Although we may disagree, let us do so as rational friends! |
---|
Finding consensus in a heated environment |
Always assume it's possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. When others try to make it personal
don't shoot back. Instead....
Can you respectfully repeat your opponent's viewpoint, without negating it? Often a magic bullet is to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument as neutrally as possible even if you don't agree with it. That instantly tells them you are listening and does 99% of what is possible (at least on your part) to cool things off. The exercise often uncovers simple misunderstandings. see the related essay writing for your opponent. If you try that and they just stay hot and bothered, there's a good chance they've got some compulsory emotional stuff or else lack good faith. In that case, stay calm, don't shoot back, and get some outside help from WP:DRN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary. |
12Y |
26,000+ |
This user
participates in WikiProject Climate change. |
This user considers themselves a participant in all WikiProjects. |
This user simplifies Wikipedia referencing with
ProveIt. |
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. ( verify) |
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. ( verify) |
This user supports the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative |
If you've stopped by to DS Alert me.... I already know about the following.... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Entirely by accident, I just stumbled across this when I saw it on someone else's talk page. I would have contributed in the "consultation" phase, but I was wikihibernating and didn't know about it. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021_review. In case anyone else doesn't know about it and happens to come by my talk, I thought I'd put this here and invite you to start following that process also. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to say please forgive my blathering. As you might suspect, we wandered into an area of interest for me. All the same, you make good points, and as I say, happy to go wherever consensus takes us. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1095216173), I didn't see it that you unarchived it yourself in the edit summary. Somehow, my browser was still at an older version which I opened hours ago and somehow didn't update. Thanks and sorry for the mistake! VickKiang ( talk) 07:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
At the bottom of every page there's a toggle button to go back and forth between mobile and desktop. Moxy- 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. User talk:Tamzin 22:53, 28 July 2022
"uncomfortable", that would be untrue, and now that I have told you if you say it anyway it would be a lie. I'm happy to help you understand what my true feelings about this are/were, but only by email so you don't interpret such comments as another NPA violation and block me again. If you want to understand where I'm coming from, I would welcome that email-based discussion. I'm going to break the ice by emailing you a wiki diff to this comment, so I will expose my email address first. It's up to you if you want to pursue better understanding about this exchange. If not, that's OK, but if you choose that option please recuse from future admin action towards me about anything. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
As of Aug 3, 2022, discussion of the underlying potentially life-saving issues has migrated to Wikipedia_talk:Resonding to threats of harm NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
My goodness, what has happened? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 19:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You were mentioned here. [1] It doesn’t seem that the editor making accusations against you properly informed you of his SPI against you (which could have the effect of a banning a member). Advising you boomerang this to ANI to have his TBAN reinstated since it’s obvious he is scapegoating you for his ongoing soapbox against Wikipedia refusing to drive his NPOV agenda. 174.215.18.76 ( talk) 16:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
In a truly soap-opera-esque twist, your alleged sox are actually sox of this very IP. :D
All sorted now, for some value of sorted. Histmerged without redirect to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopique. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 10:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We meet again. User:Flora Wilshire has a history of ignoring reverts and pushing their version, which is usually a criticism of America or praise of the Chinese government.
I can see why you would consider "known POV editor" to be a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, but WP:NPA says casting aspersions would be, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links".
I'm happy to link to these diffs to stand by what I said.
On the other hand, I'm curious what you would consider to be a more acceptable way to explain someone's editing history in an edit summary. I try consistently to explain edits, especially reversions. Augusthorsesdroppings10 ( talk) 00:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabato's Crystal Ball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
It's so nice to see you around still! I saw you give out an old DS notice. You may have missed the conclusion of the recent DS reforms. The wording DS is now replaced with the more intuitive CT (contentious topic). The way notifications are done is changed in two ways too:
Cheers! —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I just saw this and it's something I'd like to have. Did you ever find an answer?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Did you find an answer to this question, which I saw in the archives? If not, WP:VPT might be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Although we may disagree, let us do so as rational friends! |
---|
Finding consensus in a heated environment |
Always assume it's possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. When others try to make it personal
don't shoot back. Instead....
