UPDATE II: WMC is so predictable. I posted another reply on that thread (see comment #35) which highlighted that while I moderate all comments here to police them for Wikipedia policy violations I approve them quickly whereas WMC doesn’t approve them at all. He sent me an email which stated “I can’t see this adding anything; probably best to post it to your blog, with the obligatory complaints of censorship” and then deleted the post. He fails to understand that the issue isn’t censorship, per se, as I don’t care if he deletes my comments. The point is his selective use of editing and removal of content in an effort to control (in his mind at least) the message that his readers are left with. He can’t just admit that his use of scare quotes was rude and a violation of the very treatment that he demands from others and move on, he somehow thinks that if he removes such statements that there was no truth behind them (i.e. that he continually edits things to fit his own personal world view rather than acknowledge the obvious). This is what makes him unsuitable as a Wikipedia editor, IMHO. He doesn’t recognize his own biases. My point has been made and illustrated. Time to move on …
UPDATE: It appears the block mentioned below was not for me specifically. I must have run afoul of some size limit or such because this comment went through fine. Still, the point below is essentially the same.
I have been laying low since the bad apples on the climate pages on Wikipedia have been ousted. That’s good news for the project and from what I can see the writing there has been improving. It’s not perfect but at least it is directionally correct now that the principle sources of bias have been “neutralized”. I should write a review of the changes there some time but today I want to share a snapshot of what interacting with WMC can be like.
I offer this account not because I care about the final outcome but because I think it will provide a nice illustration of the blind hypocrisy involved. WMC just doesn’t see his own failings even when he is projecting them on to others.
The case in point begins with an article on his blog: “Dr” Roy Spencer is sad and lonely and wrong
Note the use of scare quotes around Spencer’s title. I saw this as an attempt to denigrate the man which I found to be a perfect opportunity to educate WMC about his hypocrisy in this case. He is being hypocritical because he is known for demanding that others recognize his educational achievements when it suits his purpose.
So I posted a comment on his blog to demand that he treat others like he demands that others treat him. You can see a webcited version of my original comment here (see number 31). (Aside: I find it is always best to webcite your posts on WMC’s blog because he likes to edit things to fit his own world view.)
Here is a screenshot of the webcited version (click for larger view):
Not surprisingly WMC does not take kindly to this type of feedback since it so obviously mirrors the commentary he is known for directing at others. As a result he simply edits the post to suit his own world view (i.e. where he is not some delicate shrinking “girly boy” but instead a feared crusader for truth). You can see the webcite of his editing here.
Here is a screenshot of the edited version (click for larger view):
Note how he has removed all hint of wrong doing on his part and instead of recognizing and admitting his faux pas he instead attempts a rather feeble attack in return.
Seeing yet another opportunity to educate him on his own failings I tried to post yet another reply but it seems he is scared to let me post without his approval now, and so I was greeted with:
I can only conclude that he can’t take honest feedback to heart. Instead he buries his head in the sand and tries to call ME delicate. LOL
What is it that WMC was afraid to let you see? You can see the content that he blocked below. Note the links provided and let’s see if he’s man enough to approve it!
Here’s the Blocked Post:
Delicate? How so? It seems you’re the delicate one here given what you redacted!
I admit I didn’t read the other comments on this thread. They’re typically quite dull. (Feel free to pick whichever meaning of dull you like in this context.)
I do find this comment on your part:
[I have no doubt that he is a real Dr. It is just the way he pushes it so blatantly as a "trust-me-I'm-a" - see his blog header -W]
to be particularly hilarious given your signature “trust-me-I’m-a” attitude on Wikipedia. Thanks for directing me back so I didn’t miss it!
As I recall, “trust-me-I’m-a” seems to have been your own primary fall back argument on Wikipedia when backed into a corner on some point or another. Look in the mirror some time.
Note that last link pretty much says it all on this topic. I couldn’t have asked for a better illustration of this very point.