User talk:TK/Archives5

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Yo, are yo retired or aren't you? Using this "retired" banner to end conversations you don't like isn't really very polite. --JeεvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 15:26, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Yo, homie! Archiving isn't ending anything. Perhaps its your opinion, but not mine. Surely you ain't so intolerant as to be saying I should conduct my own page as you think it should be, eh? I didn't dislike the conversation at all, only the rudeness of some participants. And surely you are not saying any user here should be forced to endure that on their own page? If so, perhaps you should meet Andy. --TK/MyTalk 15:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Why are you linking to a user talk page of a user that has not edited since august? --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 15:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)
There's intolerant and then there's politic. Consider archiving a conversation that's currently taking place as the equivalent of yelling "shut up" at a group of people you're talking to in meatspace. Having a banner up saying "retired" when you're clearly not, well that's deceit, innit? Edit: Heh, maybe you are "retired" in the replicant sense of the word, now. Blast other users for making a liar of me :D --JeεvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 15:50, 10 December 2007 (EST)
While TK is "off line" until someone unblocks him, I must point out that "your" talk page is not "your own page". It's community property. RW 2.0 policy since day one. Archiving is for discussions that are over. humanUser talk:Human 16:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I just saw this little bit of bullshit, lol! I might point out, it isn't spelled out who is the "Great Decider" as to when a convo is over, but it appears Human has now taken on the role of "Big Daddy" and will decide when and if a convo is over. Jeeves and Elassint, I never placed the template, "retired" here, that was the work of RW Admins, as was the link. But you knew that, or should have, before you posted your snark. Just yet another debate technique others use, and hope it will fool people. --TK/MyTalk 17:11, 14 December 2007 (EST)


Why? Did he ask for it by himself? We are not CP, are we? Editor at CP 16:01, 10 December 2007 (EST)

No, he didn't ask for it; I think that his entire raison d'etre, unchanged from before, is just to bother us. I don't think that should be allowed, especially given our previous experience with him. I can't say that fits within a general rule with which I'm comfortable; I think TK's just an outlier that should be dealt with as such. That said, if the consensus is "unblock," he should be unblocked regardless. Otherwise, he can wait out his 3 weeks.-αmεσ (soldier) 16:05, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Is it because some e-mails or chats between you? I found him reasonable, poking more fun to CP than to RW, today. Maybe I am missing something? Editor at CP 16:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)
He's threatened to have Ames beaten up, so, uh yeah. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Ok, that I definitely missed. Editor at CP 16:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Looking at the last day or two of interaction on archive#4 (above), and the "hide the evidence" attitude of archiving fresh conversations... I can't say I blame those who did the blocking. If it weren't for TK's continued obnoxious name-calling attitude, I'd unblock him. humanUser talk:Human 16:21, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I'll agree, conditionally, I'd go with a three day, (not three week) block. If he comes back, though, look for more of the same...constant bitching about how unfair we all are. If one can "filter" through that part of his posts you'll find he really doesn't have much to say. Sad really. CЯacke® 16:32, 10 December 2007 (EST)

To clarify, he didn't threaten to have me beaten up. He did threaten to call my summer employer and bitch about me (I don't know what he'd say or who'd care, but still), and in various other ways dangerously transgressed beyond e-mail animosity to threaten real-world consequences, merely for telling Conservapedia what a douche he actually was, and how he was working against them all along. That, and he plays users off against each other in an attempt to create drama, and serve god-knows what goals. That's the start of it at least. But, that said, commute to three days?-αmεσ (soldier) 16:47, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, whoops, I misread it. Still - a 'senior contributor' here. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

I guess I'm in the minority here. I gave a glance to that archive#4 and didn't find anything too offensive. But I didn't bother to read word by word sorry. TK didn't bother me, but I understand AmesG. Still if I owned RW, I would block only vandals. And TK is definitely not a vandal. Some of his comments today have been insightful. Few of us have the privilege to having worked with Andy as close as him. He hasn't (lately) substituted the content of an article with "RW SUKCS!". It's normal that when he comes to RW he is on the defensive. And some RWikians jump on him for old faults. He treated me brutally in May. But it's over now! EDIT: I didn't know about those things, Ames. I think it's up to you to decide. Do you think he was serious? Or just his, a bit twisted, sense of humour? Editor at CP 17:00, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, I retract myself. I said "He hasn't (lately)" vandalised. He probably has never vandalised RW, I must have confused with some other CP Sysop here. Editor at CP 17:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I think he's a sick & fairly twisted individual, and I know his function is generally to tear apart communities through backroom dealing and secrecy. I don't want that to happen here. But seeing as a long block on him would probably be underbroad - wouldn't reach the desired result - and probably against the RW ethos, I'll commute it to three days. I just don't want RW to turn into his own personal soapbox.-αmεσ (soldier) 17:04, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Having an open forum means giving space for people one might otherwise not want to. I haven't been paying super close attention, but I'm not sure anything more than a short block is warranted. That being said, I'm going to go but a lotto ticket - when the French-Canadian Commie stands up for TK, it is truly a sign that hell has frozen over! PFoster 17:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I would hope that we can calm this down a bit. I know there is some antagonism between AG & TK but let's not get carried away. If TK wants to bitch about his treatment, then that's fine. No-one has to reply to him. But many people here have complained about summary treatment at CP. Why can't we prove our rational credentials and be a little more tolerant of those who disagree with us and even let bygones be bygones if both sides can forget the past and judge solely on current actions. If we have give a reprimanding block then at least use a Fibonacci sequence. Long blocks should not be our style except for chronic repeat offenders. Let's face it, no matter what many people think of TK he is probably a lot nicer (on the whole) than some of the people we have an axe to grind with, and who could respond in a much more devasting fashion if they took a mind to. So lengthy blocks should not be seen as a punishment but as a cooling off period. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I treat TK as a repeat offender, and have tried to play nicely. It didn't work. That said, if you think 3 day is too long, feel free to lift it.-αmεσ (soldier) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Of course, neither did egging him on. Lurker 17:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Read this. Dude's damaged, and it's not fixable damage either. --Robledo 17:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I think that "drive by diagnosis by Wiki" is a bit of a stretch, if not a cheap shot. By your doing so, I can say with 96 percent accuracy that you stomp on bunnies. Or on long-eared jerboas.PFoster 17:37, 10 December 2007 (EST)

TK may be a repeat offender but what were his previous blocks? Sometimes a draconian punishment can have a negative outcome. I know it only made me more determined when I was at the receiving end on CP. However, I'll not go over the head of the blocker. Although we may try and stand together, it is the individual's call at the end of the day. Let's remember that TK is just an editor here and not a sysop. Just because we have the power now doesn't mean we should exact retribution. Maybe a short ban is warranted (I haven't checked all the history), so start with that and proceed á la Fib if necessary. However, when he returns it would be better if we didn't antagonise him without due cause, perhaps even turning the other cheek? Rationalwiki was formed as a counter to Conservapedophilia so I think is our duty to fulfill our "liberal" credentials whenever possible and stake the moral high ground. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:41, 10 December 2007 (EST)

TK's modus operandi is hard to describe to people new to him. That's part of his style. He is a total fiend for private communications, in which he is charming and "innocent" to newcomers, getting them to question old feuds as bygones or even persecution of him. Those who do not play his game, however, are moved into another category, one where he constantly attacks them, usually by sideways innuendo and unreferenced complaints. His private communication goal is, as said above, to divide and conquer, no more and no less. I'm sure in a few days we'll see people who have not seen much of his history saying "why not let him be a sysop, he seems reasonable". Power is what he wants. The "drive by" diagnosis above is, while not a legitimate professional opinion, also not "drive by". It's based on many long months of observing how he interacts. Anyway, once one starts ignoring him, one gets ignored by him, generally (except for his trying to drop my real name around here somewhere, but spelling it wrong...). The last 2-3 emails I got from him were months ago, nasty and rude, but ignored. End of drama. I'll probably unblock him later this evening to take the lid off the pressure-cooker, eh? humanUser talk:Human 17:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, I protest this block - primarily on the basis that people will inevitably begin (and have begun) taking shots at a man who currently can't defend himself. And secondly, what did TK do exactly? As far as I can tell, his recent offenses consisted of a) saying things that rather annoyed some people, b) archiving his talk page repeatedly. The former I won't touch, as it should never be a reason for blocking on RW. And as for the latter, if he does so, why not just copy the convo from the archive back to the talk page, with a note "archived by TK at x time and date"? It's hardly a great inconvience, and newcomers to whatever discussion is going on can judge for themselves whether such archiving is deceitful or not. Honestly, people are blocked for less time for causing a lot more trouble.
At the very least, three days is far too long a block for anymore than a troll. And on a related note: does RationalWiki actually have an official policy page on user rights for essay, user, and user talk spaces? UchihaKATON! 17:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Re: policy, yes, follow the guidelines link from the main page. humanUser talk:Human 17:52, 10 December 2007 (EST)

As long as people understand and credit what Human just said - he's 100% correct - I think it'd be fair if he lifts the block later tonight. My block (a reduction of an infinite block placed on him a few minutes before) was more prophylactic against these insidious tactics. Those who don't know him, beware; those that do, we'll sleep with one eye open.-αmεσ (soldier) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (EST)

His private communication goal is, as said above, to divide and conquer, no more and no less.
TK, you asked me why I don't email/IM/etc--this is why. If I have anything to say to you, I'll do it in front of everyone. --Gulik 20:06, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Ames, currently RW is a mobocracy not an oligarchy. Some people might have their own reasons to see TK banished but the rest of us are not aware of them. So, if TK proves to be unreasonable when (or if) he comes back then it will be in the open and everyone can give their verdict. If you conduct private conversations with TK and get pissed off about it, then you cannot expect everyone else back you up carte blanche. So if you want to spar with TK I suggest you do it in the open where everyone can see both sides of the debate - preferably without dragging up past issues and refraining from personal abuse (on both sides). If TK come back as a real prick then everyone will see him for that and probably support you. Until then lets try and conduct this as gentlemen. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 19:05, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Insofar as it's anyone's right to learn from their own mistakes, I'm sorry I acted to abridge that right for the community. I just hope no-one, errr, enjoys that right too much, in this case.-αmεσ (soldier) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (EST)


Actually, whether he deserved whatever block he got or not, I don't think it's fair to discuss an editor without them being able to respond. Rude of us. So I am going to unblock him as soon as I hit "save" on this, and shoot him a quick email via his RW account so he knows. In case he got bored and stopped reading here for the duration.

