Articles related to climate change have been one of Wikipedia's problem areas for a number of years now. Most of the disruption boils down to often heated or uncivil disagreement over the proper application of WP:WEIGHT and WP:SCIRS, though sockpuppetry and single-purpose accounts out of touch with wider Wikipedia norms play their roles. Near the end of last year, the Copenhagen Summit on climate change and the Climatic Research Unit email controversy contributed to a surge in interest in this family of articles; that furor has largely died down now. Whether the long term or the short term patterns have been more problematic is an open question, but a few days into the new year the community established Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, giving uninvolved administrators wide leeway when acting to quell disruption in this topic area, and establishing a Requests for enforcement board for discussing the same.

Several editors in the discussion establishing this extraordinary probation opined that the community should review it after a few months had passed. It has now been about five months, and I would like to open this question for review. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change - discussion establishing the probation
• Request for Arbitration aborted when the above community discussion implemented the probation
• Request for Arbitration to review the legitimacy of the above implementation (declined)

History of this probation

Actions taken under this probation are logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. The large number of notifications resulted from the community decision to notify everyone making contributions to the topic area without any comment on the appropriateness of their edits. Page protections and blocks related to activities in the topic area but undertaken as normal administrator actions without invoking the probation have generally not been logged. The Requests for enforcement board was established to bring potential violations to the attention of uninvolved administrators and for discussion of appropriate action. Including trivial or vexatious requests, this board and its archives have dealt with 92 requests and comprise over two megabytes of discussion. An overview of the current state of this probation area may be seen here.

Desired outcome

If the community thinks that the probation serves a useful function at this time, the special measures can be reaffirmed, or possibly modified; in that case, periodic or continuing input from a few more uninvolved parties would be welcome. If the community thinks the probation does not serve a useful function at this time, the special measures can be marked as historical and the relevant articles detagged, with any future matters being referred to normal dispute resolution venues. If the community thinks that this family of disputes requires input from the Arbitration Committee, this discussion may serve as a preliminary (though please focus on the question at hand when commenting here).

Please do not edit others' View by sections except to add an endorsement. Threaded discussion should take place at the talkpage.

Whatever else is decided here, the current Requests for enforcement board is not working. Instead of providing swift informed relief for nascent or escalating problems, it has turned into a game of brinkmanship. Whatever the outcome of this RfC, I have no intention of wading back into that sort of environment. This is partially an indictment on myself, as I have been acting as an uninvolved administrator in this area since shortly before the probation was established. I think that the best thing this probation has done is to establish and enforce a one revert restriction on the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy (under various names), which was enacted by Ryan Postlethwaite on 4 January; as this issue is less in the news of late and the investigations are being concluded, there is a good chance that this restriction may be relaxed. Other accomplishments include (anecdotally) fewer edit wars of the sure there have already been fifty reverts today, but I have not used my three revert entitlement yet variety, and a faster response when conflict flares up. I think, and I have been watching that monitoring link fairly closely for a while now, that this family of disputes has calmed enough that normal methods of dispute resolution should suffice. This is not to say that all matters are entirely settled, which would anyway not represent a healthy state for a developing encyclopedia, only that it is settled enough that it is no longer necessary to enforce a different set of rules from the standard Wikipedia expectations of collaboration and civility.

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As author. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse. The primary locus of dissent and animosity is now the enforcement board, while the articles themselves are mostly quiet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. BozMo talk 15:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC). The drama is mainly on the board; sadly even those uninvolved in articles can be still involved in the drama & accusations on board.[reply]
7. I agree about it not working; not sure about the solution or if there even is one. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes, back to "normal" dispute resolution as the "crisis" of the "climategate flap" has settled (sorta), until the next "crisis" anyway. Vsmith (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. I got this impression from viewing the goings-on last week, I am not surprised by 2over0's view at all. The board is being used as a dramaboard to gain sanctions against opponents. Fences&Windows 19:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with pretty much every sentence, except for the parts about relaxing 1RR and bringing it back to standard dispute resolution - I am of the strong view that it is still not ready for that, and at least some sort of transitional stage is required so that standard dispute resolution does not become overwhelmed by the participants when they encounter more problems. More thought should have been put into how this part of probation (enforcement board) would work and be managed. Also, people should have been brought up to speed so that all were on (or very close to) the same page. Without either of these elements, there was no chance of this being resolved to a satisfactory level. That is not to say that the enforcement board was totally useless (see also some of the comments in LHvU's 1st view below particularly the 2nd para); I'm just saying that it was ineffective in terms of what probation actually means (or should be understood as). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree that climate probation has largely failed. I do not agree that there has been a significant calming outside of the periodic peaks and troughs of drama; rather I believe people have modified their behaviour to GAME the system to continue the disruption but at the same time hover just below the radar to avoid sanctions via wiki lawyering and tag teaming.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've been watching this also and what I see is a 'tit for tat' kind of behavior going on a lot. There is also a lot of editors focused on one editor to have him/her removed from all the CC articles with what looks like a lot of back door type discussions going on. I think it's time to go back to the normal way of dispute resolution.--CrohnieGal^Talk 11:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The probation is working, and the enforcement request page continues to evolve good working practices, and should continue to act to resolve the long term issues relating to the editing of Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming articles. However, the participants to the editing of the articles and the administrators reviewing and enforcing the Probation and its requests for enforcement and their behaviours should be placed before the Arbitration Committee to have the issues regarding neutrality, disruption, battleground mentality, and associated concerns addressed and where appropriate have those individuals deemed to be nonconducive to the orderly resolution of issues brought to notice under the terms of the Probation to be removed, restricted or otherwise sanctioned so that the Probation may better and more quickly allow for providing a good editing environment within the related article and talkpage spaces.

It is my experience that in bringing cases to Enforcement request, the issues at hand are more clearly evidenced, with less interference, than on article talkpages - in the instances when that is exercised rather than edit warring - and that the dispute resolution that should have already occured commences. It is also evident that many cases of alleged policy violation are found not to have substance, and issues are then moved forward rather than dwelt upon. Lastly, the perceived belief that some editors were more equal than others in receiving the benefit or otherwise of individual admin actions has been largely reduced by the adoption by most uninvolved admins of a "consensus before action" discussion format, where policy application is decided and the end decision is adopted by all contributing admins. This has also lead to a greater consistency in the application of policy and the use of enforcement options.

That said, there are issues within the conduct of the Probation, the editing of articles within the Probations remit, and the conduct and adminning of the enforcement section of the Probation that likely requires the Arbitration Committee to review the entirety to see where there are areas of concern that may be beyond the current setup to address, to determine if there are persons whose conduct is detrimental to either the editing of article space or contributing to Probation pages, whether area's of the Probation process are indeed failing or otherwise require re-addressing, and suggestions of good practice going forward. This may be undertaken while the Probation is in force, with restrictions or amendments noted within the ArbCom process as required.

In short, it is a successful tool that might however require further refining.

