Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2020 board of trustees election is underway!

RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/TK

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Rant and follow ups are (back)HERE[edit]

This can go here - feel free to move[edit]

I'd like to point out the futility of trying to come to some kind of accommodation with TK. I enjoyed Sid's analysis of how CP screwed itself with its hammernutcrack response to wandalism and I suspect TK will eventually drive this site down a similar road regarding policies and procedures, unless someone actually bites the bullet and deep-sixes the fucker for good. I also suspect that some here are of the "give him enough rope" persuasion. Nuts to that shit. He's better at this game than you are.

This is a pretty good place to kill a bit of time and I enjoy reading what most of you have to say. I find myself steadily losing respect, however, for a group of people who persist in tolerating such a poisonous tool in their midst for no net benefit whatsoever. What are you trying to prove? And who the fuck to? You've turned the other cheek so many times with him that most of the CP sysops should die from fucking shame at your Christian tolerance and charity.

Grow a pair. Nuke him. Plea for sanity ends. --Robledo 18:06, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I have to agree with you. While I personally have had no bad experiences with TK, and even found him to be cordial when addressing me (although that might change after he reads this), I have witnessed his hurtful overreactions when interacting with others. Many times. Enough to say, yes, we should just bite the bullet and permanently ban him. I have no desire for RationalWiki to continue housing someone who regularly proves incapable of conducting a constructive conversation. And isn't that one of the major reasons RationalWiki was founded, to facilitate such constructive discussions? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
At the risk of losing my reputation for fairhandedness (I had one?), I'm inclined to agree. I've done some moderation turns before, on mailing lists and the like, and this is certainly not behaviour that would be tolerated. And I'll be totally honest here, if it weren't for the others I would have just blocked him and not worried about it some time ago. If he wants to compare that to Andy or Karajou or whatever, let him. My ego's not that fragile. --Kels 19:00, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I like the cut of Robledo's jib.-αmεσ (soldier)

According to wikipedia, ames has just called Robledo a Canadian slang term for meth. Sounds like a pretty serious personal attack. According to the block policy, that should be a few hours. user talk:Bohdan 19:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Seriously? That's pretty cool, actually. I've lived in Canada my whole life and I've never heard it. --Kels 19:18, 15 January 2008 (EST)
[1]. user talk:Bohdan 19:19, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Huh. Apparently it's a BC thing. I figured Toronto, but I guess it sounds too "woodsy" or something. --Kels 19:24, 15 January 2008 (EST)

You have to admit, BC is way better than the rest of Canada (except saskatchewan of course). Its really no surprise they have better, more dignified slang. user talk:Bohdan 19:29, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Eh, I actually meant the opposite, that Torontonians think so highly of themselves that they'd shy away from any slang that sounds vaguely "countrified". Of course, being from Nova Scotia, I know better what the best part of the country is, even if BC does grow the best weed. --Kels 19:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Nova Scotia? You have my deepest sympathy. Hopefully someday you will overcome and move west, to the extremely-totally-awsome part of the country. user talk:Bohdan 19:39, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Sounds like jealousy to me. --Kels 19:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)
ouch. user talk:Bohdan 19:46, 15 January 2008 (EST)
I live in Oregon. Guess that makes me better than either of you, huh? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

If TK gets permabanned here, not only will it give him a never-ending supply of Persecution, AND it'll help re-establish his 'cred' over at The Black Hole of Stupidity, so he can get back to work banning everyone who tries to bring any sanity to the place. That sounds like a win-win situation, for him and us. --SockOfGulik 19:37, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Thquotes43 01.jpg

A macro! How sweet! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

He has no friends left over at CP, so it looks like lose-lose for him, win-win for humanity. Impartial 19:53, 15 January 2008 (EST)
I stopped assuming lunacy and started assuming malice yesterday night. (or was it earlier today?) NightFlareSpeak, mortal 20:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Posing the Question[edit]

If we actually want to do it, I propose we vote - vote here regarding the permabanning of TK. The fate of the galaxy is at stake, so nothing short of a superduperubermajority should do. That is to say, I think 2 or 3 "nays," depending on the size of the voting pool (and TK doesn't count as a "nay") should kill this vote. (Someone should define how many is a superduperubermajority by the way)

The votes[edit]

Yea[edit]