And, also, doesn't the MW software have an option where blocked users can still edit their user page and comment on their talk page? humanUser talk:Human 17:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Good call; I wish it did, but I haven't seen it yet. If it does, that's probably what we should use from now on.-αmεσ (soldier) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Certainly for situations like this. Which shouldn't happen anyway. humanUser talk:Human 17:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)
You might like to contact Ed "piss" Poor about that as I believe he intoduced it to Wikipedia. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

As Human should (and probably actually does) remember, when the nice folks here were last rat-packin me, months ago, Trent and/or Human changed the data base, so I was told, to stop me from being able to post on my own page to answer their lies then. They posted publicly about doing so. Odd they now claim not to know, eh? It is yet another dishonesty they will explain away, I am certain. --TK/MyTalk 19:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)

It's funny that I don't remember that.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:26, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Haha, I do, ah, good times. Such nostalgia. Trent did some weird block on TK, I don't even remember how. Or what it did. But it lasted about as long as a typical RW stunt block - a few hours, or a day or two at most. humanUser talk:Human 20:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)

not "retired", obviously[edit]

On another note, can someone remove all these silly "retired" templates, etc., from his pages? humanUser talk:Human 17:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Apparently not without being a wiki nazi NightFlare 18:31, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Wow, I missed that revision. TK to Elassint for removing the template: "Fuck you and your bullshit, wiki nazi." I am dumbfounded. I guess the block discussed above was completely justified. humanUser talk:Human 18:41, 10 December 2007 (EST) <-- head spinning

People doubt me, but I don't know why....-αmεσ (soldier) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)

YEEESH. 19:04, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, you obviously missed the comment that "a**hole" left as well. And the fact if I had removed the template, I would have been attacked for doing so, as before, being since this page is "public" property. And finally, in answer to another "bright light" I didn't refer the template to anyone. That was done by the management here. --TK/MyTalk 19:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)
TK, how about you stop overreacting to what others say/do to you, then will your victim attitude be justified. (And how is calling your retirement status "bullshit" offensive?) NightFlare 20:13, 10 December 2007 (EST)

And now, Sinfest. For your convenience.[edit]

--AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:48, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Ahhhhhh, that's so zen... I feel cleansed of sins I didn't even know I committed. humanUser talk:Human 20:40, 10 December 2007 (EST)

What is TK's motive for being here after his summary dismissal from Conservapedia ?[edit]

You can see his tactics here - conquer by dividing. Get the poor fools to fight amongst themselves and scurry away from the rubble. We've tried it too of course but all's fair ... & this is war. The only question is why? Unless it's a "cunning plan" between him & A. S. to get him in our midst under the cloak of a ban from CP, there's no profit in it for him, is there? Under his guise as Night Train he tried to weasel me into an email chat - why, I can't imagine, but I wouldn't believe 1 (one) word the guy said. Susanpurrrrr ... 20:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)

"That guy in the van outside? He doesn't actually have any candy." -- Penny Arcade
--Gulik 20:10, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Susan, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, the same happened to me. I wasn't as strong as you and now I am on the Dark Side. He who was the Terrible Blocker, the Insane Deleter, the Raving Madman, the Emperor's Darth Vader showed a human, friendly side that so easily attracted someone as gullible as me to his trap. But it is worth it! Come to the Dark Side, you won't regret it! May the Goat be with you, Susan...Editor at CP 02:54, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Premature archivation[edit]

(This got Artchived before I could give it the reply it deserved. -- Gulik.) Well, you have done your job well, Gulik! It isn't your place to use this place, as an Andy-like Star Chamber to take after me. Like I keep saying, you talk a good public game, but never back your play with facts. I have never sent an email like you mention to anyone. And if they produce it, I want a copy of it, to examine the headers. You have a narrow small mind, one you fill with bullshit provided by others, and never once have you contacted me to find out if what shit you are swallowing is true. That is why people leave here, as I said above. You think you have some "right" to attack others. You don't. Stay angry, though, keep shaking that fist at the world! Love you too, babe. --TK/MyTalk 06:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Star chambers are private. I plan to keep this all out in the daylight. And if I'm afraid of making a fool of myself in front of a crowd, I shouldn't be HERE, now should I? Anyone remember the stuff I'm talking about, or is my UN/CIA mind-control chip acting up again? --Gulik 20:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I think one of the things many of us enjoy here at RW is the opportunity to make fools of ourselves in front of a crowd. At least, well, most of us have done it. Often, in some cases. <-- (me) humanUser talk:Human 20:42, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Why protect?[edit]

Is TK actually quitting RW?-αmεσ (soldier) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Nah, it's only protected against moving, but I haven't the slightest idea why. Ellasiant, any input?--Offeep 20:13, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Since everyone who might interfere with him (nasty mind picture ugh!) & his archives is a sysop, it's rather pointless anyway. Susanpurrrrr ... 20:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I think he actually quit. Hasn't come back in a day and a half. Uncork the champagne?-αmεσ (soldier) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

You brutal oppressors have driven another brilliant conservative mind away! I hope you're all proud of yourselves! --Gulik 23:08, 11 December 2007 (EST) (Am I being sarcastic or not? Even I can't tell any more...)
Obviously another brilliant mind here never bothered to look at my political compass. Figures. Like most of the lesser lights here Gulik, since all you do is hate, you have never actually bothered to ask. When RW rises above those people like those posting above, and gets new leadership that actually can do more than jerk their knees, some progress will be made. Those here who have asked, know I am not of Andy's brand of conservatism. --TK/MyTalk 23:12, 11 December 2007 (EST)
No, but you're of Andy's brand of wiki-management, which is why I dearly hope the mods here are never deranged enough to give you any actual authority. --Gulik 03:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Or maybe he just conformed to Andy's directives. He consulted with Andy before every important action. And there is no Andy at RW, not yet... Editor at CP 04:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)
So he was a bullying today, rather than just a bully. I think my point still stands. --Gulik 17:49, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Somehow in posting to you, it reminds of a grade schooler, having to answer the obvious. Pity you are so filled with hate, I suspect its a general hate, an anger at all of society, rather than just aimed at me. One moderates how the site owner/management wishes them to do. Period. There isn't any choice given. I'm quite happy with how long I managed to stick around, and very happy with all the people I was able to let back in, and help keep around. I don't really care what other's might think, but I am sure someone cares about how you feel, Gulik, someplace. --TK/MyTalk 03:36, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Why can't we all just STOP THIS SHIT AND DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN MAKE ARGUMENTS WITH TK????? --Cheers,Ryanǂ wuz here ǂ 03:44, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Hey, TK. I'm having a little trouble understanding something: If we're so filled with hate and have been treating you so badly, why do you keep coming back here? There should be enough Internets for all of us. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 04:05, 12 December 2007 (EST)
That exact tactic with almost the same words was used last week by my 7 years fiancée when leaving me. As such, it is very unfair in my opinion; it actually reminds me of CP. By the way, what happened to cpcolumn? No more time in your hands or do you see WIGO and Best of Conservapedia as good alternatives? I loved it. Not as much as her though, you'll understand. Editor at CP 04:25, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry to hear about your fiancee, Editor :-(. Whenever something sad happens to me, I find that reading WIGO helps a bit....-αmεσ (soldier) 11:02, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Definitely. Luckily the Boycott was over by then ;-) Editor at CP 15:35, 12 December 2007 (EST)

This is really ugly[edit]

I'm not a regular here but, from the little that I've seen, this TK vs. some other people is just Out Of Order. This is supposed to be RationalWiki, isn't it?

Taking the piss out of irrationality is one thing. But having public cat fights is surely one of the things this site stands against, isn't it?

The only acceptable way to react to personal attacks is to ignore them.

May I humbly suggest that TK and those opposing him "cool their jets"?

If the users on this site are as smart as many think they are then the alleged divide and conquer won't work, will it?

(I'm very well aware that I may be missing some foul behind-the-scenes skulduggery but, shit, who the fuck cares?) Ajkgordon 04:18, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree with you. But if you are quite new, I warmly suggest you to read everything here (CP Timeline, Best of CP, CP Newcomer's Guide, Cabal, RW, etc. etc.) and on on why and when RW originated. The March to May happenings are quite significant and make for a very interesting read. Sorry if this is old news. Editor at CP 04:29, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, I've read some of it and yes, I've been involved with some (minor) tussles with TK over on the other side - he has a fairly aggressive and dismissive on-line persona.
But come on, this is typical Internet reality disassociation - using posting to communicate as if it's a chat in the pub and missing the other 80% of the communication. Thank God reality isn't teh interwebs or we would have destroyed humanity a long time ago. Ajkgordon 04:42, 12 December 2007 (EST)
On the other hand, the TK (sorry TK!) of that April-May was way above the normal Internet or Usenet whacko. Another contributing factor was that CP wasn't always as it is now. Even Andy seemed open to discussion at first. It's harder to accept what CP is and was, when you are illuded first, and are ready to commit time for it. You are right about internet and communication. I suggest you to e-mail or messenger-chat with TK (or others), it's a completely different experience - it added a new dimension to my understanding of CP... and RW. Editor at CP 05:37, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, I have a few questions for TK that would be better discussed on messenger, but finding the time is difficult at the moment. What I'm primarily interested in is how what I assume is a US Catholic ID view (as per TK) differs to a European Catholic naturalist view (as per my wife) differs and why. Things like CP, Creationism and ID are complete anathema to almost every religious person I know this side of the pond. But TK's religious beliefs seem quite reasonable certainly compared to some of the extraordinary stuff on CP. Ajkgordon 05:57, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I don't know as if the views of European Catholics can or do differ all that much. Do they? I know some Catholics are radicalized more in Europe, but as for Main Stream Catholics, is there all that much difference? I am by no means a KofC or Legion of Mary member! I had little knowledge, nor did I pay much attention to YEC's before CP. They are an interesting (alarming) blend of Old Testament and New, I find. They really are a tiny minority here. As for IM, doesn't take all that much time, and more gets exchanged in faster time, than posting. ;-) --TK/MyTalk 08:10, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Not in theology, no. But you yourself say you're an ID-ist. No Catholic I know in Europe contemplates ID as being a serious alternative to the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's hardly ever an issue. Science is viewed with far less suspicion in Europe than it seemingly is among the religious in the US. I hope to find time for an IM chat but I'm rarely sat in the same place for more than ten minutes at a time. I'm on a train at the moment! Ajkgordon 09:44, 12 December 2007 (EST)
You might want to check this out and this op ed piece by Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna here in the New York Times. As the lead editor of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, and head of the Congregation of the Catechism, most feel he would not, could not, have written such a piece without first obtaining Papal permission from Benedict. That does make sense, as a Prince of the Church does not speak out with a degree of support from the Pope, especially one so highly placed as Schonborn. --TK/MyTalk 15:47, 12 December 2007 (EST)

not interested[edit]

Do you really think, after the way you've behaved to so many here, that anyone might be interested in yoir opinion on anything? Susanpurrrrr ... 16:21, 12 December 2007 (EST) (Don't reply - I'm not interested in your smarm)

It is only amazing that you continue to spread your hate, dear, know less than shit, except what you have been told, and you blindly accept, about me. But there are many sheep here, not enough Goats, it seems. Your post is just another in the long effort of the Old Guard to intimidate other users and continue the hating as Gengis and others have posted about above. What is truly amazing, Susan, is that you actually believe people don't see through you. Happy Holidays to you! --TK/MyTalk 16:28, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Yep; that's our TK. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Yeah. Recycling material, though. People are full of hate and blind as sheep, the old guard run everything, and it's incredible people don't realize it. The audience may still love it, but I doubt it will satisfy the critics. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:45, 12 December 2007 (EST)
This site is so depressing sometimes. The old prune Susan comes here to snark for no apparent reason and everyone piles on TK when he snarks back. If you hate him so much just ban him and stop pretending you're all better than that. He's a jerk. Some RW are jerks. Just get over it or move on. Like a bunch of fucking grade school kids. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
I don't know what TK thinks, but *I* am interested in his opinion. Not one of the RWikians, Hojimachong included, got to be Andy's right hand. He's quite an insider and we are lucky to have him here. In the so humble opinion of an Editor at CP 16:52, 12 December 2007 (EST). Addendum: yes, he behaved badly to me. But it was seven months ago.

