Raul suggests that those who claim he routinely abusively blocks people diametrically opposed to his pov have no ground to stand on and challenges them to bring forth some evidence.

And subsequently gets pwned.

BAM HEADSHOT.

It's a clear case of abuse of admin powers to push POV, in the grand tradition of Virginia Slim.

Yeah, I don't touch the global warming related articles. Too many POV pushing admins in that walled garden. Its amazing how quickly they circle the wagons tho. Must protect our fellow admins even when its impossible to defend him....

Is that a dig at us?

No way. It's presumably an allegation directed at creationist and/or global warming skeptic groups.

This is another case where I'm torn between my dislike of the slightly blockhappy admin involvement, and the blatant idiocy of the POV-pushers who whine about it. For example, one of the anons listed there insisted that the IPCC (as in, everyone who's anyone in climate research) plus the National Academies of Science of the entire G8 plus China and India were "some of the scientific community."

There really does come a point when it's legitimate to block people for constant counterfactual POV-pushing, but doing it in this manner just invites drama.

It's bad all around at those articles, because the POV of the ones who OWN them, including William Connolly and Raymond Arritt, is that there are no scientists at all that oppose the IPCC viewpoint. In reality, there are substantial numbers of scientists on both sides of the fence, which would appear to be a perfect opportunity to apply the NPOV doctrine, but no, that's not going to happen. Incidentally, the evidence supplied at ANI indicates that Raul654 has ventured into a realm far beyond the "slightly blockhappy."

It's not only ok, but responsible in my book, to block (real) POV-pushers and the like. But it needs to be done by uninvolved admins. Why can't Raul654 use dispute resolution like everyone else?

Cause he's a crusader and must protect the walled garden they have carefully crafted.

I'm sorry, but when the fuck did "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators" get thrown out of the window? I mentioned it when Jayjg was proposing the same, but it looks like they're all approving of Raul doing the same thing here.

If everyone appropriately recused themselves from the exercise of Wiki-Power when they were a party to a dispute, Wikidrama would largely vanish.

Skandalon is a great word. It needs to be used more often.

I learned it from Rene Girard, who used it in his model of rivalrous conflict in Dostoevsky.

Global warming is a classic example of when article writing should be left to people who know what they're talking about (on both sides of the argument) rather than letting the free market rip. I know enough about the subject to know that I don't feel competent to intervene. No doubt I'm in a minority.

Global Warming is one of those slow, long-term trends that sneaks up on people, much like a rising tide.

Wikipedia has its own species of rising tide, which some of us are trying to document in these pages and on personal blogs.

Wikipedia is slowly being inundated by a rising tide of disrepute, exacerbated by leaks in the foundation.

Like all sandcastles, it will eventually wash away.

I've brought up that exact issue several times (regarding another matter completely) to ArbCom, to WP:AN and pretty much anyone who would listen and sadly, nobody seems to care.

It seems to be a fairly common lapse, for admins to fail to recuse themselves when they are a party to a dispute. Nor does ArbCom seen to care.

They go really harsh on it at times, the problem is consistency. Alkivar and some others have been desysopped (or had their "controversial circumstances" resignations confirmed) for the same.

...with Liberty and Justice for some, now and then.

Or not.

Under those circumstances, TINC would become reality.

I hadn't realised that there is a picture of Durova, Lar and friends on Wikipedia.

[imgx]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/There%27s_no_cabal.png[/imgx]

Not to mention, "leaks from the Foundation"!

Which brings to mind my favorite Wikipedia policy page.

I see ^demon (who has of course resigned) and Mercury (resigned but at RfA) are still on the list.

It's a shame so many don't realize that being generally good at content doesn't justify breaking basic procedural safeguards. "Drama" is one way of putting it, "widespread loss of respect for the neutrality of Wikipedia's processes" is another.

Also, the content could be a lot better, it's all written to set people straight rather than simply to inform a reasonably intelligent person. I'm looking now at the article on Global Warming -- does the scientific community really agree that natural phenomena have had a cooling effect over the last half century that has been countered and overcome by human behavior, or were two factors picked out of the bunch to make a point? I'm sure these are smart people who basically know their stuff, but you have to ask why this is where the project has plateaued.

He's at it again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...#Improper_block. This thread was linked in the discussion, as a matter of fact.

See this example of such a questionable block.

BTW, your favorite policy page is currently up for Miscellany For Deletion. Unsurprisingly, you can tell who is an admin and who is not, by who has voted Keep and who has voted Delete.

Hahahah. I added their cat to my userpage. I'm not an admin.

Hilarious.

Ooooh, you'll get blocked hun! Or at least told off

But that would not be a difficult block, so it would have to be done by an admin who doesn't even care.

Lol! Plenty of those around, some would say

They need a Hallmark motto: When you care enough to block the very best.

I removed it for you. If you readd it, you're on your own. Personally it seems a silly way to get LULZ but your mileage may vary.

I've been blocked before... probably will be again. Not a big deal. Its not like the world revolves around Wikipedia....

Seriously, blocking people for adding themselves into lulzworthy cats is silliness.

Utter silliness.