  1. Aye -αmεσ (soldier) 20:00, 15 January 2008 (EST) I recognize that this goes against our libertarian ideals, but our mission cannot become a suicide pact. Let's pull off the bandaid and end this quickly.
  2. Aye - Robledo says it just about right, IMHO. humanUser talk:Human 20:04, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  3. Aye - The universe can go hang, though, I don't recognize the superduper nonsense. It's mob or no mob, right? --Kels 20:07, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  4. Aye --Shagie 20:11, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  5. Aye Impartial 20:14, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  6. Aye --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 20:17, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  7. AYE SusanPurrrrrrr 20:26, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  8. If I can make my vote count for half an AYE, I will. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 20:55, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  9. Aye Fox 21:29, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  10. Aye When we found a Gestapo, can I be the one to run it?  :) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:06, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  11. Aye With some reluctance. We should update the guidelines as well to allow for special bans bans for exceptional persistent trolling.--Bobbing up 03:18, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  12. Aye Pattern of behavior has been demonstrated, and it ain't good.--Bayesupdate 13:01, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  13. Aye Hasn't been housetrained. PoorEd 13:58, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  14. Aye. You! Out of the pool! --SockOfGulik 14:37, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Nay[edit]

  1. nay user talk:Bohdan
  2. Nay Pinto's5150 Talk Is that really what we want this site to become?
  3. I'm going to say that I think that it's in strict violation of the founding principles to permaban anyone… thusly, at this time, I'll vote "nay". --Linus(plot evil tech) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)
    1. How would you feel about a 3141259265 second "block"? By the way, our founding principles are not to "not block vandals or trolls" - we do that all the time. Our "founding principles" are on the main page (click the brainz). I think you should reconsider your vote. humanUser talk:Human 00:09, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  4. Nay If Sauron didn't make that ring to rule them all, it wouldn't have been a great story. NorsemanWassail! 20:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  5. Nay Give some clear example of behaviour that merits an permaban here and i might reconsider. TimoT 21:26, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  6. Nay I don't have any real argument but he just does not seem to have merited a permaban, yet. - Icewedge 21:33, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  7. Nay ditto what Timo sez. PFoster 00:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  8. Nay Good and evil. Light and dark. There never can be one without the other. Edgerunner76
  9. Nay I'm away mostly and my vote shouldn't count really and i don't know what happened but no one should be permabanned ever i think. airdish 12:07, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  10. Nay Not that I think it matters at this point, as it seems a decision has been reached. If TK has done so much to earn a permaban then I haven't observed it. I certainly agree he's gone out of bounds, but I believe we should adhere to the progressive block sequence used in the past. Stile4aly 13:01, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Lets also vote on the permabanning of AKjeldsen[edit]

  1. Aye why not? user talk:Bohdan 20:19, 15 January 2008 (EST)

And user:tmtoulouse[edit]

  1. Aye user talk:Bohdan 20:19, 15 January 2008 (EST)

And user:Bohdan[edit]

  1. Aye NorsemanWassail! 20:40, 15 January 2008 (EST) :P
  2. Aye why not? user talk:Bohdan 20:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  3. Nay I prefer blocking him early and often. So does he. humanUser talk:Human 21:23, 15 January 2008 (EST)
    1. For instance, I blocked him twice tonight. Shoot, some "Pinto Bean" guy blocked me tonight! humanUser talk:Human 00:10, 16 January 2008 (EST)

User:User[edit]

  1. Aye Pinto's5150 Talk
  2. Aye user talk:Bohdan 20:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

And user:Elassint[edit]

  1. Aye I like him on Uncyclopedia (and by "like him" I mean "he voted for my article"). But his "serious side" (closet conspiracy theorist?) is much less amusing. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:09, 16 January 2008 (EST)

What Margin of Majority Do We Need Here?[edit]

I'd say two ayes for every nay is a tolerable requirement.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (EST)

  1. Aye Two ayes for every nay. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 20:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  2. Nay I personally believe this whole vote is a farce. A troll is a troll. To say nothing of, what's wrong with a simple majority? --Kels 21:02, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  3. Nay Simple majority Impartial 21:04, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  4. Aye I think that especially considering who this is, we need a vote. Pinto's5150 Talk 21:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
    "Considering who this is"? I thought we were supposed to be a clean slate? TK's just some guy who walked in off the street and started writing on the walls and punched out the host's cat. --Kels 21:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  5. Aye - I believe that a two-thirds majority is the commonly accepted requirement on such serious issues. Just as important is whether there should be a wp:Quorum and for how long this vote should run. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 21:11, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  6. Thanks for breaking the numbered bullets, Kels. I propose a 57% majority of all users I consider "respected". Oh, shit. Never mind. Right now I see 7:3, which is pretty overwhelming. But not perhaps a quorum yet. humanUser talk:Human 21:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
    Why particularly 57%? (And quorum refers to how many people need to vote in total for the vote to be valid. ;-) ) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 21:36, 15 January 2008 (EST)
    Because 57 is a sweet prime number. And I know what quorum means ;) At this last count it was 9:4. humanUser talk:Human 21:41, 15 January 2008 (EST)
    How can a quorum be "9:4"? It's usually "50 percent of the members" or "40 members" or some such. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 21:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
    Maybe I was not clear. When I said it was 7:3, that meets the ratio, but surely ten votes does not a quorum make. I don't even know how we wuld define a quorum on a wiki, where you tend to have 1. thousands of inactive silly "usernames", and 2. real users with wildly varying levels of activity. humanUser talk:Human 11:30, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  7. Aye. 2/1 ratio seems appropriate. --Linus(plot evil tech) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  8. Aye Simple majority. PoorEd 14:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Debate[edit]

