Conservapedia talk:Keep Richard Around?

Block:

• I say take his Sysop privileges away and block him. He has proven useless for anything except an "interesting" talking point. I still see no reason why he is even that. --<<-David R->> 20:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard has proven that he is not here to be constructive. On the contrary, the only thing he intends to do is vandalize and discredit the site. I may be a liberal, but rule-breaking is a strict no-no. I would agree with an immediate and permanent ban. --Hojimachong^talk 20:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

How am I a liberal. My positions: Strong national defense, low taxes, decrease the size of central government, phase out social security now (because I'm sick of paying it slightly less fast then they can spend it). However I also: Don't think it is the government's business to regulate what two consenting adults do behind closed doors or who they enter a legal contract with, support mexican immigration, don't want the government to decide when where or how my kids pray or don't. I like Adams the best except for those two nasty little laws ;-) because he had strong principals and tried to stick by them (imperfect) and despite his strong religious views supported freedom of religion ("even Mohammedanism"). I don't really care for the war in Iraq but supported Afghanistan (Reagan and Roosevelt are two of my heros who can be summed up with the big stick but don't use it unless you have no choice methodology) but like 70% of Americans agree with me now... I am a centrist with libertarian leanings. That is the best I can be categorized.. Oh and PJ O'Rourke ("we demand nothing and we demand it now!") and Steven Colbert are great :-) You missed the script...simpleton singlesidedism is silly...and hence so are you :-) Richard 21:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

• While you might not think you are a Liberal, you are perhaps a Libertarian, and certainly nothing "wrong" with that. If you had done what you had, posted it only here, or sent it to the Sysop's, Bureaucrats and Andy, you would have had more credibility. You joined a site, and a reading you could have told you all you needed to know about Andy and his family, you knew his positions. But you joined anyway, without force. Then you boasted publicly about it, got a laugh, and preened about how slick you were. Given those "qualifications" I might employ you in some campaign for dirty tricks, but you shouldn't have a position of trust. By the way, I knew Ronald Reagan for over twenty years. He never would have approved such dishonesty, it would have turned his stomach. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 08:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia needed a public slap in the face. Heck, even now, Andy is all smug and pretends that nothing is wrong. This thing should have started a serious debate among sysops (You guys are supposed to be examples for the community, yet what happened last night? Some of the "liberals that should be monitored" were engaging in a constructive discussion about improving the site policies while you and Karajou were whining about him having lied. Not even to mention your utterly pointless protection/block war.) about things like security, reaction and rules. Instead, "you" (read: the sysop collective, and especially Andy) seem to consider the case to be closed (with the exception of your ominous discussion about "certain people" being warned and stuff - may I ask who you guys meant? I hope that the idiot who nominated me for Richard's list is one of them!).

Right now, your main concern should not be to gloat at a banned user who can't reply. It should be how to handle the fact that several good contributors are leaving the site in disgust. --Sid 3050 09:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Who did nominate you, anyway? As I recall, it was another sysop. Tsumetai 09:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It was CPAdmin1 (formerly known as "Tim", judging by the top of the Talk page). The post on the (now deleted?) list was also signed. I think your sysop powers come with the ability to look into the history (and thus, previous versions) of deleted pages. You could check there. But this message (check where the "his" links to) should tell the story. --Sid 3050 09:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep:

I could see de-sysoping him (though personally I wouldn't do that), but he violated no Commandments. All his edits and articles were cited and factual. The fact that The Powers That Be willingly blinded themselves to what he was truly doing b/c he was a professed conservative should be your real concern, not Richard himself.--Dave3172 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh definitely de-sysop! But he did not violate any rules. He exposed the bias of this site in that you wasn't banned for saying crazy things just because he called himself a conservative, but criticism is something we all have to live with.-AmesG_yo! 20:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok then, if that is the case, I suppose you are happy with the Wikipedia Bias page? We will de-Sysop Richard, but will not block him for the time being. I have to get hold of a bureaucrat before I can enforce this decision. --<<-David R->> 20:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

What about the wikibias who now?-AmesG_yo! 20:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dave up there. The real issues are that sysop status is given to people based on content and that we only want reliable sourcing and research when it comes to things that are not conservative/YECist. --Sid 3050 20:56, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep. The more you read the funnier it gets. :) --Robledo 21:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep. I do recommend a de-sysop, but please unblock him. --Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)