Wikipedia, rule fetishism and megalomania!

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is currently deciding how to deal with the some editors at the Sexology pages. It is going to be a nice disaster, but that is a topic for another time. No, this evening, one of the member of the ArbCom wrote this gem in response to the editor they are going to kick of the sexology pages:

There is nothing stopping you (or academics active in the field who disagree with how this case went or how the articles look) to publish (somewhere suitable) a critique of the current state of the articles and what they should look like.

Just wondering, would this blog be good enough? Nah, it does not fit WP:RS (Identification of 'reliable' sources.....). Just let it sink in what he (she?) writes.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
Did you catch it? Yes, good. No, okay, I explain.

An active member of the ArbCom just suggested that Wikipedia is so important that it is worth to write an article about what the hell is wrong with some articles, and get it published in a reputable place that can pass WP:RS, after which the editors of Wikipedia can finally include it. Really, a bit of an ego problem? Leave the bit out, replace it with huge. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the consensus in the field. The consensus is that hebephilia is bogus. Not a mental disorder.

Anyway, I digress.... What the ArbCom member is saying is that the rule fetishism at Wikipedia trumps the already established consensus on this topic outside of Wikipedia, and that if you feel that the article needs to reflect that consensus better, you have to write an article outside of Wikipedia that can pass the rules of Wikipedia so that in the end, the article can reflect the already established consensus on this topic. I think this is a sign of megalomania!