Content deleted Content added
→I'm listening and making compromises, how come you're not?: General advice for SAS81 as to how to approach dispute resolution. |
|||
Line 1,332:
:If it makes you feel better, I've done nothing but weigh in on your sources and I'm already being called far worse. For better or worse, anything associated with [[WP:FRINGE]] gets people's blood boiling, so there's going to be heated, intense reactions to most things you do. It's regrettable and I've been trying to keep it from dissuading me (I'm stubborn like that), but it does make working toward consensus hard. Just be patient and forthright, though, and things will work out. [[User:Askahrc|The Cap'n]] ([[User talk:Askahrc|talk]]) 15:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
::{{replyto|SAS81}} Working through content dispute resolution is a difficult and time-consuming process. I was a mediator for years, but I haven't done it for a long time because, frankly, it's a time-sink. I've literally spent months trying to resolve a dispute between a few people at a single article before. I've moved on to more urgent matters that require someone with admin tools (mediation only requires social skills, not technical tools), lately it has involved trying to reduce the backlog at [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet investigations]]. But in my time as mediator I did learn a lot of tricks.
::My suggestion to you in this situation is to slow down. Pick one thing, just one thing in the article that you think needs to be changed. One single point. Express your concerns, express how you'd like it to be changed, and ask if there is a way to implement that change that satisfies Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Don't express it in terms that you want specific wording, but something a bit more general. Just to give you an idea, one term you advocated is "mainstream cheerleader" which a number of people considered to be a [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock]] term (that's Wikipedia-speech for verbiage that unnecessarily inflates an article subject). Maybe you can say what you ''meant'' by that phrase, offer something to support your claim, and then ask how to rephrase the term to reflect the concept you're trying to convey. I'm not saying you should start there but this is just an example of somewhere you ''could'' start. I recommend that you instead narrow down the one specific thing that you consider to be most troublesome about the article and work on a compromise. My experience in dispute resolution is that people become less overwhelmed when you just focus on one thing at a time.
::And finally, be prepared for rejection. This is something that ''everyone'' on Wikipedia faces now and then. It doesn't just have to do with your status as a paid individual with a conflict of interest, you will try to implement something that you just can't get consensus for. It happens to me too. Sometimes it can feel like you're being bullied, and sometimes people ''are'' bullied, but most of the time you're just in a position where your viewpoint is in the minority and you have to accept that your suggestion isn't going to be implemented. You can try to compromise, but even that won't always work. So just be prepared and don't take it personally when it happens, because it ''will''. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 16:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
=== Alternatively, "no." ===
| |||