User:Hojimachong/TK

Ideas Regarding TK

It is this editors humble opinion that TK (and all related accounts) be permanently banned from RationalWiki (and all related projects) without the possibility of parole.

Justification

• Throughout his several months of editing at RationalWiki, TK has shown no desire to improve any aspect of the site. However, inactivity and nonproductive editing is not justification for a block.
• In several instances, TK has been mean, divisive, and downright malicious.
• Many RW users can attest to receiving threatening, demeaning, and belittling private communique from TK.
• TK has a history of being a prolific Internet troll;
  • TK participated in Conservapedia as a "divider", refraining from writing content articles and instead insulting users and locking pages to provoke malicious words, which were then used as justification for blocking. While any reasonable person knows that internal division of CP is desirable, it does not help TKs case when he engages in this type of activity everywhere he goes.
  • Several stories exist (verification needed) that TK was a moderator of Hot or Not, causing several problems during his tenure there. This position is especially startling, because it is now believed by experts that "cyberbullying" can cause self-esteem issues, self-harm, and even suicide amongst teenage girls - the main audience of Hot or Not. These actions are especially malicious, and speak volumes about TKs character.
• Many RW users can attest to TK telling them one thing, and doing another. This suggests that TK is a compulsive liar.
• Lastly, anybody who has had any contact with TK knows that he is a malevolent and evil person, with a broken moral compass, who has no intention to do anything good, and is essentially a complex Internet troll.

For these reasons, I (Hojimachong) believe that TK (and all related accounts) be permanently banned from RationalWiki (and all related projects).

I also acknowledge that permanent blocking of an editor can lead down a slippery slope to other permanent blockings. However, I also realize that this is an extraordinary issue, and requires severe measures.

Discussion

Non-issue. He asked for his account to be permanently blocked and deleted on Wednesday. PFoster 11:48, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorely out of the loop. Preserving this in case he ever decides to come back in any incarnation. --Hoji^die! 12:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

He later claimed in the discussion group that he never asked for his account to be deleted or blocked. Which is precisely the reason I didn't act on is private request (I was afraid he'd later disavow it and claim suppression). So he still could come back.-αmεσ (spy) 13:03, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

A group needs an enemy to unite them. Let him stay. MarcusCicero 13:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

CP? Also, I'm not really a Nietzsche fan. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Let's sacrifice him to our gooooooooooooooooddddddddsss!-αmεσ (spy) 13:11, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Ames, I never joined the discussion group, but did he really say that? Idiotic on his part, as he sent the email to what, five people? Pinto's5150 ^Talk 13:27, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

We don't IP block people, do we? So he can always come back as a sock. He will always be able to "harass" people with e-mails. Permanently blocking him is not a solution in my opinion. Growing a thicker skin and learning to deal with him would be better. Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 13:49, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

 :) --Gulik 13:45, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm with the owl. Hell, dust off checkuser, waste any remaining socks and salt the earth behind him. --Robledo 13:53, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

If somebody who's not me wanted to pull the trigger on him, I wouldn't cry.-αmεσ (spy) 14:14, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I never denied on the new discussion group that I emailed asking my account to be deleted, IF admins here were going to continue to randomly block me here, without giving a reason. That is what I said. That is what I said in my emails to Ames. I also said to Ames, it was pretty dishonest to keep posting to my talk page here asking me to respond there, since he damn well knew I couldn't respond on even my own page, being blocked. Lots of LULZ, that one, isn't it? My request was denied by Ames, and yet he still locked the page, making it appear publicly I had asked for him to do so. Note he later unlocked it. AmesG has an honesty problem, like his posting to the discussion group and on this wiki, that I tried to intimidate him asking about his sister. Only problem with him saying that, he was told months ago by Geoplrd, I was merely complying with his request, to say that, and I had no idea if he even had a sister, let alone her name. Ames was told this months ago, and has continued to repeat it, even though he was informed it was false, like so many other things he continues to present falsely. --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 14:37, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Alright, I didn't quite follow all that, especially what Ames' sister has to do with anything. But I gather that you do not want your account deleted. Is that correct? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:00, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

AKj, the gist of it is that, over the summer at some point, either Geo.plrd, TK, or both working together, asked me a question, like, "How's {{name of Ames' sister}} these days?" At alternate times, it's been said that Geo did it at TK's motivation, TK did it at Geo's motivation, or whatever, but frankly, I don't care. It's creepy. And I continue to hold that "im gonna get ur fambly" message against TK.-αmεσ (spy) 15:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

"I have emailed Doc asking he see if my account can just be deleted, along with my user and talk pages." You said that in e-mail on 25 March with no qualifiers.-αmεσ (spy) 14:46, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, Ames, the point is, you have continued to repeat a false charge, and on top of that attribute motivations to it that are supposition, untrue, for months after you were told I was completely innocent, merely asking you something on Geo's behalf. Stop glossing over facts, ignoring anything that shows you being disingenuous. --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 15:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and you said it was against RW policy to do so. End of that story, that request, you said no. I didn't pursue it. I never asked you to lock my pages, nor did I ever deny asking that my account be deleted, IF the no-reason blocking continued. I have copied the email in question and uploaded it here:

Click to enlarge

^{— Unsigned, by: TK / talk / contribs}

Yeah, apparently you don't want to be blocked now, which is a damn shame, so I guess that ends that. Sigh.-αmεσ (spy) 15:22, 29 March 2008 (EDT)