Debate:Make TK a sysop?

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(No, don't make him a sysop)
m (No, don't make him a sysop: we)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
* No. He can still express opinions here as a regular editor, so this isn't a case of censorship. I fail to see how he can make any kind of positive contribution socially or to the content. We shouldn't block him, but we certainly shouldn't give him the keys to the place. --{{User:Concernedresident/sig|}} 10:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 
* No. He can still express opinions here as a regular editor, so this isn't a case of censorship. I fail to see how he can make any kind of positive contribution socially or to the content. We shouldn't block him, but we certainly shouldn't give him the keys to the place. --{{User:Concernedresident/sig|}} 10:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 
* No. I'm 95% certain he wouldn't contribute anything positive, so it would just waste time and be no fun.--{{User:KrissAkabusiAwoogar/sig0}} 11:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 
* No. I'm 95% certain he wouldn't contribute anything positive, so it would just waste time and be no fun.--{{User:KrissAkabusiAwoogar/sig0}} 11:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
* Absolutely no way. After two years of WIGOing his destructiveness and shitstirring, why are even giving him the steam off our piss? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] ([[User talk:Totnesmartin|talk]]) 11:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
+
* Absolutely no way. After two years of WIGOing his destructiveness and shitstirring, why are we even giving him the steam off our piss? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] ([[User talk:Totnesmartin|talk]]) 11:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 
* Outside of "because I want to" this is such a non-starter of a question, I dodn't even know why we're debating it. If we do sysop TK, then MC and Fall Down also need to be sysops, as clearly all 3 fall under the "mostly harmless" banner. --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">Psygremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 12:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 
* Outside of "because I want to" this is such a non-starter of a question, I dodn't even know why we're debating it. If we do sysop TK, then MC and Fall Down also need to be sysops, as clearly all 3 fall under the "mostly harmless" banner. --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">Psygremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 12:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 
* No.  He can already block as many people as he wants over on CP, I don't see any good that would come from giving him any space to stomp around with here. [[User:Hactar|Hactar]] ([[User talk:Hactar|talk]]) 12:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 
* No.  He can already block as many people as he wants over on CP, I don't see any good that would come from giving him any space to stomp around with here. [[User:Hactar|Hactar]] ([[User talk:Hactar|talk]]) 12:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:36, 15 January 2010

I don't know if this will help, but it can't hurt to get a measure of what the mob thinks. No idea if this is a good title/namespace. Move it if you want. -- =w= 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Contents

Yes, make him a sysop

  • Yes, but only if he agrees to a permanent ban from Conservapedia for being a member of a vandal site. I'm not joking at all. Burndall (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't see the point of treating him special like. MaxAlex (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, don't make him a sysop

  • -- =w= 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Absurd to even have this as a debate. Acei9 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • He's just a trouble making fuck stick. Rad McCool (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • --Tom Moorefiat justitia 07:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand the spirit behind it, but TK can't be trusted. (BTW, the intercom message has a red link). Junggai (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Bob Soles (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. Even with measly SysOp powers he'd make a nuisance here, and (dare I say it) even do a bit of wandalism. And he's a cunt. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 07:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. This time he didn't contact me via e-mail, I feel forgotten. Not that I have e-mail enabled. Editor at CPmały książe 09:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. TK doesn't like this wiki (refers to it as a "vandal site") or it's members (they are blocked at CP just for suspicion of being members of RW) so I highly doubt he will make any positive contributions here and I don't see any reason why we should make him a sysop. Refugeetalk page 09:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. He can still express opinions here as a regular editor, so this isn't a case of censorship. I fail to see how he can make any kind of positive contribution socially or to the content. We shouldn't block him, but we certainly shouldn't give him the keys to the place. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 10:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. I'm 95% certain he wouldn't contribute anything positive, so it would just waste time and be no fun.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 11:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no way. After two years of WIGOing his destructiveness and shitstirring, why are we even giving him the steam off our piss? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Outside of "because I want to" this is such a non-starter of a question, I dodn't even know why we're debating it. If we do sysop TK, then MC and Fall Down also need to be sysops, as clearly all 3 fall under the "mostly harmless" banner. --PsygremlinParlez! 12:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. He can already block as many people as he wants over on CP, I don't see any good that would come from giving him any space to stomp around with here. Hactar (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. I don't even understand why its up for discussion. Unless he's finally going to admit he's a parodist, and if that's the case, he probably already is here under another name. MDB (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. While he may indeed be a parodist and troll on CP he has proven that any power he achieves will be abused. If he wants to contribute here he can do so as a normal editor. -Tygrehart
  • No. Probably a bit too obvious I'd say that, though. But yeah, when he's clearly demonstrated in the past that he's deliberately disruptive, and the only discussion is not whether he'd be good but what degree of bad, it's seriously stupid to keep hashing it out. He's easily on a level with MC and Fall Down, and maybe the Metapedia guys. --Kels (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. It's not censorship, etc., to not make him a sysop, and he is not "mostly harmless." Corry (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Fuck TK. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Duh. Time evil Hoover! 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As above, dur. The criteria is "mostly harmless" not "everyone gets one because we're all happy clappy chummy equals here". Ergo stupid idea to even consider. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • All these people already opposing is reason enough. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

404 block him server side

  • tmtoulouse 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have just eaten Toast& stiltontalk 07:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • ~ Kupochama[1][2] 09:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It would just give him reason to whine, and is easy to evade. Pietrow (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Entirely my reason for choosing this option. Also it'd keep people from reverting each other every five seconds. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 10:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 13:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sterile lawnmower 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • TK is notorious for watching this site like a hawk, and perma-banning IPs he sees editing here. This would cripple such activity. And to those who say it's easy to evade: short of paying for a proxy service, TOR is the only reliable way to avoid such blocks, but TOR is also painfully slow—using it is like downgrading to dial-up internet when your used to broadband. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
While I agree, that's only an issue if you're an editor on Conservapedia. And as I don't give a fuck about CP and wish that anyone who is still vandalising it should grow up and get over it, I'd say it's overkill. Issuing server side blocks, in my opinion, would be a bad escalation. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

  • Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Really can't bring myself to care. Researcher (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Everyone's getting too worked up about him and I don't think it'll make much of a difference either way. He's barely done anything since he "came back" and he's already got you all tearing each others throats out over him. SJ Debaser 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What SuperJosh said. Plus my thought: "Who cares? He's not worth arguing about." I'm mainly here to point out that the sitewide message that Mei_II put up to vote on this issue has a redlink in it, and I don't know how to change it. Bondurant (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Indifference. Certainly not worth an internal fight, if Human wants TK to be a sysop let it be on him and get on with it. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Can't bring myself to care. Worm(t | c) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I care even less than all the people above. - π 11:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wanna bet? I care so little I can't even be bothered to get involved in this debate at all... - er - oh crap. Bondurant (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support