Changes

== Abuse of sysop priviledge ==

== Abuse of sysop priviledge ==

There are a few protected pages, and probably with good reason, but this doesn't work if a sysop starts to enter factual errors, and opinion and slander into protected articles, and nobody cares to fix it. [[User:RobS| RobS]] first replaced extended a fairly brief and sketchy article on Hitler, and introduced irrelevant subsections, rumors and slander, and many factual errors. An article that was too brief, but a good start turned into one of the worst on Conservapedia. (If I have time this weekend I might start cleaning it, now that it's unlocked). Now RobS started to mess with the article on [[Liberals]]. It was a fairly stable version, fairly factual, even if written from a conservative viewpoint. But [[User:RobS|RobS]] now started to insert slander, about democrats supporting Saddam. This is just opening a can of worms about which side supported more fascistoid dictators. But it cannot be removed, because it is protected, and only [[User:RobS|RobS]] can edit. I would suggest to take his sysop rights away, because he repeatedly violate the standard that conservapedia wants to set, namely that articles should be factual, and free of gossip and slander. [[User:Order | Order]] 23 March 12:05 (AEST)

There are a few protected pages, and probably with good reason, but this doesn't work if a sysop starts to enter factual errors, and opinion and slander into protected articles, and nobody cares to fix it. [[User:RobS| RobS]] first replaced extended a fairly brief and sketchy article on Hitler, and introduced irrelevant subsections, rumors and slander, and many factual errors. An article that was too brief, but a good start turned into one of the worst on Conservapedia. (If I have time this weekend I might start cleaning it, now that it's unlocked). Now RobS started to mess with the article on [[Liberals]]. It was a fairly stable version, fairly factual, even if written from a conservative viewpoint. But [[User:RobS|RobS]] now started to insert slander, about democrats supporting Saddam. This is just opening a can of worms about which side supported more fascistoid dictators. But it cannot be removed, because it is protected, and only [[User:RobS|RobS]] can edit. I would suggest to take his sysop rights away, because he repeatedly violate the standard that conservapedia wants to set, namely that articles should be factual, and free of gossip and slander. [[User:Order | Order]] 23 March 12:05 (AEST)

*I unlocked Hitler. I locked it.  What is the problem with it now, Order?  Better than posting here, you know darn well how to get hold of me. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]} 22:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I unlocked Hitler. I locked it.  What is the problem with it now, Order?  Better than posting here, you know darn well how to get hold of me. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]} 22:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, his problems weren't just with [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] but with [[Liberals]], too.  That came out wrong.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, his problems weren't just with [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] but with [[Liberals]], too.  That came out wrong.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

** Same edit he adds '''opposition to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy'''. Of course liberals would complain about the assertion that the current administration advocates human rights. But worse is the assertion that liberals don't. You might not like, for example, Carter, but he is supporting human rights and liberal. And Christian.

** Same edit he adds '''opposition to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy'''. Of course liberals would complain about the assertion that the current administration advocates human rights. But worse is the assertion that liberals don't. You might not like, for example, Carter, but he is supporting human rights and liberal. And Christian.

** Calling liberal parties in Europe '''so-called''' ''moderate and center-right''. The is nothing '''so-called''' about heir position. This just shows lack of knowledge of European liberal parties. The worst part about it that there was a lengthy discussion on the talk page. A few editors were struggling to find a good compromise, to characterize the European situation. [[User:RobS]] just shows an enormous amount of disrespect, by disregarding the work by other editors, and the information they provide, to make it more factual.

** Calling liberal parties in Europe '''so-called''' ''moderate and center-right''. The is nothing '''so-called''' about heir position. This just shows lack of knowledge of European liberal parties. The worst part about it that there was a lengthy discussion on the talk page. A few editors were struggling to find a good compromise, to characterize the European situation. [[User:RobS]] just shows an enormous amount of disrespect, by disregarding the work by other editors, and the information they provide, to make it more factual.

** In is next edit he claims that liberals support Saddam. That's simply an opinionated fringe position. Not suitable for an article.

** In is next edit he claims that liberals support Saddam. That's simply an opinionated fringe position. Not suitable for an article.

** In the next edit, he makes his statement even more opinionated, and claims that liberals now reject democracy.

** In the next edit, he makes his statement even more opinionated, and claims that liberals now reject democracy.