Odd, Wikinterpreter, what has changed since you sent me that very nice, conciliatory email? I haven't heard back from you, and was certainly positive in my response to your proposal, I hope you were sincere in it, and it wasn't just some hate plot......If you don't remember it, I could send it to you, or post it came from your email, the Jack one. Editor, you can always feel free to IM me, but as the IP poster suggested, they prefer to snark, attack, bait, drive people off, rather than the straight-forward and much more honest banning. It never fools others, but they seem to like basking in their false superiority. Most of the Admins on RW are no better, just different ideologically than the ones at CP. I advise everyone never to support anything I say, because they (not all, but several of the admins) will be after you for it, at some point in time, and it most certainly is held against you. --TK/MyTalk 18:24, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Forget it, TK, the lurkers (not User:Lurker) tell me that we've gotta split up. Consistency issues much? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום! 01:07, 13 December 2007
"Help, help! I'm being oppressed!" --Gulik 18:35, 12 December 2007 (EST)
The only thing oppressive here, Gulik, is the pedantic repetition of your posts, and the predictable snarks from the Old Guard, as noted several times above. I suggest you all hold a meeting, and figure out a better way, because what you guys have been doing, all along, only makes the place more of a ghost town. Certainly there must be one of you versed in PR! --TK/MyTalk 18:39, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Good idea. Let's hold a meeting. I've got the tar, who's got the feathers and the rail? (Semi-seriously, you seem to be under the delusion that your enemies are organized.) :D Do you actually have anything to DO here other than beg for sysopship and whine about how nobody likes you just because you were an iron-fisted commissar in the Aschlafly Regime? Even I occasionally make minor article edits when I'm not ridiculing you. --Gulik 18:41, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Another "rule" added I wasn't aware of, Gulik? We are forced now to edit? When I recently added factual information, I was reverted by AmesG just out of spite. I haven't "begged" ever, another form of your lies and misrepresentations, which I still find strange because all that you know of me, is what you have chosen to believe from other liars. You have never once communicated directly with me to find out what I think. Trying to laugh off, as above, your seriously hateful posts, doesn't fool anyone new here. And you should be concerned about that, since so many of you old timers have posted about how to get and keep users, very often. What you have been doing, it doesn't work. Anyone who has bothered to find out from me, knows what you hate-mongers say isn't true at all. But please do keep coming back, Gulik, and posting more keep making my point. Most of us would prefer an exchange of ideas, and taking on the lunatics at CP, rather than hate-filled people like you and others above constantly bringing up your disingenuous recollections of the past. In doing so, you are no better than CP, and perhaps belong there. In case you haven't been brought up to speed, I was banned from CP because of my helping RW. I either helped RW or I didn't. You cannot have it both ways. --TK/MyTalk 19:13, 12 December 2007 (EST)
F'fuck's sake. You are one of the lunatics from CP. Perhaps the single looniest one. I'd sooner be stuck in a lift with Conservative, RobS, Andy and Phyllis Schlafly than have to sit next to you on the bus for five fucking minutes. --Robledo 19:53, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Wow, do you know who Conservative, Rob, and Andy even are? TK can at least pretend to be nice -- when he wants to. I doubt C, R and A can even pronounce the words "play nice" without melting into a pile of goo. Lurker 19:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Andy can; he can tell you that you've done 'excellent work!!! godspeed !!!' -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Andy would call you a liberal for taking the elevator (but he took it too!) and then ignore you after saying "this is my final reply." Several times.
Ken would ask strange rhetorical questions and ask if he nudged your feet with his feet would you consider that to be gay. And then he would just go back to muttering to himself as he wrote and erased parts of his journal.
Rob, I'd be worried about. I'm not sure if he would jump out at me screaming McCarthey lives or not.
TK, well, TK would sit on the bus, pretend to be nice to you while on the bus. But as soon as you got off the bus, he would start trying to figure out where you were and put up poorly constructed sign on the other side of the street with strange rants on it. And occasionaly knock on your door and ask if you'd like to play a nice game of bridge or Uno and to ignore what he's done in the past. If you say 'no', he'll leave your house unlocked letting your neighbors look at your porn (Ken's not interested and Andy thinks you'll go on a shooting spree of at least 100 people) at which point you'll regret ever having struck up a conversation with him on the bus in the first time.
Of those, I'd much rather be with Ken or Andy. --Shagie 20:11, 12 December 2007 (EST)
In case you haven't been brought up to speed, I was banned from CP because of my helping RW


Wow, do indeed bring us up to speed. What did you ever do to help RW? humanUser talk:Human 20:13, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Well... He did actually unblock a lot of RWikians while he was there (although it's outdated, check out Conservapedia:Block_Statistics). There was also communication with parodists and pranksters, although I don't know the full extent of that and I wouldn't want to be slandering here. Also, that Conservapedians-in-an-elevator was... absurdly funny. I admit, I was crying with laughter and yes I even laughed at the TK part, sorry... UchihaKATON! 20:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)
OK, but I don't see what that has to do with "helping RW". Those sound like private matters to me, between him and individuals. Like, my neighbor lets me use his auto lift, but that's not "helping RW" even though it helps an RWian. Now, if that is what he now claims got him pushed out of CP, that's all well and good, but what did it do it help (read:improve) this site? humanUser talk:Human 21:10, 12 December 2007 (EST)

TK was banned for criminal doucheitude in the 3rd degree, not helping RW! And yes, he has covered for two socks, and continues to, but one of his parthian shots was to try to out one of those socks. And yes, those were personal favors. So, TK's case is unconvincing.-αmεσ (soldier) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)

AmesG, do you want to mutually agree to publish and be damned? Get in touch with me, and I will agree to publish all of your emails to me and other CP Sysops, including the Cabal nonsense and all IM's with you and Trent, you can do the same, and let the members here decide who helped who, who offered to do what for whom, and who betrayed who? Human, you won't come out looking like a rose, so you really should shut your pie hole. People are sick of your pious postings, saying one thing here, another in your clubhouse hole, like about never having a sock, etc. As AmesG is well aware of, because he read it in the Special Discussion Group, even posted it in the Cabal, Andy's reasons for removing were only about me helping RW. Period. I wonder how reckless AmesG wants to be, and if he can give permission for Trent to publish our IM's with each other? --TK/MyTalk 22:56, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Publish publish publish[edit]

TK, inquiring [sic] minds want to know....just do it unilaterally. HeartGoldShow me your intolerance 00:39, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Two words: Mutually Assured Destruction. Lurker 01:12, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Inquiring minds also want to see the Special Discussion Group contents. But we restrain ourselves. Invasion of privacy is serious business, and not to be done merely to satisfy curiosity.-αmεσ (soldier) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Heart, one of the very few areas where AmesG has actually his word is about the SDG, and that is why I said we needed to mutually agree. But of course he only says what he has, specifically referencing the SDG because of the "plan" he and Wikinterpreter's cooked up in their Cabal Clubhouse to try and get themselves back on CP! I don't feel that backed into a corner yet, but anytime Ames wants to put all the bullshit behind him, as he offered before, I am fine with it. I don't seek to ruin his and friends plans is hardly sport. Surely somewhere deep down, Ames realizes the truth and wisdom of what others have posted on this page, and knows the only way forward for RW is to stop with the hating and rat-packing. The only people posting hate talk here have been some of the original members of RW, who claim this place is above all that...that they don't do what the accuse CP of doing. The shit above turns off most people. A few, mired in their own hate world, will never stop. They want this place to be as much of a clubhouse as Andy makes CP his personal blog. The question is, or should be, are most of us here willing and ready end all of this? I don't know if most here are actually old enough to know that many of us have far-left and right friends, and we never argue or demean each other as goes on here. My closest friend in the whole world is a Marxist/anarchist lesbian! We love each other madly, and if not for her liking women over men, I might well have married her. Surely if we manage to get along, people here could do a better job of being tolerant and not blasting with ever post! --TK/MyTalk 00:57, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Classic. Who is "Jack"? Are you outing a real world name? Dat iz verboten, az I rekall. Pleez fix. humanUser talk:Human 01:02, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Ouch, snap. HeartGoldShow me your intolerance 01:03, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I pay that as much mind as the majority of Bureaucrats and Sysops do here, and at the RW Forum, Human. Surely my being in such good company, and following the rules the same as they do, makes me a model member of this community, no? --TK/MyTalk 01:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Hey everyone, please vote [[HeartOfGold Sysop vote‎|here]] for HG's sysopship. Bohdan 01:06, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Where is this vote going on? The link on AmesG's page goes to Heart's talk page, but the convos there have been archived in way less than the 48 hours it says, and I might point out I have been flamed above, by Human, reprimanding me for archiving my page too soon, but of course he never stated when was the right amount of time, and I cannot find a rule that states how long I have to wait! But of course Human is even-handed, and I am sure he has privately posted and complained to Heart of Gold about that too soon archiving! LMAO! --TK/MyTalk 01:10, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Fuck you, TK. Why don't you do it? Ben 01:14, 13 December 2007 (EST)
I had to go back and get the link for it. Its now in my sentence above. As a mob member, your opinion is valued. Bohdan 01:12, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Fuck you TK, and all those supposed powers that you refer to. Ben 01:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)

TK, what happened at CP?[edit]

I thought you were Andy's running dog (or Andy was yours). Did you get exiled?

Anyway, I don't know about Special Discussion Group. Human is the most objective, evenhanded person I know. He is like a fair coin in statistics. HeartGoldShow me your intolerance 01:13, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Barf. --TK/MyTalk 01:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)
LOL! humanUser talk:Human 14:38, 13 December 2007 (EST)
As it happens I'm reading an amusing book about crazy bosses right now, and one thing it points out is that working for a bully is never safe--the only people in more danger than the bully boss' 'friends' are his 'enemies'. --Gulik 02:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)

If you can only retire once...[edit]

Then where does the phrase "to come out of retirement" come from? Lurker 02:37, 14 December 2007 (EST)