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. The enforcement board is working. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. As proponent, obviously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Editorially uninvolved Collect (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Shortcircuiting established procedure rarely is efficaceous, and is frequently detrimental to orderly functioning of processes established already. Note: I consider myself "uninvolved" as the claim that I am "involved" requires one to say that changing "asserting" to "asserts" and "has described as" to "called" and "among Australian independent bookstores " to "In Australia" etc. is the same as "being involved."[reply]
4. Yes it is working, albeit not perfectly and not as quickly as I would like. It currently suffers from having too few experienced admins who are willing to take on this hellish conflict, but hopefully the attention drawn by this RFC will bring in more. ATren (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. Problem: It's not working. The purpose of the sanctions regime is stated at WP:GSCC: Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Yet each of these kinds of misbehavior have been happening, often with impunity, on the WP:GSCCRE (requests for enforcement) page, right in front of the administrators involved in enforcement -- often enough with those administrators as the victims. What's going on at the GSCCRE page is a symptom of the failure. Some leeway is normally given on a dispute-resolution or complaints page, but the behavior now has gone way beyond a litle leeway. This line at the WP:GSCC page has become ironic: Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian; And yet we also have administrators blocking editors or imposing other behavioral sanctions without consensus on the GSCCRE page. Lengthy discussions of complaints about certain editors are followed by little or no action by administrators, and then the whole process repeats itself, creating an enormous waste of time and more frustration.

2. Some reasons why. WP:GSCCRE is essentially a little AN/I, with some of the same civility and consistency problems of AN/I. GSCCRE is attended by a rather small number of administrators, some of whom flit through and some of whom stay put. Those who flit through probably aren't as familiar with the ongoing problems as they could be, and some (possibly all) who stay are subjected to greater-than-normal complaints and even abuse for doing a tougher-than-normal volunteer job. And some of those administrators, for various reasons, have volunteered for a more difficult task than they can handle well. This isn't a major criticism of most of the admins working in this area: It only takes a few to prevent a consensus on enforcement, and administrators who get involved in this area are more likely than not to have stronger opinions about the content, and therefore may find it more difficult to separate their POV from their judgment on whether and how to sanction various editors. It's a challenging task, and many admins have said they wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Most admins probably couldn't do it well.

3. Proposal: Many of these problems would be solved if ArbCom took over control of GSCC, simply by agreeing to appoint administrators rather than having administrators select themselves for the job. On the whole, Arbcom appointees are likely to have better judgment than self-selected admins. Appointed admins will be responsible to ArbCom (removable at any time by Arbcom or an Arbcom committee) and therefore are more likely to be on their best behavior, yet with a mandate from ArbCom they're likely to be more decisive. Arbcom should appoint admins without an intense interest in political controversies related to science, or at least admins who have shown they know how to separate their POV from their admin actions. If five admins are appointed for overlapping five-month terms, with one admin rotated out each month, they'll get a good sense of the problems and personalities first-hand, but their terms will be up before they're likely to burn out. The first batch of appointees should include at least a couple of the admins who have experience here. They could serve for a one- or a two-month term to help retain some institutional experience. A stable group is more likely to act consistently. This won't solve all the problems (nothing will), but it would help with many of them, and if the appointees are good, it would solve most of them. After 11 months, ArbCom should ask the community in an RfC if it wants to continue the Arbcom-appointment regime, return to the old one (the one now in place) or abolish GSCC altogether.

4. Process: Since GSCC was set up by the community, Arbcom may be reluctant to overturn it without some kind of support for that move shown here, or at least community input on this page indicating that the current GSCC is not working. At least that's the impression I get from some of the arbitrators' comments now on the WP:RFAR page. [1] [2] Personally, I think Arbcom doesn't need community input to take this over, but I'm not really sure. I've numbered the paragraphs here to make it easier for anyone to note that they're rejecting parts of this while supporting other parts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. Proposed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes. Arbcom should appoint the admins, and the admins should rotate. By appointing admins whose view parallel their own they can get the result they want without the overhead of a full case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Appointed or community elected admins whould help give greater will and consistency to the RFE. Short terms preferred. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think the numbers in paragraph 3 are inconsistent, but otherwise I fully support this proposal. It takes into account the practical problems of SBHB's proposal. Hans Adler 11:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, that sounds like it could actually work. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 16:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. BozMo talk 16:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC) per SBHB.[reply]
7. Qualified endorsement. I think your proposal is a step in the right direction, but note that self-selection is not just 'who has strong feelings about the topic area' but 'who can stomach it'. This is a volunteer encyclopedia and admins do not deserve nor owe it to the community to take up post here. I think a simple closing of the enforcement page, with requests for enforcement made at WP:ANI as usual, will be enough to get the desired 'uninvolved' admins into the mix. Perhaps we could keep the probation guidelines minus the RfE page.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. --JN466 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Partial endorse - I don't agree with the blanket "it's not working", but I do think JWB's suggestions for improvement have merit. ATren (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. Fences&Windows 19:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. An accurate interpretation of the situation and I agree that ArbCom intervention is the only solution to this mess. ArbCom enforcement has helped resolve and restore calm to many very hostile battle fields on wikipedia and I am confident that they can do so again.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Generally agree - been sort of watching this for a while, and I think this summarises it quite nicely. Ale_Jrb^talk 06:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Admins who have had little to no interaction, let alone involvement with the users involved is what would help here. ArbCom have received input to this effect already. Note: I disagree with the idea of recommencing the so-called "probation" even after reviewing a new scheme.[reply]
5. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At bottom this is a content dispute. The scientifically literate editors believe that the articles should predominantly reflect the conclusions of the scientific community -- a content issue. The contrarians believe that their views should get equal emphasis to those of the scientific community -- the other side of the content issue. Lar, LHvU and some others believe that the science should be de-emphasized in favor of sociopolitical concerns -- again, a content issue.

But we know that admins are not supposed to make content decisions. So, we try to re-cast our content concerns as behavioral ones. While there are a few clear instances of misbehavior, it is more typical to see people quote-mining, presenting diffs out of context, raising objections to precisely the same behavior in which they themselves engage, and the like because they have to do something to show misconduct by their opposing party. All so that the content dispute won't look like a content dispute. And yes, both sides are doing this (including admins, it has to be said). For these reasons I believe that the pretense that content is not the main issue ultimately makes the GSCC enforcement more rancorous than it would be otherwise, even before tossing in the usual long-held grudges and political machinations one sees at such venues.

Arbcom needs to drop the pretense that they don't decide content and get to the point: What do they want the climate-related articles to say? We can then go away and write those articles. Or we can stay away from them if the desired result is unconscionable to us, whatever our viewpoint may be.

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As proponent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Supporting the spirit of this proposal. Even though they are the one body of Wikipedia that is most likely to deal with this in an appropriate way, I am not sure that Arbcom should do this directly: (1) it might hurt Arbcom's reputation in the eyes of the more extreme people on both sides of the dispute, and (2) it might hurt the working relations between Arbcom members. But pretending it is all about behaviour in a battle of admins over content only contributes to the problem. Perhaps we need a content advisory board for exceptional content conflicts for which the usual presumption that most admins willing to deal with a problem are neutral is unrealistic. There was at least one Arbcom decision about content in the past (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE#Serious encyclopedias), and it didn't break the encyclopedia. Hans Adler 11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse, except for the conclusion. For better or for worse, it is not within ArbCom's remit to decide upon content issues. Perhaps that should be changed, but that's not within the scope of this RFC. NW (Talk) 18:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - if only it were possible. --Nigelj (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Endorse the general statement. Again the final conclusion is a bit missing the point. I truly believe enforcement to have been counter productive. Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree in part, in the sense that strong feelings about content, in the broadest sense of the word, is the underlying problem. However, I believe that animosity between editors, and pigheaded behavior in general, is the reason why there is no resolution. (I think that the "CC science" types, with whose views I'm broadly sympathetic, have tended to go overboard in Fred Singer, for instance.) I have no opinion on the conclusion and am unsure about a solution, if any. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yeah, let arbcom decide - they're paid more. Should add "interest" to the next arbom election. Vsmith (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree with the core observation. I'm not sure ArbCom can do any better, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorse with the caveat that I'm not sure the arbcomm could do much better on content. But I'm sure we'll see before too long. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Endorse, again except for the final para. Arbcomm shouldn't decide content, but if should decide content disputes. Pretending that you can settle content disputes as behavioural disputes is simply foolish William M. Connolley (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Snowman frosty (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. With the totality, including the last paragraph. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. Fences&Windows 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Declare one and only truth and cull the opposition. A coin toss, perhaps. East of Borschov (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. There are some CC-related topics (involving, e.g., measurements of temperatures and predictions based on the measurements) that are clearly about scientific questions and should be treated as such, with scientific literature and scientific opinion as the premiere reliable sources and everything else as semi-marginal, despite the high visibility of politically motivated opposing views. Other topics in the CC arena are more socio-political and should be treated that way, with representation of viewpoints (including non-scientific ones) based on their level of social and political influence. Maybe it would help to separate these two types of topics somehow, so they can have differing rules of engagement as appropriate for the differing types of subject matter.

   I confess to not having a sense of how workable the above suggestion is, because I don't even read these articles much--the conflict level has impaired their credibility too much. That already says the existing wiki process is not working and we need to be doing something different. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   (Added on re-visit): SBHB's analysis is generally insightful. There are bad behavioral problems (i.e. departures from WP policies about permissible editing) due to inability of those policies to resolve the content battle. That is a failure of policy that probably can't be fixed in the existing dysfunctional WP cultural framework. I think arbcom can't really decide the content dispute as SBHB suggests, but it could possibly enact better remedies to help manage it (I can suggest some). Maybe new mechanisms like flagged revisions can also be put to some use in slowing down the fights. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Agree. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. cmadler (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Accurate description. LK (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could be greater consistency in the sanctions. I am left with the impression that closes and administrative actions could have better guidelines. RFE's are in and of themselves a disruption; however, necessary to address article disruptions. Thus, some of the disruptive aspects of the RFE's could be reduced with guidelines developed by sanction case histories, Arbcom finding, and ANI practices. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. Proponent Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. For an example of this inconsistency, see an analysis of GoRight's behavior, leading to indef block, as compared to an analysis of WMC's behavior, leading to zero sanctions. I'm sure no one will, but if you go through the diffs it's quite shocking to contrast the two descriptions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes, but there has been more consistency in the last month or so. Heyitspeter's diffs are indeed compelling examples of how bad it was early on. ATren (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

The administrative question faced in this area, like any area, is what can be done with regard to the editing environment in order to best favor Wikipedia's content.

What's different about this area from most others is that some of the most basic assumptions are called into question. Generally it is taken for granted that "cooperation, collaboration, and compromise," as one editor puts it, are the key elements of a productive editing environment which will produce the best content. In this area, however, many editors believe incompetent activists are so prevalent that cooperation is a losing game. Thus, editors with this view work to ensure that there is not a purely even playing field (in the sense of purely democratic article writing), and to ensure instead that helpful editing and editors are given a boost.

Fringe editing is self-evidently a problem, and as such I believe that such a boost could be given openly and appropriately. Editors who do strong work and show substantive expertise should be accommodated. Editors who push fringe material in violation of content policies should likewise be sanctioned regardless of their compliance with behavioral policies. However, I submit that because numerous editors don't believe this is possible they go too far in various forms of gamesmanship, which ultimately ends up disregarding nearly everything besides apparent support for the grand cause. The gamesmanship is seen mainly in the continual hostility aimed at editors and admins, and the refusal to accept neutral principles of any kind. I think that at some point, this is also self-evidently a problem.

What is really needed is an environment that promotes quality over incompetent editing, but also maintains openness, consistency and professionalism. If the probation can preserve its own integrity then I think it can promote such a balance. A far more optimistic goal would be to change the culture so that more substantive experts perceive that an open, consistent and professional system is possible. Hey, it would be cool.

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As author. Mackan79 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hans Adler 11:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think I agree, but I'm not sure what this key sentence means: Editors who push fringe material in violation of content policies should likewise be sanctioned regardless of their compliance with behavioral policies. I don't know what policy would justify a sanction here. Perhaps once a consensus of editors have declared some point "fringe science" the topic must be dropped unless further evidence or new arguments are brought forward, otherwise WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption kicks in and warnings and sanctions ensue. If this is what you're talking about, I think it's a better alternative to bickering and no more likely to be gamed than anything else, so I could support that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree, though I would add to the above that controversial administrator behavior has been a genuinely counterproductive force. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Heyitspeter (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree with the concluding paragraph, though not with all points. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Well put. ATren (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. "The encyclopedia that everyone can edit" is not "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit with equal credibility". 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, this. I'm putting myself in uninvolved, because I am mostly. I did participate in some climategate talk page discussions ages ago. Gigs (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change is an unusual phenomenon. It is the first time that scientific work has uncovered and described an issue that is so important to our very survival and that is going to drive political, economic and social change worldwide for the indefinite future. The factual description of such an issue is not something that is open to the normal political and social processes that may apply to opinion-driven issues. When you describe a war or a revolution, there are at least two viewpoints to describe, and that is the point of the conflict. When you describe other scientific endeavours like space exploration, you can say that political processes allocate the funding and so social and political viewpoints underpin the decision-making. The existence of the global warming problem is no longer the issue under debate (although what to do about it, how much, and how soon, still are). Level playing fields, compromise, balance and democracy are not words that apply to people who want to alter Wikipedia's articles to give air-time to views that there is no warming, that it is not caused by people, or that it doesn't matter. Discussion of such views are correctly covered in articles like Climate change denial, and barely at all in the mainstream texts. Global warming is not a matter of opinion: the two 'sides' in this case are those who get it and those who (for whatever reason) don't.

Therefore, merely enforcing good behaviour in content debates does not necessarily lead to more balanced articles, where all viewpoints are eventually given their due weight. In the climate change arena, giving balanced weight to the views of those who get it and those who don't, just gives us articles with a certain amount of nonsense mixed in with the reality. If the nonsense is sourced to a fringe blog, it is easy enough to argue the case, but when you have powerful business interests advocating denial, political think tanks set up to spread FUD and religious views that don't help either, many non-experts come to us convinced that they have valid contrary views, when they don't.

