I recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion,
I asked for 3rd party involvement in a situation when I was dealing with an editor who was removing valid sources that were from a liberal-leaning source & replacing them with questionable right-wing sources. After I reverted the edits & engaged the editor, the editor kept repeating over & over that the reason the source was invalid,was because of the website from where it came. The editor ignored any arguments about the high quality of the writing and citations in the source itself. When I engaged Wikipedia:Third_opinion, two uninvolved editors showed up in the discussion, identified themselves as neutral & uninvolved, reviewed the discussion, & engaged the other editor. The other editor immediately stopped ranting & there was no other issue with that editor, at least for that one article.
I think that this approach might benefit other online conflicts such as the ones that you write about.
Yours, Peaceray
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Vicky Knox vknoxsironi@gmail.com wrote:
Hi gendergap folks!
I hope you're well. :]
I'm writing conflict resolution documentation for LocalWiki ( https://localwiki.org/main/Front_Page), a global local knowledge commons. Do you have any conflict resolution resources for online communities, or conflict resolution examples from Wikimedia projects you'd like to recommend? I'm particularly interested in examples of online nonviolent communication modalities, and intersectional feminist perspectives on online conflict resolution in communities of mixed real name and *nym identities. (This all said, I'm open to all suggestions--I've lurked this list for a while and highly value the perspectives I've found on it.)
Thank you! Vicky
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap