[WikiEN-l] Conflict arising - what to do?

[Fred Bauder]

You don't want to be in a revert war with a pack of POV editors, but  
they still need to cite references and present all sides of a  
question. If they won't, don't try to fight it out at the article,  
but simply insist on dispute resolution. Hopefully the Arbitration  
Committee, with your help, can get to the bottom of what is happening.

Fred

On Jun 25, 2005, at 6:56 PM, Jack Lynch wrote:

> I think we need better answers. I am familar w cases like this, and
> where they end up. How about its a large POV lobby instead of a single
> user, and they are trying to POV an ancient and contentious topic,
> chasing off any and all NPOV users who come along?
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 6/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If all attempts at discussion fail, you can always try dispute  
>> resolution.
>>
>> --Mgm
>>
>> On 6/23/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For a start, on the talk page you might try to identify who the some
>>> people are and where they say these things. If the sources for both
>>> views can be identified, they can then be attributed. If the real
>>> source is one of the Wikipedia editors that is more troublesome.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>> On Jun 22, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Habj wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let's say that:
>>>>
>>>> There is an article about a relatively controversial subject  
>>>> that, for
>>>> some reason, has not yet been through any massive edit wars.  
>>>> Maybe the
>>>> subject is fairly new, the word in itself is pretty new so no  
>>>> one has
>>>> actually written much about it- until now.
>>>>
>>>> There are two people editing this article. You get involved a  
>>>> bit, and
>>>> try to create what you feel is a neutral version. This makes one  
>>>> side
>>>> immediatelly assume you belong to the Enemy. This person creates a
>>>> version that says "some people say this, some people say that"  
>>>> but it
>>>> is badly written, the reasoning is strange, it is hard to  
>>>> understand
>>>> what he really means. Both sides are getting loud and  
>>>> argumentative,
>>>> more concerned with being right than with what is logical and  
>>>> not. The
>>>> subject is probably emotional to them. Maybe one side is louder  
>>>> than
>>>> the other; maybe not.
>>>>
>>>> You feel that hey - this isn't going to lead anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> What do you do? Do you just leave the article and let them  
>>>> fight? But
>>>> then, what happens if all the "good forces" just leave whenever
>>>> problem arises? Should you ask someone to try and talk to these
>>>> people? Is there a standard way of handling things like this, or is
>>>> the only thing to do to stay away and wait until things are so bad
>>>> that the article gets locked?
>>>>
>>>> /Habj
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>