I have no idea how Wikipedia can encourage let alone enforce good, factual, balanced editing in this situation. I remain amazed that the articles are maintained as well as they are. This is due to the tireless efforts of those editors in the space who know what they are talking about and what they are doing. Using sanctions to teach those who have no idea what the real issues are how to behave may stop some of them adding their nonsense to the articles, but it may also just make them into more civil and cleverer pushers of their fringe viewpoints. The shame is that, in the complexity of all the gamesmanship that the whole process has engendered, there remain only a few scientifically literate stalwarts who have the skill and patience to keep up with the continual risks to their own reputations and accounts while maintaining the generally high quality of the current texts and references. In some senses, article quality has been maintained despite the content-agnosticism of the probation process, not because of it.

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As author. --Nigelj (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think that this is a very good summary of the essential content problem. However, it needs to be acknowledged that editor behavior is a genuine issue too. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Largely endorse, though slightly toned down, except for I have no idea how Wikipedia can encourage let alone enforce good, factual, balanced editing in this situation. because the answer is easy: the admins enforcing the probation could start caring about content William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse, except it neglects that NPOV is the key issue with content, where neutrality can mean indifference. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is putting it in a somewhat extreme way, but I mostly agree. Let me add a link to normalcy bias, the cognitive bias that seems to explain much of what we are seeing here. However, it can't be denied that behavioural issues on the pro-science side have also contributed to the problem to some extent. It appears to me that defending the integrity of the encyclopedia's scientific content firmly is a better strategy than defending it zealously. Hans Adler 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. Generally agree with first two paragraphs and first half of third paragraph. No current opinion on last half of third paragraph (though I find it plausible) since I haven't read enough of the affected articles to form a defensible assessment of them. I haven't bothered reading them out of a general expectation that articles in confict-ridden areas of Wikipedia are generally crap (that is certainly the situation with various other such subjects). WP editing practices in these areas are just plain broken. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. yes, I think this is well said. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree LK (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the view by Nigelj, above. The concerns that there are editors whose expertise within the science regarding the issues could permit them to disregard policy and practice when dealing with edits or subjects that reflect views from outside that discipline - and that are conversant with WP rules - was one of the issues that the Probation was created to resolve. The Probation, through its enforcement request process, has been successful in permitting the application of WP policy, and sanctioning violation of same, within the article space - although this is a continuing area of dispute and pov advocacy. To remove the Probation entirely is to allow the development of partisan editorship over encyclopedic neutrality. (as amended 27th May, 2010)

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As author. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree that scientific knowledge is no excuse for bad behavior. Where I part company is with the implication that the mechanisms/actions dealing with "misbehaving science advocates" have been working. I think they've just tossed fuel on the fire. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with the parts that disagree with Nigelj's view. Scientific orthodoxy does not need special privileges, and I think there's normally a consensus for it. There should be a consensus in favor of actual facts in all areas of the encyclopedia, but sometimes there isn't. Impatience with Wikipedia's loose way of getting to consensus is understandable, but scientific orthodoxy should have no more advantages in that process than any other wise POV anywhere else in the encyclopedia. If consensus-building should be made easier (and I wish it were, especially in the hotly contentious articles where many editors are involved), then we should look for encyclopedia-wide ways for that to happen, and editors interested in science will just have to wait to be served along with everyone else. (And no banging cups on the table in the meantime, please, or it's off to WP:GSCCRE with you). The "The Probation [...] has been successful [...]" part is not the way I would describe it, although I think there have been improvements. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) LHVU's change makes no difference in my support and explanation. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Without fully subscribing to the notion that "The Probation [...] has been successful [...]", the rest is quite good. Uneven enforcement is part (but only part) of the problem. --SPhilbrickT 20:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

I simply do not think that sanctions/probation and enforcement have been of benefit to the climate change area of wikipedia. Internationally this area is vast. However, I believe that these ill thought out sanctions on wikipeida primarily distill issues into heated debates where a small minority of admins and editors entrench themselves in opposing camps. This in effect is detrimental to wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioural issues of a few editors can be dealt with by normal wikipedia procedures. CC Enforcement lends nothing to this. Indeed it puts a vast area of wikipedia (CC) under the editorial control of a small subset of admins and editors who are engaged in various content battles and attempt to win them through the channel of enforcement. This is detrimental to wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As writer Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes. I think it would be good for this forum disappear in favor of the usual AN/I procedures. As is, the CC enforcement page merely serves to hide requests from the larger community, and even from users editing within the topic area (I, for one, did not know probation was being discussed until it was enacted). This probation ensures that uninvolved admins and editors are kept at arms length precisely when we need them most.--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think Polargeo has a valid point. Setting aside a special area for CC enforcement has not had a deterrent effect. On the contrary, it's as if WIkipedia is saying, "OK guys, if you want to fight, fight here." So fight they do, constantly, sometimes over major issues and sometimes minor issues. Rather than encourage users to calm down, this makes matters worse. However, I'm not sure that resorting to the usual Wiki methods is the solution. I think that all the commentators so far have described various aspects of the elephant without describing the whole beast. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weakopedia (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Endorsing ScottyBerg's supportive commentary upon Polargeo's view. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Endorse the idea that the RfE board is currently fostering the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that it was established to defuse. Heyitspeter also makes an excellent argument in favor of increasing outside input by shunting disputes back to the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. Endorsing ScottyBerg's supportive commentary upon Polargeo's view - would not endorse this otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At bottom this is a behavioral issue, NOT a content issue. Those trying to paint it that way miss the point, or are deliberately obscuring it. SBHB claims that "The scientifically literate editors believe that the articles should predominantly reflect the conclusions of the scientific community" but I don't think there is any meaningful disagreement with that view among most folk. Further, if the edit process was working correctly, we would reach consensus about details in a calm, collegial and orderly manner if there were disagreement.

But editing in this area is not calm, collegial and orderly. It is contentious and unpleasant, marked by bitter and abrasive commentary from many participants, in what appears at first as warfare between two camps.

This is not new behavior at Wikipedia. We have seen it before, time and time again. Often, in a contentious topic, a "Wikipedia House POV" ⁽¹⁾ develops and then gets fiercely defended... for example Scientology, Naked Short Selling, Homeopathy, Intelligent Design, Poland/Russia, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Cold Fusion, and so on (there are more examples to be sure). Sometimes (heck, almost always) it's the POV that has widespread support out in reality. That POV is not the issue. The issue is the tactics used to defend that POV, and the informal groups that grow up around defending it. Most people know these sorts of groups exist. Denying their existence in general is pointless.

Now, some will want you to believe that this is a battle between "the scientifically literate" and "the skeptics", as a whole. It's not. It is a battle between factions⁽²⁾ , and not everyone who holds either view actually is in these factions. Further, some in the more powerful group tend to disparage anyone who does not instantly fall into line with their approach as "not one of us" and therefore a "skeptic"... exhibiting "You're either with us or you are against us!" style thinking.

No. Not acceptable.

I am far from a skeptic, but I do not agree up with the tactics employed by either of these camps. These groupings are the major problem area here, not the content itself, because most people get that GW is real. Most people, when they look into the tactics used, even (especially) if they agree with the content POV, are appalled.

The articles that resulted are generally accurate on the science, but there are loose ends at the edges. Any attempt to introduce any information that chips away at the edifice of certainty that AGW is exactly thus and such is fiercely resisted. Further, we have the BLP problem. Evidence has been introduced that skeptic BLPs slant negative over time, while AGW proponent BLPs slant positive over time. That evidence is wideranging but it gets shouted down (in detail) when presented. Even the NAME of an article (was it a hacking incident? An email theft? A leak? ClimateGate as everyone else calls it?) can be a source of warfare.

So then, that's the background.

The Climate Change sanctions were intended to improve the environment, but they did not explicitly acknowledge the existence of a grouping here. Unsurprising, as that sort of discussion is freakishly contentious. So the community took the path of least resistance and did not acknowledge the groups.

But the sanctions have been a mixed success at best. When enforcement actions have been brought against those outside the more powerful and entrenched group, they by and large have been fairly and evenly applied. Count that as a success. But when they have been brought against members of the informal group, by and large they have failed. In particular, WMC has been cautioned, admonished, warned, hectored and even sanctioned, over and over, but he persists. Why not? He has many stalwart defenders who say that the ends justify the means, that the science is what matters, and that he is beset by many on external blogs (while conveniently forgetting to mention that he gives as good as he gets on his own blogs). But WMC is a symptom of the general problem, not the sole villain.

There are groups on the other side of this, and fomenting of POV pushing among the skeptic blogs, to be sure, but they're going up against the House POV and will never win. (nor should they, by the way, actually "win" a content battle).

So what to do?

ArbCom needs to come out and explicitly state that yes, there are groups here, and that their activities have been on balance more harmful than beneficial, and that enforcement needs to take that into account. Without that statement, we are going to be forever trying to prove, over and over, in the face of defense in detail, what almost everyone already knows, but some won't admit.

If you endorse this view, you endorse:

• that groups exist...
• and that ArbCom should acknowledge their existence with a direct statement.

There are other things called for as well, such as refining the definition of "uninvolved admin", or setting up groups of admins rotating or suchlike. Those are good ideas but I leave those details to other views (many of which I will endorse) rather than trying to make this an omnibus.

1 - Thanks to Kelly Martin for this term
2 - Who? Folk (on both sides) who tend to show up and support each other almost reflexively... a good way to spot them in fact is that reflexive defense Another good way is to see who most vociferously attacks those trying to point out that such an informal grouping exists.).

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As writer ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Heyitspeter (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Precisamente. [3] Évidemment. [4] Ja. [5] Who, on the face of this planet and several miles above and below, does not actually know this? C'mon, no b.s. Seriously. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I am endorsing under the understanding that I view that there are confluences of editors that may gather together supporting a specific pov upon a subject, and who may also again aggregate upon a similar pov, but may also bypass that second pov or even find themselves drawn toward a differing pov - in respect of both pro AGW and also skeptic/denialist viewpoints. In so far that there are such confluences apparent over some major CC related disputes, I think that ArbCom may need to review the specific issues that arise from the formation of such bodies of opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree that this is not about content, and indeed one of the problems here is that a small group of editors is presenting this as Science and Truth versus The Unwashed and Ignorant. That's a classic newbie error. What we do on WP is reflect the reliable sources—the academic and the respectable non-academic sources per WP:SOURCES—to present all sides of an issue: the academic, the social, and the political. There is a group of editors seeking to control climate-change articles who brook no opposition, and who seem to believe the content and behavioral policies don't apply to them, and that what matters is their personal opinion. Sources who disagree with them are removed, disparaged, and their BLPs edited to make them sound like idiots; editors who want to present another view are insulted and chased away; admins who try to sort it out are tied up in knots; discussion pages sink into filibustering. Those are behavioral issues, and they mean the content of CC articles can't be fully trusted. The probation has the potential to be effective so long as the admins overseeing it agree that the policies—particularly BLP—apply to everyone equally. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is basically right.
   Aside: the best terminology I have found for the two camps is "alarmist" and "anti-alarmist".
   CWC 18:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Sentence based on vocabulary error struck out CWC 07:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Endorse. The sanctions regime fails to account for "social groupings" of editors (on both 'sides') who routinely back each other up. Thparkth (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorse, and from my short experience with this topic area, I would also endorse SlimVirgin's comment that "There is a group of editors seeking to control climate-change articles who brook no opposition, and who seem to believe the content and behavioral policies don't apply to them, and that what matters is their personal opinion. Sources who disagree with them are removed, disparaged, and their BLPs edited to make them sound like idiots; editors who want to present another view are insulted and chased away; admins who try to sort it out are tied up in knots; discussion pages sink into filibustering." It's been startling to observe how far editing and talk page argumentation in this content area have veered from ordinary WP norms. Due to factionism in the topic area, editors have been getting away with behaviour that would have no chance of surviving in any less polarised content area. It is fully comparable to how Scientology was two or three years ago, before the arbitration case banned the worst offenders on both sides; this includes the fact that BLPs are among the most adversely affected articles. --JN466 19:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. I could not have said it better, and in fact, I don't even think I could have thought it better. This is the best summary of the problem yet presented. ATren (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. This has been my experience entirely. It seems to be almost impossible to discuss content issues with involved editors in a reasonable way; what passes for "consensus" in climate change articles would be treated as "ownership" eveywhere else in Wikipedia, and the administrators I have been involved with just have not addressed this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per Gavin.collins, in the climate change articles, "consensus" generally means obtaining "consent" from the article owners. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. I agree that this is a war zone and the issues are primarily behavioural, with a core of extremist POV pushing teams of editors making the articles a poisonous no go area for everyone else. I for one will never edit a climate change article and I admire the uninvolved admins who have volunteered to try and moderate this mess.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. WMC et al's pleas to arbcom to 'please help us make this article say what we want it to say' cuts to the heart of the issue. They have royally screwed up this venue with their bold and blatant agenda to not to write for the NPOV at all, but to write for their own rather blatant POV, to the point where no truly neutral editor in the actual sense of that word, would touch it with a bargepole. The climategate name issue was a microcosm of how out of touch they are with the wider community's view of NPOV, and several of the 'uninvloved admins' are far from it. WMC and one or two others are frankly out of control behaviour wise, it's no surprise he lost his bit, and its high time he was given at least a temporary topic ban from all these areas. MickMacNee (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I guess we do agree every now and then. Gigs (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse, though I'm not sure whether I should be in the uninvolved or involved category. I put this in the uninvolved category, but if it belongs in the involved category, please feel free to move it there. I created an ill-advised article on a separate subject that was subsequently (and appropriately) deleted following an AfD that mentioned WMC. Prior to that article, I had never heard of WMC, nor edited or cared about GW/CC articles. Immediately there was a group of involved editors and admins that came to the article and AfD discussions, and I was frankly surprised at the difference in standards being used in regards to a BLP issue. Although there were multiple verifiable and reliable sources available to support the information in the article, the use of Lawrence Solomon as the initial source (again, through ignorance of the previous history) pretty much resulted in none of the other sources even being considered. Admin actions were taken without explicit warning, AfD comments were being deleted / refactored / !votes added or changed, and other actions that I had never seen before in a non-GW/CC AfD - and it appeared like I had landed on another planet. I also discovered the joy of being sent to an SPI with CU (which cleared me and the other editor), which I subsequently learned was a favored tactic of one the groups. ArbCom should clearly come out with a statement on the groups and the tactics involved, as it drives neutral editors running away from the subject area, which hurts Wikipedia. I for one do not intend to wade into this subject area, as it appears to be a minefield and I can get into enough trouble all by myself without having such suicidal tendencies. GregJackP Boomer! 12:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wandered into the climate change debate some weeks ago, and have hung around in a few articles, almost exclusively the talk pages, because I find the debate stimulating and interesting from several perspectives. I've written an essay with some observations. [6]. Comments are welcome and actively solicited for the talk page. My sympathies tend to go with the climate change people, but I'm not happy with some of the pigheadedness and lack of civility shown by some on that side. On the other hand, I've seen a backlash underway, which I would broadly define as climate change skeptics and those who have no opinion on CC, or perhaps even agree with the scientists, but feel that the behavior of "scientific types" has been poor, and requires harsh remedial action. For all intents and purposes, the battle lines have drawn roughly that way, "scientists vs. their opponents." It's not strictly "skeptic vs. scientists."

