User:Diebot/Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

This is a backup of the currently deleted revision 897474 at Conservapedia
title:	Talk:Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?
timestamp:	2011-08-05T00:33:36Z
user:	HP
comment:	/* Jcw edits */
page-id:	114489
rev-id:	897474

Rename headlines

I'm almost tempted to rename "Yea" and "Nay" to "I want to be promoted!" and "I want to be banned soon!" respectively. Some truth in advertising would be refreshing ;) --Sid 3050 15:06, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Time Limit

Should there be some sort of time limitation on how long this vote lasts? —KBarnett 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Given how this vote is more about making a point than actually deciding Rob's fate, does it matter? --Sid 3050 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

I suppose not. I feel like we're all part of the Charge of the Light Brigade...—KBarnett 15:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

spelling

The spelling "loose" for "lose" is one of my pet peeves. Sorry, Rob, but you spelled it wrong. Please fix. Rob should not lose his sysop rights, and Conservative should not be allowed to loose his inane ramblings over this website. SamHB 15:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

If you feel that way SamHB then add your vote to the main page. —KBarnett 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Yea votes

I don't think we can trust User:Conservative's assertion that there are five sysops against RobS. If these sysops want to cast a vote they cannot cast a vote through Conservative acting as a proxy. They should have to come to the page and vote themselves. Only seems fair. —KBarnett 15:17, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

This is true; also, there are site policies regarding the use of gossip, bullying, and innuendo. It should be noted User:RobSmith edits under his real life identity. Some untempered, inflamitory comments made by unrestrained sysops, such as User:Conservative, about real life persons have the potential to be problematic. Rob Smith 16:50, 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)

But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. —KBarnett 21:34, 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)

This website has become a collection of jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? WilliamB1 21:42, 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)

ok Rob Smith 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Fundamental reform

Fundamental reform would be incorporating into Conservapedia's core content policy what already comes up in Google Search results: An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint. Let's call it CPOV. Then editor's that sign up here, be they obese homosexual liberal atheists or Jesus himself upon return would know article content must adhere to Conservapedia's core content policy of CPOV, "this is non-negotiable", top borrow language from Wikipedia. This would end ceaseless and pointless discussion, sockpuppetry, parody, and trolling that's plagued CP from the early days. This website now, neither has it ever, required an ideological litmus test of contributors. There have been abusive Administrators in the past who have illegally blocked on ideological grounds. This is why CP is in need of a reform movement. The language administrators used to overstep editors efforts was,

• Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. [1]

has been rescinded, per the site owners approval. This opens the door to Community input. Likewise it has fostered a Resistance movement among the CP Old Guard who feel threatened with a loss of power. But now we are all equals, editors and sysops. All must follow the same rules of interaction and civility.

These are only first steps. I encourage constructive editors to get involved in this reform process. It's not about personal disputes, it's about making Conservapedia a healthy, constructive, less threatening and friendly-to-the-newbie editing environment and educational resource. It begins with admitting our failures, moving on past them to making Conservapedia less of a joke, and more of an encyclopedic resource. Rob Smith 21:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

the voters

I think we should ignore votes by "contributors" that have not made any substantial mainspace edits. This goes for both sides. --CamilleT 08:11, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

It would seem that some editors with blocking rights and a certain sysop are taking control of this by banning or blocking every remotely questionable user anyway. I would guess that at least half of the users in the nay will be blocked by the end of this.--MRellek 22:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

I think this is a serious issue. People on both sides of the vote have no real contributions and should not be given a say in Conservapedia's affairs.--CamilleT 22:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree and it seems that many of them have already been banned for being socks or vandals. Hopefully this doesn't scare off actual users with valid opinions.--MRellek 22:28, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

In this case, an opinion is only valid when given by a user who's accumulated merit on the site.--CamilleT 13:54, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

This page is not being honest

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 09:26, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Quite so, User:Conservative. The silent majority very wisely don't want to get involved in RobS's power games. Jcw 09:45, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Actually, it is about you acting in a childish and unbecoming manner, when you were asked to unlock talk pages and to stop deleting pages at random. However, you saw this as an affront to your power and over-reacted. It is exactly the same reason why you do not use the preview and minor edit buttons - you seem to think you are about such niceties. Your over-reaction to this is ample proof. It was never about RobS, but you being unwilling to work with other people. TracyS 09:56, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Jcw, I do agree with your "RobS power games comment". I don't know if there is a "silent majority", but since I don't believe in mob rule it is a moot point anyways. My guess is that the power structure of Conservapedia is going to change within 5 years and I believe I may have a suggestion within 2-3 years as I think the timing of me offering such a suggestion will be more opportune. Conservative 09:57, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Duh, did you read the disclaimer: there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating.? These users risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to have their say. Rob Smith 17:49, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Point of clarification: The situation about the removal of votes Conservative is refering to is where another editor added votes from sysops that Conservative has stated support RobS being demoted. The supporting sysops did not actually place their votes on the page. The proxy votes were removed under the premise of one person/one vote. --SharonW 10:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Jcw edits

