Anyone following along with the status of the climate change articles on Wikipedia will be interested in a current debate at the Wikipedia Administrator’s Noticeboard which is one of several places where matters of import get discussed.
The issue today is one concerning the editing of biographies of one’s enemies and the tactics used by editors generally associated with the pro-AGW side of things. While this particular debate is not directly climate change related it is illustrative of the mindset and the tactics being employed in that space as well.
Begin your journey into the inner most workings of Wikipedia processes with this discussion. The key points to look for are the descriptions of how Lambert and Quiggin make use of Wikipedia when they are editing the biographies of their political enemies. These types of tactics are prevalent in the editing of the biographies of prominent climate change skeptics by some other pro-AGW editors as well, not just Lambert and/or Quiggin.
That discussion has culminated in a poll found here (UPDATE: Poll has been archived. See Permalink to history | Archived version). Note that the proposal merely warns Lambert and Quiggin to not do “bad things anymore”, whereas it seeks to place bans on the IP editor who was merely pointing out the embarrassing activity in an attempt to improve the project and another editor, Serenity, who is suspected of being a sock puppet (i.e. alternate account) of John Lott even though no actual evidence of the truth behind this allegation has ever been put forth.
I see this type of thing all the time. Pro-AGW editors seeking to put as much dirt as possible into the biographies of the prominent climate change skeptics, and then when someone calls them on it the response is to slap the wrist of the people doing the actual damage to the articles but to then shoot the messenger for “being disruptive” (a Wikipedia term of art which means roughly stirring up trouble). This is allowed to happen because these individuals band together in mutual support, which is fine, but they then denigrate their opponents for doing the same.
This discussion in its current form may be confusing for non-Wikipedians to follow so I will at a later time try to boil it down for easier consumption by the casual passers by.