User:Xavexgoem/DRE

This is a copy from user:xavexgoem/wontwork on en-wiki, which might be more up to date (or more specific to en-wiki)

Pretending to talk about content

Here's a fun one. Often between two POVs, it will appear as though the editors want to give each other the impression that the problem isn't with the content but with the source... when in fact it's about the content, using the source as an excuse to add or remove it. Here's the basics of a discussion I came across that had this problem:

1. Editor X inserts "useful information[cite]"
2. Editor Y reverts, with summary "not reliable source."
3. Editor X rereverts, not understanding the process.
4. Editor Y rerereverts, with summary "take it to talk." Editor Y then goes to talk: "The problem with adding this info is that the source is partisan and unreliable."
5. Editor X questions Editor Y: "No, it's perfectly reliable within our groups POV."
6. Editor Y replies: "Well, that's the problem: the source isn't neutral. Therefore, the information can't be included."
7. Editor X replies: "OK, I see your point. However, the website cites a non-partisan source for the information."

Here is where things go awry:

8. Editor Y replies: "Yes, but because it's a partisan source, we can't be sure that they're not lying about what they're citing."

It appears as though Editor Y has the upper-hand in this content dispute. After all, it's obviously not right to use a partisan source on an article that is important to two sides. And it's true that you can't tell whether or not the good source provided by the partisan source is true. But see here: what if Editor Y replies with this?

8. Editor Y replies: "Then check that source, or find another."

Tada! Editor Y is now doing the Right Thing, by implicitly saying that the information is valid if it has a good source. In the other scenario, things become confused: it's no longer about the information, it's about the source (the authenticity of which precludes the information at all). Very smooth wikilawyering technique. Not only does it confuse editors into confusing article-building with policy, it tends to create an unfriendly atmosphere. The great mediation trick, of course, is to make the Right Reply.

Interestingly, this conversation took place between a clueful editor (Editor Y) and a new-comer (Editor X). There was the feeling of partisan tactics going on, but I can't be sure; it doesn't have to belie anything. So of course assume good faith that the Bad Reply is an instance of not thinking through a Good Reply. It usually becomes clear what's going on in any case when someone does give the Good Reply:

1. Editor X finds a better source (problem solved)
2. Editor X leaves (problem solved)
3. Editor X insists on this source (problem found)
4. Editor Y insists on not having the text at all (problem found)

The third and fourth options are rather tendentious. In the third case you'd have to argue (as a mediator) that what's more important is the content than the source. The fourth case is tricky: I haven't found a solution for it without shifting the premise from V to NPOV or something (ideally it would stay V).

Obviously, we hate each other

Here's another fun one, and completely behavioral. A lot of heated discussion takes place where the hatred (by any other name) towards the "other side" is too tacit to do anything with. So count yourself lucky if you get one where it's really obvious that Editor X has it in for Editor Y (or vice versa, or both).

It's simple to fix on a mediation level, insofar as you can bind them to an agreement they can't really disagree with. It doesn't tend to work out, as someone usually gets in trouble for falling through with the agreement. This outcome appears slightly Machiavellian, but you can't actually stop someone from being an ass after all. All you can do is to hold them to not being an ass. This should be used anyway, but I don't want to imply that the outcome will always be bad. Basically:

1. Editor X says nasty stuff to Editor Y, usually about their religion/ethnicity/politics/whatever
2. Editor Y gets upset, but doesn't know what to do. Things are bad enough, so he calls mediation.
3. The mediator, seeing that things are getting out of hand, drafts a proposal:

Never do I want to see Content X is bad because Editor Y is Abstraction Z. No-one does. Sign here: ~~~~

Which they do. Either it works out, or someone falls through. <shrug>

GA gambit

This is a quick way out of a DDD cycle where everyone is on talk and no-one actually edits (at least without getting reverted because the edit hasn't been "discussed [enough [to death]]"). Unfortunately, it only works if A) The article is at good standards, and B) it hasn't been up to GA yet. This is one of the best content switches there are, because any reviewer will focus people's attention on the article instead of each other. The only major downside: it might quick-fail because of stability issues; this can be resolved by not necessarily bringing it up to GAN, but just having an editor give a GA review anyway.

The cabal, sigh

Very often, particularly in disputes over the (perceived or real) wholesale addition or removal of content, editors will think that the "other side" has some nefarious goal in mind. And very often people will agree with them. Because of a general lack of communication, everyone starts to see things in black and white. Nine times out of ten, the content is fine but the presentation isn't. If you can get people to agree that parts of the content are relevant, you've gone a long way towards mending AGF.