Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC

Comment
Might be good to better summarize the enforcement actions, although this would take some amount of work. I should avoid my specific RFC comments now; however, I would suggest expanding the criteria to both "reasonable and necessary" from just "necessary" as the conjunction is an important distinction in justice. Thanks for starting this. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, this is a work in progress; I like to leave ***** in the text when I am working on something piecemeal to make it easier to come back to the right place later.
 * I would argue that if the probation is not necessary it should be abolished, and if something else would work better then we should try that instead. I will keep "reasonable and necessary" in mind when poring over the language, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How do we want to enable review? Review could be of the process, or of the outcomes. Process review might be facilitated by presenting some of the requests and an analysis, but there is the danger that any one chosen might be seen as skewed. Outcome review seems rather harder. Anecdotally we have heard folk say that things are "better" but we know this still is a problem area. And progress is glacially slow in some cases. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, it will be nice if folks clarify their comments on the process and outcomes distinction. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am honestly not sure right now what I think should be done, other than that the probation was established with some intent of exposing it to later review. I think the RE page is currently a mess, but I am not sure if that puts me in the abolish camp, the reform camp, or the take it to ArbCom camp. I think review of any individual case is better suited to (*shudder*) AN/I, and would like to hear from the community whether they still think this is a good idea or if we should change anything about the stated or the actual processes. Anecdotally, I think the situation is better than it was five months ago, but I have no idea whether it is better than it was a year ago. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been clear there is a recurring issue, Arbcom could not deal with it so the Probation was created to give the community a chance to address things. However, the community may be losing will, so it seems the only resolution path will be back to Arbcom with some nebulous undecidable issue or maybe a series of bans or blocks.  Rebuilding community trust is difficult after sides are drawn.  If only we could play a song.  Maybe there will be some other resolution path created.  Perhaps a mini elected tribunal (3 eds) group (like arbcom) just for climate change. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I quite like the fact that the scope is not too defined, although the outcome(s) is/are. As long as anyone attempting to decide on what is and is not off-topic is quickly corrected, then not only the purpose - past, present and possibly future - of the probation can be discussed, but the issues in adminning it, in achieving resolution, in changing issues identified (and whether issues have been identified or simply repeated and rebutted), and frankly, the whole kit and caboodle (I know that I will be, as an "uninvolved admin", subject to comment regarding my actions and alleged perceptions - well, so be it.) If it is going to be fairly lax in the breadth of review then I suggest it gets started with as little refining as is needed; let it evolve. Oh, and one last question; who the fuck is going to close it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sections
Can we split this RfC into multiple subsections please? Some of these could involved "involvedness of administrators", "administrator-only discussion areas", and of course, the central issue of usefulness. The first two are smaller but important points that relate to the workings of the probation; the latter is the big-important issue that we must address. NW ( Talk ) 01:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That could end up a huge RFC, as the 'uninvolved admin' and 'admin discussion' subsections could receive a lot of comment. Is it better to concentrate on the question of 'keep as is, delete, or modify the sanctions' and then have a separate process for the actual modification, if that is decided? Or to expect the RFC to arrive at a definite solution for all these things? I don't know which option is the more desirable or the one most favoured when using RFC. Weakopedia (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see value in an "uninvolved admin" section of WP:GSCCRE (at least I think I can -- I'm no longer sure even about that). I can't see any possible value in separating admin and regular editor comments here. Frankly, I'm not even sure why we separate "involved" from "uninvolved" in the RfC. The point is to get a sense of the consensus of the entire community (when there is one or may be one), right? Admins have no special standing in that. None whatever. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

View
2over0, do you have a view on the civility concerns raised in the RFE? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Recently, I have not checked. Generally, I think many of them would be more amenable to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, RFC/U seems right, it may help answer a few unanswered questions. With ArcComm warming up for a case, and RFC/U in the mix might help address and focus a recurring disruptive civility issue. Would you have any advice on preparing one? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes for RfC closer
In addition to the call from the rfctag, this request for comment has been advertised at my talkpage, Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation, and Arbitration/Requests/Case (currently open but hopefully archived by the time this RfC closes). I also requested input before opening at the talkpages of three users who have been highly active in administering the climate change probation, Lar, LessHeard vanU, and NuclearWarfare. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments to this RfC have also been requested at WP:Centralized discussion and Administrators' noticeboard. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And now at "Village Pump (proposals)" -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

About those numbers in my RfC proposal
Thanks for your comment. I wasn't sure how detailed to be about numbers, but let me lay it out in a bit more detail: Arbcom initially picks five admins, initially one for a one-month term, a second for two-months, etc. up to five. Then each month Arbcom picks a replacement for the admin whose term ends. The one- and two-month appointments should go to editors already on the scene (and perhaps more of the initial appointments, I dunno). In a year's time, Arbcom could potentially have picked 16 admins (five initially, then one each month) and be ready to pick another if it passes another RfC. Arbcom will probably have to pick replacements at some point. I think there are 16 good, willing admins out there who could do this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Five months is a long time to be in the barrel. What about 7 admins and every month rotate two out? (some fudging to handle the odd man out case needed but you get the idea) ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other issues about quorum for action to occur, unless it will just take a seconded motion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Was that a response to me? Wasn't clear. Quorum with 5 is 3 (and 2 is a majority of quorum), and with 7 is 4 (and 2 is a tie so you need 3 of 4, maybe not as good). My concern purely is with burnout though. Replacing everyone at once is bad for continuity but just one at a time is not fast enough to avoid it with 5 people, and we don't want just 3 for sure! How about 9 folks with three a month? Then quorum is 5 (and 3 is a majority of quorum). People could rotate back in too. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought this was a volunteer outfit (where's the fine print I missed?). Now we're advocating that arbcom draft admins for a five month shit detail? Would this be a random selection or a "get even with so-and-so ..." Hey all admins, hurry up and edit climate change articles substantially so you'll be exempt from this draft as involved. Side benefit, we get new experienced editors (the "draft dodgers") working on the climate change articles. Vsmith (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I could make some puns about drafts and cold winds blowing under doors and so forth I guess? But no. I think I'll just point out that the way I read JWB's proposal (I could be wrong) was that the Arbs would seek volunteers and then select from the pool. If they could not scare up the requisite number of volunteers that were suitably qualified (whatever "suitably" means) then... um... shoot, I dunno. Maybe THEY'D have to do it? But I don't see that as a problem. All the glory and good times that come with it... should have people busting down the door in no time. Ok maybe not but I DO think we'd have enough volunteers. ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Following on about Quorum, is that decisions can be hung by no shows. Quorum is not the majority required to pass an action it is the minimum required to have a deliberation or motion. If 5 are appointed and 2 no show then would all three be required for majority to pass an action or 2 of the three to make majority? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the latter is the way to go... A majority of the majority, not an absolute majority. So in my 9 example, 5 is quorum and 3 is a majority of the minimal quorum. If more folk participate the majority goes up. Or one could use the same scheme ArbCom uses where there is explicit removal and the majority calculated as one goes. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple enough thanks, if the Quorum shows up. ArbCom might have a better method, I'll have to look. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think a majority of those present (two out of three, three out of four or five) should be a workable way to go. If more are necessary, it would probably be unworkable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd posted this at Hans Adler's talk page. Imagine my surprise to find I'd stuck it here. I have no clue about the dynamics of admin volunteer involvement. I've never found the idea of being an admin in any way interesting or rewarding, so it's all alien to me. (Yes, I think volunteers would be the way to go, perhaps some behind-the-scenes recruiting [begging, pleading, threatening] from ArbCom members.) Perhaps we could offer discount movie tickets to those who stick it out for the full term. I figured five admins for five months was something doable, but it isn't a suicide pact. If ArbCom finds it impossible, Arbcom should be able to adjust it or toss it out. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Motion to Suspend
Can we suspend this RFC, with a temp close box, until the ArbComm case is answered? It is taking away from the quality in both. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather it were the other way round, once the views here are concluded (and most of them see some need for arbcom in one form or another, presently) then the ArbCom will have a better understanding of the perceived issues and be able to address those in their deliberations - plus, here the participants are attempting to address the issue of the probation rather than save their necks/slay their opponents in the ArbCom arena. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, how to suspend an Arbcom motion but to ask the filer? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What ArbCom will probably do is just let the case sit and the RfC sit for a week or 2 before all the arb members vote. So for now I would just let both run. Since this is such a heated topic, there will be plenty of comments and votes on this RfC that it will probably be safe to close it in say 5 - 7 days time. There is already a large amount of votes on statements on this RfC, so arbcom will be able to get a good feel of community views.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it, the RFC close should make it to the case. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Content caring
Since discussion is not encouraged on the RFC, I'll start here. This bit about Admins and others not caring about the content seems like a bad faith assumption to me. In my opinion, NPOV means that editors should care about the sources to make the content into a neutral voice. It seems like some folks may be taking ownership too far, when they assume others don't care about content like they do, more or less their specific content is what they would like others to care about. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to a particular point raised by one of the editors in the RfC? If so, who and what section?  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 21:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC in one of his endorsements - it is a viewpoint that is based on a premise that if you don't support WMC's actions that you do not support his scientifically based editing and therefore editing based on good sources; therefore you don't care about content. Not subscribing to that viewpoint is, therefore, also not caring about content. The better known variant is; the ends justify the means. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think WMC has a term that aptly describes the notion that if you abhor WMC's approach to editing here you necessarily either disagree with the science or don't care: "rubbish". ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a note, I've seen the above cited as a personal attack. That's an interesting assertion. At best. We ought to put paid to that notion. Evaluation of an idea is not a PA. ++Lar: t/c 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

re View by Polargeo (2)
My immediate impression is that this is all about Lar, and the opening paragraph is just grafted on to comply with the stated aim of this RfC. I feel that this view is more suited for the current Lar RfC, if not substantially already there, rather than this one in respect of the Probation - and its enforcement - generally. Mind you, of course I would say this... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Lar is obviously central to the current debate and therefore this view is correctly placed here. Many of these issues have come to light since I began the RfC/U and have not been condensed into a short statement yet. I feel that is what I am doing here. It is actually also about me as I am an editor who has edited CC articles but who does not have a strong POV and has primarily edited in other areas of wikipedia. I am seeking clarification on involvement. Polargeo (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to take our previous arguments about what is wrong with enforcement and condense them here (not ignore them or pigeon hole them) to properly inform an arbcom judgement Polargeo (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo needs to re-read the statements from several arbitrators about what constitutes involvement. And internalize them, because repeating himself over and over isn't going to make them go away. Involvement is primarily determined by topic editing. Polargeo also needs to stop repeating himself, and stop re-raising matters already explained or dealt with in new forums. (in some ways he reminds me of Ikip a bit, always bringing up the same events at every opportunity) Finally, Polargeo needs to realize that, as a climate scientist, his claim of not having a POV stretches credulity to the breaking point. He may attempt to claim that his EDITING is POV free if he likes (not necessarily a claim that will withstand scrutiny) but we ALL have POVs. All in all, an exceedingly unhelpful contribution to the RfC, I'm afraid. ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Lar. I am absolutely not a climate scientist I am a geophysicist, I have no qualifications or papers with regard to climatology or even with any significant comment on the subject. My degree is in Physics. I use geophysics to monitor glaciers but in Antarctica the ones I monitor are not directly affected by global warming in any way. Please read my GA Pine Island Glacier for confirmation (this is not a CC article). Clarification is needed here and I seek to obtain it. The CC area of wikipedia is larger, more prominant and is fundamentally different to any of the previous areas rulings have been made on. This is not a national conflict involving a few countries it is global and potentially runs to thousands of wikipedia articles. Also I said I was not a POV pusher. I did not claim to have no POV. However, I see you as a POV pushing admin in the area of climate change. I also invite and implore you to scrutinise my contributions to CC to try to find a pro AGW or anti AGW stance. If you do the exercise properly I think you will be amazed. Polargeo (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think you might work on saying what you want to say in one go instead of almost always using 3 or 4? It makes nesting worse. If you must, just tack it on the end of the last statement and replace the sig instead of talking to yourself. It would really help. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tacked as requested.Polargeo (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Out of form comments