My principle going into this is that, while our mission is to ensure equality, democracy, and a voice for everyone, we run the risk of letting in people who seek to undermine our mission from within, unless we allow a check on our own principles. This is to say, to commit to absolute tolerance would be ensure our own destruction by people who wish to hurt us by turning us against each other. Egalitarianism, and tolerance, are model ideals, but to go too far in that direction is to risk being eaten alive by our own principled stand against our best self-interest. Ideals sometimes diverge from ideal application, and if derelict our duty to manage our site, we do our vaunted principles no good.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Where does it end?— Unsigned, by: Bohdan / talk / contribs
It "ends" here - only truly disruptive users should be subjected to this.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Who is disruptive? Those who disagree with you? Those who don't accept the theory of evolution? user talk:Bohdan 20:33, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Please abstain from such strawmen, Bohdan. This is complicated enough as it is. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 20:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry. But "First they came for TK..." user talk:Bohdan 20:43, 15 January 2008 (EST)
That's like saying "first they came for the criminals..." No sympathy.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I'm next aren't I? [2] user talk:Bohdan 20:50, 15 January 2008 (EST)
No! At worst, she says you're "not funny." Not funny does not equal "mean." I hope you stay around for a long time.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (EST)
The difference between Bodhan and TK, by their actions here, is the difference between a funny wandal and a not-funny wandal. Bodhan's trolling is the equivalent of LOLgoats, whereas TK's trolling is the equivalent of blanking pages and replacing them with gibberish. --Kels 21:00, 15 January 2008 (EST)
No. TK produces drama and sows dissension with malice aforethought. Intellectual disagreement is tolerable, of course - that's WHY we exist, is to act as a forum for the same. But make no mistake that trolling (as in picking fights for fun), bitterness, anger, and venom are not intellectual.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (EST)
If this was due to political disagreements, I'd vote no. However, fundamentally TK seems to be a troll who does nothing but throw insults, unfounded allegations and hurtful remarks about him, a behaviour which only serves to create bad feelings and a belligerent atmosphere. As he seems unlikely to change this anytime soon, I consider a ban to be justified. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 20:25, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Norseman, are you seriously voting to keep him around because it makes good reading? I admit it's a good point..-αmεσ (soldier) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

It's better than the sitcoms on the TV, that's for sure. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 20:46, 15 January 2008 (EST)
In fairness, that's just because of the writer's strike.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:48, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Anything beats Danish sitcoms. user talk:Bohdan 20:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Heck, we don't even have our own sitcoms. All we get is recycled US material from last year (or sometimes last century). --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 20:51, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Do they dub them? user talk:Bohdan 20:54, 15 January 2008 (EST)
No, they use subtitles. Preferable, IMO. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 20:57, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Agreed. I suppose many are english speakers so its not really an issue for most? user talk:Bohdan 20:58, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Basically. We've never had a tradition for dubbing except for children's movies and such. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 21:01, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Subtitles > dubbing. --Kels 21:19, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, I'm seriously voting to keep him around for good reading! Stick to the Fibbonaci Code and you'll see less and less of him anyway, right? NorsemanWassail! 20:53, 15 January 2008 (EST)
True, but it protracts a process which you admit will have to be done eventually. I think ripping off the bandaid is better.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (EST)

If there's one thing I've learned from watching the Bush Administration (from afar, but not far enough) is that standing by ideology when experience tells you it's hurting you is bad. This is a case of that. AK is absolutely right, this isn't about a differing point of view, or political speech. It's simple trolling, and it mystifies me that as mods we've got our hands tied from simply dealing with it appropriately for fear of "looking like CP" or similar nonsense. Further, it is my suspicion that if the troll was anyone but TK, they would have been taken care of weeks ago, if not longer. His history has protected, not penalized him. --Kels 20:54, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Brilliang.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (EST)

ec x 5!! See User:SusanG/beta for my two penn'orth. SusanPurrrrrrr 20:58, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I nominate the above debate for "best of RationalWiki". Especially "Brilliang". Did anybody resort to the goat argument? I was laughing too hard to finish reading.

