At 12:04 PM 12/21/2009, David Gerard wrote:
2009/12/21 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
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
Not at all, completely incorrect, even though asserted with succinct
(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.