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

1. Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. Bclough 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
2. Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after User:Conservative. User:Conservative is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. What is best in life? Getting rid of RobS. --FergusE 16:30, 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

1. 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)
2. RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. JonS 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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?)
6. Obvious nay, for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --SamHB 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
7. 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)
8. As strong of a nay as one could possibly nay TerryB 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
9. Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then this is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--IeuanApGriffith 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
10. Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. Davidspencer 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
11. RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by

• locking talk pages (including his own)
• deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
• blocking people that disagree with him

As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.

It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--CamilleT 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

1. Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. Guy^{message me} 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)