I think that no solution is going to work unless Wikipedia recognizes that there is a backlash, and that the backlash has not made things better. There have been controversial administrator actions and rhetoric that have done little more than splash fuel on the fire. Any solution to this situation needs to recognize that composition of the battle lines. If it is viewed simply as "scientists vs. skeptics" or "Wikipedia vs. bad editors" there will be no solution. Wikipedia needs to examine this issue with brutal honesty and self-appraisal. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As drafter. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Perceptive Polargeo (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Your essay is excellent and everyone involved should read it. I don't agree with everything in it (because I'm just that kind of guy). But this excerpt should be engraved on a plaque and posted to the top of the probation page: "Too much g---damn whining. I can't believe how many pages are devoted to editors yelling at each other and demanding that bans, blocks, forced feeding, enemas and other punishment be exacted. Grow up, people." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mostly agree. The backlash has not made things better, but at least it has drawn attention to the underlying problem, which undoubtedly exists (see Lar's view) ATren (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes. The backlash could have been avoided with a somewhat more moderate approach. I am firmly on the science side, but when I first came into contact with the topic at Wikipedia I felt under vehement attack by the most active pro-science editor. That kind of thing is entirely unnecessary and counter-productive. Hans Adler 22:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. Yup, there is precious little honesty and self-appraisal/reflection in the CC specific area of 'dispute resolution'. And there is definitely an Elephant well and truly in this room. Kudos for the brilliant essay. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning to post other than endorsing the above call for rotating admins but the comments by Lar (which he has diluted a little) have prompted me to give a view.

1. Trying to characterise tens of thousands of edits over a wide range of articles is not straightforward. It is something where even a good faith editor runs serious risks of Confirmation bias and where seeing patterns where none exist is expected.
2. I do not like viewing editors as groups. The "science group" of editors identified by Lar displays some characteristic of team work (you see them referring questions to each other in areas of each other's specialty e.g. [7]) much like happens on Wikiproject Medicine but any kind of occasional "mindless support" is rare, and is often around things which are screamingly obvious. Anyway the rare possible knee jerk support always gets reported. And then it generally proves to be just a matter that PhD scientists share a similar view on the credibility of particular journals etc. Where they have formed a parallel view of the value of particular contributors this is more of an issue, but still appears parallel.
3. IF a group stands out (and I prefer to think editor by editor), the rolling band of "skeptical&friends" editors seem to me to display more charateristics of always endorsing each other statements etc than the science group do, especially on the probation board and various RFCs. There are a few exceptions, but if you just look through the probation pages there is a group of editors who agree most strongly with each other and I am afraid I see Lar in the middle of it. Sure, thats a five hundred diff story and sure, I suffer from confirmation bias too but I definitely see it.
4. The science group are certainly showing some signs of irritation with Lar and to a degree them being lumped together and treated with disrespect by him makes that inevitable. Even ones whom I regard as amongst the most patient and civil editors on WP, like SBHB, are unappreciative of the WP:BATTLE characterisations used of them by Lar. It is rather possible that, rather than this being people "ganging up" on Lar, Lar is significantly at fault (but I do not doubt his good faith in not seeing this, even though about half of all those involved in CC probation have said there is an issue on his RFC).
5. WMC is probably the most scrutinised and baited editor on WP. Every possible infringement gets aired and discussed and many quite innocent edits are also the subject of complaint and scrutiny. The accusations keep being made and painstaking examination of the diffs generally reveals reasonable explanation. How much longer we will insist on holding him to a higher standard than the rest of us, and waste a lot of his time explaining reasonable behaviour (and then get surprised at and pounce on occasional displays of irritation) is an open question. But it has reached the point where drive-by complainants throwing a dozen diffs around at WMC need warning.
6. My only area of concern on the current content remains BLPs. Living Persons who are viewed with contempt by the broad scientific community should still be treated with respect on WP and we do not always manage that. It is on BLPs that editors who share a scientific perspective which causes them to edit in an aligned way cause me discomfort. I wonder if BLPs should be split out into a separate probation.

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. --BozMo talk 09:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Nigelj (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- (barring sentences 1 and 3 of point 6, assuming that "my/me" refers to the endorser) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, quite good summary. Both the confirmation bias and the synoptic view among academically trained editors are well described. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Polargeo (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. yep, fully agree SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Guettarda (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. I agree with the "groups" analysis and the discussion of BLPs. There's no question that there is a battle underway between climate change supporters and their opponents. I agree that their opponents are not necessarily skeptics. But to categorize either side as a "group" or similar language is unnecessarily divisive, provides no clear path to a solution, and implies collusion. However, there are civility and what I call "pigheadedness" issues on the scientific side that need to be addressed. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Snowman frosty (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. R. Baley (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. The general principles stated seem very reasonable. Due to uninvolvement I don't have a detailed enough picture to fully endorse some of the specifics, but that doesn't mean I think they're wrong. I asked for clarification from BozMo about #6 and he told me (my interpretation) that it refers mostly to old issues that have been since cleaned up. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Though I disagree with most of #5 - the assertion that any one editor, such as WMC, is subjected to the most scrutiny and baiting on Wikipedia is something that could open an unnecessary (and perhaps irrelevant) dispute of its own.[reply]

I've been watching this dispute with interest for some time. I wish to offer a forward-looking proposal rather than join the debate over past behavior of various parties. Thus, my proposal is "sanction free", with one stipulation mentioned below. Apologies in advance for the length.

Detente. What is needed first is a detente, starting with a mutual agreement by all disputants -- basically, anyone who belongs in the "Editors involved..." endorsement sections of this RFC -- to reset the tone of discussion back to a cordial one.[1] Without denying what has happened in the past, all such editors agree and endeavor hereafter to make every communication of theirs with a fellow disputant, and within the climate change talk pages, a cordial and respectful one. (So no more snark, lecturing, warning, curt dismissals, assuming ulterior motives, COI accusations, etc.) I think every participant in the dispute can voluntarily commit to this, and it would be a sign of their good faith to do so.

