cult thing. How do you think I should proceed here? I guess I'm looking for tips on making this more fun for all of us. Zero 08:48, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Fantastic. I don't know whether to feel warm and fuzzy by all this or like I'm stuck in a Battle of Algiers sequel. Whatever the feeling, I like this idea.
This is an extract from another user page, discussing a method of vandalising Conservapedia pages.1 Testing.... Instead of poking fun at me you want to help. Say i included this template in a user box template, how would i make it float outside the userbox column? -Icewedge 20:54, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
My first response is that the hacks you are pulling off are way beyond my primitive wikibilities. You never told me how you did that thing that made a page uneditable, for instance. So, anyway, istead of it turning up under every UXB, you want it out to the left in the main user article space? I take it this is a land mine you are going to infect CP with? (by the way, a funnier thing is to edit their UXBs to make them stupid, like some asshole wrecked the cabal UXB) How about a single line, that says "this user is XYZ", where "XYZ" is
pulled from a short list of possible random words, like "gay", "a virgin", "assfly's fellatrist", etc.? Can you pull that off? Anyway, I think what you want to do will be tough - isn't the uxb template basically a table, with alignment and some sort of text-wrap instruction, like the image tag?
And another example of them talking about vandalism. OK, here's the "basic plan" as I see it. The 10,000 article milestone will probably encourage assfly to do a press release to the Washington Times and the National Enquirer, so then would be a good time to [Profanity removed] up the site wholesale. Now, this is important. You guys realise that it is easier for a sysop to fix "simple" vandalism than it is for you to do it, right? They have a "revert" button, and as soon as they see vandalism, they can check the user contribs, block the user at the 2nd instance of vdism, and race through files reverting. I don't want my damage to be more a waste of my time than theirs. A classic way to mess with a wiki to do several consecutive edits, so only the last one shows on watchlists (at least). You make the last edit innocuous, and in an area of the article "away" from the true vdism. To work best, 2 or 3 people work together with a real time communication going, like AIM or something. So I go in and mess with part of United States, say. I also insert a typo elsewhere in the file. As soon as I hit save, person 2 immediately opens the typo section and fixes it, getting to "save" as quickly as possible. Ideally, a tag team of 3 or 4 people could mix up who does the "damage" and who does the "fixing" to make the trail harder to follow. You also do it late at night, after getting Rayment (in AUS) a date or something to keep him busy. I would suggest practicing with your socks, if you can. I would also strongly advise avoiding "extreme" vandalism, like blanking pages or inserting obvious stupidity, or creating obscene pages. Inserting subtle wackiness makes much more sense (how can they tell?). Like cp:Axial_skeleton right now - the last edit was hilarious, and is either well-meaning stupidity or perfect vandalism. The worse the article is to start with (and the bigger), the better a target it is, like the middle of cp:United States - who can read that anyway? D-Day sounds like maybe a week or two from now if we go with the 10k thing. Well, that's my 0.02 on this, I'd really like to see some long-lasting messes made. If several teams worked at once, perhaps 10% of the site, 1000 "articles", could be hurt overnight, or over several nights. I doubt these idiots are smart enough to back up the whole site to save it, or to realize that their provider probably does every day. or that in their site logs they can probably "see" where people are coming from, and would have already found this site... Huw Powell a/k/a human 13:43, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
| Timeline22nd November, 2006 Conservapedia is created 17th March, 2007 I join Conservapedia 3rd April, 2007 I am made an Administrator 25th April, 2007 First Admin. e-mail group. 25th May, 2007 Ed Poor proposes me as "template manager". 5th January, 2008 Letter to Andy about wise counsel 28th April, 2008 Bugler joins Conservapedia around June, 2008 I'm feeling more and more uncomfortable with associating myself with Conservapedia. 11th June, 2008 Bugler gains block rights. 17th June, 2008 I start writing these pages. 20th June, 2008 DanH quits. 31st December, 2008 Bugler loses rights. 1st January, 2009 CPAdmin1 quits. 2nd January, 2009 Bugler outs himself. 22nd March, 2009 I resign |