How to treat editors, part umpty-ump

I've blogged before about how badly editors on Conservapedia are treated. It's basically a case of "we think you're a liberal parodist, until you prove otherwise, and even then we won't believe you." Plus you're also fair game for the many parodists who have earned blocking rights by acting as Andrew Schlafly's echo chamber. Even worse, you might find yourself blocked, because the sysops have no idea how checkuser works and no comprehension that two or more users could have the same IP address. Then again, most of those blocks are by Terry Koeckritz, who's probably in need of sexual gratification at the time.

However, every now and again, an editor gets treated in the most appallingly bizarre manner, that it warrants a closer look. In this case, it's user CChance.

He creates an article on the Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huang. Admittedly it was a very short entry, but when compared to many of CP's articles, especially those by Ed "Mr. Wikipedia" Poor, it's positively verbose. This is what the article said:

Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of a unified China, ruing from 221 BC until his death in 210 BC at the age of 50.
Among the projects undertaken by him were the Terracotta Army and the first version of the Great Wall of China.

Everything looks pretty much ok, especially for a CP article. So imagine my surprise when CP administrator JacobB (who may, or may not, be a parodist - the jury is still out on that one), comes along and reverts his entire edit, locks the page from non-admin editing and replaces the content with the banner below, stating "this page is a lightening rod for vandals and other such users; I'll write this article myself shortly." Admittedly, the article had been originally created by somebody posing as a Chinese student and then deleted by DouglasA.

However, a Google search would have provided the info needed to confirm the scant information contained in the article. You wouldn't even have to click on a link; simple read the headers and you'd have your info. For Jacob to go to those lengths smacks of either overkill, or a ploy by a deep-seated parodist to further render CP un-editable. If it took me that long to check the data, surely somebody responsible for running an encyclopaedia (sorry, I always laugh at this point, when I link the words Conservapedia and encyclopaedia together) could do a similar job, instead of leaving bizarre messages for all to see?

There is a postscript to this, because CChance forgot the golden rule that "ze admins iz alvayz right, ja!" and asks Jacob what the hell he's playing at, thus providing Terry Koeckritz with the perfect opportunity to get his daily jollies. He leaps in and blocks CChance for two days, citing "Troublemaker / Prevaricator" as the reason, and adding the comment, "I think you will be happier at Wikipedia...consider that and take a couple of days to do so." Terry also covers up his creepy use of checkuser with the infantile, "I could tell by the in-your-face western Canuck attitude, eh? Also, so long as you don't peek behind the curtain, I am a wizard!"

Coming to think of it, he probably would be happier at WP, because there you aren't likely to fall foul of the whim of whichever parodist or admin (sometimes it's hard to tell the difference) happens to be around at the time. Still, another article ruined, another editor driven away - all in a day's work for the site that is growing shrinking rapidly.

Update: Terry reverses Jacob's crazy edits. Of course, only after it had been raised here and on RationalWiki. But will we get credit?