Steve,
If I thought asking one or both of the parties in the "case in point" to stop editing the "page in question" would help, I would do so. They MIGHT listen to me, but they might tell me to bugger off, too :-(
Of course if I had the Authority as Sheriff to handcuff users...
Which reminds me: according to my church's theology, God is Almighty and also has the "right" to intervene in human affairs. I wonder why He doesn't swoop down and settle the Middle East crisis, abolish poverty and disease, and (while he's at it) fix the goldarn WikiLag problem? (*^*)
Getting back to the point: I have just now started editing "the article", so by the customs of our strange little tribe, I have just forfeited certain rights...
Mysteriously,
Ed Poor
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
If I thought asking one or both of the parties in the "case in point" to stop editing the "page in
question" would help, I would do so. They
MIGHT listen to me, but they might tell me to bugger off, too :-(
Thats precisely the point. But instead of giving the power to User:Ed --we give the power to the community to enforce a vote decision to ban a pair of polarizers from an article. We do this already with protected pages -- but as we saw, the PP rules get run over by sysops all the time.
Getting back to the point: I have just now started editing "the article", so by the customs of our
strange little
tribe, I have just forfeited certain rights...
Well if we block the two typical polarized views --(from editing the page for a week) then whatever edits you make could then more clearly come under scrutiny. ;-)
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com