Debate:Make TK a sysop?

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: 3

• 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)

No, don't make him a sysop

Votes against sysopping TK: 24

• -- =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. --PsygremlinTal! 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. Word educated 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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{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. Word educated 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. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 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 ;) Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 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 Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 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. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 23:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

404 block him server side

Votes to block TK from viewing the site at all: 6

• 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 thumbtack 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)

Abstain

Abstaining: 10

• 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)

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)