`  :::Just to clarify a few things.  I do believe that even if biased, BozMo acted in good faith.  I believe that bias and good faith may easily co exist and probably do most of the time.  So, I hope I did not give the impression of BozMo not acting in good faith.  I absolutely do.  I also appreciate the efforts by admins to do things that are often thankless. I just wanted to register my complaints about the process. If I do not register them somewhere and things get worse, where can I point to, to demonstrate my efforts for equity?   Its just a note.  I have to admit, I laughed when I read that BozMo saw no substantial objections to what he or she was doing, and that he or she did not consider the poll binding.  If you don't see something, you just don't see it. What can I say?  As far as the article goes, I do not have ``objections`` to it. I note that others have objections and their views are discounted, reverted, ignored.  There is something wrong there.  I prefer compromise edits that people can live with.  For whatever reason, some people see all kinds of weird conspiracies in Global Warming. Im not one but I don't have a problem with those who do. To avoid the stress of disputation, give a little ground to them   under terms of wikipedia policies  and then stick to wikipedia policies to enforce the agreement.  If we say ``many`` so and so's believe x and the opponents do not like that wording, just take the ``many`` out (it is, after all a weasel word, even if it is true) and make it more precise (or maybe less precise).  I am convinced that there are ways to meet in the middle and then, once you do, use wikipedia policies (not guardianship) to protect that version.  I also think the article can be restructured to improve it and remove content lacunae.  See my on-going private edits here which is a work in progress.  When I consider it appropriate I will introduce it as a sub-talk page for discussion, perhaps with a review by others on my subpage first before I do that.  `