281
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 395:
Line 395: + +
Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation (view source)
Revision as of 09:09, May 14, 2007
, 09:09, May 14, 2007→I Second This
*I think the whole point of this, like WP, we have people who don't even know all the facts, and certainly didn't want to learn them, posting their opinions. Especially Sysops, talking about another, ignorant, totally, of the background. Oh well, people think it is their "right" to talk, even if they don't bother to know the facts, so who am I to point out that is wrong? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 03:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
*I think the whole point of this, like WP, we have people who don't even know all the facts, and certainly didn't want to learn them, posting their opinions. Especially Sysops, talking about another, ignorant, totally, of the background. Oh well, people think it is their "right" to talk, even if they don't bother to know the facts, so who am I to point out that is wrong? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 03:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::And the point about this is that the evidence on which a sensible decision could have been made has been removed. I still want to know on what basis Sysops are granted license to summarily remove articles without discussion. Clearly if someone creates a ''Llama Sex'' article as a spoof or vandal entry then that can be summarily removed, but to remove a bona fide article ''forever'' with no discussion just on the say-so of one person seems to me an illegitimate use of Sysop powers.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 05:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)