 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated 1 October 2005. |
We, the undersigned, agree to work harmoniously together on on all articles related to climate change. This especially includes global warming, greenhouse gas, Kyoto Protocol and related controversial articles which have been marred by edit wars of late.
Therefore, we pledge to each other that we will adhere to one simple rule:
- if anyone reverts your edits then leave it in its reverted (ie, original) state and discuss it on the talk page.
This agreement comes into effect only after 55% of the Wikipedians who endorsed or opposed the RFC sign it.
Ayes Sign with four tildes:
- --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley 21:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) (this is a bold effort and deserves to be tried)
- Sunray 23:41, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
- Vsmith 03:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved in the RfC, but nonetheless, having seen some articles related to this subject matter degenerate into mud-slinging matches I would gladly pledge my allegiance to this initiative. NicholasTurnbull 16:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Nays Sign with four tildes:
- Ben 21:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This is standard wikiquette (do not engage in edit wars) and is unnecessary. The Three revert rule works fine. The problem is that this stalls the page in its current state and puts new contributors at a disadvantage. Those who "like it as it is" and have the time to "police" the page can simply use this contract as weight to stifle any newcomer's opposition to the current state of the article.