On 2/28/06, VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com wrote:
Don't be so sure. I've been amazed by what people are willing to fight over around here. The most seemingly innocuous edit may be deemed provocative by someone. I'm reminded of [[User:Ark30inf]] and Arkansas, or that [[DNA]] mess, and a few experiences of my own.
Yes, some people do fight over silly things. But most people don't.
With conflicting, vague, and possible out-of-my-control requirements - no "interpersonal disputes", no "causing conflict", etc. - copyediting may be all that's safe.
That's a pretty pessimistic view of life. I avoid conflicts on Wikipedia, and yet I've tackled some pretty contentious tasks, like rewording most policy documents, deleting some policies, and edited on a couple of controversial articles. Sometimes, you have to accept that to avoid a dispute, you just have to let someone else have their way for a while. Or wait two weeks and try again :)
Or not even that. Last time I was being stalked, my simple attempt to fix the capitalization in an article "provoked" an edit war, as the user was simply reverting all my edits (my restoring of such edits was then offered by the AC as proof of my bad behavior).
What do you want us to say? Edit wars are bad. If someone acts like a [[WP:DICK]], then get help - don't risk being mistaken for one.
Steve