Debate:Make TK a sysop?

This is a Debate Page, and it has gone pretty badly down the muddy slope.
This debate now resembles something halfway between a mud pit and a hell hole.
ENTER AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

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

Yes, make him a sysop

For sysopping: 5

• Yes, but only if he agrees to a permanent ban from Conservapedia for being a member of a vandal site. I'm not joking at all. Burndall (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Don't see the point of treating him special like. MaxAlex (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Why not? You realize he most assuredly has a sock who is a sysop here anyways. Without checkuser, there's no way we would know if he had a sane-acting sock he made just to get sysop. 03:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, why does he need another? Aceⁱ⁹ 03:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Frankly I just want to piss off people with this. Too many of you are paranoid...TK is out to get you!! δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, don't make him a sysop

Votes against sysopping TK: 27

• -- =w= 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Absurd to even have this as a debate. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• He's just a trouble making fuck stick. Rad McCool (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• --Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• I understand the spirit behind it, but TK can't be trusted. (BTW, the intercom message has a red link). Junggai (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Bob Soles (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. Even with measly SysOp powers he'd make a nuisance here, and (dare I say it) even do a bit of wandalism. And he's a cunt. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. This time he didn't contact me via e-mail, I feel forgotten. Not that I have e-mail enabled. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 09:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. TK doesn't like this wiki (refers to it as a "vandal site") or it's members (they are blocked at CP just for suspicion of being members of RW) so I highly doubt he will make any positive contributions here and I don't see any reason why we should make him a sysop. Refugee^{talk page} 09:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. He can still express opinions here as a regular editor, so this isn't a case of censorship. I fail to see how he can make any kind of positive contribution socially or to the content. We shouldn't block him, but we certainly shouldn't give him the keys to the place. --^{Ask me about your mother} 10:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. I'm 95% certain he wouldn't contribute anything positive, so it would just waste time and be no fun.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely no way. After two years of WIGOing his destructiveness and shitstirring, why are we even giving him the steam off our piss? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Outside of "because I want to" this is such a non-starter of a question, I dodn't even know why we're debating it. If we do sysop TK, then MC and Fall Down also need to be sysops, as clearly all 3 fall under the "mostly harmless" banner. --PsygremlinTala! 12:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. He can already block as many people as he wants over on CP, I don't see any good that would come from giving him any space to stomp around with here. Hactar (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. I don't even understand why its up for discussion. Unless he's finally going to admit he's a parodist, and if that's the case, he probably already is here under another name. MDB (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. While he may indeed be a parodist and troll on CP he has proven that any power he achieves will be abused. If he wants to contribute here he can do so as a normal editor. -Tygrehart
• No. Probably a bit too obvious I'd say that, though. But yeah, when he's clearly demonstrated in the past that he's deliberately disruptive, and the only discussion is not whether he'd be good but what degree of bad, it's seriously stupid to keep hashing it out. He's easily on a level with MC and Fall Down, and maybe the Metapedia guys. --Kels (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. It's not censorship, etc., to not make him a sysop, and he is not "mostly harmless." Corry (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Fuck TK. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Duh. Harmonic word Hoover! 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• As above, dur. The criteria is "mostly harmless" not "everyone gets one because we're all happy clappy chummy equals here". Ergo stupid idea to even consider. ^narchist 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• All these people already opposing is reason enough. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• He's blocked people at CP for being sysops here. Does he want to become a sysop here? Has he no decency or self respect? No we want sysops here to be at least principled and consistent. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No we don't. We just expect them not to have a history of undesirable behaviour. Harmonic word Hoover! 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• --False Flag (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Personally, I think we should create a special usergroup called "Senior administrators" that only has block rights, and make TK the only one in that group. Otherwise, I'm against giving him all the sysop rights. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its a matter of him having rights, I think its a matter of having a duplicitous, lying, manipulative, dangerous scumbag hanging around. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that. But this way, it would rub his CP bullshit in his face, and if he bitches about people being admins/sysops here, we can remind him he's a senior admin here ;) The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