And on a serious note: Let's ban TK. He would never let such intelligence and fun exist, persist, and devolist without interrupting and complaining about how we were censoring him and "just as bad as Aschlafly". humanUser talk:Human 21:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Brilliang!-αmεσ (soldier) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Socks[edit]

the use of obvious socks in mob voting destroys the system. Anyone using socks should be blocked. Locke 21:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Shoot, you mean Bohdan [random prime number] can't rock the vote? Dang. humanUser talk:Human 21:44, 15 January 2008 (EST)

People who think TK is an asset to this wiki in any way sign here and say why[edit]

Really long header says it all. humanUser talk:Human 21:24, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Tumbleweed.gif

ROTFLMAO!!!! But seriously, anyone? This is, after all, SERIOUS BUSINESS! humanUser talk:Human

TK is a major Asset to this wiki[edit]

Isn't he? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Whats the point really?[edit]

It's like we are burning an flame retardant witch, fast change of IP and we are like CP sysops guessing who is sock of TK this week. TimoT 21:40, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Oih... The WP article has just the picture to go with this. [3]
ROTFLMAO even harder!!! PERFECT! By the way, TK may be smart and skilled in many devious ways, but he sucks at socks. humanUser talk:Human 21:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
I have seen his range blocks, so you might have some point there, but ill be bold enough to claim that if he really wants, he can learn how to use proxies. TimoT 22:01, 15 January 2008 (EST)

TimT, I think that's precisely the point: anyone like TK, who wasn't TK, would probably have been banned for a day and gone by now. It's just his history, which is frankly pretty sordid and awful, that's making us squeamish about blocking him.-αmεσ (soldier) 21:48, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Alright - TK can be a good foil sometimes, and often has smart things to say - and sometimes he can take it too far and be a pain in the ass. Kinda like a lot of us. Me, I'd rather see him stay, and have us not be like CP by banning him. Also, the very fact that this headline is even here speaks to just how bad it's getting, and I don't like it: This continuous sniping between members of our community is getting old and boring; but inviting people to pile on TK smacks of schoolyard bully tactics - say what you will about TK - and there's a lot to be said about him, he's never (as far as I know) invited people to pile on Ames or Human for example. All that being said, it's time to, if you'll pardon my French, shit or get off the pot. Have the balls to tell him he's no longer welcome here and permaban him (not my choice) or accept him, warts and all (which is what I would do - kinda like me and my brother-in-law). But the current approach has to stop, from all sides. PFoster 21:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Consider yourself lucky you haven't been a party to his behind the scenes games. But we have. And I too want the sniping to end; without him, frankly, it probably will. I can't think of any sniping that wasn't directly caused by TK.-αmεσ (soldier) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Point taken - I can only speak to what I know. And based on what I know, meh. PFoster 21:53, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Head over to his user talk page if you want a good example of what we've been dealing with - the "live by the sword" comment is a gem, and really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to him. If you really want a good perspective on him, read Robledo's comments above.-αmεσ (soldier) 21:54, 15 January 2008 (EST)
I don't want to see a permaban, but I agree with PFoster. Just make a decision and stick with it. This is getting stupid. Locke 22:00, 15 January 2008 (EST)
It started out stupid. I stated it right at the beginning. Troll. Ban. Get on with life. Simple. --Kels 22:07, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Yieks... You talk like my ex :-/ TimoT 22:39, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Ill just list the things that bother me here. Firstly it seams that banning TK would be mostly because of his previous actions outside RW, If we are having a vote about this, how are people going to make "the right call" when it seams that these evil deeds by him are known only to few. I have myself been reading CP allmost from the start and my first account was blocked among others at the night of the blunt knifes for only being RW member for 3 days with no edits at that point, before that i had offcourse been harrashed by TK from my liberal edits. So i have been following his writings for quite some time now. So i definetly don't like him. But i still think that to ban him from here, there should be some direct reason to show, something where he brakes the rules of this site. Personally i would just ignore his posts as i myself have been doing so far. But yes, i don't think people should dwell over this thing for too long, no matter what the decision will be. TimoT 22:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Oh, and if this is yet an another plot in the never ending saga where no one really is what he/she seams to be and you are just trying to build some credibility for TK to go back to CP, then please let me know, i'm lazy at writing rants ^^ TimoT 22:33, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Those plots were fun but their days are over :-). I think one thing that CP does better than us is to control jerkwads (of course they do it a little too well), so TK's probably never going to have a happy tenure on CP again.-αmεσ (soldier)
Hey - an idea! How about we send him to Coventry nothing would really piss him off as much as being ignored. (don't suppose we could though, someone'd crack & let their chain be jerked -- Oh well, it made me smile) SusanPurrrrrrr 22:46, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Here's my take, FWIW. First of all, TK will see this entire discussion as an existential threat, and lash out at those who vilify him (ames!) and reach out to those who have been usually kind. He tends to split people up that way, in my observations. I don't care whether or not he contributes lots of nice stuff here...just whether he is too disruptive, and that changes from day to day. He's a moody guy who goes from genuinely warm to threatening to send the FBI to your bosses house to talk about your pant size. I don't really have the balls to banhammer unless everyone (no, not you fox or bohdan) really thinks he is distracting from real work. It's getting harder for me to get things done because of the damn flu season, and I'd hate of trolling made it even harder.
Maybe that wasn't that useful a statement, but, oh well.--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 22:51, 15 January 2008 (EST)

