RationalWiki:Site politics

"University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." - Henry Kissinger

This is where conversations will be moved if they stray too much into site politics territory, to prevent conversations drifting too far off topic for their respective talk pages. If you want to keep fighting your pet cause here, feel free, but keep it civil, or it'll be treated the same as anywhere else.

Successes of RW
We need a list of ways that RW has successfully influenced CP. Some prime examples I can think of is whining about TK enough to get him kicked off, and the page-bump masquerades. Other good examples come to mind? -- Ζωροάστρης  19:44, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * TK's just been unblocked. The point is still valid, though. -Master Bra'tacKree! 19:47, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * I don't think we really had anything to do with that. But, we certainly serve as inadvertent spellcheckers and typofinders for them, at WIGO. human  19:56, 5 January 2008 (EST)


 * RW certainly had nothing to do, whatsoever, with my removal from CP. Period.  It is delusional in the extreme, to suggest it did. After all, it was Andy himself who said, citing oher CP Sysops, including Hoji, that I was an agent working for RW.  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 20:03, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, Hoji, quit being delusional. It was an internal CP matter that arose after the last Special Olympics, as I recall. Hey TK, do you know if you are going to get any of your privs back over there (night editing, upload, blocking, etc.)?  Or did you just want to be able to edit, comment, etc. from time to time? human  20:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

I was not informed of the action, before or after, except by IM from another distrusted editor over at CP, and having it confirmed here. I rather think it won't be long before one of the resident trolls there, like Fox or Karajou blocks me again. But now that i have been able to logon and remove the email notifications in my preferences, it doesn't really matter. Human, please forgive Hoji's youthful exuberance in claiming RW folk were responsible for my removal as a sysop, and subsequent blocking. After all, he was also the one who claimed to Andy and some other CP sysops, I was a RW agent! Rational logic would dictate RW wouldn't out one of its own agents! The only thing worse would be doing the same to Fox before he can get Poor Ed removed! :P --TK/MyTalk|undefined 20:15, 5 January 2008 (EST)


 * Wait, rational logic? Can't they ban you for that? I seem to recall it being prohibited as one of the "unwritten" Commandments. a  ssume  $$a=a$$ 20:19, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * You're slightly confused, Assume. I was speaking of logic, RW style.  :P  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 20:21, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ah, ok. That makes more sense. a  ssume  $$a=a$$ 20:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

At the risk of quoting a song, for the life of me, I cannot imagine what would make them unblock TK. And, TK, you still claim Hoji's e-mails were fabrications?- 00:20, 6 January 2008 (EST)
 * Moi? I think you need to read over your own words, AmesG, and Hoji's, on this wiki, other wiki's, and the RW Forums.  Both you and Hoji have, dozens of times, publicly and privately denied that I ever helped RW, no?  Rather than be accused by you of trolling, I will decline to disagree with you here, and defer to your own high integrity, often proclaimed by you, and let Hoji's and your own past words, that I never "helped" RW,  stand as the "official" RW record.  I will assume Hoji saying I was assisiting RW, and your doing so, was merely the abhorant behavior of two young men bent on revenge for some perceived slight.  Please join many of us in letting bygones be bygones, as was posted on my talk page.  Happy New Year to you AmesG! May 2008 be filled with happiness and personal achievement! --TK/MyTalk|undefined 00:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)
 * I will let bygones be bygones. Apologies.- 11:45, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Actually I think RW has been rather positive for CP. Seriously. Firstly, having somebody watching them and pointing out their more extreme departures from reality has probably kept them closer to planet earth than they would otherwise be. Secondly, RW has probably been a unifying force, a common "enemy" against whom they can unite.--Bobbing up 12:03, 6 January 2008 (EST)
 * I think that one major incident, though, was Samwell. It made it nigh-on impossible to promote new sysops, since they might be us. After that, we get college republican and co.

