I'm no longer an active participant on Wikipedia though I do lurk now and keep up with goings on because the project is fascinating and worthy. So take my comment for what its worth.
You will have argument and conflict where there is no clarity in policy.
If you have clarity in policy, there will be argument and conflict where you do not consistently follow policy.
For instance, you have the "inclusionist" and "deletionist" factions and they WILL conflict until Wikipedia makes a firm stand one way or the other. Until then it will be a hodge-podge of deletions and inclusions that will frustrate everyone depending on how their fight on VfD succeeded that day. The conflict will not magically just go away.
You have the conflict over the word terrorism. The two sides WILL fight it out here, and will fight it out in revert wars. But those fights CANNOT be won by either side and thus continuous combat is assured. The combat will not just magically go away.
This is just common sense and it applies to every conflict that occurs on Wikipedia and not just these two examples. If you want to end the conflict, find out what the conflict is about, what caused it, and then set a policy establishing what Wikipedia is and is not and consistently enforce that policy.
That would mean losing people. People who do not agree with a policy will leave and then peace will reign (or at least exist) for those who remain.
You can decide to allow survival of the fittest in the encyclopedia wars. That is a valid choice and is in fact how it works now. You can't argue with the 200,000 articles that this chaos and anarchy has produced. But sometimes, "the fittest" for internet wars are not necessarily the fittest for writing encyclopedias and many good people are driven off. Being loud and persistent is not the same as being good.
Does Wikipedia want to remain a utopian anarchy or does it want to establish firm policies to reign in conflict? Does it want to be inclusionist or deletionist or does it want to be all things depending on a vote?
I don't know. I recuse myself from making a recommendation since I am already a loser in the encyclopedia war and proved to MYSELF that I am "unfit" to continue editing here.
But if you are a utopian anarchy, then stop worrying about it and accept conflict as a good thing.
If you are concerned about conflict and edit wars and trolls then make some firm rules and don't make exceptions for some people and not others.
You are currently a utopian anarchy. To be that and complain about chaos is just plain silly folks.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html