2,002
edits
Changes
→Abuse of sysop priviledge
:: When it was just about the Hitler article, I kind of assumed that [[User:RobS]] probably just rephrased hearsay from a German grandmother. But his changes to the liberal article shows that Rob just likes to produce unencyclopedic entries. And unlocking the articles that he messes up is one option, but another would be to not have him be sysop anymore, because he doesn't know that that privilege also brings responsibility. The article on liberals is a great example
:: When it was just about the Hitler article, I kind of assumed that [[User:RobS]] probably just rephrased hearsay from a German grandmother. But his changes to the liberal article shows that Rob just likes to produce unencyclopedic entries. And unlocking the articles that he messes up is one option, but another would be to not have him be sysop anymore, because he doesn't know that that privilege also brings responsibility. The article on liberals is a great example
* Aschlafly protected the article on March 13
** Aschlafly protected the article on March 13
* Next edit on 22 March by [[User:RobS]].
** Next edit on 22 March by [[User:RobS]].
* First edit says ''protection of all of God's creation '''even if advocated by atheists'''. Bold added by [[User:RobS]]. He just ignores that many liberals a Christians, and many Christians are liberal. Unnecessary.
** First edit says ''protection of all of God's creation '''even if advocated by atheists'''. Bold added by [[User:RobS]]. He just ignores that many liberals a Christians, and many Christians are liberal. Unnecessary.
* 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 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 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 simply an opinionated fringe position. Not suitable for an article.
** In is next edit he claims that liberals support Saddam. That simply an opinionated fringe position. Not suitable for an article.
* And he kind of ruins the last paragraph, by inserting text at the wrong spot. But that just a normal editing mistake that can happen.
** And he kind of ruins the last paragraph, by inserting text at the wrong spot. But that just a normal editing mistake that can happen.
* In the next edit, he makes his statement even more opinionated, and claims that liberal now reject democracy.
** In the next edit, he makes his statement even more opinionated, and claims that liberal now reject democracy.
* Next few edits he fixes typos.
** Next few edits he fixes typos.
* Then, after his claim that liberal reject foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy was removed by another editor, he puts it back in with a reference to an article that strongly criticizes Vice-president Cheny. He might have done it for two reasons:
** Then, after his claim that liberal reject foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy was removed by another editor, he puts it back in with a reference to an article that strongly criticizes Vice-president Cheny. He might have done it for two reasons:
** First to show that there exist a liberal who rejects the spread of human rights and democracy. But one liberal rejecting it doesn't make it a ''liberal'' position. Worse, the article does not reject such a policy, it rejects the claim by the administration that they did it to advance human rights. He just didn't read the article he quoted. Or worse, because he might have done it for the following reason:
*** First to show that there exist a liberal who rejects the spread of human rights and democracy. But one liberal rejecting it doesn't make it a ''liberal'' position. Worse, the article does not reject such a policy, it rejects the claim by the administration that they did it to advance human rights. He just didn't read the article he quoted. Or worse, because he might have done it for the following reason:
**He just wanted to give an article that is critical on the bush administration free publicity. this would be a case of subtle vandalism.
***He just wanted to give an article that is critical on the bush administration free publicity. This would be a case of subtle vandalism.
* When another editor removes it for good reason, he just puts it back. Without much discussion.
** When another editor removes it for good reason, he just puts it back. Without much discussion.
Right now there are about 5 editors busy to undo his changes, that [[User:RobS]] just reverts, usually without much discussion. So, he frustrates a big fraction of the regular contributors. [[User:Order]] 23 March 16:20 (AEST)
Right now there are about 5 editors busy to undo his changes, that [[User:RobS]] just reverts, usually without much discussion. So, he frustrates a big fraction of the regular contributors. [[User:Order]] 23 March 16:20 (AEST)