| 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. |
| 13Y |
| 26,000+ |
 | This user participates in WikiProject Climate change. |
 | This user considers themself 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 |
|
|
|
