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.
And now it seems that Joshua Schroeder has left the project. That's really unfortunate. It gives me the impression that an administrator acting deliberately against consensus was able to use administrative powers and threats thereof to drive off an editor who was acting in accord with consensus. Or, in other words, Schroeder was in the right; Poor was in the wrong; but since Poor is an administrator, Schroeder was driven out.
It's unfortunate that some folks in the past have been very eager to call out "rogue admin!" when an administrator does something they don't like. Spurious accusations in the past have left Wikipedia ill-prepared to deal with what's looking more and more like a real, live case of a rogue administrator.