See leaving and never coming back. Also see, wiki loser/troll. humanUser talk:Human 02:39, 14 December 2007 (EST)
The article doesn't actually address my question. I could ask the same thing there. Lurker 02:41, 14 December 2007 (EST)
That would only entail looking at Human's talk page. Human, I was reprimanded before here for removing one of your nasty ass templates, one that was mean spirited. Remember? So where the fuck do you get off bullshitting on my user page? I put that template back once, because it was removed by a non-admin, not wanting to give you ammunition to snark at me, and you bitch? Then you ignore the rules, and instead of just asking, fuck with my user page, contrary to the rules? You on the rag two nights running? You must be drunk...the record clearly shows that template was put up by the Sysop you helped run off. --TK/MyTalk 02:43, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Quoting: "nasty ass", "mean spirited", "fuck", "bullshitting", "bitch", "fuck", "You on the rag[?]". Wow, I really want to ask this guy how to run anything. Anyway, Lurker, your question regarding "retirement" is good. "Retirement" is our version of the wikipedia (I think) concept of the "right to leave". IE, one can walk away, no parting shots, no crap to deal with. You retired. BUT. If you come back? Did you ever retire? Our retirement template is for real, but there is no coming back, that's the whole point. Hiding behind the template while still "coming back" over and over and over again is not the point. At that point, you ain't retired. You're just an occasional visitor. Is that clear? If one requests or uses the "retired" template, they will *never* return. If they do, they did not "retire", and future requests or demands to "retire" will be viewed dubiously by the fricking mob. humanUser talk:Human 02:54, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Got it. Thanks. Lurker 15:00, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Evidently Human cannot distinguish between "quit", "retire" and "leave of absence". Since they are not specifically addressed, even in the bogus and specifically created non-policy page made to bolster his (obviously drunken) nonsense here, not endorsed by the Mobocracy, there isn't a policy, and I would submit it would be rather authoritarian to make one. It cost RW nothing, and last I checked, templates didn't cost anything as well. I wonder if any "member" here needs a "Daddy", an authority figure to run to and ask permission to take off for a week, month, year or forever, before doing so? Is that not exactly the same authoritarian crap we complain about the likes of Andy controlling? Why would/should RW make any such moronic rule, other than to just fuck with and control others? Aside from blocking "vandals" do we really need any dictators blocking anyone here? I understand blocking idiots wiping dozens of pages, they need to be stopped if for no other reason than it does take some time to restore them, but still, even that (vandalism) doesn't really "do" anything, does it? Anyway, seems like the Power Elite here invents all kinds of needless rules and bullshit, merely to exercise control/power over others. In that they are no better than Admins anywhere else.--TK/MyTalk 15:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Your right. Some of the people here seem to have forgotten themselves along the way. I've seen people like Human do things Andy and Karajou would be proud of. like the Power Elite here invents all kinds of needless rules and bullshit, merely to exercise control/power over others. - That sums it all up, exactly what I and I'm sure many others are thinking. MarcusCicero 16:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Well you have bought yourself plenty of trouble now! First rule of Old Guard here is never, absolutely never agree with TK. Unless of course it is a prelude to a snark or setup. Some Crone will soon appear, if history is our guideline, and make yet another post how anyone disagreeing with any Admin here is merely trying to disrupt and pit one "regular" RW editor or Admin against the others, lol. Circular/Andy logic at best, but there you go. Odd thing is, just prior to (sub)Human lashing out, I had emailed him, after posting somewhere else about a new sysop here asking for a how-to manual, a fairly complete description of what Admins should and shouldn't do, to help in a sysop template that he was contemplating. Of course he never acknowledged my attempt at positive contribution, to sincerely contribute. If he ever did, he would be blackballed as many others have, as perhaps you will be as well. --TK/MyTalk 17:03, 14 December 2007 (EST)
I don't care much for website traditions, older members etc.etc. From my experience of websites, certain people seem to think of themselves as the 'daddy' of a particular forum after a certain length of time. Most of them are good spirited about the whole thing and don't let the false sense of self importance get to their heads. Others lose it a bit. Anyway, I don't care if I'm agreeing with the enigmatic TK or not! All I'm saying is that you brought up a few good points! MarcusCicero 17:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Well, supposedly, the deal about never blocking was/supposedly/is the policy here. But too many were disagreeing with the Powers That Be, they got tired of denying they were the "powers" and made up some absolute bullshit to justify using their power over others, whenever they got "tired" or as human said in his two week block of me, "bored" with them. Of course being intellectually dishonest, they have never, most likely never will, admit they act no differently than any CP Admin, or any Admin anywhere. They just use more "creative" (dishonest and manipulative) methods to do it. --TK/MyTalk 17:30, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Your being harsh there. I've never seen anything on the scale of a 5 year block. In fact, only people who really piss them off seem to be blocked, and then for a relatively short space of time. The difference between CP and RW is immense in terms of that. There are moments when the lines are blurred though, and in my opinion Human needs to cop the f**k on. MarcusCicero 17:32, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Marcus, I'm sorry you feel that way.... I'd like to hear your opinion on how we could change, and I do think TK's idea of a does & don'ts for sysops would be a good idea, along with much needed rules about who gets to be a sysop, how, why, and when. However, the one thing I'd like you to realize, is that most of us here have prior experience with TK that justifies our actions. Human's acts seem kind of out-of-the-blue, but if you've known TK for six months or so... as we've had the misfortune to... you'd probably realize that Human is right to be hostile to TK. Simply put, he can't be trusted; he's like Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings, or actually, probably more comparable to Darth Nihilus from Knights of the Old Republic II. Yes, I've just revealed my nerd provenance. TK, in anticipation of your loverly response to this little screed of mine, I'm happy to adopt a practice of deliberate ignorance towards you, and I'd ask you to do the same. Our history justifies nothing lesser. However, when you start turning the younger members against us, without telling them the whole story, there I draw the line.-αmεσ (soldier) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think I am being too harsh. They are completely an Apple and Oranges comparison. One site is run by a nutjob, and anyone going there can see in not more than 10 minutes what the owner has established as policy, written or unwritten. Here, someone reading policy pages, or most of the pages here, are misled to believe management eschews petty blocking and all forms of personal harassment, this being a place of "science" and "rationality". Does that help explain my POV above? --TK/MyTalk 17:38, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Perhaps you could be more specific about who you believe make up this supposed "management"? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Disingenuous, much, AKjeldsen? We were having a discussion here, and your trolling isn't appreciated. Please take your debate "techniques" elsewhere, okay? You came here, didn't address the basic topic being discussed, ignored it as usual, and now want re-direct the convo as to who and who isn't one of the Elites. I call bullshit. Certainly the basic direction here is dictated by all who are members of the Cabal Forum, and some minor hangers-on who have been made Admins, but not trusted enough to be given access there. Specific enough for you? --TK/MyTalk 17:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Don't be mean to Akj. This is exactly why we don't like you. Quae cum ita sint, eh, Cicero? And, if you can't name more than one, than I suspect you're just ripping on Human. Hmmmm. I call... douchebag?-αmεσ (soldier) 17:59, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Hah! Believe me, TK, I'm used to doing stuff that isn't appreciated. But since you keep going on about how you're supposedly being intentionally persecuted by this nebulous "Elite", I thought it might be interesting to get some specifics on the table about who you think are in on the plot. Get everyhting out in the open, eh? So who are the members, and who are these hangers-on you also mention? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:04, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I swear Richard Nixon must be a God to you, AmesG. Me being mean? Calling bullshit, but not calling him, like you did me, "douchebag"? So, you aren't being mean, because you are one of the Elites here, but anyone even disagreeing with a fellow Cabal member, is? So infantile, so intellectually dishonest. Point is, you don't like anyone who dares to compare your actions (meaning many admins here) with Admins on CP, or other places. I wasn't making it anymore personal than other members here have. So, if you don't like me for doing the same, you really must hate yourself. --TK/MyTalk 18:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Alright, so I guess that makes Ames, Human and myself so far. We're getting somewhere, if slowly. Anyone else? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:10, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Sorry, you know who you are, and as previously posted, your deflections are not appreciated. Perhaps those who are interested in hearing the choir preaching to themselves will want to continue interacting with you here. But I am not going to participate on this deflection of yours, unless and until you actually admit you are part of the founding clique, and a member of the Cabal, from which the majority of Admins come from. No sense going over what has already been admitted to, AKjeldsen. As I said above, you guys want to give permission for me to post how the place is run, let me know. If not, abandon your dishonesty, and get real. We are talking about Admins blocking me, and others, for being "bored" harassing others because they have the power. --TK/MyTalk 18:50, 14 December 2007 (EST)
The only intellectual dishonesty I see here is the fact that you keep throwing vague and generalizing accusations around all over the place without being willing to actually back those up with something specific. However, I understand perfectly why you refuse to "participate on this deflection" of mine, becaues that wouldn't really fit with the tactics you're using here, would it? To throw out something controversial and let the audience fill in the all blanks for themselves, eh? A classic method of manipulation if ever there was one. So by all means, post anything you like! Let's get something tangible out in the open, so people can draw their conclusions on an informed basis. I'm not going to stop you. Heck, I'm not even a sysop, so how could I? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)
TK, the difference between you and I is that, for me, being mean to someone (you) is the exception. Not the rule.-αmεσ (soldier) 22:31, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Wrong again, Ames. You couple being mean with being a liar and inventing false bullshit, and repeating it under color of authority, using your real-life name, and then crying like a little bitch when someone points out to you that could sometime, later, come back to haunt you. In your hysterical mind, you think that is a threat, rather than others just recognizing the obvious, that your idiot-like statements could turn future employers off. Stop being a putz, grow up! You certainly are only playing to the old guard here, and not winning new friends with your continued harassment of me here, making your constant little snipes. Am I allowed to visit your page, and other places you post, and just randomly insert my own opinion about you being a crying little bitch? Would you once again abuse your authority and block me for doing that? Or would you prefer to live and let live? Totally your choice. Grow a pair, why don't you? --TK/MyTalk 05:39, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Well, I'm not part of this "founding cabal" that is allegedly persecuting you, but I can see you're acting like an idiot. As I noted at the top of this page, you were using the "retired" banner abusively to end conversations. Pretending to retire for a couple of hours, then coming back. Now, here you're accusing people of being drunk, being liars, being part of a cabal... It just looks like you have a persecution complex. Have you ever thought it might be a problem with you, not with other people? Your (online, at least) personality seems so abrasive that you're mostly getting what you deserve. --JeεvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 06:04, 15 December 2007 (EST)

What I see is someone talking bullshit, and not out of their mouth. I didn't put up the template, get it? I was told before to never touch a template added by an Admin here. Is that simple and direct enough, that you can understand it? Have you ever at all checked with anyone aside from someone here about all the history? No, I suppose not. You fit right in here with your jumping to conclusions and herd mentality, posting again about that fucking banner, when I already answered about it. Talk about abrasive, look in the mirror lately? --TK/MyTalk 06:55, 15 December 2007 (EST)

So, lets see... you put back a template that contained inaccurate information with the edit comment "Fuck you and your bullshit, wiki nazi. get a hobby" because you were told never to touch a template added by an admin? Forgive me if I don't believe you. That smacks far too much of post facto rationalisation to me. Accuse me of "herd mentality" all you want, it just looks to me like you were defending your "retired" status. That edit comment seems pretty typical of what you've written since, just one long angry tirade at the world in general. --JeεvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 07:14, 15 December 2007 (EST)

TK, constructive criticism is always welcome as far as I'm concerned, and you may have a point that more exact rules and fewer in-jokes would be preferable. I for one hope that we will get there eventually. However, what you bring to the table is not constructive criticism, but only a steady stream of insults and abrasive language with the intent of riling people up and causing unnecessary conflict, rather than bringing about any actual change. Since apparently you are not here to help improve the place in any meaningful way, I can't help but wonder why you keep up these petty attempts at manipulation, instead of just leaving us to our own little "hateful" devices and getting on with your own life? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)

AKjeldsen, I have to admit I am fascinated by your seemingly never-ending ability to twist the facts 100% of the time! Here, on this page, with all of the "evidence" layed out before you, you repeat, over and over, I am abrasive and insulting! Yet, what do you say to AmesG, AKjeldsen? My responding to his and others verbal attacks on my own page is wrong? You are just to blatantly insincere and completely a fake in presenting yourself as even-handed! AmesG has not confined his verbal attacks and baseless charges to just this page, either. What do you say to his doing that? I didn't drop out of the sky and start insulting others. I responded in kind to some people doing so, and not attacking them, just stating obvious facts.
You posted here as a member of the hidden Cabal Forum, asking who else was a member. Why? You have access there, there is an article listing most of the members on this wiki. Why would you pretend not to be a member of it, or know who else was? You go and try to reason with the other haters here, and lets see if you can make them rational, and get them to stop reversing factual additions by me, eh? Obviously you do have some members who want to hear what I have to say about CP, and recognize I am in the position of knowing many things that might shed light on the place. That cannot be achieved when your own Bureaucrats and newer reverse factual additions I make, just to be screwing with me. I think one of your fellow Cabal members posted on this page about the basic unfairness of some others, right? You might contemplate what he said. --TK/MyTalk 13:51, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Nothing important[edit]

