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.

(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))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --JarradD 17:19, 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))

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)

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)

12. 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)
13. Nay. This has gone too far. WesleyS^Hello! 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
14. Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --JarradD 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
15. There needs to be some sysop accountability. MaxFletcher 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
16. Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --Orsay 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
17. Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. WilliamB1 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
18. I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. KarenWu 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
19. Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --MatthewQ 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
20. Nay. This site needs more like Rob. EricAlstrom 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
21. 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.FCapra 21:23, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

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. --FergusE 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. 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. --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..." —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. --FergusE 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. —KBarnett 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Have you seen my Android app? or my essay portal? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --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. —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? --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. —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 censored by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --FergusE 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--CamilleT 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

-

I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--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!". --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.--JacobReid 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Move?

Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --Sid 3050 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)