1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 54:
Line 54: + + + + +
Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights? (view source)
Revision as of 01:02, August 1, 2011
, 01:02, August 1, 2011→A slightly more pressing comment
-
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)