Penalizing Threats
TK, just a random note, I will no longer tolerate you posting locations of IP addresses (e.g., "how is it in XX?"): I realize that the information is public, but it carries a threatening tone. The next repetition of that act, after I'm sure you've read this warning, goes to the next level of Fibonacci blocking. Clear? Further, lines like "you wouldn't want to start another round of e-mails," I see as threats. Threats will not be tolerated either. Also, TK, if you've read the Special Discussion Group - which I know you wrote in large part - you'd rethink the whole "I was merely in the background" lie.- 10:46, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * Those don't strike me as very good reasons to ban someone, Ames. There is no threat, real or even implied, in "how is it in XX".  The nature of such comments is to demonstrate that the arguer (in this case, TK) is aware of the circumstances.  To read a threatening intention into that is to read a threatening intention into practically any sardonic comment.  Secondly, the "more emails" threat boiled down to exposing RationalWiki socks on Conservapedia.  So... his worst threat involves banning people for doing something that is arguably unethical anyways?  A real threat, Ames, would involve some sort of heartfelt intention of violence (note the qualifier "heartfelt", so jokes obviously don't count), or something along the lines of Schlafly's infamous legal threats.  -- 14:18, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * To me, the reading of "how is it in XX" reads exactly the same as "I know where you live or work." Depending on your technical skill, this gets down to a city, place of employment, or local coffee shop.  With the past history of harassment of people at their places of work, such a statement really does amount to a threat in the eyes of many. While Ames may be voicing it and taking a stand, seeing TK say this does cause a shiver to run down my back and make sure that I'm logged in while writing this. --Shagie 14:32, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * So, the implication is that TK is actually capable of acting on such a so-called "threat". It would be a simple matter to find your IP address—surely you've forgotten to log in at some point—look up where you live, and... what?  This creates only two methods of harassment:  flying over there and physically stalking you, or using your location to look you up in the phone book.  Both would require already knowing your real name.  Both also have serious legal consequences, which I doubt any of us would be foolish enough to even try.  If it's a threat, it's a comically empty one.  Maybe on Wikipedia, with its plethora of users (and not all of them benevolent), banning someone for such a reason is excusable, but not here.  Not in an online community such as this.  -- 14:43, 14 January 2008 (EST)

RA, I do appreciate your previous good work at calling me out when I was being a douche, as when I insulted TK without cause (I deserved to be yelled at for that), but I can't back down on this. TK's MO is offsite harassmentcoupled with onsite manipulation.Given what I know of him - and Shagie's got it, too - the "how is the weather at your IP location?" is his brand of "I know where you live," which does eventually materialize into an onsite or offsite threat. He will disclaim this (how could he not?). However, it's true by past experience of me and many others. Further, I frankly don't see how it matters that he can't carry through on a threat. Whether or not he can, we don't have to put up with that kind of crap here, and I for one am not going to from TK, or from anyone.- 15:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)

~Yawn~ --TK/MyTalk|undefined"Lowly" editor 16:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * Well I'm not going to penalize that...- 16:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * Well, that's just too big of you, AmesG...thank you! Nice to know the spirit of Andy lives in you!  Some "mobocracy" here, with you pronouncing who will get blocked for what, and how long, isn't it?  When I had to install an auto-reply to stop your stream of emails to me, was that stalking, threatening or harassment on your part?  No. Anyone should be able to email anyone they want and have their say.  The recipient of those emails does, however, have the right to not read them, or auto-trash them, but they cannot be labeled harassment, simply because each of us is in control of what emails we read.  Now, if it were hundreds, thousands in a day, I agree that would be harassment. --TK/MyTalk|undefined"Lowly" editor 16:37, 14 January 2008 (EST)