Moratorium. Human nature being what it is, some editors might struggle to overcome bad habits formed earlier. If disputants start complaining about each other right away and asking for sanctions, the detente will not last. So, there should be an indefinite-length moratorium on behavioral complaints by any of the disputants about any of the others.[2] Instead, to borrow an idea from JohnWBarber above, an ArbCom-appointed panel of uninvolved admins should review on a weekly basis the recent contributions of the disputants. Members of this panel would be the ones to approach a disputant about any behavior that doesn't yet meet the standard of civility or good-faith editing expected of them, and they would be the ones to seek/impose any further sanctions.[3]

Past behavior. If an editor shows that they are incapable of sufficient civility going forward, their behavior both before and after the detente should be within scope in deciding what sanctions to bring about. On the other hand, editors who successfully engage in cordial discussion or who show marked progress should not be sanctioned for past behavior in this dispute; all disputants should agree to let go of their grievances for the sake of making a fresh start.

I do not claim that this will resolve the entire dispute; it certainly will not solve the debates about SPOV, BLP, reliable sources, etc. But I do think it should be given a shot, for at least a month or two, to see what impact it has on the overall atmosphere of the topic area discussions and on the quality of the climate change articles. I realize it may be too Pollyanna-ish for some to support, but I think the only real barrier to it working is the willingness of the disputants to give it an honest try.

[3] This is the stipulation that makes this proposal not entirely sanction-free.

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. I can't fathom anyone not endorsing these common-sense principles. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mostly, but it does not need the enforcement provision or the condition of mutuality - any editor choosing to cleave to these principles will immediately gain the benefit of whatever time they would have wasted in whinging, gaming, sniping, and pointless circular arguments. Repeated calls for sanctions in the middle of content disputes have a boy who cried wolf effect, making it less likely that the just a content dispute null hypothesis will be rejected. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. As proponent. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The climate change area of wikipedia, when all BLPs and subarticles are taken into account is vast. Thousands of articles can be included. It is globally a major news topic so this is not like a tiny corner of wikipedia. Therefore a situation arises where an admin may have edited some CC articles (RfA encourages admins to have been editors to improve their understanding) and yet they are being instructed by some that they cannot act as uninvolved even in cases in which they have not edited the articles in question and have had little or no contact with those who enforcement is being requested against, this seems at odds with wikipedia policy and completely at odds with policy as stated on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. On the other hand admins who have never had any editorial input into any CC articles may have had significant contact with certain editors but still feel able to act as uninvolved. This issue needs addressing.

• An example of an admin acting as uninvolved is Lar. He claims to be uninvolved becasue he has never edited a CC article (his own definition of uninvolved not generally accepted by wikipedia as a whole or indeed at all by Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation) and yet he clearly has a pre-existing grudge against User:William M. Connolley having called him a "wacko" in an unrelated matter before sanctions even began, on WMC's talkpage. Lar clearly goads WMC on his talkpage by bemoaning the fact that User:Cla68 was not elected to arbcom but is pleased that WMC was not [8]. Since sanctions began Lar has at times goaded WMC e.g. "What is WMC afraid of?". Lar has many times gone to some length on and off wiki to explain that WMC is at the centre of a group of editors which must be stopped or brought to heel in some way. He clearly feels that he is the one to stop this and his comments as an uninvolved admin show his intention of a wider goal, as outlined by SBHB Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar#Outside view by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (the most supported view on the RfC/U). Lar consistantly is the most prominant caller for the banning of WMC and even suggests sanctions against WMC when WMC brings a case to enforcement himself. Lar, along with Cla are two of the biggest proponents of the you cannot be uninvolved if you have ever edited a CC article camp. I see this as a view which furthers their personal goals as discussed offwiki e.g. [9]. It appears that Lar genuinely thinks that his main goal on enforcement is to bring down cabalistic control by WMC and his gang rather than to neutrally review cases on merit as it should be and to enforce community consensus. The situation is epitomised by the fact that Lar feels able as an "uninvolved" admin in the uninvolved admin section of enforcement to call for a year long topic ban against WMC on the flimsiest of grounds (case was eventually dismissed against WMC with a gentle reminder and no action) in a case Cla brought to enforcement against WMC (Lar calls for ban in Cla case against WMC). So in summary after taunting WMC (IMO crossing the line to a personal attack) that he was not elected to arbcom and expressing regret that Cla was not and then partaking in several off wiki conversations with Cla about the direction of enforcement how blatant does Lar's involvement need to be before there is some action against him acting as an uninvolved admin in cases involving WMC?
• An example of an editor who has edited CC articles is myself. I am an admin and I strongly feel that if I was a POV pusher either one of my two RfA's would have flopped spectacularly. I am not primarily an editor of CC articles, my editing has been divided between my area of expertise (glaciology) where I have avoided any climate change links and on Balkans articles but I feel that is not the point. The real point is involvement in any particular individual case. Admins should strive to be as true to the ethos of wikipedia as they can be in the true admin role of enforcing consensus. There should be clarification of whether admins such as myself or those with fewer or greater edits to CC articles should be able to act as uninvolved in certain cases or not. Polargeo (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As proponent. Polargeo (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. I agree with the general principles here. Even if one never edits the content in some disputed area, participating in DR about that topic for long enough snags the outsider into personality conflicts with the disputing editors, after which the outsider is no longer really uninvolved. The specific stuff about Lar's involvement or lack of it should probably go in the separate RFC about same though. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with the principle stated. Evidence for involvement is not restricted to editing the articles in question. Heated talk page comments also demonstrate involvement. LK (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sole involvement here is to defend using established procedures within WP, rather than to make new and different rules every time a dispute arises. Those who wish to examine my opinions on the BLP controversies here (including flagged revisions and unreferenced BLPs), the XfD period discussions, the Wikiversity controversy, the issues at Meta, the Founder flag controversy etc. will kindly note this.

There is no reason whatsoever for this RFC to contain any personal attacks whatsoever. Such makes the RFC useless, as a matter of fact. Any opinions above which can are based on such personal opinions of other editors should be completely be ruled out.

With regard to "point of view", ArbCom has repeatedly stated:

Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view. Passed 9 to 0, 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thus nothing which affects that rule can be established here, most especially any requirement in a belief that a "scientific point of view" exists, or ought to exist, or should be given any special status whatsoever.

I would suggest that it is the task of each editor to disregard and set aside all personal opinions about "truth" (WP:Josh Billings) and to adhere more closely to the ArbCom rulings. This, perforce, means allowing opinions one knows to be "wrong" to be fairly presented, without making them appear ludicrous or venal. Where any editor finds it impossible to adhere to such an ideal, it presents a problem which the probation was intended to ameliorate. That amelioration includes the ability of admins to block editors who insist on the "truth" of their own position. I would also state that using friends to seek out information used to promote any negative image of other positions is prima facie a violation of the ArbCom position regarding point of view, and that no result here can violate that basic tenet of WP.