Hi TK, if you read this (are you blocked again?) I can't IM at the moment and even e-mail is not easy. Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 09:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, I just meant sometime, is all. I am not wanting to blow your cover old chap. --TK/MyTalk 17:04, 14 December 2007 (EST)

His own castle...[edit]

What was that about User page being his own castle etc. etc. (including templates and userboxes)? Well TK is blocked, is he?, and maybe asked himself Human to change his page? Anyway, I love my Powers. A rollback a day keeps the doctor away. Now that I know that everybody can rollback, I understand even less HG's desire to be Sysop. Feel free to rollback my rollback, if RW legislation, your coscience, and Mr. Goat so agree.Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 10:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)


When I blocked you I should have made it seconds, or, at most, minutes. I screwed up and made it 314 hours. Luckily, another sysop unblocked you. By the way, as far as the newer members might wonder... you blocked me from CP forever (the Nuremburg defense does not work, by the way). I was also amazed that the sysop who unblocked you, did not block me as a "slap on the wrist". But anyway, sorry I "silenced" you, briefly. That was wrong. Mea culpa. humanUser talk:Human 01:11, 15 December 2007 (EST)

The point should be, Human, not what happened at CP, because they never made any attempt to pretend they don't infinite block. Perhaps you can remember Andy posting on my talk page when making me a sysop there, and for the others as well, instructing us to "block early, and for an infinite amount of time, as the block can always be shortened or lifted." ? Here, from the start, you and the other original members made a big point of rubbing everyones nose in the fact that you didn't block here for most any reason, right? That seems to have evolved, here at RW, so that what I have seen things are absolutely NOT any different here than at CP. Many, many short blocks are harassment, not lulz, and are an intimidation tool, just as you tried with me. Can you post here exactly what rule allows any Admin here to block because they don't like the user, are bored with them, or don't like what they are saying? And what rule, specifically, allows any sysop to edit a persons User Page? Blocking a Bureaucrat or another sysop means nothing, as you can undo your block, so why even post here and pretend you are "amazed" you were not blocked? Perhaps this is yet another one of those "in jokes" other users have long mentioned, that others (including me) cannot understand? All that said, certainly your apology is accepted and appreciated. --TK/MyTalk 05:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Well, I for one have only ever blocked actual vandals with any serious intent, and never infinitely. I've blocked you two or three times for ridiculously short periods as a way of tweaking your nose a bit, just as I did with Ames and Human last night blocking them for infinite periods. Personally, I think if someone's going to get their panties in too big a bunch over a 2 minute or less block, they need to work on their sense of humor. Consider this, TK, all the arguing I did on the Main Talk page at CP (archived on my user page) earned me an infinite ban with no real warning. My egregious sin? Calling Andy a coward for, well, acting cowardly. Oh, that and trying to state that Gardasil prevents HPV; super controversial, right? Several emails to a number of sysops, including you as I recall, came back with no response whatsoever. That same type of argument here would likely earn no block whatsoever, perhaps a very short one if the individual was actually vandalizing a page. We've had arguments with global warming denialists, and vaccine denialists here and though a few of the have left I don't think we've banned anyone simply for holding an unpopular position with the exception of white supremacists, which I think you'll agree is a reasonable place to draw the line.
As far as the bit about editing another user's talk page, in truth I disagree with it, however I do agree that it's disingenuous to put up a retired sign and still come back continuously to snipe with people. Either you're here (even if rarely) or you're gone. When I retire from work, I won't be back in the office to bitch at my coworkers, I'll be at home watching mid 21st century pornography. Stile4aly 12:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

AStile4aly, would you do me a very small favor? WOULD YOU CHECK AND SEE WHO AND WHEN THAT RETIRED TEMPLATE WAS PUT UP? THANK YOU! I didn't put it there! It was added months ago.

I was assured by a few members here (wrongly), perhaps as a lure to get this place jumping again, that since I too was blocked from CP, I would be more welcome here. Check the archives above! I was warned by Human and others, not to remove anything (especially a mean and nasty why dont you leave template added by "Human". And insofar as the "short" blocks you handed out, I never saw them, nor was I notified about them, so why do it? I do know AmesG blocked me for many days, and "Human" blocked me for two weeks or so, and apologized 24 hours later. Maybe the short blocks are another of the horrible "in" jokes, like sysops blocking each other, which is not really blocking at all. Without some instruction manual, how am I (and others) to know what it means? How can you expect others to take it in the spirit of "tweaking my nose" when I didn't know it happened, and even as a tweak, still an abuse of power to those who cannot block back, eh? Finally, I have never once ignored any email I received from blocked users, or any user at CP, as many here could tell you. Most went directly into Outlook's junk mail folder, where I had to pull them daily, so it could have been missed. But I will tell you, I was no more able than you would be to bring back someone there than you would be able to here, if one of the Bureaucrats here decided someone should go. If the email to me came back, you must not have been using the right address.

I sincerely wanted to be able to contribute here, and have been allowed to somewhat. I offered a sysop guide to Human, which he has ignored, and offered to help other users here with an article on Andy or CP, and because of the hate-mongering and misinformation by some here, was ignored. But I do thank you for a reasoned criticism, and rational post, compared to many on this page. --TK/MyTalk 14:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)

TK, could you stop overreacting to every little incident around and blame a conspiracy against your person? Whatever justification you might have had to feel that way you lost long ago when with your attitude you practically welcomed mistreatment. (Even then I don't really think you've been treated nearly as bad as I would bother disapproving publicly, though some comments could be dealt with.) NightFlare 18:14, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Put up or shut up[edit]

You say above you want to be a productive contributor; frankly, I doubt it. You never even contributed anything other than anger and venom to Conservapedia, and you're on track to do the same here. Go ahead, prove me wrong. If you do, my respect for you may inch back towards a positive value.αmεσ (soldier) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Nice, AmesG....with every post your hate and bile shows! You are what others, including myself have pegged you for: A kid who was bullied in school, and now gets his revenge against others online! When I have contributed factual and positive things, you revert it. When I post, you and the old crone, among others, follow posting hateful personal items. If you disagree, you, (like on Hoji's Face Book) post my real name, and personal items about me. What chance does anyone you disagree with have? None. I have never once posted any thing personal about any RW member, or anyone at CP. Never their address, never their real last name, never their phone number. You, and some here cannot say the same. You must know others see your lies, like above, and remember your past and very current hate posts, and know you are all about hate, nothing more. I could care less what you think of me, and getting your respect would certainly be taken by many rational members here as a landmark low in their life. --TK/MyTalk 16:10, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Would you care to enumerate these "many rational members" who would just die if they thought they were respected by AmesG for our edification please? --JeεvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 16:25, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Um, TK, your real name was in the LA Times article. Doesn't take a detective. That said, it's a very exciting life that you lead, in that mind of yours. I can't imagine it's very satisfying though. You're welcome to post your proposed sysop rules, I'll look at them with interest.-αmεσ (soldier) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (EST)

And in your irrational mind, your mind of fairness and even-handedness, AmesG, that means once anything is posted anywhere on the Internet, one has the absolute right to repeat it, distribute it, do whatever one wants with it? Following that logic, would anyone be okay collecting all posts made by anyone on the Internet, using their own name, and distributing it to anyone they wanted to? Isn't that exactly what you have called "blackmail"? Can you at all see my point? Why does every post you make here include an insult? Do you not have better things to do than merely post insults? Makes you seem like a big man to the little kids here, or what? The sysop guidelines I emailed to Human, you can get from him....they are not "mine", merely something I saved. --TK/MyTalk 17:48, 15 December 2007 (EST)

So... your productive contribution to the Wiki is something you're not going to post. With a start like that, I can't wait to see what comes next! Seriously, is that all you're here to do? Troll?-αmεσ (soldier) 17:51, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Well, I think he had good reason to email the thing to me - the subject had sort of come up a few days ago, and let's think for a minute about the reception it would have got if he posted a "guideline for sysops" type thing. By sending it to me to work with he was insulating it from any accidental or intentional negative reactions. I just didn't do anything with it yet, because it needs a lot of work to fit in at RW (including mob discussion). What I was thinking of was something for "for new sysops" so they know how their new buttons work, hwo to try to stick to shortish blocks, etc. humanUser talk:Human 18:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Good point! Sorry TK :-P I jumped the gun on this one...-αmεσ (soldier) 19:13, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Well, you yourself have reverted many edits, AmesG. The old crone, as someone called her above, should butt out. She is a hater, plain and simple. And listing edits, is very Andy like, no? Is that all you are about? Retribution? Pay-back? --TK/MyTalk 18:00, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, we can look up his productive contribution right here. Looks like a total of two mainspace edits in the entire life of the account. Hope that clears things up. --Kels 18:02, 15 December 2007 (EST)

...but, I still hope that your future contains less of the above, and more of the below. Pleasae.αmεσ (soldier) 19:13, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I enjoy TK's comments here - specially his remarks on Andy et co. We don't have a 90/10 rule here and... we all come to RW for the fun of it, I mean, all productive editors are over at CP. I hope he won't get blocked again soon and he won't get bored here. Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 10:37, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Sysop Guidelines mentioned above[edit]

What a Sysop is NOT:[edit]

  • A SysOp is not a censor: The task of filtering out inappropriate or irrelevant content is the responsibility of every editor.
  • A SysOp is not a better kind of user: Access to certain functions of the wiki interface does not make any user better than others. A SysOp is just a regular volunteer who must spend more time editing and regulating content.
  • SysOps are not the only notable users: Valuable membership is not a question of status but of the ability to collaborate with others in a common interest. A good skill in a SysOp is the ability to combine the strengths of others in a single coherent task.
  • SysOps are not governors: While SysOps have access to functions like protection & banning to help defuse conflict, SysOps are not the regulators to break up fighting users. Mature conflict resolution is the responsibility of all editors, and SysOps should not be expected to step in and deal with effectively, editors with an attitude.
  • Being a SysOp is not necessarily a progression: Being promoted to SysOp status is not a reward, and editing with the ambition to be an administrator is not really the right attitude to take. "Promotion" is not always good, in fact the contrary might be true for some editors, as the level of commitment required for the role can be very demanding.