Can you respectfully repeat your opponent's viewpoint, without negating it? Often a magic bullet is to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument as neutrally as possible even if you don't agree with it. That instantly tells them you are listening and does 99% of what is possible (at least on your part) to cool things off. The exercise often uncovers simple misunderstandings. see the related essay writing for your opponent. If you try that and they just stay hot and bothered, there's a good chance they've got some compulsory emotional stuff or else lack good faith. In that case, stay calm, don't shoot back, and get some outside help from WP:DRN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary. |
12Y |
26,000+ |
This user
participates in WikiProject Climate change. |
This user considers themselves a participant in all WikiProjects. |
This user simplifies Wikipedia referencing with
ProveIt. |
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. ( verify) |
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. ( verify) |
This user supports the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative |
If you've stopped by to DS Alert me.... I already know about the following.... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Entirely by accident, I just stumbled across this when I saw it on someone else's talk page. I would have contributed in the "consultation" phase, but I was wikihibernating and didn't know about it. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021_review. In case anyone else doesn't know about it and happens to come by my talk, I thought I'd put this here and invite you to start following that process also. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to say please forgive my blathering. As you might suspect, we wandered into an area of interest for me. All the same, you make good points, and as I say, happy to go wherever consensus takes us. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1095216173), I didn't see it that you unarchived it yourself in the edit summary. Somehow, my browser was still at an older version which I opened hours ago and somehow didn't update. Thanks and sorry for the mistake! VickKiang ( talk) 07:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
At the bottom of every page there's a toggle button to go back and forth between mobile and desktop. Moxy- 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. User talk:Tamzin 22:53, 28 July 2022
"uncomfortable", that would be untrue, and now that I have told you if you say it anyway it would be a lie. I'm happy to help you understand what my true feelings about this are/were, but only by email so you don't interpret such comments as another NPA violation and block me again. If you want to understand where I'm coming from, I would welcome that email-based discussion. I'm going to break the ice by emailing you a wiki diff to this comment, so I will expose my email address first. It's up to you if you want to pursue better understanding about this exchange. If not, that's OK, but if you choose that option please recuse from future admin action towards me about anything. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
As of Aug 3, 2022, discussion of the underlying potentially life-saving issues has migrated to Wikipedia_talk:Resonding to threats of harm NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
My goodness, what has happened? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 19:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You were mentioned here. [1] It doesn’t seem that the editor making accusations against you properly informed you of his SPI against you (which could have the effect of a banning a member). Advising you boomerang this to ANI to have his TBAN reinstated since it’s obvious he is scapegoating you for his ongoing soapbox against Wikipedia refusing to drive his NPOV agenda. 174.215.18.76 ( talk) 16:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
In a truly soap-opera-esque twist, your alleged sox are actually sox of this very IP. :D
All sorted now, for some value of sorted. Histmerged without redirect to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopique. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 10:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We meet again. User:Flora Wilshire has a history of ignoring reverts and pushing their version, which is usually a criticism of America or praise of the Chinese government.
I can see why you would consider "known POV editor" to be a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, but WP:NPA says casting aspersions would be, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links".
I'm happy to link to these diffs to stand by what I said.
On the other hand, I'm curious what you would consider to be a more acceptable way to explain someone's editing history in an edit summary. I try consistently to explain edits, especially reversions. Augusthorsesdroppings10 ( talk) 00:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabato's Crystal Ball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
It's so nice to see you around still! I saw you give out an old DS notice. You may have missed the conclusion of the recent DS reforms. The wording DS is now replaced with the more intuitive CT (contentious topic). The way notifications are done is changed in two ways too:
Cheers! —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I just saw this and it's something I'd like to have. Did you ever find an answer?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Did you find an answer to this question, which I saw in the archives? If not, WP:VPT might be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)