It was useful :-). But I think he definitely interrupts normal editing. I think we're about to banninate, too.-αmεσ (soldier) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Has the quorum been reached? I don't think it has… And yes, it was helpful. --Linus(plot evil tech) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Er… I know the edit comment for the above was misleading, sorry. It was something of a an accident. It's getting a bit late to be staring at a screen, y'see. --Linus(plot evil tech) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Hypothetically: If he gets banned will I be allowed to refer to him as "a festering gobbet of pus issuing from a syphillitic sore on the crotch of a mediaeval whore" without being censured for badmouthing a user?
(I'll get my coat) SusanPurrrrrrr 23:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Absolutely, yes. Tht's what this trial is determining, for once and forever! (or at least for 314149265 seconds). humanUser talk:Human 00:22, 16 January 2008 (EST)

If that is the case, Human, I think my trial in absentia on RW 1.0 already found me guilty, lol. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 01:23, 16 January 2008 (EST)

On the one hand, having TK here generates enormous amounts of Internet Drama, and not much else that I can see. On the other hand, having him here allows us all to congratulate ourselves on being So Wonderfully Tolerant. On the third hand, he already thinks the Cabal is persecuting him, so why not make it official? --Gulik 01:38, 16 January 2008 (EST)


LIBERAL[edit]

  1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
  2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
  3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
  4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
  5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
  6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
  7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
  8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
  9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
  10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
  11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
  12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
  13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun

  1. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
  • Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish

Being a liberal is more than platitudes and slogans. It means walking the walk, not just talking the talk. Here we have lots of BIG LIES. Look at all my posts for the past month.....there are many light-hearted and kind ones, joking. Even in those, one user or another is allowed to take a snark, and it goes off-track. We all know there is a hidden cabal forum, its admitted to. Only they don't tell everyone they do discuss policy about this wiki there, they deny it. Many don't like me, because the want to side with the majority, and thats fine. But it is way too easy to brand anyone, someone who they disagree with a Troll. That is exactly what many of you were pissed off at me, and CP for doing, no? Calling people trolls and constantly blocking them? Isn't that the pattern here in dealing with me? Here in RW-Land, two wrongs evidently make a right. Who would have thunk? --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 02:07, 16 January 2008 (EST)

First, you screwed up the formatting. Second, let me quote what happens when I even dare to look at the source of a CP page:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by TK. The reason given is (sub)Human Troll/Vandal. Bye..

Why do I ssay this? To ask, what is you r point in all the above drivel? humanUser talk:Human 02:33, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Too late Cracker blocked her. 5 years. What's that in seconds?Warren Terra 02:37, 16 January 2008 (EST)
"Being a liberal is more than platitudes and slogans. It means walking the walk, not just talking the talk." This is not a "liberal site". It is a "rational" site" - check the goals on the front page. We are not whores for "free speech", we are whores for intelligent discussion. If you desire, as your content here over the last 5 months inidicates, to be a martyr to your own painful cause (no cause discernible, just a desire to be a martyr), please find your own cross and don't waste our wood.
"We all know there is a hidden cabal forum, its admitted to. Only they don't tell everyone they do discuss policy about this wiki there, they deny it." Please, if anyone seriously thinks this paranoia has a basis in reality, chime in now.
"Calling people trolls and constantly blocking them?" Hahahahahahaha. You are so BLOCKED? On CP, you were happy to block people for no friggin' reason whatsoever (despite your paranoia), forever. Here, you seem still quite able to post, so obviously not blocked? Jeziz Christ on an Easter Stick, you're a little early for the season.
PS. It is unlikely you will survive the week here. If you wonder why, see your above comment. Your cross beam is gone off the treadle down at the mill. You constantly argue about some sort of weird meta-issue, while offering no reason why you should -or would want to - participate here. You constantly insult valued editors, and endlessly try to imply that RW is some sort of deep conspiracy. It's just a website. One that some of us enjoy — well, at least when you aren't around. Some of us even "pay for this microphone", we like it so much. Your martyrdom is becoming a boring joke. humanUser talk:Human 02:45, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I think TK's list above actually shows how liberal we have been. Unlike permabans on CP which were summarily executed by a sysop without any debate and in a very short time, TK has been allowed to troll here for a very long time and there has been an excess of debate over the issue. We have been very generous, nay magnanimous even, in putting up with his disruptive behaviour and while that may be liberal it is far from rational. He has shat on the floor too many times and will never be housetrained, so it behooves us to keept him outside. However, it's not like he is being deprived of basic humn rights like food, water or the right to life. Far from it, I believe that we have in fact bestowed the gift of freedom on TK and he will come to see that exclusion from here and CP can in fact be a veritable boon. No more will he have to worry about the petty in-fighting of various wikis. He can now devote himself to the far more important business of running a successful public policy/car price analysis/computer consultancy. I am pretty sure that in six months time, while he is sailing his motor yacht off Tahiti with a group of topless Swedes, he will look back to his sojourn here, smile wistfully to himself and give thanks to AmesG. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 02:59, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, pretty much. The definition of a liberal: You know, I googled it to get eh classic snark (someone who won't even tak tehir own side in a fight), and all I found was kind of cool stuff. But, as I started to say, I agree with GK. If anyone misses TK, he can be reached via email and most instant messenger services, as far I have been led to believe. humanUser talk:Human 03:10, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Fixin' Format screwed up by jackass[edit]