TK is liar. It doesn't matter whether or not he is a sysop here. He'll still talk about "admins at a vandal site" regardless of being here. He'll just take another angle. TK only cares about TK and I don't understand why people think that "This'll show TK, hahaha". Aceⁱ⁹ 23:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really so much about "showing him," it's more like making fun of his angle as "senior admin" on CP by rubbing it in his face here. But, I suppose, I'm jumping back into a fray I swore I'd avoid. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of us have seen him in action so I don't why we'd want him around. To prove a point? Why prove a point to TK when he is totally incapable of honesty. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, whatever the mob wishes. I just think it'd be more fun to rub his power right in his face, but I'm not at all hardcore about my parody idea. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 23:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• More trouble than he's worth - just leave him alone. Dagless (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

404 block him server side

Votes to block TK from viewing the site at all: 7

• tmtoulouse 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 07:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 09:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It would just give him reason to whine, and is easy to evade. Pietrow (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Entirely my reason for choosing this option. Also it'd keep people from reverting each other every five seconds. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh yeah. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 13:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Sterile Nintendo 64 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• TK is notorious for watching this site like a hawk, and perma-banning IPs he sees editing here. This would cripple such activity. And to those who say it's easy to evade: short of paying for a proxy service, TOR is the only reliable way to avoid such blocks, but TOR is also painfully slow—using it is like downgrading to dial-up internet when your used to broadband. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree, that's only an issue if you're an editor on Conservapedia. And as I don't give a fuck about CP and wish that anyone who is still vandalising it should grow up and get over it, I'd say it's overkill. Issuing server side blocks, in my opinion, would be a bad escalation. ^narchist 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hell aye. With a goatse block message n' all, please. --Robledo (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

Abstaining: 11

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

• Wanna bet? I care so little I can't even be bothered to get involved in this debate at all... - er - oh crap. Bondurant (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't care either way. I doubt he'll cause any problems. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Any problems he'd cause would likely involve email, not on-wiki. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 11:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't really care. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Earthland (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• If you give him sys-op, he'll cause chaos. If you don't, you make his martyr complex worse. We should ignore him... tempting though it is to feed the troll sometimes. -- 14:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominees Statement

While I am certain Huw's only thought was to abide by the principles of this site, I didn't ask to be made a Sysop this recent round, nor do I wish to be one at this time.

I view some of the comments with great humor, all this angst about a mere "janitors job", with absolutely no increase in stature, as you all are fond of saying, and I am certain outsiders have seen the epic fail of RW's logic on this topic. That some CP Administrators are Sysops here, some are not, only goes to confirm "debates" like this one are just amusements and a ploy to increase visitors and appear fair.

Rationalwikians obviously don't want anyone that opposes the majority of their views, as clearly stated on Kel's and Human's own talk pages, as well as here. Examples that some oppose a spoonful of RW's ideas aren't really examples that anyone outside of this place buys into, as the reaction of the Mob is quite clear. And again I say that is your right, but you should abandon all statements about wanting to be fair and allow those POV's as Conservapedia has always done (not wanting non-conservative content inserted into articles), rather than pay lip service to an ideal the Mob obviously doesn't agree with.

I want to thank some members here for their incredible helpfulness on technical matters at times, and their willingness to discuss in a kindly manner our differences or the actions taken at CP. As some have pointed out, political discussions often end in arguments where things are said that don't reflect well on any of us. For my part in any of that, years ago, I sincerely apologize, especially to Kels.

I remain hopeful that as the Old Guard changes the "politics of personal destruction" will be abandoned, and this place will concentrate on ideas rather than personally destroying others on the Internet.

--TK_/MyTalk^Editor 23:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to make this into a case of the pot calling the kettle black? I will admit that I was disappointed when I saw the "Block TK from viewing at all" section, but we allow people to have their own viewpoints. This is a case of our history with you TK, it is not a good one and even if we were to give your mop, it would only be a matter of time until you start trying to take this wiki in your direction rather than what my fellow degenerates want. Godspeed!--Thanatos (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. You're afraid. Don't worry, I have never once tried to change RW's liberal bent, only its more unsavory excesses. I have always promised to abide by the rules here, as one should, not the rules somewhere else. But your comments are moot, because I never sought the extra janitor work anyway. Adding the "troll" template here, in response to a rather nice and concilitory statement of mine, is yet another indication of the inability "outsiders" have to contribute without ridicule and being judged guilty before the fact. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

