User blog:The Terrible Travis/Proposal 13: Revoking The Irrevocable Redux

Earlier this month, I warned about Kelpy G's "Damn Fool Travis Must Be Stopped" proposal, saying that the unamendability provision contained within it was an "extremely dangerous precedent to set and a brazen threat to community consensus". Later, Kelpy removed the provision, giving this explanation: I didn't buy this, and warned that Kelpy G would simply re-add the controversial provisions back into the proposal at the last minute. I was right.
 * "That was unpopular among users, so I removed that provision. Most users who submitted their votes aren't active on my proposal: I could've easily left it and it would probably still pass. But I didn't."

Shortly before his proposal was closed, Kelpy sneakily added back in the unamendability provision and a provision to repeal the retroactivity clause of rule #8, which effectively undid the overturning of adoption requests.

Why did Kelpy G add back in a provision that he himself admitted was unpopular? Why did he do it was a last minute? Why didn't he notify the community that he modified his proposal?

I'll tell you why, it's because he's trying to pull the wool over your eyes - which is why I requested for his demotion. Someone who actively tries to trick and decept the users of the wiki shouldn't be bureaucrat. He is unfit for the position. Unfortunately, my request for his demotion failed, as did my policy reform proposal, which I introduced in an attempt to prevent this scenario from occuring in the first place.

Since Kelpy G has decided to go back on his word, I've decided to reintroduce that reform proposal - albeit slightly modified. Here's what I propose we do. Policies This Proposal Will Add

Note #1: These provisions are all to be applied retroactively.
 * No unamendable/irrevocable proposals: All policies are able to be repealed or altered at any time, as long as they recieve majority support. Any proposals that claim to be unamendable/irrevocable or have provisions that are unamendable/irrevocable will automatically be considered invalid.
 * Proposals to ban things are invalid: Users, articles, etc. can not be banned by proposals. The only way something can be banned if it/they are in violation of SBFW policy.

Note #2: Before anyone tries to make the argument that Kelpy's unamendability provision prohibits me from making this proposal, Kelpy himself has stated that the rules allow for a retroactive proposal banning unamendability to pass.

&#35;StopSquidnerd (talk) 03:00, January 26, 2018 (UTC)