This statement is done entirely in defense of the ArbCom tenets, and of using established procedure. Collect (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

2. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. --JN466 14:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. The debate about AGW is pretty nasty off-Wikipedia, so this is asking a lot of the Wikipedia editors involved in that debate. Nevertheless, it is what we should try for. CWC 16:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Exactly so. Thparkth (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Of course. No arguments with this Polargeo (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree, assuming that "fairly representing the weight of authority for each view" means that WP:FRINGE continues to apply to those viewpoints that warrant it. --Nigelj (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree, but the ArbCom rulings are only based on pre-existing WP policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Heyitspeter (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. Well said, I fully endorse your statement. I agree that the personal attacks on individuals are wholly unnecessary on this RfC and counter-productive. I have also been concerned with the attempts to make climate related articles exempt from WP:NPOV. I might add that I am especially concerned with WP:NPOV and other serious issues on biographies of living persons.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along with other content Dispute Resolutions (like RFCs), escalated content issues like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE should be handled by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force or other appropriate content development project. The General sanctions/Climate change probation RFEs are inappropriate to address these content issues. Too many content issues are turned in to bad editor behavior issues and brought to the the RFE. Admins should be directing the underlying content issues to other dispute resolutions methods at the RFE closes. An editor behavior sanction is not the end of a content issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. Proponent. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. (I was rather startled to learn that there was such a beast as a WP:Climate change task force...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Certainly worth a try. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC) ... that means, as a given, that the moribund project/task force would need revival by concerned/interested content editors, of course. Failing that happening, this won't work. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not sure that I fully understand what is written. To the extent I do, this is appropriate except for the use of the climate change wikiproject, which is moribund. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Boris William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree also per the wise caveat of Boris. Per LessHeard I was also startled to find there was such a beast just after it had been set up. Similarly I was also startled to find there was such a beast as probation just after it had been set up. Polargeo (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Lar has since made a good caveat that I agree with. Polargeo (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Lar modified version. --BozMo talk 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Very good idea. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

On occasion, I'll read an article's talk page before reading the article. Many times, I've clicked on the article with trepidation, expecting to see a mess. I'm often pleasantly surprised at how well the article reads in view of the contentious arguments on the talk page. That said, I created a low hurdle—some articles are surprisingly good GIVEN the talk page comments, but they may not be objectively very good in an absolute sense. Unfortunately, that observation applies to many CC articles. Over several years, Wikipedia has established a number of policies to achieve one of its core goals - writing about a broad variety of topics with a NPOV. In many cases, these policies, and the mechanisms to enforce them have worked quite well. The dispute resolution mechanisms at Wikipedia have worked quite well in most cases, but in extreme cases, such as this one, the inadequacies show.

This is, at its heart, a content debate. However, there's much more to a body than just a heart, and the content dispute is inextricably intertwined with process questions—how best to neutrally portray the current state of climate science, when some of the important aspects of climate science (in particular, the ability to accurately project changes decades or centuries into the future). Despite claims from some who should know better, important aspects of the science are not yet settled. And, despite the claims of others who should know better, there isn't an organized conspiracy among scientists to insist the sky is falling.

Characterizations of this as merely a content dispute between scientists and skeptics is a failed summary on a number of counts. The so-called skeptics self-identify as skeptics, but proudly, in the sense that we should all be skeptics, thus a proper use of the term should apply to both sides. Labeling the other side as "scientists" fails even more so, partly because there are scientists on both sides of the debate, partly because non-scientists are some of the loudest voices on both sides of the debate.

We need a renewed commitment to the goals of an NPOV presentation of verifiable facts, but we need to examine different approaches to dispute resolution. The General Sanctions attempt was a decent experiment, which has succeeded at some goals (keeping ANI from becoming a black hole) but not succeeding sufficiently at becoming an efficient way to resolve disputes.

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. As proponent --SPhilbrickT 23:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree, (my orginal comment was censored [10]) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Heyitspeter (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree with the first and last paragraphs about the situation at Wikipedia, disagree with the characterization of the content in the second and third paragraphs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

1. You hit the nail on the head.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments on the talk pages have quietened down but there are endless arguments on the probation pages. I am very grateful for the probation page if it attracts all the fanatics pushing their brand of WP:TRUTH instead of just developing the articles in line with their topics and putting in reasonable citations for what they say. The aim of Wikipedia is to develop the encyclopaedia. I view the current arrangement as successful and having those troublemakers having their interminable arguments and edit wars on the articles again would in my view be detrimental to Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. Agree, Dmcq is better off contributing here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Enforcement page as lightning rod? Okay... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

My experience with the article Scientific opinion on climate change has been negative, in the sense that criticism of article's existence as a madeup topic has effectively been resisted by an adminstrator (BozMo) from the onset as illustrated by this discussion: "Some serious advice and warning".

Furthermore, my good faith attempts to add reliable secondary sources which might be used to define and establish the notability of the topic have been prevented by editors with article ownership issues. In my view, the adminstrator intervention at the article's talk page perpetuate these article ownerhsip issues, rather than allowing them to be resolved through mediation.

Whilst I acknowledge that the administrators involved have a difficult task policing climate related articles, particularly with all too frequent ad hominem attacks, I feel they are stiffling debate and dispute resolution, and have used so called "consensus" as an excuse not to deal with behaviour assoicatied with article ownership.

My view is that special measures are needed to police these articles and the interactions between editors, but I do not think the way it is being done has been effective, for despite widespread intervention, Climate change probation has not addressed the issues described above by Lars. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions

• Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change/Archive 10#What is to be done?
• Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change/Archive 11#Content Fork
• Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive2#Gavin.collins

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

The CC pages are often open advocacy of the believer POV with critics mentioned only as shills of the oil companies, if at all. Despite numerous mistakes found in the IPCC report in the last few months,[11][12][13] various editors above have essentially asked ArbCom to ban critics of this report. (I assume this is what User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris's statement means by "the conclusions of the scientific community".) NPOV means nothing if this is considered a valid approach. Thirty-one thousand scientists have signed just one skeptic petition.[14] Freeman Dyson, one of world's most eminent scientists, has recently come out with a book critical of climate alarmism. Books and articles by S. Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen, both credentialed experts, are available for use as RS, if there is any desire to construct NPOV articles. You might be thinking, isn't this type of point more appropriate for an article talk page? Ah, but any discussion of this type is routinely removed from the talk pages.

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

Face it. NPOV by consensus, in the midst of an contemporary controversy over what the facts show, can be impossible to hash out in the context of this project. Especially when, on both sides, careers, political power, and billions of dollars are at stake.

In such cases, some historical perspective may not be optional. It may be required before the encyclopedia can speak authoritatively. Perspective which can only come AFTER time lowers the stakes.

At which point, I have no doubt that myself and my fellow denialists will be fully vindicated. (Yee haw! Except for the fact that, likely as not, we'll all be dead.)

... tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock* *tic-tock ...

One future advantage, little noted, is how invaluable the Wilipedia records of this controversy, and others like it, will be. To historians who wish to document how it was, exactly, that our principled stand won out in the end. ô¿ô 17:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

1. Agree in general, unless the author intends to suggest that when a task is impossible, it shouldn't be attempted. As Geno Auriemma says, (paraphrasing Wooden) 'chase the impossible; you won't achieve it, but you might catch excellence'.--SPhilbrickT 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view

Editors involved in either the enforcement of this probation or editing of this topic space endorsing this view

Fully uninvolved editors endorsing this view