From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, I am LowKey.

I don't have too much to say at the moment. I will probably mostly read articles and talk pages before I do much editing.

Useful links

Lemme guess... LowKey Lyesmith? HDCase 00:02, 14 November 2008 (EST)

They call him Mr World these days ^_^ HKing 00:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Please stop making comments about User:Bugler. Thanks, HenryS 20:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Open Letter

Good heavens, you do have a down on me. I hadn't realised before reading your lengthy analysis that I was the Worst Person Ever. Is this an Australian thing? I only ask as so many of the Bugler Bashing Club seem to originate in the Antipodes. Bugler 05:52, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Not all of them. I for one am sharing your island for the moment, but am distinctly American. :P--IanG 09:03, 11 December 2008 (EST)
Bugler Bashing Club? They don't have meetings and organise ways to annoy you, you've just [removed] that many people off. CJones 15:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)
CJones, I can't tell if such naivety is genuine or merely put on for my benefit. This is not a dispute about an individual; it is part of an attempt to seize control of the bridge and steer Conservapedia in a leftwards direction - and onto the rocks. The Liberal putschists think that by dragging down one reasonably prominent Conservative-minded official they will be able to strengthen their own position vis-a-vis the leadership. The individual could have been Ed, or TK, or Karajou; instead, perhaps they thought that because I was newer and of a lower rank I would be easier meat. Well, I think they may be finding me a tough chew. Bugler 06:29, 12 December 2008 (EST)
What a load of nonsense. I see that you are applying New Standards 3 and 4. You are not "easier meat" because; I am not a liberal, not even a little bit leftist, I am not attempting to seize anything, the secret clique is in your head, you are not an official, I don't have or want any position of leadership. The only direction I am trying to push is back in the direction of Christian and trustworthy. You feature in the letter because your ongoing behaviour repeatedly breaches CP's rules and guidelines, and if frankly reprehensible if you are a Christian. Andy has now clearly indicated that your breaches will be tolerated because he values your content edits. Remember, though that the only time tolerance is dealt with in Scripture is to renounce its practice.LowKey 07:49, 12 December 2008 (EST)
It's nothing about rank, you just seem to use more insults than all other regular editors combined... --BRichtigen 07:30, 12 December 2008 (EST)

User talk pages are no exception to the rule about avoiding personal remarks. Stop all this bickering, or be elsewhere. --Ed Poor Talk 07:51, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Most of my 4th grade math students are better behaved than the typical 'blocked CP user'. I hope no one here takes that personally. --Ed Poor Talk 22:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

The December open letter.

What follows is the open letter I posted in December 2008. It has been expunged from Andy's talk page and I have copied it here (with my update) to retain it. Unfortunately the related discussions are probably lost forever.LowKey 22:06, 11 January 2009 (EST)


I have written what follows over the course of a couple of weeks. One of the ways that I work through my frustrations is to type it all out in the form of a letter or email and then over time work through what I typed editing out unreasonable comments or inflammatory language, and removing anything that has been dealt with in the meantime. Having done so, I find that instead of removing what has been dealt with, I am constantly adding because the situation is deteriorating rather than improving.

I therefore raise this in all seriousness and with a heavy heart.

Are you going to do something about Bugler or not? As far as I am concerned, CP’s credibility hangs by a couple of very thin threads, and the answer to this question is one of them.

Bugler’s unacceptable behaviour towards other editors includes; repeatedly insulting them (e.g. calling them “idiots”, “maggots” and such), accusing them of dishonesty and deceit, attributing malicious motives to them. Bugler exhibits much disrespect to other editors. In discussion pages Bugler is not so much “often rude” as “rarely polite”. The exception to this is when interacting with other editors that he has apparently identified as “allies” (this “group” seems to have been dubbed the “posse”).

Bugler also regularly and openly abuses his blocking rights. Often Bugler uses blocks to censor dissenting opinion, and without warning. Either CP practices ideological blocking or it does not. Presently CP practices ideological blocking (at the very least through Bugler, but I think he is following the example of others in this) but claims not to. CP also states that block warnings are appropriate, but they are extremely rare, and in at least one case that I know of the warning was immediately followed by the block with no additional edits by the blocked editor (this was not one of Bugler’s; I am unaware of any warnings that he may have given).

In November 2008 alone Bugler performed the following inappropriate blocks, and the contrib. histories show the block reasons to be invalid:. At best these blocks were erroneous and careless, at worst malicious and dishonest.

• TerrenceN – 5 years - Malicious Calumny • LowKey – 3 months – Malicious and aggressive deceitfulness • CarolH - 5 years - Lies and Slander • CompuHacker - 5 years – Grossly insulting all Conservapedians • Mike770781 – 1 month – Insulting comments • SiemerD – 1 month – 90/10 • Fdingo – 5 years – To save trouble reverting later • GSpalding – 5 years –Abuse [Ironically, for use of the word “stupid”] • Ema – 5 years - Slandering CP Editors

All of the stated block reasons are false, and many if true and worthy of such blocks should earn Bugler himself similar blocks. Bugler’s abuses of blocking rights (and the lack of corrective action) have been raised before, at the Desk and on Bugler’s talk page, and in fact on several sysops talk pages, and lately on your own talk page. The response is generally a rude and insulting response from Bugler and a block for the editor raising the issue. Bugler seems to believe that his block actions are beyond discussion or questioning, a view he seems to have garnered from TK.