What do SysOps do?[edit]

While there is distinction between a SysOp and a regular editor, those with adminship generally do similar tasks to everyone else. They still edit articles, fix links, go through wanted pages, nominate articles for cleanup/deletion etc etc. However, they do have a number of abilities that are restricted from other users as their misuse can have strong implications for the site. These abilities include:

  • The power to rollback. You may have noticed that to revert back to a previous post in an article is a little tedious. For a SysOp, edits can be reversed with the touch of the mouse. This is particularly useful in the incidence of vandalism, as a SysOp can actually just press a button, and all a vandal’s edits are instantly reversed.
  • The power to block. A very important SysOp power is that they can, when appropriate, block users. The block duration is entirely at the discretion of the SysOp, and can be from an hour to infinity. Usually, the length of the block depends on the seriousness of the crime. As well as blocking a username, most SysOps can additionally block a user's entire IP address or net block, meaning said user will never be able to edit again on the same computer. This is generally used to block vandals from further edits on the site.
  • The power to delete. While other users can nominate articles for deletion and vote on it, a SysOp is needed to actually delete the article. To delete something is a serious edit on any wiki, and so care must be taken when deciding to remove something permanently, hence why the ability is reserved to a SysOp.
  • The power to protect and unprotect. You may have noticed that some pages say "view source" instead of "edit" in the toolbar. This means that the page has been protected from editing, which could be due to any number of reasons. A SysOp can protect or unprotect a page from ordinary editors, as well as freely edit a protected page themselves, which includes the homepage. As this especially is vitally important to the site (being the first thing anyone visiting us would see), the number of users allowed to carry out alterations has to be limited.
  • The power to move. Only a SysOp has the ability to move an article to a new location under a new name. One can request this to be carried out when appropriate by leaving a message in a SysOp talk page, giving justification for why you want an article moved. Alternatively, one can use the {{rename}} template and vote similar to a delete discussion.

How does one become a SysOp?[edit]

This is not an uncommon question on wikis, and one shouldn’t feel embarrassed about asking it. It simply shows your enthusiasm, which is always a good thing!

The only way to become a SysOp is for a bureaucrat, to add you to this group. Bureaucrats can be briefly defined as SysOp's with the ability to promote editors to SysOp status. Current SysOps and regular contributors may also nominate a user for SysOp status when there is a need. The criteria for a SysOp is usually based on numerous factors, some of which are listed below. Please note, however, that this is not a “SysOp how-to” guide, merely qualities that good users exhibit that may result in them being considered.:

  • The user has been a member for a good length of time, at least several weeks.
  • They have made a large number of positive edits to the site.
  • They have participated in areas of the site like maintenance, cleanup, delete nominations.
  • They are respected (note we are not saying agreed with) by their peers as a competent, solid, fair, and mature contributor.

However, one should appreciate that gaining adminship brings with it a number of extra responsibilities. Also, becoming a SysOp should not really be seen as a way of getting respect. This is earned through the edits that you make and the rapport you build with your fellow editors, not your title. Finally, it should be noted that gaining SysOp privileges does not mean a user will have them forever. We have in the past, and will continue to, deop users if they become inactive for long periods of time. This is not at all a punishment, more the fact that they don't really need to have the privileges if they rarely edit the site or require privileges like deleting pages and blocking accounts. Should they return and wish to be fast-tracked back to SysOp status once more, doing so is entirely at the discretion of Admin and other SysOps.

Sysop Guidelines Commentary[edit]

So... do you like Lost?-αmεσ (soldier) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (EST) Didn't realize the user is blocked. Will protect UP to correspond with the block.-αmεσ (soldier) 19:53, 15 December 2007 (EST)

The sysop guidelines I emailed to Human, you can get from him....they are not "mine", merely something I saved. --TK/MyTalk 17:48, 15 December 2007 (EST) As I posted above AmesG, the guidelines were not mine. I could have saved you the research, if you had only asked. --TK/MyTalk 03:22, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Unblocked, and warning[edit]

You were blocked for persistent aggravating attitude issues - in a sense, a "lifetime achievement award". Any one who looks at your contribs since the beginning will get a sense of why this happened. Pay special attention to your edit comments, which are often vicious and pointed. And so have been many of your edits themselves.

We know that sometimes, you have been attacked by people who learned to hate your persona, either on CP, or earlier here on RW. Responses to them may not be considered in future judgements of your comportment - but they may be. It is your choice how to "communicate" with the mob.

Block removed, basis: Time served.

Warning: Silly angry outbursts unsubstantiated by clear diff link refs will result in fibonacci sequence blocking - in "days". Got it? If you make an accusation to anyone, without providing a link that shows what you are accusing them of, you will be blocked.

If you accuse anyone of anything without a clear diff link, be assured that if I see it, I will banfuckinghammer you for the next sequence of days... 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21... etc.

If, however, you can play "nice" (I would advise going really slowly), well, then you are welcome "back". humanUser talk:Human 01:12, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Seconded, with emphasis that this is an exceptional remedy, applied to an exceptional case, and does not indicate precedent. btw I'm now ignoring you completely unless you take advantage of that to attack me. I advise you to play by the same rules.-αmεσ (soldier) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (EST)
To clarify, I think the next number in the sequence is the second #1.-αmεσ (soldier) 01:26, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Political Compass[edit]

Is TK's political compass really centre-left. I thought he was a raving conservative judging by his conduct on Conservapedia.

Well, he's more like center center center left. And on CP he (insert) the character he played (/insert) was a raving fascist, not a conservative. In fact, as the months went by, many of his acid comments were paraphrases of his master's lines. You never saw him arguing that Reagan was teh awesome, or anything. He was just an all-purpose enforcement tool, really. Anyway, them's bygones and maybe one day we will all think of him only as our friendly, helpful buddy. humanUser talk:Human 22:46, 20 December 2007 (EST)
One cannot be an Admin here at RW, at CP or anywhere else doing as you want to do. You do as the Bureaucrats/Owner(s) say to. I forgive Human his remark, as to him Hillary is a neo-con. :P --TK/MyTalk 23:01, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Well, I don't think she's a neocon, but I think she's slightly right of center. But from my distance, it's hard to tell, I suppose a true "centrist" could figure that out better. Whatever a true centrist is... humanUser talk:Human 23:09, 20 December 2007 (EST)
It depends on the issues involved. On "national security," she's probably a little right of center (which helps to balance against the implicit expectation that she's left of center...). On domestic issues, she's a bit left of center, but not by much. Researcher 23:12, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Bottom line is, like every candidate running for President, she is a member of the elite power structure, and by virtue of that, we know she and all the others won't deviate much from the status quo. --TK/MyTalk 00:01, 21 December 2007 (EST)

TK, you sound kind of socialist there. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just a bit of a surprise.No criticism, snark, or offense implicitly or explicitly placed in this message, I swear!-αmεσ (soldier) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)
You sound more like Professor Chomsky than the raving lunatic you played on Conservapedia. TK, were you a parodist all along --HalifaxTroll 01:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)
BTW, TK, why did you delete all references to the FBI incident. On conservapedia not here--HalifaxTroll 01:18, 21 December 2007 (EST)
Probably the most satisfying part about reading the special discussion group was seeing Karajou remarking about how you, HalifaxTroll, were in FBI custody. Seriously, he thought the FBI went to your house to yell at you. I shit you not.-αmεσ (soldier) 01:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Halifax, please don't try to live up to your name here! Why did I what? Do you seriously, perhaps in a somewhat delusional state, believe I had some mission in removing all traces of the "FBI Incident" or was a player of note in that? Goodness! And Ames, my POV stated above, is actually quite Conservative. I think some of you guys keep mistaking evangelical conservatives for Conservatives....not that it would be hard to do, given your experience with Andy's blog. --TK/MyTalk 01:56, 21 December 2007 (EST)

And that, my friends, is the key. After exposing myself to Conservapedia, here was I thinking that conservative in America must mean something completely different to conservative in the UK. Whereas what exposure to CP actually demonstrates is that, as TK says, evangelical conservative means something completely different to conservative. Sure, there appears to be differences to conservatives in the US and the UK, primarily around things such as the death penalty, universal health care and so on, but essentially they are the same. As CP user British_cons said "When I looked at the list of liberal beliefs [on CP] my reaction was - "Doesn't everybody believe in most of this?""
But, what CP seems to believe is that conservatives aren't real conservatives if they are not evangelical conservatives. Rather, they're almost invariably liberals. Ajkgordon 04:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)
Don't you all get it yet? TK has no clearly held political beliefs. He is just a chancer. His foray into Conservapedia was no different to his dallying in all those other snigger inducing websites we've been treated to peeps of. He's just a control freak, who found himself in a position of power through accident of circumstances. You guys never read his actual "contributions" to CP main space?? Ignorance of even the most basic aspects of the political/religious stances he claimed to hold. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 10:22, 21 December 2007
Proof positive, person who will not register, that ignorance, either side of the Atlantic, is indeed bliss, and not in short supply. I knew it was only a matter of time until a real hater showed up to devolve the conversation. --TK/MyTalk 06:05, 21 December 2007 (EST)
Hehe. Admit it, you pathetic, cyberbullying, ignoramous - you really are Billy No Mates, aren't you?
Oh my! Such hostility. NO wonder you have no mates!--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 10:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Don't listen to Karajou, the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction in Canada. I can't believe he actually told people that the FBI was yelling at me. Looks like Andy will have to do some explaining because apparently liberals aren't the only ones that engage in deceit. Either that or Karajou is really a liberal --HalifaxTroll 17:29, 21 December 2007 (EST)


Aaaaarrrrrghhhh! My EYES!! Ajkgordon 09:08, 22 December 2007 (EST)

It's not yellow, it's gold! Owie... humanUser talk:Human 15:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Ze goggles...zey do nothzing!--Bayesupdate 17:20, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Party Is Over...Cancelled On Account Of Hate[edit]

I really want to thank those of you on this page who have gone the extra mile to try and make things work. More than I can say, from the bottom of my heart, I appreciate it!

But as is evident from the continued personal attacks, like that Kels placed on Conservapedia Talk, all of our efforts come to naught. If any of us made the repeated and highly personalized attacks she continues to lob my way, we would (and have) been blocked. Or "promoted" to regular editor. Same goes for others who have posted here. But they are not. It is tolerated merely because she is a part of the ruling class here, and those like here are granted special license to do what they do. A license others will never get because of that hate is allowed to fester, actually allowed to proliferate.

For you apologists, please don't even bother to respond here with your endless self-justifications. Supposedly in this rational place, rational thought rules. It usually doesn't. Hate is allowed, and excused as "Free Speech" and "Debate". Personal attacks made under any guise are just that: A guise. These aren't snarks, are not funny, and are thinly disguised efforts to keep hate against a person or persons going. They are the intolerance of a few allowed to continue, only for the reason of spreading unreasoned hate against others to ensure they are never taken seriously, are forever marginalized, are forever kept in a lower class of citizenship. So long as this is allowed to continue, who in their right mind would want to contribute or help here? Yes, yes, the same haters will flock to post here about "thin skins" or dredge up something that happened elsewhere. Is RW "elsewhere"?

To those fair-minded and rational people here, to the witty, funny and thinking members, I wish you.....


--TK/MyTalk 17:54, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I was excited about the possibility of cooperation. I'm not sure what provoked this new "goodbye" message. Can I ask what did?-αmεσ (soldier) 18:08, 22 December 2007 (EST)
AmesG, I know you want to be a Lawyer, but please stop posting here saying what I was doing, okay? I never said goodbye, did I? I view your constantly stating what I do or do not mean as vandalism. --TK/MyTalk 18:41, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Noooooooooooo! That's several people we've lost in the past two days :(. --Linus(plot evil tech) 18:16, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Who did we lose?-αmεσ (soldier) 18:38, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Elassint, and uh, his stalker.

