TimVickers ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I wanted to get feedback about how I might handle conflicts a little better. Tim Vickers 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
This review is from a request at WT:3O, and specifically deals with discussion behaviour and dispute resolution, from a debate-centric angle. Or, more clearly: I am not giving a value judgement of the user here, just analysing and criticising his discussion techniques. Before starting, I must note that I have copied the linked sections below in a sandbox. Any quotes can be quickly looked up there using Ctrl+F or similar techniques. I did not paste the raw text into the sandbox in chronological order, but I will try to adhere to that order as much as possible.
Overall, I applaud the way this conflict was handled, as only few editors involved were being unreasonable (something often seen), and those were not the principal editors. Only when the temperature was rising the etiquette was dropped, and even then it was ten times more pleasant than all the deep pits WP:3O has given me insight to. I encourage User:Tim Vickers to learn from the above, or to attack me mercilessly for writing such nonsense. Especially #2 could have prevented a lot of unnecessary discussion. -- User:Krator ( t c) 00:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I've interacted with Tim a few times. Here are a couple of quick value judgments to complement the excellent advice given above:
Best wishes, Gnixon 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Comments
Questions
Comments by MONGO Looking over some of the discussions Tim has had on verifiability and elsewhere, I don't see anything problematic. Policy pages are hard to make changes too. I had that same issue with the no personal attacks policy recently. I think it sadly routine that when arguments get heated, we start judging the motives and or "bias" or those we are in disagreements with. In some cases, we are completely correct when we identify questionable motives...but writing what those motives are is rarely helpful in solving the dilemma. SlimVirgin is one of our most valuable contributors, and has a lot of experience working on policies. That is not to say we can't do it even better, or make changes that are improvements. There is no reason any editor, no matter how long they have been around should ever own any article or policy, so all helpful suggestions or even the occasional boldness should be reflected on by the "older" or more experienced editors, especially if they are made by someone who is here to help make Wikipedia better, as Tim is obviously trying to do. Unilateral reverts of changes just to maintain the status quo are insulting and almost always lead to arguments. On the other hand, whenever anyone, no matter who they are, commences substantive changes to high profile articles or policies, they are probably going to encounter opposition. Change is hard to accept, especially if these are changes made to areas we might have helped develop ourselves, as it is seen as a rejection of our work...so, as human beings, we take that personally. However, as much as possible, all changes to policy requires a lot of discussion on talk pages, especially if those changes are alterations of more than just some minor wording. It appears that Tim did far better than others in discussing these changes on associated talk pages. Cool is a decent essay that is worth reading in regards to heated exchanges. From what I see, Tim did not violate civility or no personal attacks and is working with others to hammer out a consensus on the verifiability policy. Compared to disagreements I have had with others on difficult subjects, Tim has shown excellent restraint overall. I just have the belief that it is the nature of the beast that in an environment such as Wikipedia, where people of different cultures and opinions have all come together in one forum, that some arguments are inevitable. How we handle those arguments is the key and I think Tim is doing fine.-- MONGO 20:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Borrowed from Glen ( talk · contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.
Speedy Delete or not:
Vandalism or or not:
Have fun! Dfrg. msc 07:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments from Seraphimblade
Unfortunately, it is all too true that any proposed change to a policy page can quickly devolve into ownership issues and immediate reverts of all changes, combined with an "It's fine, don't touch" attitude. I wish I had the solution to that here, but I don't, and certainly you aren't the first person to lose your cool a bit in such a scenario, nor will you probably be the last. This being said, if you feel your blood starting to boil, walk away for a little bit. Take a walk, make yourself some coffee, tea, whatever beverage you prefer, grab something to eat, catch up something you've been meaning to do. Even half an hour that way, and you'll find yourself returning to the discussion refreshed and ready to respond firmly but civilly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
TimVickers ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I wanted to get feedback about how I might handle conflicts a little better. Tim Vickers 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
This review is from a request at WT:3O, and specifically deals with discussion behaviour and dispute resolution, from a debate-centric angle. Or, more clearly: I am not giving a value judgement of the user here, just analysing and criticising his discussion techniques. Before starting, I must note that I have copied the linked sections below in a sandbox. Any quotes can be quickly looked up there using Ctrl+F or similar techniques. I did not paste the raw text into the sandbox in chronological order, but I will try to adhere to that order as much as possible.
Overall, I applaud the way this conflict was handled, as only few editors involved were being unreasonable (something often seen), and those were not the principal editors. Only when the temperature was rising the etiquette was dropped, and even then it was ten times more pleasant than all the deep pits WP:3O has given me insight to. I encourage User:Tim Vickers to learn from the above, or to attack me mercilessly for writing such nonsense. Especially #2 could have prevented a lot of unnecessary discussion. -- User:Krator ( t c) 00:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I've interacted with Tim a few times. Here are a couple of quick value judgments to complement the excellent advice given above:
Best wishes, Gnixon 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Comments
Questions
Comments by MONGO Looking over some of the discussions Tim has had on verifiability and elsewhere, I don't see anything problematic. Policy pages are hard to make changes too. I had that same issue with the no personal attacks policy recently. I think it sadly routine that when arguments get heated, we start judging the motives and or "bias" or those we are in disagreements with. In some cases, we are completely correct when we identify questionable motives...but writing what those motives are is rarely helpful in solving the dilemma. SlimVirgin is one of our most valuable contributors, and has a lot of experience working on policies. That is not to say we can't do it even better, or make changes that are improvements. There is no reason any editor, no matter how long they have been around should ever own any article or policy, so all helpful suggestions or even the occasional boldness should be reflected on by the "older" or more experienced editors, especially if they are made by someone who is here to help make Wikipedia better, as Tim is obviously trying to do. Unilateral reverts of changes just to maintain the status quo are insulting and almost always lead to arguments. On the other hand, whenever anyone, no matter who they are, commences substantive changes to high profile articles or policies, they are probably going to encounter opposition. Change is hard to accept, especially if these are changes made to areas we might have helped develop ourselves, as it is seen as a rejection of our work...so, as human beings, we take that personally. However, as much as possible, all changes to policy requires a lot of discussion on talk pages, especially if those changes are alterations of more than just some minor wording. It appears that Tim did far better than others in discussing these changes on associated talk pages. Cool is a decent essay that is worth reading in regards to heated exchanges. From what I see, Tim did not violate civility or no personal attacks and is working with others to hammer out a consensus on the verifiability policy. Compared to disagreements I have had with others on difficult subjects, Tim has shown excellent restraint overall. I just have the belief that it is the nature of the beast that in an environment such as Wikipedia, where people of different cultures and opinions have all come together in one forum, that some arguments are inevitable. How we handle those arguments is the key and I think Tim is doing fine.-- MONGO 20:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Borrowed from Glen ( talk · contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.
Speedy Delete or not:
Vandalism or or not:
Have fun! Dfrg. msc 07:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments from Seraphimblade
Unfortunately, it is all too true that any proposed change to a policy page can quickly devolve into ownership issues and immediate reverts of all changes, combined with an "It's fine, don't touch" attitude. I wish I had the solution to that here, but I don't, and certainly you aren't the first person to lose your cool a bit in such a scenario, nor will you probably be the last. This being said, if you feel your blood starting to boil, walk away for a little bit. Take a walk, make yourself some coffee, tea, whatever beverage you prefer, grab something to eat, catch up something you've been meaning to do. Even half an hour that way, and you'll find yourself returning to the discussion refreshed and ready to respond firmly but civilly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)