Was PalMD's statement useful?[edit]

  1. Nay user talk:Bohdan 23:02, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Koorvya Mat, dupa!--PalMD-Did that sound a little harst? 23:12, 15 January 2008 (EST)
  1. Yea humanUser talk:Human 00:22, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  2. Yea. --Linus(plot evil tech) 13:17, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Is Bohdan our pet troll?[edit]

  1. Yea - How many times did I block you tonight? humanUser talk:Human 00:29, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  2. A bit - he's a good conscience, too, in a Jiminy Cricket sort of way: and I do appreciate that-αmεσ (soldier) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  3. An how many times did he block me? humanUser talk:Human 00:39, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  4. Yes - for both the lulz, and he's like some sort of anti-yesman, too. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

Is AmesG really named AmosG?[edit]

  1. Yea user talk:Bohdan 00:33, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Is Bohdan really named Ban, Doh?[edit]

  1. Yea I thunk it so. humanUser talk:Human 00:42, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Should we end these stupid votes?[edit]

  1. yea user talk:Bohdan 00:44, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  2. Eye.jpg Pinto's5150 Talk 00:46, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  3. Human.gif humanUser talk:Human 00:52, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I ask a question, and your answer is... an eye? Oh please, user talk:Bohdan 00:47, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Eye.... Aye.... get it? Pinto's5150 Talk 00:48, 16 January 2008 (EST)
AHAHAHA! Now I do. That's got to be one of the best things I have seen on this wiki. Thanks, user talk:Bohdan 00:49, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Enough is enough[edit]

I am away a night, and what happens?

I hope most of the above is in jest.

Let's take TK in RW in this year 2008 (or extend to the last quarter of 2007). What has he done?

- He has given many insights into CP, Andy, and co. and commented onto happenings there. Can anyone deny?
- He has been fun. Certainly funnier than many of us jumping at him.
- He has made some snarky remarks. But we are not exactly friendly to him here. And I have seen worse by people who did not get banned
- He has been very heavily attacked, by AmesG, Human, Kels, GK, Susan, etc. etc. Some are attacks that I didn't believe good-willed liberals were able to make
- Mostly those attacks are attacks ad hominem et ad personam - at his past at CP.
- He may have written e-mails, some of them "menacing". Well the evidence presented is lukewarm at best. People must consider that TK may have a different sense of humour than some users here. And some seem to me to be quite thin-skinned.
- He may conspirate to make us enemies of ourselves. He may conspirate to bring RW down. Please! If CP didn't fall, how can RW? Are we just so weak that a TK could bring us down? Nonsense.
- Some conservapedians, in the past, have conspired this way: 1) they came to RW and vandalised and/or provoked, 2) they expected to be banned, 3) they rightfully wrongfully claimed that RW is no better than CP, banning for ideological reasons etc. They failed miserably, but let's not go that way.
- RW hasn't permabanned anyone apart from funniless vandals. Let's not start with TK. Let's say the truth: if he didn't sign as TK, but if he were a KT, would we even be talking about him?
- I can't believe something like this is happening, I must have missed the <joke> tags </joke> somewhere.
- Let's be proud to be RationalWiki.

