The important thing is, to separate the content issue from the person issue(s). It's all about having a good 'argument' in the best sense of the word - a reasoned, thoughtful debate. I suppose, in some ways, it is easier to 'manage' if the other user(s) are not WP:CIVIL etc, because we have ways of dealing with that.
I find the best approach is to get more people involved - often, there is a deadlock, and it's much easier to build a consensus with half a dozen editors participating than it is with two or three. Of course, being careful about WP:CANVASS, I try to seek people who will add their thoughts - by asking nicely on the talk page of project groups, or looking to related articles...trying to find people with a general interest in the subject area, and remaining oblivious to their possible agreement/disagreement with my own opinion. Apart from project groups, posting to noticeboards can help - not too many, not Wikipedia:Policy shopping - but often disputes are about RS, so WP:RSN can help, or WP:BLP/N, or using an WP:RFC.
I've found myself bogged down a few times; sometimes I leave it for a while - a few weeks - and then check back on it. I keep notes on "things to look at again", as shown at the top of this page; when I have free time, I look through the list, and see what has developed. Time the great healer, and all that.
Since you answered one question for me, maybe you could answer another. In your experience, have you learned any tricks to stand up for factual evidence against other users who don't without engaging in edit warring or personal attacks or what have you. I'm sure there are plenty of pages out there with advice, but I was curious from your own experience.
I thought in a few months i'd be ready for adminship(currently at 9 months and 4,000+ edits in) but I have to admit that now I wonder. Sure, out of that 4,000 and change, i've had edit wars for only a handful, but I just had one today where I got drawn in further than I wanted to and I couldn't get myself out as quickly as I would have liked. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
An important thing in all disputes is, to separate the content issue from the person issue(s). It's all about having a good 'argument' in the best sense of the word - a reasoned, thoughtful debate. I suppose, in some ways, it is easier to 'manage' if the other user(s) are not WP:CIVIL etc, because we have ways of dealing with that.
When the other user is cooperative, it is more difficult - an oxymoron.
I find the best approach is to get more people involved - often, there is a deadlock, and it's much easier to build a consensus with half a dozen editors participating than it is with two or three. Of course, being careful about WP:CANVASS, I try to seek people who will add their thoughts - by asking nicely on the talk page of project groups, or looking to related articles...trying to find people with a general interest in the subject area, and remaining oblivious to their possible agreement/disagreement with my own opinion. Apart from project groups, posting to noticeboards can help - not too many, not Wikipedia:Policy shopping - but often disputes are about RS, so WP:RSN can help, or WP:BLP/N, or using an WP:RFC.
I've found myself bogged down a few times; sometimes I leave it for a while - a few weeks - and then check back on it. I keep notes on "things to look at again", as shown at the top of this page; when I have free time, I look through the list, and see what has developed. Time the great healer, and all that. As we have no deadline, it never hurts to step away for a while.
It took me a long time, and much heartache, to realise that WP:FUCK is the only way to keep sane - and that isn't a trite comment, it's true; step back and look at the bigger picture. If there is something a bit wrong about one of the 6,820,732 articles for a bit, does it really matter? I imagine that, in one shape or form, Wikipedia content will be around for a long time, and (few months) / (long time) = quite unimportant, if you see what I mean.
