User talk:TK

(create an archive)

• Archive #1
• Archive #2
• Archive #3
• Archive #4
• User_talk:TK/vandalism

Yo, are yo retired or aren't you? Using this "retired" banner to end conversations you don't like isn't really very polite. --Jeɚv☭s^{Your 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 --Jeɚv☭s^{Your 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. 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)

Blocked?

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 (mission accomplished!) 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. 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 (mission accomplished!) 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 (mission accomplished!) 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. Genghis ^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 (mission accomplished!) 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. Genghis ^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? 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? Uchiha^KATON! 17:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Re: policy, yes, follow the guidelines link from the main page. 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 (mission accomplished!) 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. Genghis ^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 (mission accomplished!) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (EST)

unblocked

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? 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 (mission accomplished!) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Certainly for situations like this. Which shouldn't happen anyway. 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. Genghis ^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 (mission accomplished!) 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. human 20:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)

not "retired", obviously

On another note, can someone remove all these silly "retired" templates, etc., from his pages? 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. human 18:41, 10 December 2007 (EST) <-- head spinning

People doubt me, but I don't know why....-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 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.

--AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:48, 10 December 2007 (EST)

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

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

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. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 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

(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) human 20:42, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Why protect?

Is TK actually quitting RW?-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 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. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 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 (mission accomplished!) 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, ♦ Ryan ♦ ^{ǂ 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. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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 (mission accomplished!) 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

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 cpcolumn.wordpress.com 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

Do you really think, after the way you've behaved to so many here, that anyone might be interested in yoir opinion on anything? Susan^{purrrrr ...} 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. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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: 69.158.98.26 / 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 here.....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 hate....you 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	”
—TK

Wow, do indeed bring us up to speed. What did you ever do to help RW? 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... Uchiha^KATON! 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? 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 (mission accomplished!) 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

TK, inquiring [sic] minds want to know....just do it unilaterally. Heart♥Gold^{Illustrate effects of HRT overdose} 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 (mission accomplished!) 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 unilaterally...it 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. human 01:02, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Ouch, snap. Heart♥Gold^{Illustrate effects of HRT overdose} 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 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?

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. Heart♥Gold^{Illustrate effects of HRT overdose} 01:13, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Barf. --TK_/MyTalk 01:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)

LOL! 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...

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. 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. 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 (mission accomplished!) 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"? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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 (mission accomplished!) 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? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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 (mission accomplished!) 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. --Jeɚv☭s^{Your 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. --Jeɚv☭s^{Your 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? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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

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...

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)

Apology

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. 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

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 (mission accomplished!) 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? --Jeɚv☭s^{Your 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 (mission accomplished!) 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 (mission accomplished!) 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. human 18:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Good point! Sorry TK :-P I jumped the gun on this one...-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 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 (mission accomplished!) 19:13, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Sysop Guidelines mentioned above

What a Sysop is NOT:

• 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?

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 Template:Rename template and vote similar to a delete discussion.

How does one become a SysOp?

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

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

Unblocked, and warning

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". human 01:12, 17 December 2007 (EST)