Bugler has also very recently given a rather extreme example of rude behaviour and abuse of blocking rights in one incident. In a single post, he accused a senior administrator of personal remarks and then likened him to a “cockerel on a dunghill”; then went on to block him and after that accused him of “last-wordism”. And again the block reason is belied; the given reason was “Insulting Andy” but on his own talk page Bugler claims that he himself is the victim, and again implies that the blocked sysop (PJR, for the record) has called him a parodist, when this is the one editor consistently stating that he does not think Bugler is a parodist.

Bugler has been called a parodist often. I think this belief is understandable but incorrect. I think Bugler is what we could a “try-hard” in my neck of the woods, someone who is trying hard to be something that would impress certain others around them (I don’t think he is the only one, but he is the most blatant). My impression is that Bugler believes his bully-boy extreme behaviour will impress you, given that he usually mentions you by name or role in mid harangue. There is also the fact that certain trigger phrases like “liberal deceit” and “sterile debate” crop up gratuitously and often. Of particular concern to me as a Christian are Bugler’s comments like “Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it.”

The question in my mind is: is he right about such behaviour impressing you? Do you want CP to be the “trustworthy” encyclopaedia it claims to be, or are you happy for it to be the rightful butt of scorn? This is demonstrated by whether take action to curb such behaviour, or tolerate it and thus endorse it.

I would like to stress that Bugler is not alone in this behaviour. RodWeathers likewise blocks giving reasons at odds with actual contributions. Ed Poor also blocks without warning, giving block reasons inconsistent with contributions, but Ed is at least conscientiously civil. TK is dismissive and insulting and seems to be another try-hard.

Interestingly, the block that Bugler hit me with was undone in about 5 minutes by a sysop, and then restored by Bugler a few days later when he realised it had been unblocked. I emailed a number sysops of over time asking for someone to at least look at the block, and give me a yes/no or at least acknowledgement. Eventually, the original unblocking sysop unblocked me again – without any contact from me - and told me “Stop making comments about Bugler.” What concerns me is that the loud-and-clear message in this is “Don’t poke the bear,” which practice already looks to be in effect among even sysops judging by the silence my enquiries generated.

Why is it that some editors are allowed to make insulting and quite possibly libellous remarks with impunity, but if other editors even try to discuss this we suffer lengthy blocks? You yourself levied a 1 month block against an editor who asked for action. I have noted that comments from editors such as PJR, although about actions and not people, are denounced by you yourself as insulting, when much worse comments by Bugler unabashedly aimed at people and not actions are quietly tolerated.

Lately, Bugler has also been deleting the talk posts of other editors. These deleted posts are neither to nor about Bugler, and they are generally not offensive in language, content or tone, unless disagreement itself is now offensive.

I fully expect a lengthy (if not permanent) block for even raising this, but if CP is to be “trustworthy” it absolutely must be addressed. Every community has members that behave contrary to that community’s standards, but when the leaders of the community turn a blind eye or endorse the behaviour of those members, they effectively change the standards of that community. Those in the community that subscribe to the community’s expressed (though no longer practiced) standards have a choice of 3 actions. Firstly, they can have the issue addressed. This has been attempted without success at CP, but I am here attempting it again. Secondly, they can remain silent and accept the new standards. Scripturally, this option cannot be supported. Thirdly, they can leave and find another community that upholds the standards.

Currently the standards practiced seem to be:

1. The truth will be declared by Andy, and it is undisputed and undeniable. 2. Disputing or denying the truth as declared is censorship; worse it is liberal censorship. 3. Editors subscribing to standards 1 and 2 can say and do pretty much anything they please on CP. without fear of reprisal 4. Editors not subscribing to standards 1,2 and 3 are liberals. They have no right to respect of even civility, and may be attacked with impunity.

Frankly, I came from Wikipedia hoping to find an encyclopaedia practicing Christian standards, but the only difference I have seen is that CP claims to be such. The claims have not yet been borne out. One of the thin threads that CP’s credibility hangs by is whether or not its own rules actually mean anything in practice. Lately, they do not, as several editors in good standard disregard them at will.

Bradley LowKey 23:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Jan 2009 Update

Bugler is gone, as in locked, blocked, deleted, purged. That could possibly have been seen as addressing his behaviour except it was not for his actual behaviour. While attempts were being made to verify a real name as part of his upcoming promotion to sysyop, he admitted to being a parodist. So while he would have been rewarded for his behaviour had it been sincere, he was expunged from CP because he didn't actually mean it.LowKey 22:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)