While I don't wholeheartedly agree with the reception you've received since your "return," TK (probably because I wasn't here for your last escapade in 2008) I was merely wondering what your interest in RationalWiki is specifically? Is it for the same reasons we hold an interest in Conservapedia (i.e. being a completely opposing POV) or it is just "for the lulz?" as we seem so susceptible to HCM? SJ ^Debaser 01:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your not an outsider TK. Your a provocateur and an active antagonist. There is a difference. tmtoulouse 01:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you lonely TK? Were you picked last at dodge ball? Did children at school throw your bag in the garbage? You sound like you were bullied. Poor wee man. Rad McCool (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(facepalm)Such attacks are uncalled for. TK, please realize that your always going to be under suspicion here.If your here for debates, good. Always nice to hear other ideas. If your here to cause trouble, we are kinda expecting that.--Thanatos (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

TK = Bullshit. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I reject the silly postulation that I somehow control the reactions of the Mob. Shit storms take the actions of more than one person. Anyone can antagonize others, but for a supposedly educated person to put the blame on the antagonizer is mindless bunk. Provocative statements are in the eye of the beholder. I am an outsider because I have never, not once, been treated with any form of respect here. Not that I don't understand (although I did badly misgauge people's reaction to being blocked, through my own ignorance) why people, most of them reacted as they did. That doesn't excuse the personalization, since most blocked are anonymous, and never exposed on CP for the full names, or humiliated and slandered all over the Internet (anonymously) for blocking them from a small site. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 02:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey TK--while you're fuckin' around here, Jensen has made you his bitch. Better go block him. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm^img. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd hope that people aren't bitter over being blocked. As far as I'm concerned you're one of my favourite characters in the CP universe, and the only reason I don't want you here is that it kind of breaks the fourth wall. It's a bit like walking in to a supermarket and coming face to face with the guy who played Chewbacca. Not the same without the suit, and certainly not the same when he's buying frozen peas. --^{Ask me about your mother} 02:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The cognitive dissonance required to act as the CP version of TK and edit on RW as if you are the most reasonable being alive is truly staggering, and of course the real irony here is that on CP this discussion wouldn't ever happen, wouldn't even begin to happen. Users would be banned, pages would be burned, IT NEVER HAPPENED! PAY ATTENTION OR BE BANNED! IT NEVER HAPPENED! Here at RW we may not ever agreee about anything, but at least we can talk about it like normal human beings. (apart from Ace...I'm not sure he fits any definition of 'normal' ;) ) Worm^{(t | c)} 02:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OMG 404 blocked! tmtoulouse 02:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, nevermind.Rad McCool (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You're history's greatest monster, Trent. Way to go! --Kels (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I amazed anyone is buying into TK's bullshit. He causes as much problems as possible and then turns around and acts the victim when someone calls him out. Now the story is let bygones be bygones, lets forget the past and move on. Okay lets say we do, then what? He will probably turn around and cause the same problems as before. To steal an analogy that was used for MC, we are like a battered wife who lets her husband convince her not to leave, only to get beaten again. TK and MC both use the same MO (although U strongly doubt they are the same person). They cause trouble, act offended when they are called out it, cry they are persecuted when they are vandal binned or desysopped, beg and plea for forgiveness and then start trolling all over again. The problem with this site is not that we are totalitarian and unforgiving, but we are soft on these obvious troll tactics. Countdown to TK acting persecuted/telling me to forget about the past in 5, 4, 3,... - π 03:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pi FTW. I know MC and TK are not the same people. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Π, I have already rejected the silly postulation that I somehow control the reactions of the Mob. Shit storms take the actions of more than one person. Anyone can antagonize others, but for a supposedly educated person to put the blame on the antagonizer is mindless bunk. Provocative statements are in the eye of the beholder. One has to suspend all logic to accept what you say. I don't have any extraordinary ability to incite a mob, and its reactions to whatever anyone says (let alone me) is its own responsibility. To blame me for the reaction of users here, or anywhere is really, really moronic. And I for one, don't see one thing wrong with letting go of past animosities. The question should be why do some cling to them, need them, want to keep them alive. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 03:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are so full of shit it makes my eyes bleed. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Nice argument TK: ctrl+c ctrl+v. "I don't have any extraordinary ability to incite a mob", no you don't. I could do it if I wanted to, the difference between you and any other user is you would. You have done it in the past and if we let you have a free again run, you will very highly likely do it again. The reason we we cling to past animosities is to prevent future animosities. - π 04:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"And I for one, don't see one thing wrong with letting go of past animosities." okay--unblock Ames and Pal and Human and Hoji and Tim and Helpjazz and Fox and...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I kind of preferred the MC crap to this. Everything said to TK is translated to compliments before he responds. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 04:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely astounding and, honestly, utterly disgraceful. Ifully expect the jackasses at Conservapdia to jump to conclusions, read in to shit that isn't there, and overall be paranoid losers. That comes with the territory of being a conservative...one of the basic premises of the party is everyone is out to get them. What I am reading here is completely the flip side. Otherwise rational and sane people apparently just lose it when the boogie man comes around. It's shameful how people are behaving with this...it honestly is. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your concern would be taken even more seriously if you waggled a disapproving finger. --Kels (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't care how my concern is taken. I'm becoming weary of approval here. Many don't seem to be able to think straight (as evidenced by many going absolute bizerk over the prospect of the boogie man being treated the same as everyone else). δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what: fire up your time machine, see what this guy was like here over the past few years, then have an opinion. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh I'll come too. Can I leave Cgb07305 there, in the past where he can't bother us? Aceⁱ⁹ 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Cgb07305 has or will soon receive an email explaining how TK is not really like he is on CP, he is actually on RatioanlWiki's side, he doesn't understand why there is all this hatred of him when he only wants to help, these people are persecuting him for past animosities he has gotten over. We don't need a time machine, we are in Ground Hog Day. - π 04:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He already got some sort of invite to join some sort of Google group from him. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone stupid enough to join that deserve what they get. - π 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You want my opinion? My opinion is that TK is a cocksucking little fucker that has his head shoved up his ass. He is a dirty prick and is only concerned about himself. My opinion is also that people here love fucking drama for God-knows-why and are willing to go to incredible lengths to achieve it. I am sick and tired of hashing and rehashing whacko conservative bullshit and would much rather be spending time creating articles like I just have. Unfortunately for me, people here have to go apeshit over the smallest of problems...thus making me want to destroy them as much as I want to destroy TK. Do you see my fucking dilemma here? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 05:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Naa, I just think you're an asshole. 16:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Turdblossom
This is one of many discussions that has descended into petty sniping and trolling idiocy on RationalWiki.
Here are the others, in case you are curious, bored, or enjoy pain:
- Community Standards/Revamp, January 2009 -- Community Standards/Revamp draft -- Requests for comment/HeartOfGold -- Community Standards/disruption -- HeartOfGold Sysop vote -- Site politics -- User:Copyvio's campaign to stop copyvio -- Serious Business -- Epic debate -- Cat fight -- Constitutional Convention, April 2008 -- Barroom brawls -- Voting Procedure -- Inactivity -- Property rights in WIGOs -- Nuclear Option -- Privacy clusterfuck -- The Rationalwiki Reform Society -- Community Standards/TK -- Drama dump -- The case of MarcusCicero -- Voting standards -- User rights and moderation revisited -- Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union -- The mobocracy -- Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees -- Is RationalWiki under the control of Feminist activists? -- Chicken coop/Archive37 -- Chicken coop -

A server-side IP block, like the one Dear Leader made for me here, shows some anti-intellectual Liberals always invite dialog and interaction whenever they think they won't be taken up on it. If they are, they initiate name calling, False Flag attacks and a server block without actually showing the world how intolerant they are. Trent never fails to live up to expectations...just another petty dictator like he calls others out for being. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You unspeakable hypocrite. Just reading that post made me feel nauseous. You must be delusional. You come here from Conservapedia and criticize us for being intolerant. You talk about liberals inviting dialog "whenever they think they won't be taken up on it"? What a joke. And as for any Conservapedia sysop (but particularly you) calling anyone a petty dictator, well you really have lost touch with reality my sad little friend. I suggest that you fuck off back to the dung heap. --Horace (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)