TK. What exactly do you want us to do here? What are your 'demands'? What is it about this place, of the many millions of websites, that makes you want to come and say these things here? It seems that no-one is getting hurt or upset here, except you or the people that you get involved with. Why? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Is it about this edit? Because that is the most offensive thing I could find from Kels at WIGO. What are the other "continued personal attacks"? NightFlare 19:31, 22 December 2007 (EST) are not an idiot. So I view your post above as just plain vandalism. Be gone from this page, please! Read your own emails to me, and your contrived response to them posted far above by you, to learn what I, and others object to here. It seems no one is getting hurt here who is a member of the ruling cabal, one who's posts are sanctioned and never objected to, except rarely. I know you have read the posts in WIGO Talk, and elsewhere, so your comments are just another device to put what is wrong off on one person, to marginalize them, make it appear as if there is no issue whatsoever, except in their own mind. You lucky few, who decide what this place is and is not, what is and is not allowed, of course have no problem, ever. You guys started this place, so please don't think I am expecting any change, or think there should be, if you don't. Your post, and POV is the norm, it is always someone else, always never the fault of Admin here. Kels speaks for all of you, so be it. I think that is the point that was made above by Ghengas and Linus....that some here, you among them, are just haters, we delight in making others experience here a misery. If not, why do you do and say the things you do?
NightFlare, read above for more, and there is also this: [1] unprovoked attack and lie. If you look here [2] you can plainly see I was quoting someone else, but Human let it stand, even though I emailed him pointing out he was posting a blatantly false attack on me, he has let it stand. Admins who attack and post false information should have blocks far greater than regular members get, simply because they know better. --TK/MyTalk 19:37, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Kels doesn't speak for all of us; whether we agree with her is an entirely different matter. Also, bear in mind that I haven't been here for a while; how could I read stuff. For the sake of a complete and utter moron, a spoilt child of the ruling cabal who in his own eyes can do no wrong, please explain to me what you want us to do. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Yes, she does. Otherwise she would have been remonstrated like everyone else is when they do it. She would have been blocked for the many similar attacks she has made. If you haven't been "here" for a while, then you should not have posted what and as you did, eh? You are yet another master of putting it all on another, seeming to be interested in a resolution, while adding on yet another attack, another bit to marginalize whoever. You are playing to a very small audience, Wiki. You are not fooling all the others in posting as you do. That is why people leave, or just don't participate anymore, when you guys ignore what you don't want to deal with or answer, like my email comment, and deflect by picking up some other bit, using the self depreciating remark, to sneak in yet another snark, an attempt to say "hey, he's paranoid! We don't be doing mean things!" Bah! --TK/MyTalk 19:52, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Quit your whining, you had no problem calling people sub-human back on Conservapedia. Buck up and be a man, quit your bitching. --HalifaxTroll 19:55, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure this conflagration is justified over Kels merely referring to TK as having "little credibility." Her opinion is hers, mine is mine, but I don't think one member's expression of disapproval of TK ought to give rise to the entire history of the Wiki being called into question, especially when there seemed to be peace in the jungle just a few days ago.-αmεσ (soldier) 19:57, 22 December 2007 (EST)
The point is, some are more equal than others here. If some will not allow bygones to be bygones, then they should be asked to leave. Or, at the very least, not allowed to be Admins, and certainly chided, publicly and renounced. Period. That is how you grow a wiki, a community. Kels, Human and some simply could not stand for any peace, any acceptance of me, and as we all have seen, some acceptance of others. Halifax, your buying into their deception, if indeed you are, and posting such marginalizing comments, isn't a help. People need to decide, if they are going to stop such tactics, not tolerate them, or post they want them allowed from some, not from others. At least that would be honest. I received this email from a member of the Admins here, and it was publicly repudiated here, laughed off, and I was excluded, reason given: Pressure from other Admins and Cabal forum members.
If by "above" you mean Wikinterpreter's comment, then I simply fail to see what's so offensive about being asked what your goal is that makes you stay. About the links, I'm not sure what you're trying to show, in the first one they're discussing your block, it is inevitable that your attitude is going to be a big point in the discussion (Ok, Susan's comment was a bit out of place, but that's about it.) In the second one an IP is criticizing both sides of the issue, and I can't see you quoting anything, nor can I see anything I hadn't seen the first time. The rest of the conversation is the same thing that has been going on for weeks and my next point which I'll try to put in the less blunt manner possible:
You, TK, have a persecution complex. Minor issues, such as the ones happening/that happened at WIGO, are responded to with a large block of text explaining how you're the victim of the system, while demonizing those you're attempting to gain the moral high ground on. This invites snark, while the right thing is clearly not to respond with snark, I can't say I blame the rest of the mob for doing so, you see, I've felt tempted to do the same thing, especially when previous snarky comments have been answered with the same oppression rethoric, making what would've been an unjustified attack from RW into just another flamefest. Additionally, it's saddening that you're referring to comments from (relatively) long ago, while asking for bygones to be bygones.
In conclusion, you're metaphorically and hypocritically begging for the hate you're receiving, try to cool down before attempting to call persecution, only then will attacks to you be seen as truly unprovoked, personal insults. HalifaxTroll NightFlare

Hard to know, Halifax if you really cannot read, or just enjoy throwing gasoline on the fire. In the example given, Human states (in the discussion about my being blocked) as fact I made up an attack, lied, and said it came from from another user. The second link shows the place on this page where that so-called invented user is the one who made the comment! I emailed Human, showed him where I never lied, and he never responded or corrected his post. My point being that this is usual around here. Admin will not tolerate some making false posts and accusations, yet allows it from others. The fact that I emailed Human about it, and he never corrected his basless attack, confirms what his intentions, mainly being to smear me, somehow add some justification to the unjustifiable. Are you still going to say I am over-reacting? If I am, why are so many coming here to fan the flames and proclaim how innocent they are? --TK/MyTalk 23:10, 22 December 2007 (EST)

My point is that even though you probably were treated unfairly, is it any different than those you treated unfairly on Conservapedia, blocking people for "liberal" trolling and being a "parodist". I didn't care that you blocked me, I am a troll. But you've blocked a lot of innocent people whose only crime was not being a fascist. As far as hate goes, I think calling people sub-human qualifies as hate and you've done that enough. You're a hypocrite. --HalifaxTroll 23:14, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Well, you do live up to your name, lol. I blocked as I was told to block, and far less than several other sysops. That is absolutely no different than an Admin here blocking according to policy. RW is a liberal wiki. If someone comes here, posting according to Andy's ideology, reverting edits according to that right-wing lunacy, they should be blocked from here, IMO. Likewise, going to a conservative/fundie site like CP and posting liberal ideology, would earn a block as well. That help you understand what it is I think? --TK/MyTalk 23:24, 22 December 2007 (EST)

The facts don't have an ideology TK. I don't see how evolution is "liberal". Or how documenting the human rights abuses of Colombian president Uribe is trolling. --HalifaxTroll 23:53, 22 December 2007 (EST)

That is pie-in-the-sky thinking, Halifax. I am not here to be the apologist for CP, try to get it straight. Documenting human rights abuses by Uribe, and ignoring those of Chavez does subvert the facts, and put an idealogical spin on them. You seem to think any site, because it is on the Net is public domain. It isn't. You, me, or even Andy has the right to run their site however they want to. We don't have some inherent right to complain about someone exercising their own rights. If you start a site, and say the sky is purple, that is indeed your right. That doesn't mean I have to believe it is, or hate you for thinking that way. See? --TK/MyTalk 23:59, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Bottom line Halifax, is that he was following orders. Now drop it, please. Locke Eye.jpg Always Watching...... 00:04, 23 December 2007 (EST)
I never said anything about Chavez. Did Andy order you to call people names to? Blocking I can understand but calling people sub-human. What a pathetic person and why would you follow such a jackass --HalifaxTroll 00:07, 23 December 2007 (EST)
No, you never did say anything about Chavez, but the point is a valid one. As for calling people names, do you just never, ever, ready anything in your haste to post? It was mentioned above, and has been several other places, you are 100% totally dead wrong about me calling anyone "sub-human". Again, I hate to be repetitive, but why is it you cling to such hate bullshit, and never, not ever ask directly? I called almost anyone suspected as being from here (as most were) (sub)Human. That being a play on the Human user name, and anyone who had his idealogical bent, and possibly, most likely from RW. It was just short-hand jargon, as if I had said "I know you are most likely from RW, and a far-leftist like "Human", but not really him". You should be asking yourself why you decided to take it as you have, rather than as something more benign. Anyway, those are the facts about (sub)Human, sorry to disappoint you, and not actually be some evil monster who enjoys needlessly insulting strangers. --TK/MyTalk 00:22, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Halifax, drop it or take a break. You have been warned. Locke Eye.jpg Always Watching...... 00:16, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I never quite understood the argument of comparing CP and RW blocking policies. It seems that if you don't goose-step perfectly in line with what Andy and his inner circle what to see then you're gone. The only really heavy bans here are for continuous stupid wandalism and/or racist comments and the like. I personally what these people who make these (in my opinion) whacky edits to explain them.

CP never asks for debate or, when it does, it is never meant to get anyone anywhere (i.e. Richard Dawkins). Even when we ask, we can never get those from the "other side" to make their case. Take the odd edits to the New World Order article. We've asked many times for the editor(s) to make their case. What we've gotten are what might be best descibed at "tin-foil hat" responses.

In the end, both CP and RW are POV and opposite POV at that. It is the differences in editorial style that separates them. --Edgerunner76 00:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)

And my blocks? How would you explain them? I view them as merely a means to intimidate. Read this page, as only one example of hundreds here at RW, and see if you can locate all the issues that were raised, never to be answered, just like on CP. The question is put, it is ignored, and answered by some deflective and inflammatory post. RW pays lip service to being open, but those who have been around for more than a month know it isn't. Just repeating something over and over, that doesn't make it so. --TK/MyTalk 00:59, 23 December 2007 (EST)
About the Human thing, ignoring the fact you were extremely vague, I can't find the definitions that equates "crone" with "old prune." Regardless, you don't change the words people use when you quote them, with this in mind it's easy to see why Human wouldn't back out of his words. NightFlare 00:44, 23 December 2007 (EST)
OMFG! I emailed Human, told him I screwed up the two words, neither of which is exactly flattery, but that doesn't change, NightFlare, the fact he categorically stated I lied about someone else posting words to that effect, does it? Crone is an old lady, Old Prune means the same. It doesn't change the fact he never responded, even asking about me mixing up the two words. You are splitting hairs in an attempt to make me wrong in this, and you are smaller for doing so. Sad, you would grasp at something so small to make Human right for calling me a liar, and as he did, use that example as another reason I should have been blocked. Shame on you. --TK/MyTalk 00:59, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Ahh, you screwed up the crone/old prune thing, I'll let Human defend himself from that. In any case, what I tried to get at is that it seems you're persistent with what happens in the past, things that should've been forgotten long ago, and respond in such an over reactive manner that it only succeeds in feeding the vicious circle of snark.
Oh, one more thing, there are many things that could be inferred about your attitude from your last lines, but I'll just say you don't know me or what my intentions are. NightFlare 01:45, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Y halo thar ...[edit]

... I believe that I remember you saying something about how wrong it was to publish private correspondence. Glad to see you're still keeping that fine old tradition going! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