Jcw has been removing comments from the Debate page on the grounds of civility. I believe he has gone way too far. A number of those comments were very relevant to the debate and the reason for editors exercising their vote in a particular way. I would ask that they be reinstated. I didn't want to rush back in and immediately reinstate them myself without discussion so I await some input from Jcw. If not I intend to reinstate some of them myself. --JarradD 17:36, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Agreed, many of the comments removed were in fact quite relevant. MaxFletcher 17:37, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

I've been very careful - every remark I've removed could have been rephrased to be quite acceptable. If people want to make cogent points then they're free to do so, but they should do so in ways that follow the rules and avoid inflammatory or insulting language. Jcw 17:40, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Acceptable to whom? Have you cleaned up the insulting, inflammatory language of another admin on the Community Portal page, or ASchlafly's talk page? or his comments to editors anywhere, ever? This is precisely at the core of this issue, sysops wantonly abusing editors, and other sysops not holding them to account. Sysop's are not God. They Do Not make and/or dictate the rules anymore. They themselves must be held to account for their own interaction with the lesser beings, the lowly editors. Rob Smith 18:20, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

No doubt you understand the system better than I do, but I assumed that the sysops were accountable upwards, to ASchlafly. Isn't that the point - to avoid mob rule by having a clear chain of command with a definite leader at the top? Jcw 18:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) P.s. Note that I'm not a sysop or an admin, just a user. I haven't taken any part in this debate, nor do I belong to any side or have any personal allegiance to anyone involved. My only interest is to prevent further excesses; one inflammatory comment leads to more and so on, leading to a very poor quality of debate. This hurts everyone who wants open discussion. Jcw 17:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Jcw, It is structured that way, that's true. However, sysops likewise are to be held to the same standard, if not moreso, of editing practices non -sysop should be. They are the example. If a Conservapedia Sysop is abusive and incivil -- to anyone, sysop or non-sysop -- he/she needs to be called on it. Sysopship is not a brotherhood of mindless robots, they are not the site owners "goons and thugs" tasked with being "hitmen" to obliterate Conservapdia's critics. Their job primarily is to help editors learn how to become better editors and contributors. Rob Smith 23:02, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Unless the language is completely offensive it should stay. Jcw, you are removing peoples reasoning, which IS NOT a personal remark. MaxFletcher 17:41, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

On that we disagree; perhaps an admin will settle the point. In my opinion, an argument like this should be handled very carefully and with the highest levels of civility and respect for all parties. The comments I removed evinced disrespect variously for Conservative, ASchlafly and the site as a whole. Jcw 17:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

user:Conservative was far more egregious when it came to personal remarks recently and the ones on this page explain reasons why people support Robs over Conservative. Please do not remove them until a line is crossed (which it hasn't yet - not quite). MaxFletcher 17:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

As Conservative is a sysop, it's not my place to comment on his behavior. As for other users, I suppose we have different ideas about where the line is. To me, calling this whole site a 'joke' is crossing the line; calling another sysop 'abusive' is crossing the line. If something useful were being discussed, I might be more relaxed about it, but as this page seems simply to be an excuse for users to insult Conservative, I don't feel inclined to have much tolerance. The matters being discussed on this page are for the sysops to discuss and decide on, not for us users to carp about. Jcw 17:53, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

If I was asked why I believe conservative should be stripped of sysop rights I would say it is because he uses them in an unbecoming fashions, is abusive to other uses and his "Obesity" essay make conservapedia into a joke. That is not a personal attack. learn the difference. MaxFletcher 17:55, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Perhaps it's not a 'personal attack', but it is disrespectful of a senior admin on this site, of the site itself, and by implication the whole senior team here. You and I have no business making remarks like that. Jcw 17:59, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

You and I have no business making remarks like that. Which is part of the problem when it comes to sysop accountability and this is exactly why we have this page. MaxFletcher 18:04, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Would it be acceptable to fling insults if there was more sysop accountability, Max? If not, why should it be acceptable now? Jcw's completely correct, here. Those of us with basic block rights are simply trying to keep this reasonably civil. That means trying to weed out those who are creating accounts just to stir the pot, and it also means trying to keep criticisms constructive--they've been ranging into outright personal attacks way too often. Personal feelings don't enter into this; we're just trying to do our job. --Benp 22:44, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

OK, I can understand that. However I think he was a little to selective. MaxFletcher 22:47, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm disappointed to see that my comment was edited, but I understand the desire to keep things civil, and so I apologize. To rephrase, I feel that there are articles appearing on the front page of this site that make this site look silly - for example, the current Main Page "Article of the Month", every single edit of which has been written by only one user, Conservative. JanW 11:33, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Rob, are you going to follow through on your Parthian shot and go to "Ameriwiki"

You allege on a site dedicated to criticizing Conservapedia that User:Karajou can have, you call this place what you would call a place that you defecate from, and you are going to "Ameriwiki". Google can be your friend or your enemy Rob and using vile language like that is not acceptable for someone in a position of trust on a family friendly web site. I would not trust any child or student to be around you. HP 20:33, 4 August 2011 (EDT)