See, now you're just making things up.- 16:43, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * What am I making up? Please be specific here, AmesG, this is a wiki about science and facts. You deny I put in a auto-respond to your emails, or that you emailed me asking why?  I suppose their are enough tech-savvy people here to be able to verify from the headers that you did. But I don't really want to  engage in more of this tit-for-tat business, but if you keep posting I am a liar, I will make them available to anyone here who asks, in order to be able to verify you acknowledged that I did add an auto-response just for you. --TK/MyTalk|undefined"Lowly" editor 17:06, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I don't remember it, but I'm willing to pretend it existed just to end this. The point is that harassment is bad; let's leave it at that.- 17:17, 14 January 2008 (EST)
 * I certainly don't want to be seen as forcing you into something, AmesG. Now you have made me feel badly, thinking I have caused your delicate nature to be distressed.  I would be happy to forward a copy of your email about it, to you.  Just ask me.  You and I agree that real harassment is indeed bad, and so we can now leave this topic, needlessly and recklessly introduced as it may have been. You are indeed a living embodiment of your own words, and I thank you for that!

"A bureaucrat is the true voice of the people in a Wiki project. He or she is supported and recognized by all as a fair administrator of the rules, who does not spark controversy, but instead mollifies it, bringing users together rather than splitting them apart." -AmesG yo! 10:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT) --TK/MyTalk|undefined"Lowly" editor 17:35, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Postmove Discussion
On Conservapedia, TK had checkuser. Many of us used names that were not too far from our real names (as do most on CP) if not our real names themselves. If one logs in from the office, calling the front desk and asking to be connected to the person or their manager works at many places. If I remember correctly (I may be mistaken), PalMD had this happen to him. I am fairly sure that if one digs far enough, there is a fair bit of profile that can be gathered on any of us. Again, if I remember correctly (and again, I could be mistaken), I recall that TK was boasting about developing profiles of users who contributed to Conservapedia. http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009605.html has some reading (#44). I'm fairly sure this is in reference to TK. I would welcome people filling in my gaps of memory there. The point being, TK and Conservapedia sysops have done this before and and point that TK continues to look up IP addresses and sees where they are from supports that he continues to build these profiles and continues to bully users. This type of behavior is not acceptable. --Shagie 20:32, 14 January 2008 (EST)


 * No, you are 100% incorrect, Shagie. The user said they were from New Hampshire, and that "everyone knew that, and who they are".  Since their IP, as they posted it freely, clearly wasn't from the United States, or even North America, I was completely justified in checking.  As for your other without logic statements, simply because you don't think it is right to do so, thousands of sites do check user IP's as a matter of policy.  That being so, your conjectures and assumptions are silly, IMO. As for calling PAL, yes, I did, about a blog issue, not to threaten him, and he himself told me via IM where he worked.  Your bitter hate and misquotes, allusions are what is disturbing.  Even your link doesn't appear to go to anything having to do with my compiling "records" and it is really inflammatory hate speak for you to suggest it is true, or that I ever boasted of doing so. --TK/MyTalk|undefined"Lowly" editor 20:54, 14 January 2008 (EST)

This site has uninstalled checkuser. This means we have also uninstalled the spirit of checkuser. Forgive me for waxing poetic, but I'm being serious; we've decided to adhere to a policy that users should expect privacy. Useage of an IP address certainly means that it's open to investigation by anyone, but in keeping with our spirit, it does not imply consent to have one's location and home bandied about the interwebs by a couple users, especially where the specific intent is to harass and annoy. Thus, open discussion of a user's location, absent consent ab initio from that user, will be an offense, to maintain a legitimate expectation of privacy, and to create a legitimate expectation of privacy, even where none existed before.- 21:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)


 * For Shagie: not again to defend TK, but at those times when TK had checkuser, I remember RW 1.0 making detailed profiles of TK, Karajou, Conservative, PJR, the Schlafly family, IIRC - not only IP addresses: long biographies instead, worthy of Pinkerton & Pinkerton. I don't think TK has checkuser now, and comparing CP's possible profiling then to checking now where an IP address is from is apples and oranges. You want privacy? Login with a sock. RW doesn't block for multiple socks. Ed @but not the Poor one! 02:48, 15 January 2008 (EST)


