Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to User:Conservative pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke mob rule, please indicate your votes below.Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.

Yea

• User:Conservative
• User:TerryH
• User:Karajou
• Mystery Sysop 1
• Mystery Sysop 2
• Absolutely yes. MrDemyer 15:26, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast elsewhere. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --MarkGall 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --SamHB 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

Nay

• I vote nay. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. —KBarnett 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
• RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. JonS 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

• Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--MRellek 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
• Obvious nay for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the Community Portal) at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --Sid 3050 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
• I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --MarkGall 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
• Obvious nay, for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --SamHB 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
• Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? IanR 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
• As strong of a nay as one could possibly nay TerryB 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)