Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,430
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 41:
Line 41: − − == Comment == − [[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − :Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − ===A slightly more pressing comment=== − So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − :We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − ::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − :::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − :::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − ::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − ::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − ::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − :::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − ::::::::::But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − − :::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 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) − − − The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − − :This website has become a collection of jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − − === Move? === − Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − :ok [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT) − − ===Fundamental reform=== − Fundamental reform would be incorporating into Conservapedia's core content policy what already comes up in Google Search results: '''An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.''' Let's call it '''CPOV'''. Then editor's that sign up here, be they obese homosexual liberal atheists or Jesus himself upon return would know article content must adhere to Conservapedia's core content policy of CPOV, "this is non-negotiable", top borrow language from Wikipedia. This would end ceaseless and pointless discussion, sockpuppetry, parody, and trolling that's plagued CP from the early days. This website now, neither has it ever, required an ideological litmus test of contributors. There have been abusive Administrators in the past who have ''illegally'' blocked on ideological grounds. This is why CP is in need of a reform movement. The language administrators used to overstep editors efforts was, − :*'''''Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. ''Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.''''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763] − has been rescinded, per the site owners approval. This opens the door to Community input. Likewise it has fostered a Resistance movement among the CP Old Guard who feel threatened with a loss of power. But now we are all equals, editors and sysops. All must follow the same rules of interaction and civility. − − These are only first steps. I encourage constructive editors to get involved in this reform process. It's not about personal disputes, it's about making Conservapedia a healthy, constructive, less threatening and friendly-to-the-newbie editing environment and educational resource. It begins with admitting our failures, moving on past them to making Conservapedia less of a joke, and more of an encyclopedic resource. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights? (view source)
Revision as of 01:46, August 1, 2011
, 01:46, August 1, 2011no edit summary
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only people who actually support Conservative's articles and "essays" are trolls, vandals, and sockpuppets. Conservative has truly contributed NOTHING of value or quality to the site, and what little he has contributed does nothing but attract vandals and parodists. Conversely, RobS wants to hold sysops accountable for their actions and fix the ban policies. Of course Conservative wants RobS to lose his sysop rights, otherwise Conservative couldn't continue to undermine this site from within with his awful essays and poorly researched, shoddy articles. Conservative only cares about his own power, even if that means turning this site into a caricature of conservatism and his own personal blog/echo chamber.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:23, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only people who actually support Conservative's articles and "essays" are trolls, vandals, and sockpuppets. Conservative has truly contributed NOTHING of value or quality to the site, and what little he has contributed does nothing but attract vandals and parodists. Conversely, RobS wants to hold sysops accountable for their actions and fix the ban policies. Of course Conservative wants RobS to lose his sysop rights, otherwise Conservative couldn't continue to undermine this site from within with his awful essays and poorly researched, shoddy articles. Conservative only cares about his own power, even if that means turning this site into a caricature of conservatism and his own personal blog/echo chamber.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:23, 31 July 2011 (EDT)