On 2/28/06, VeryVerily <veryverily(a)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