Respectfully, your liberal, guarantist (?) Ed @but not the Poor one! 04:56, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Damn it! Now I've changed my mind again! Keep TK! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:59, 16 January 2008 (EST)

For what it's worth, and I'm a bit new round her to have any real say in the matter, I say that we shouldn't ban TK because we're NOT CP and we don't work that way (or am I wrong?) Silver Sloth 08:30, 16 January 2008 (EST)

- He has given many insights into CP, Andy, and co. and commented onto happenings there. Can anyone deny?
It's been doubtful how much originally came from him. We would need to know more about the mysterious 'KevinK' to say that.
- He has been fun. Certainly funnier than many of us jumping at him.
Err...
- He has made some snarky remarks. But we are not exactly friendly to him here. And I have seen worse by people who did not get banned
Not over such a period of time - as 'Raptor22', he's been this way since mid-May. Fairly continuously.
- He has been very heavily attacked, by AmesG, Human, Kels, GK, Susan, etc. etc.
While TK has often fired the first salvo in these, you may have a point here.
-Some are attacks that I didn't believe good-willed liberals were able to make
This sounds uncomfortably similar to Andy - let's stop creating this black and white universe.
- Mostly those attacks are attacks ad hominem et ad personam - at his past at CP.
Possibly. Attacks have been fired back, however, at other RWers - over his time at RW.
- He may have written e-mails, some of them "menacing". Well the evidence presented is lukewarm at best. People must consider that TK may have a different sense of humour than some users here. And some seem to me to be quite thin-skinned.
My forum inbox is an example of something that contains remarks that would not suggest thin skin on our part. It's hard evidence.
- He may conspirate to make us enemies of ourselves. He may conspirate to bring RW down. Please! If CP didn't fall, how can RW? Are we just so weak that a TK could bring us down? Nonsense.
Look at CP - it is falling, or at least in a similar state. Our lot, however, draw upon a smaller userbase.
- Some conservapedians, in the past, have conspired this way: 1) they came to RW and vandalised and/or provoked, 2) they expected to be banned, 3) they rightfully wrongfully claimed that RW is no better than CP, banning for ideological reasons etc. They failed miserably, but let's not go that way.
I'm not entirely sure what's being said here, but it's probably my poor reading comprehension.
- RW hasn't permabanned anyone apart from funniless vandals. Let's not start with TK. Let's say the truth: if he didn't sign as TK, but if he were a KT, would we even be talking about him?
He has, in the past, required complex negotiations in order to keep his identity 'secret'. Also, I'm sure that if KT kept up this way of conduct for 9 months, we would still be talking.
- I can't believe something like this is happening, I must have missed the <joke> tags </joke> somewhere.
They were in <font color="white"> </font> tags.
- Let's be proud to be RationalWiki.
Yes - but we're individuals as well, and shouldn't have to face harassment from either side here. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
I won't continue this debate - in my opinion TK's actions here don't warrant a long block or lifeban. And he is not as 'big' as it appears: it's RWikians' reactions to him that make all of this a bit out of proportion. There is much more talk about him and remarks on and to him than by him. Maybe CP is coming down, which will probably lead to RW's demise as well, but can you with a straight face affirm that it is TK who is bringing RW down?
A couple of clarifications: 1) by 'forum inbox' do you mean your RW e-mail or something else? 2) sorry for not making a point clear: there was a time when (probable) conservapedians came to vandalize RW with the explicit intention of getting blocked, and then crying "See: you, RW, block as well. No difference between you and us". I remember a time when there was discussion should clear vandals, usually anonymous IP numbers, be blocked at all, since we are RW. TK wasn't one of them, at least not with his TK handle. We have come a long way if we banhammer TK for, well, generic reasons (I'd say ideological but I'll restrain). When he argues that "extremes meet like in a circle", I don't completely agree, but he has a point. I'll for sure miss his contribution. In my humble, probably biased (haven't been harassed by him since April or May 2007) opinion, Ed @but not the Poor one! 09:05, 16 January 2008 (EST)
My 2 cents: I assume this lukewarm, thin skinned reference also alludes to TKs recent blocking on CP. Let's get one thing straight: TK intends to intimidate, and whether or not the "victim" is genuinely intimidated or not, it is the intimidation that is wrong. And these are never isolated incidents, they are part of ongoing, sustained campaigns of attempted intimidation. I left CP for several months because I was sick to the eye-teeth of his snidey emails, of switching on IM to find a dozen snarky comments from him each day. See [4] also. I only went back to CP because he had been kicked out on his rear. As for his emails, etc, I don't keep copies of that trash, mainly because I'm not into his style of "blackmailing" people by reproducing things in public. (And if my memory serves me correct, he is known to have "sexed up" a few transcripts of IM convos himself - can't remember which RWians he did it to, but I'm sure there was at least one). What gets up my nose about him now is this constant accusation that I am a RW sock; it really irks me, because as Arthur Dent and GK and probably most other long term RWians know, I'm not. For the record, Andy Schlafly knows who I am, and can pick up the telephone and call me at home anytime. I have no secrets from him. But that's just part of TK's whole thing: his accusations are false, and he KNOWS they are false: it is just another way of his attempting to intimidate me. And for the rexcord? If TK had received an email from someone he'd just blocked for a day warning him to "back off", he would have permabanned him without a second thought. And then campaigned like hell to make that guy's name mud. I don't like to make ("official" is not the right word to use, but, y'know, using my CP user name) comments here too often, but TK is, as described at the outset of this discussion, "poisonous". He shouldn't be here, he shouldn't be at CP, he should be getting therapy. Fox 09:38, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Please remember that in my Useless Statement, I did not argue for banhammering. I did imply that I would support it if the community really thinks he is so disruptive that we spend all of our time dealing with him. BON trolls are usually more of a problem. As I've said, there are basically two public sides to TK that I have seen: the gentlemanly, easy-going one, and the "I'm under attack and I'm going to lash out irrationally" one. You guys have to decide if the second TK is so horribly disruptive that you don't him in the clubhouse. Like I said, if that's the case, I support it, but I haven't seen the "bad-TK" around all that much lately.75.62.26.190 09:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Let's face it, much of this is our fault. TK's edits are in Talk. We're the ones feeding the troll. --PROMHQEUS - FORETHOUGHT 10:37, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Well said Fox!
The fact that we have, to some extent, "fed the troll," does not make his presence any less toxic. First, if you walk into a landmine, do you blame yourself, and exculpate the landmine? It's absurd to tolerate his toxicity, even if it just lies in wait, hoping for someone to take his bait. Second, while it's possible that TK would not be a problem if we could, as one, avoid taking his bait, the precondition is impossible to attain or guarantee to a sufficient level of certainty. The way he acts - e-mail harassment, etc. - makes it impossible that every member of RW would evade him forever. No; we have to actively ensure against his continued attacks on us, and we have done so. Good for us.-αmεσ (soldier) 10:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Sock spotting competition[edit]