Please make comments on the RFC statements here on this page. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, please remove the original Hipocrite disruption to my comments. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I have undone your deletion of these comments. The discussions also imply that it is your comments that are out of line. Therefore you simply removing the comments of others is not wise or supportable. Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite caused a disruption and my statement is to be move, NO. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Sphilbrick outlined on your talkpage the request that you scale back your comment. If you choose not to do this then fine but you cannot have it every way and simply remove the replies of others without scaling back your own comment. In fact you should not do this yourself at all. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Hipocrite disrupted my comment. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment went beyond what was appropriate for the RfC main page. It is not then up to you to remove the comments of others. I suggest strongly that you reply to Sphilbrick in a positive manner and whether you do this or not you should leave it to others to sort out. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we refactor/collapse these three sections down into one? Or at least the first two? Or hat the whole thing? The comments have now themselves been refactored to here, and absent some re-move-ing we should be sorted... I think? ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments
These comments which were using the opportunity of commenting to make an off topic point and replying to it have been moved off the page. Please do not move them back --BozMo talk 14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC):


 * 1) Agree, except the IPCC is a political organization of scientists with a mission to push a single POV based on weak face valued assessment of science. Editors claiming the IPCC opinions are anything but a POV are misleading the content development by creating some straw-man that all skeptics are somehow non-scientists. NPOV means all reliable sourced opinions are to be given due weight. Strong willed commitment to NPOV is required to move the content forward. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See, that's the kind of nonsense that people have to deal with. The IPCC is not a political organization of scientists with a mission to push a single POV. Your fringe POV is that, but the fact of the matter is you are very, very alone on the lunatic fringe. Why do editors have to deal with people who are so far off the mark all the time? Why do we take directives on NPOV from someone who can't even pretend to do it themselves? Hipocrite (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)t/c 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bozmo, what makes my comment an Inappropriate endorsement, please be specific. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Sphilbrick proposal
Original proposal here


 * User:ZuluPapa5 Agree, except the IPCC is a political organization of scientists with a mission to push a single POV based on weak face valued assessment of science. Editors claiming the IPCC opinions are anything but a POV are misleading the content development by creating some straw-man that all skeptics are somehow non-scientists. NPOV means all reliable sourced opinions are to be given due weight. Strong willed commitment to NPOV is required to move the content forward.
 * User:Hipocrite response : See, that's the kind of nonsense that people have to deal with. The IPCC is not a political organization of scientists with a mission to push a single POV. Your fringe POV is that, but the fact of the matter is you are very, very alone on the lunatic fringe. Why do editors have to deal with people who are so far off the mark all the time? Why do we take directives on NPOV from someone who can't even pretend to do it themselves?

Above added by -- SPhilbrick  T  14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC) (so it can be removed from project page)
 * The IPCC calls themselves a "scientific body". However, they also call themselves "an intergovernmental body". The latter is more accurate than the former. There may be a lot of scientists involved, but it is clearly a political entity. This isn't meant to be derogatory - we need political institutions. But we shouldn't pretend something is purely scientific when it is not.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The IPCC mission is silent on all but human-induced causes. "for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature.” The goal of these assessments is to inform international policy and negotiations on climate-related issues.   Therefor, the IPCC represents a specific POV, and not a NPOV on the issues. This is relevant to your POV concerns in wikipedia. If fact the IPCC misleads folks, the IPCC does carry our research, it's known as psychometric analysis on climate change and it is biased by their mission. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for citing that. At one time I wondered why the IPCC reports seemed to spend so little time on issues such as variability of the sun, and someone pointed me to the IPCC remit, which seemed to exclude such considerations. I was literally searching for that this morning.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * However, I think characterizing the IPCC as having a "mission to push a single POV" is too strong for my tastes. I think it is natural everyone, including scientists, to emphasize what is know, and downplay what is not so clear. Scientists are trained to rise above that human inclination, but don't always succeed. More importantly, some are trying to cite the IPCC in support of massive societal change, even though a careful read doesn't support their case.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave it out! Oh my god the IPCC have ignored solar variation how could they be so stupid? That obviously explains it all. This is just not the place for this tired argument. No more than the main page here is, please use your own talkpages. Polargeo (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you agree completely with my statement that the IPCC is "not a political organization of scientists with a mission to push a single POV." You and I agree that it is a "not a political organization of scientists," if by political organization you mean an organization that deals with politicians (ie - informing them). Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the place. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So, the denialist press has given up on Climategate (all climate scientists are lying crooks) and have started on the IPCC (secret mission to rule the world). Is that it? Oh well. --Nigelj (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What about all people who believed in global cooling in the 1970s, some of whom are now leading warmists? Perhaps they are "former denialists," as in "Stephen H. Schneider, a former denialist and mechanical engineer." Or we could go with Clinton's formula wrt Byrd: "a fleeting association with denialism." Kauffner (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nigelj, that comment was over the top and helps poison the atmosphere just a little bit more, kinda like building several dozen more coal-fired electricity plants. If we could all ratchet it down, on both sides and not illustrate the problem with these pages, that might help the process. (On the other hand, maybe illustrating the problems will convince more people we need to make changes.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just calling a spade a spade; thank you for your advice and strange analogy. --Nigelj (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just trying to clean up the atmosphere. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, we can talk about the IPCC's intentional or unintential ignorance to thier Fundamental attribution errors on my page. Your points about NPOV and POV are relevant here. My original comment was intended to make y a highly relevant POV example. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: the fact of the matter is you are very, very alone on the lunatic fringe. Not so very alone, it seems. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in that article about the IPCC being "a political organization of scientists with a mission to push a single POV". It's a vox-pop piece and I don't think "Sandra Lawson, 32, as she ran errands near Hyde Park" is a reliable source who deserves much weight alongside the mainstream conclusions. --Nigelj (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My point was that fringe and minority views are becoming more popular. You might want to keep that in mind, since this is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. These are the people you need to try to get along with and even come to consensus with as to what is proper weight. New Scientist I see published a similar article yesterday. Worth reading. Some of the advice there may apply here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Zulupapa5: a political organization of scientists with a mission to push a single POV I thought it was an organization controlled by individual governments, who appoint their representatives. Some scientists have complained that it represents government POVs and is watered down considerably. Anyway, I do think it represents a POV -- roughly the mainstream one, which, under WP policy, means it's a POV which should carry a lot of WP:WEIGHT, right? To the extent that Sphilbrick is right, that WP articles don't represent the limits of the IPCC's conclusions very well (I hope I'm paraphrasing that correctly), it's a sourcing issue that we should be able to handle by referring to the sources. We have plenty of disputes that have nothing to do with the science but are, at bottom, behavior problems and political bias disputes. Dealing with that doesn't require debating the whole controversy, just applying existing WP policy to the behavioral disputes and recognizing the violations of WP:DISRUPT in the political bias disputes. Ejecting editors who obstruct consensus would help a lot, since it seems there will be enough editors left on both sides to prevent consensus unless compromises are reached. Once several editors are ejected from the topic, maybe we'll have enough editors willing to compromise. It's possible. Toning down the rhetoric would help. We're not likely to be done with most of these problems until that happens. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RFC "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion", I expressed mine briefly and succinctly without WP:PA The IPCC carries a lot of POV weight, thus it must be appropriately neutralized. I suspect many editor behavior issues are caused by resisting this. Some how, there is an incorrect assumption that the IPCC is presenting a NPOV because scientists are involved. It can be a difficult issue to realize how "scientific opinion" isn't neutral, where "scientific fact" can be; however, that is what is required for wikipedia to maintain a NPOV with a great service to the community. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I give up -- what's PA? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC) [after ZuluPapa5's last edit] Oh! Please don't think I was accusing you of that. I wasn't even accusing you of failing to tone down the rhetoric. That sentence was not directed at you in particular. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I was giving a general idea of how I thought we might, as involved editors, make progress here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Time for a Climate Change content RFC
I appreciate the NPOV discussion here; however, upon further consideration the General Sanctions aren't directly about WP:NPOV they are about WP:CIVIL. I propose to draft a simple RFC for the Climate Change Task Force to gather editor opinions on the overall NPOV assessment in the Climate Change articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

arbitration
I see a climate change arb case has opened. Is this RFC basically not active any more? I was thinking of making a comment. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment as you wish, but if there are specific issues then raise them at the Arb case also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why still active?
This RfC was started at the end of May but is still running. I thought RfC's lasted just a month?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom case started before the thirty days had passed (or possibly shortly after and I had not noticed), so I never asked at AN for some kind volunteer to close it. I am calling IAR and closing this myself, but any uninvolved party should feel free to offer a better summary. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)