At 05:09 PM 10/7/03 -0400, Ed Poor wrote:
I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices as scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer.
I'm awfully tired of watching you inject your junk science POV into articles, and palming it off as scientific fact.
*Most* scientists working in the field agree that global warming is a fact: the disagreements are about causes, and about how much warming is likely in the next century and what effect that is going to have on human and other life on Earth.
I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a temporary ban.
What gives you more right than anyone else to issue "official warnings"?
I haven't been following this list closely in the last few days--I'd rather work on an encyclopedia--so someone please let me know if there is *any* reason/rule in the current structure of the Wikipedia by which Ed can make such threats *on a subject he has been actively editing on*, and if so, whether that same rule would allow some other sysop to ban Ed instead.
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
I haven't been following this list closely in the last few days--I'd rather work on an encyclopedia--so someone please let me know if there is *any* reason/rule in the current structure of the Wikipedia by which Ed can make such threats *on a subject he has been actively editing on*, and if so, whether that same rule would allow some other sysop to ban Ed instead.
No, there is no rule under which Ed could ban anyone who is logged in for anything other than an emergency and/or simple vandalism. "Emergency" is defined here primarily with reference to the MIT vandal, who was taking advantage of the fact that sysops had no ability in the software to ban logged-in users to do a lot of damage early one morning. Erik also used the "emergency" clause to temporarily ban RK recently, but that is generally agreed to be a controversial move.
Unless these contributors are actively vandalizing in a manner that could be reasonably construed as an emergency, or simple vandalism, Ed should not ban them.
If he started banning them, then yes, I would say that *that* would constitute an emergency. But I think he was just making a political point here on the list, which is perfectly legitimate to do. I doubt if Ed would go against my wishes on these matters and cause a huge uproar. Heck, just _saying_ it caused uproar enough. :-)
--Jimbo