First to spot a TK sock gets a biscuit (cookie?). SusanPurrrrrrr 12:54, 16 January 2008 (EST)

SUSAN!-αmεσ (soldier) 12:58, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Err ... evidence? SusanPurrrrrrr 13:08, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Apparently we're "just like CP," so I don't need evidence!-αmεσ (soldier) 13:10, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I claim the cookie! He's now using "Tim" account 72.232.88.218 13:46, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Do you mean on RW or on CP? humanUser talk:Human 14:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Should TK be unblocked?[edit]

  1. Yes Parole him if you must, but unblock. user talk:Bohdan 13:03, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  2. No And I think this should be the last we hear of it.αmεσ (soldier) 13:10, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Was that a threat? user talk:Bohdan 13:12, 16 January 2008 (EST)
No - after all, I'm not TK... but it is my sincere, profound wish.-αmεσ (soldier) 13:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Alright, for you - silence (after all, I'm not AmesG :)). But it is my honest opinion. user talk:Bohdan 13:15, 16 January 2008 (EST)
  1. Yes Not that I think it'll happen, but mostly to register my shock and disappointment at the rational shitfest that exploded in my absence. UchihaKATON! 13:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, Uchiha, I'm sorry. I think we all sort of got fed up at once. I honestly believe that, once this blows over, the wiki will be better off.-αmεσ (soldier) 13:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Of course, when Ames sames "we" he really means "Ames". He's using a group to fight his personal vendetas. 204.187.154.49 14:01, 16 January 2008 (EST) (not TK)
Possibly, but at least we know who he is. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:30, 16 January 2008 (EST)


Isn't there a way to hobble a user?[edit]

I think it would be rather funny to unblock TK if you could limit him to something like - edits of no more than fifty characters every fifteen minutes or one hour or so. --PROMHQEUS - FORETHOUGHT 14:23, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Or limit his vocabulary to 250 words. Which I guess wouldn't change things much, depending on the words. PoorEd 14:32, 16 January 2008 (EST)

He certainly went out with a bang.[edit]

One last spasm of Drama, keeping his streak intact. And now he gets to complain about how RW is run by an EVIL CONSPIRACY OF DECEITFUL STALINIST LIERS BRUTALLY CRUSHING poor little victimized conservatives like him.  :-P --SockOfGulik 14:49, 16 January 2008 (EST)

WTF? How did I manage to miss all this??!![edit]

OK, could somebody put together a timeline of events, or at least please explain events, that this is all about? (yes, I know it's about TK, but *what* exactly??). I missed the voting n stuff, so I suppose any comment I make here, now, is superfluous, but I don't understand what went on. FWIW, I alternate between here and the Traveller Wkia, in amongst other boards/forums, so I'm not *always* up to speed on RW events. Spica 18:15, 18 January 2008 (EST)

We decided that he was more trouble than he's worth & banninated him. SusanPurrrrrrr 18:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)