At 12:04 PM 12/21/2009, David Gerard wrote:

2009/12/21 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd@lomaxdesign.com:

...

The article was likely overstated. However, the editor involved did have a substantial history of using administrative tools with respect to global warming and related articles, as well as extensive editing in the area, taking a consistent position, supporting a consistent point of view. I encountered this myself when I helped avoid the deletion of an RfC that was written by Raul654, certified by WMC, then it was noticed that Raul had not certified it. Then I read the RfC and was horrified, and that was the beginning of my involvement with WMC and others active with the global warming article.

This is the one you were taken to arbitration over, and was the source of your proposal that experts be banned from editing articles on their expertise.

Not at all, completely incorrect, even though asserted with succinct confidence.

(1) The RfC mentioned did not lead to any ArbComm case. I was not "taken to arbitration." I filed the case over a ban by an involved administrator, and no RfC was undertaken because it had become apparent that it would merely multiply words with no benefit, and ArbComm agreed and took the case.

(2) The only mention of global warming in the case was evidence that I presented that WMC was involved negatively with me prior to his unilateral declaration of a ban of me from Cold fusion. I did not claim he was involved with Cold fusion, but that he was involved with me, that it was a personal dispute. With regard to a situation where he wheel-warred with Jennavecia over the protection of the Global warming article, I pointed out that he quite explicitly, in discussing this, admitted a view of a clique of editors maintaining that article, against outsiders and interlopers and trolls, and anyone disagreeing, not merely on the topic of global warming, but simply with WMC's approach as being in conflict with fundamental Wikipedia policy, was one of these. Meddlers. These meddlers, in fact, include sitting arbitrators.

(3) I did propose, not that experts be banned from editing articles in their field of expertise, but that they be, on the one hand, considered to have a conflict of interest in general, and thus obligated to refrain from controversial editing *of articles*, but, on the other hand, generally protected as to expressing expert opinion on Talk pages. We should respect experts. WMC sometimes was quite reasonable when it came to actual facts and finding compromise text; the problem was when he used his administrative tools to enforce his position.

Global warming nutters are really special.

Not. Nutters are nutters. But I'm not a global warming skeptic, is Mr. Gerard attempting to imply that I am? My concern wasn't WMC's point of view on global warming, as such, but the use of administrative tools by him and others, to favor that point of view, by quick blocks and bans of editors with different points of view, and the support of this by a clique with consistent, long-term revert warring as distinct from following consensus process. The skeptical position was utterly rejected, instead of appropriately being incorporated as supported by reliable sources, and according to due weight, as found through consensus.

As an example, the major scientific report on global warming, I forget the title, contained precise definitions of the terms used, which were not necessarily what one would commonly assume. Incorporating these precise definitions into the article, however, would slightly dilute the polemic effect of simply presenting the conclusions without defining the terms. And that was rejected. Too much detail. Too confusing to readers. Whitewashing. Anyone who has watched the global warming articles, long-term, would see what was happening, and it happened over and over for years. This produces a reaction, which reaction includes Scibaby and all the rangeblock damage, negative press, etc. Predictable.