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. Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a blocking review board framework. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. Conservative 09:25, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
2. Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. Bclough 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
3. 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)
4. Conservative made good points about RobS's affiliations with an Atheist site. NickP 01:21, 1 August 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. RobS is one of the few people on here in power who is consistently calling for sysop accountability, something that is vital to a collaborative project like this. While I certainly do not support everything he does on here, not including this current issue, it is night and day compared to the nothingness that Conservative and his "articles" bring to this encyclopedia. This is a case of sour grapes from Conservative since he is the main culprit of sysop abuse currently. ameda 21:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
22. No. He is a diligent and attentive administrator, as far as I am aware.--CPalmer 07:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
23. No. RobS seems to be primarily promoting discussion about the Rules and Guidelines of this site and the accountability of administrators to those guidelines. CharlieJ 09:08, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
24. No. This started out as a simple request from one admin to another for the latter to be more accommodating in the spirit of a wiki. user:Conservative has acted in a manner unbecoming of a sysop, dragging the debate across several pages, including - ironically - Mr. Schlafly's, whilst insisting that people cannot post on his talk page. If anybody deserves censure out of this, it is user:Conservative - he blows a simple request totally out of proportion, divides the sysop body and suddenly runs away - again! - claiming he is "very busy." Somebody this irresponsible should not be in a position of authority. TracyS 10:12, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
25. No. User:Conservative makes this site look like a joke, and User:RobS is correct in attempting to discipline him.