 * Let's not forget, since some here are partial to dredging up the past, how Rational Wiki, Trent, Ames, et.al., actually tried people in absentia! How's that for really displaying their true values? --TK/MyTalk|undefined"Lowly" editor 03:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)


 * Typical of TK, the actual comment (next but one above) was (I think): "Moron. I live in Hampshire, and I'm not hiding behind anonymity" 'That's the Hampshire after which New Hampshire was named, oh bear of little brain. Susan  Purrrrrrr  21:20, 14 January 2008 (EST)


 * Insults, SusanG? Will you be blocked for that? :P  Sorry, AmesG, please forgive me about the IP reference, I just completely missed wherever that change in policy was discussed an d decided upon, this being a mobocracy, I will certainly abide by it!  For future reference, could you please provide a link so I can bookmark it?  Thanks! I will consider the matter closed, except for the Red Herrings of Shagie slyly introduced using the cover she might be wrong, that I view as a personal attack. Wouldn't what she said be akin to my posting "I had heard, but might be wrong, that _____ has a drug problem?"  Aren't we above this kind of trick and device here?  And if we are not, shouldn't we be? --TK/MyTalk|undefined"Lowly" editor 21:30, 14 January 2008 (EST)


 * Stop using "we" TK - you're not any part of "us". (where's the insult?) Why do you continue to post here TK? Is it just because you get an erection at the thought of the shit you think you're stirring? Or are you more subtle in your eroticism; do you like to imagine us indulging in internal strife - a sort of virtual mud wrestling? Or do you just like being oppressed - that's it! You're a closet masochist! Problem solved. Susan  Purrrrrrr  21:39, 14 January 2008 (EST)


 * Susan: First, as much as you dislike TK, keep it off of the wiki please, actually, that should apply for everyone and not just you. Second, while a highly respected contributor, you do not speak for the wiki, so the decision of whether or not anyone is a part of "us" does not lie with you, or any one user for that matter. 21:51, 14 January 2008 (EST)


 * Feeling persecuted is apparently one of the most addictive emotions known to man--just look at the lengths Republicans went to to obtain it during the recent period when their faction had near-total control of all three houses of government, the total obeisance of the mass media, and major economic domination. Or just any random post by TK. --SockOfGulik 22:09, 14 January 2008 (EST)


 * So....no one will block or remove Susan for her continued personal insults? This is, by my count about the 20th time she has made personal insults to me. I was posting in good faith, and being nice. It isn't like I called you an old prune (or anything else, for that matter!), as someone else did, Susan.  Lighten up! Someone might say you deciding who should or should not post here is very un-liberal, and we don't want that!  --TK/MyTalk|undefined"Lowly" editor 21:45, 14 January 2008 (EST)

At this point, can I ask you all to stop for a moment and look at what TK said a few paragraphs above:"The user said they were from New Hampshire, and that "everyone knew that, and who they are". Since their IP, as they posted it freely, clearly wasn't from the United States, or even North America, I was completely justified in checking." Hold on TK... your little veiled threat about knowing that user's whereabouts came BEFORE he/she said they lived in "Hampshire"... You, sir, are plainly a liar, and not a very good one. You can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time, and ALL of the people SOME of the time....but.... 143.231.249.141 21:56, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Ahh, the big lie technique again! I never made any threat. If you or anyone else decides it is, that doesn't make it so. I said the IP clearly wasn't from North America, and I was right. And it has so been acknowledged as not being from there. Jeeeze! --TK/MyTalk|undefined"Lowly" editor 22:20, 14 January 2008 (EST)


 * I've tried to stay away from this, but enough is enough. TK/everybody else stops acknowledging The Cabal members'/TK's existence respectively in 3... 2... 1... NightFlareSpeak, mortal 22:09, 14 January 2008 (EST)