Karl A. Krueger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:31:49AM +0100, grm_wnr wrote:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
Folks might want to look into this one a little more closely. Ed Poor made what seem to me like thinly-veiled threats on the AfD in question -- threats to block people who disagree with him:
"Only an someone pushing an anti-Creationist POV would want to censor this sort of information. Pushing any POV is grounds for a block. I think you already know this; but if you don't, I'm telling you now - officially - as an Admin."
Funny, the blocking policy doesn't mention POV pushing.
Hmm. That *is* interesting. So let me see if I have the fact pattern correct:
- An administrator is involved in a POV dispute with another editor.
- The administrator, it turns out, is on the non-consensus side of that
dispute -- and has been repeatedly in the past.
- The administrator accuses the other editor of POV-pushing, and
threatens to block him (or anyone) on that grounds.
- POV-pushing isn't actually legitimate grounds for a block.
- The administrator goes on to block the other editor anyway.
Note that I'm only criticizing Ed's quote above. He actually blocked for disruption, which /is/ on the blocking policy.
grm_wnr