To late for memory holes. CЯacke® 20:23, 22 December 2007 (EST)
I deleted the e-mail, but I see it's back. TK, reproducing e-mails is bad form. It elevates drama, inflames tensions, and makes this an unhealthy place to be, contrary to your professed goals. If you actually cared to try to make this a better place - and remove some of the dissent, as you say - then maybe you wouldn't pull stunts like that. Frankly, I think it's the drama that people are tired of around here, and I wonder who's the person who keeps bringing it back?
Dear disaffected Cabal member, though, I'm sorry you're unhappy here. I really would like to address constructive criticisms. But copying e-mails is not constructive.-αmεσ (soldier) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Well, I didn't as you and others have done, reveal the sender. That offers a modicum of privacy that many here never afforded me. And I think there are certainly exceptions to that rule, especially if someone is posing to be someone they clearly are not, foisting off a persona publicly that isn't really them. It goes to honesty, Wiki. Without me revealing the sender's name, I am keeping their privacy, no? Your complete dis-ingeniousnesses above, making remarks and admitting you haven't read here for a while, makes you the pot or the kettle?
AmesG, back to channeling Nixon again, when things and logic don't go your way? Copying an email, without giving the sender, isn't bad form. It demonstrates the two-faced nature of what we are dealing with here. Admins who say one thing publicly, another in the hidden forum of theirs, and yet another in emails. It shows RW cannot with creditability be a critic of Andy, unless it attempts to mend its ways, indeed let bygones be begones, as some of us, not Ames or Wiki, to be fair, but some of us, were attempting to do. Then the haters rushed in to sully a user, make sure no reproachment could ever be reached, because of their need to hate. It is the insidious hints, that if anyone dares to accept someone Admins here hate, there will be consequences.....that's the point. Branding me as a "disaffected Cabal member" is a major deceit, as you were among those flatly stating I would never be allowed to be one, no? But when it suits your purposes, you will so say I am? Your methods make a sham out of your every public post about being honest and fair. --TK/MyTalk 20:34, 22 December 2007 (EST)

INTERNET HATE MACHINE. That is all. It's painfully obvious who the email is from. Care to hazard a guess, Ames?-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

The Internet doesn't have to be about hate. Our dealings here don't have to be either. I never saw that Ames wished the discussed section gone, and removed it, as is his right as a duly elected Bureaucrat here. :P I will remove it, point made, that those who post here saying one thing, rarely mean it. The like to deceive and injure others out of their own internal need to do so. That is indeed hate at its most basic. As I said, some of us were at least trying to put things behind us, rather than wallow in the past, use it to exclude others, etc. We won't be allowed to do that here, it seems, and more the pity for it, because some of us want to help, but others want to keep it an exclusive club. --TK/MyTalk 20:56, 22 December 2007 (EST)

You didn't mind being in an exclusive club when you were an admin on Conservapedia. Anyways, what happened with you over there? --HalifaxTroll 21:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I have no idea who the sender was... Is it so obvious?-αmεσ (soldier) 21:08, 22 December 2007 (EST)
That statement is very confusing to me, Halifax. Why ask me a question, expecting an answer, then insult me? Perhaps you don't expect an answer, and merely used it as a way to snark? AmesG and others here had access to the Special Discussion Group, and know full well Andy's email to the Steering Committee gave as one of his reasons my helping RW. Ames has publicly labeled me as a disaffected Cabal member, so it must be true, eh? Hoji has publicly posted I was helping RW, and it was never repudiated by the powers that run RW. Yet, I was never a member of the Cabal, and AmesG, Trent and all the others never wanted me to be a member. So I am just as confused as you about why. Please explain what you meant, Halifax, about my not minding "it" being an exclusive club. Maybe then I can specifically address it. --TK/MyTalk 21:09, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I'm talking about Conservapedia being an exclusive club. Anyone who posted facts that did not fit with right-wing fascist ideology would be quickly reverted and the user would be banned --HalifaxTroll 22:32, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Surely it cannot be considered "liberal" to deny CP, RW or any site to remove whoever it wants to, eh? Since you have never asked me, contacted me, there is absolutely no chance in hell you know what I think about all that, or what I was doing to combat that, is there? If you make a website, like Andy did, how you run it is up to you, isn't it? Like it or not, others shouldn't have control over it. And once again, comparing CP to RW is really apples and oranges, a bogus comparison, eh? --TK/MyTalk 23:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Sock of Ames[edit]

This is not really TK, this is just a sock of AmesG[1] 21:13, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, right.--TK/MyTalk 21:19, 22 December 2007 (EST)


Nah, they're available by request. You can have one. --Linus(plot evil tech) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I just missed where the discussion was about them, Linus. Someone IM'd me saying they didn't think they were generally available, and me, being me, didn't have their hesitancy in asking, lol. ;-) --TK/MyTalk 21:21, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Ah, okay. Well, the offer's still open, if you care. --Linus(plot evil tech) 21:29, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Phew, made it![edit]

Sorry, getting a carpet installed... I'm not too late for the party here, am I?? ...oh, nevermind... Apparently all that's left now is to clean up the party streamers and tears. :( UchihaKATON! 23:12, 22 December 2007 (EST)

...and Mudkips. UchihaKATON! 23:13, 22 December 2007 (EST)


It is amazing that anyone would think anyone would know what the hell it is! I wasted 20 minutes researching it, and still don't see the humor. This is another "inside" deal, that only the very few who are allowed to post whatever, wherever they want, will know about......I finally find a link on the user page, provided for Human, but no one else. Is it any wonder I, and others, think they are being persecuted, or at the very least made fun of, when deals like this happen constantly? Sorry if it seems to some I over-react, but it goes both ways, and none of you bothered to clue me in. :-( --TK/MyTalk 23:51, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, it's a joke that originated on a horrible site(4chan), and is detailed here Locke Eye.jpg Always Watching...... 00:00, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks, that link is really, really TMI ! And I have no idea what a 4chan is, either. Now I really do feel 100 years old! --TK/MyTalk 00:06, 23 December 2007 (EST)
It's for the better, trust me. Locke Eye.jpg Always Watching...... 00:15, 23 December 2007 (EST)


All of this user's comments and insults can be read above, if you have the patience. Here are a couple that were way out of line: [3] and [4], just as examples. Both these and others defame my character without evidence. I request that others review TK's characterizations of me in these and other edits, and decide if he is engaged in "Personal 'attacks', however justified, are strongly frowned upon." I was not a party to this discussion, but have read it with amusement - and horror. I am accusing this editor of "personal attacks", in the extreme - unsubstantiated and unjustified, on my own behalf.

Should he fail to provide clear and robust evidence of the truth of his attacks, I call for a one day (the second "1" in the F. sequence) block, to start at the conclusion of this investigation. If anyone has any need for information from me, please ask directly (on my talk page, or invoke my name here), otherwise I will stay out of the proceedings, as the accuser and aggrieved party.

PS, in case it isn't clear, I am offended and consider myself attacked without provocation. Please note the last edit I made to this page, in case this is not clear. (Under "bygones") humanUser talk:Human 01:43, 23 December 2007 (EST)

And I call for the two day blockage for those Admins who blocked me, above, out of spite, against RW policy. Human, good thing I BCC'd several others when I emailed you about branding me a liar, saying I invented some other user calling another a name, huh? I told the others you would ignore my polite request for a retraction, and you didn't fail me.
And here is the unprovoked attack of Human: [5] unprovoked attack and lie. If you look here [6] you can plainly see I was quoting someone else, but Human let it stand, even though I emailed him pointing out he was posting a blatantly false attack on me, he has let it stand. Admins who attack and post false information should have blocks far greater than regular members get, simply because they know better. I told Human, in my email, I mis-stated the actualy word "old prune" as crone. If anyone wants to check the email, I can provide them with who I sent copies to. Always pays to be safe here, as the deceit of Human, and others, knows no bounds. Point is, he lied, said I invented the comments I credited to another user, and never corrected them even when emailed about it. End of story. --TK/MyTalk 01:55, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Judgment for the defendant, with costs assessed to the plaintiff.-αmεσ (soldier) 02:03, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Human, turn some other page into your circus. Make a special trial page, why don't you? Host it on your own. Anywhere but here. --TK/MyTalk 02:04, 23 December 2007 (EST)
You have accused me on lying, in front of a group of people whose respect (and heckling) I value. Here is where it will be discussed. humanUser talk:Human 02:06, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Note, the "defendant" is already reverting my attempt to provide structure to this section. humanUser talk:Human 02:05, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Human, I thought you were the defendant... seriously, though, this is my last comment on the subject, and it should be yours, too, Human. No more baiting this troll.-αmεσ (soldier) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, Ames, anyone who bests you in an argument, any other cabal member, is naturally a troll. You keep proving my points! :P --TK/MyTalk 02:10, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Ehh, Human, you seem to be overreacting a bit too much as well, the second edit is a bit more understandable as it was a shallow accusation, however in the first one a response from your part seems more warranted than a block threat. NightFlare 02:06, 23 December 2007 (EST)

OK, out of a wish to try to reduce this drama, and to attempt to make up for whatever grievance is perceived, I'm voluntarily banning myself from Rationalwiki for 3 days - 72 hours precisely. Desysop me, please, Ames. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Wiki, I'll enforce your block but I'd rather not desysop you...-αmεσ (soldier) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (EST)

God Help me...[edit]

...but I've set up some user:AmesG/wikilawyering discussion.-αmεσ (soldier) 02:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Blah Freakin' God-Damned Blah[edit]

Ok, is anyone in the Sooper-Secret Ruling Cabal seriously considering giving TK the sysopship he so obviously desperately craves if he just whines hard enough? No? Good. That's a load off my mind. --SockOfGulik 12:47, 23 December 2007 (EST)

If I may say so without any intended offense, that was excessively antagonistic. --Linus(plot evil tech) 15:32, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Probably. But I felt like saying it anyway. --SockOfGulik 16:50, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Sock Gulik is interesting to watch maneuver, making off-the-wall statements, not grounded in fact. Goebels, I am sure, is proud of you! March on! --TK/MyTalk 16:56, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Your ability to de-escalate hostility by comparing me to a Nazi is impressive. That sort of thing ALWAYS results in cooler heads prevailing after all fnord. Certainly not 'trolling', by any stretch of the imagination fnord. But wouldn't Stalin be a better match? I'm a _leftist_ evil totalitarian oppressor kook viciously persecuting you for no NO REASON AT ALL(tm), after all. --SockOfGulik 02:10, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Since you appeared and posted way after the crap was finished, with some bullshit made-up rumor/red herring, and caused even Linus, who rarely posts in such fire storms to say you were excessive, I don't think you are a Nazi or Communist. Just an attention whore, perhaps, and/or way too much time on your hands. Have a Happy New Year, SockofGulik! --TK/MyTalk 02:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)


I think we should "whitewash" some of the embarrassing mess above by encouraging TK to archive it. Page is getting long anyway, and no one has commented on the threads for a couple of days.

Also, perhaps he could save that "bygones" section in a special sub-page with a link saying something like "here we were in our finest hour"? Or maybe just "bygones"? Seems a shame to have those fine sentiments vanish into the memory hole.

Anyway, the page is long and he probably wants to archive it and I don't want to see him get his head bitten off for doing so.

Thank you for your time. humanUser talk:Human 18:05, 24 December 2007 (EST)


Please use {{Welcome/IP}} for ip addresses. -- 18:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)