It is possible to edit wikipedia for years without any problems. Much of wikipedia is excellent. But then you can run into crazy opposition by other editors who turn out to have immense power within the tiny world of a small subsection of wikipedia. When you tangle with them, it’s like suddenly ending up in a hall of mirrors, like Alice through the Looking Glass.
One of the most bizarre epsiodes I’ve come across so far is the case of Clarawood123 who after 80 edits found themselves attacked on all sides for the heinous crime of writing about the place where they live. They were warned that this is a “conflict of interest” and eventually after a number of other bizarre incidents, were forced to leave wikipedia. All on the basis of those 80 edits of their first ever article in wikipedia.
“But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,” - Alice objected.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.
Part of Alice’s conversation with Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice through the Looking Glass “
So first to explain how I found out about it - my most recent run in was with an editor called Jytdog. See the Morgellons section of my answer to Is Wikipedia biased? In short this is an article I never edited just posted to the talk page saying in forthright honest fashion that I think it is biased. Jytdog silenced me in that debate, by threatening to take out an action to ban me from the talk page of the article unless I stopped talking there voluntarily. The way they did it was so aggressive and strange, I wanted to find out more.
Anyway, when I talked about this to a wikipedia editor friends off wiki, I learnt that I was right to take this editor very seriously as they are notorious for this sort of thing, and their bizarre conduct is often discussed off wiki. So that’s how I found out about Jytdog’s extraordinary message to Clarawood123.
A “CONFLICT OF INTEREST” TO WRITE ABOUT THE PLACE WHERE YOU LIVE???
Clarawood123 is a newbie editor. They joined in January 2016, and this happens after only 80 edits of wikipedia. It’s their first article, and not surprisingly, all their edits are edits of this article, about the housing estate in Ireland where they live called Clarawood, which also naturally enough they took as a wikipedia user name too.
If you live in the US a bit of background may help. Here in the UK, large estates like this are typically built by the government, rather than private contractors. So it’s just like writing about the village you live in.
So, this is how a UK reader will understand this. Jytdog tells them on their talk page that they have a conflict of interest because they live there! He warns them that they should learn to concede to the better judgement of people who don't live in Clarawood and have never seen the place! He also warns them of a possible financial conflict of interest if they own property in Clarawood - a UK reader will take this as meaning, a conflict if you own a house in Clarawood. It’s quite the most bizarre wikipedia episode I’ve ever seen.
"Hi Clarawood123. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia and my attention was called to your situation by the ANI filing. Apparently nobody has talked with you about what we call "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia, which is pretty clearly at the root of the problems you are experiencing. You made it clear in this comment] that you are "a very long term resident of Clarawood with direct experience", and every edit you have made has been about Clarawood. I'm giving you notice of our conflict of interest guideline and will have some comments and questions for you below.
....
As I noted above, it is clear from your username, your editing, and your actual disclosure that you are a long time resident of Clarawood. It is not clear to me if you own the place where you live and have an actual financial conflict of interest, but it is clear that you are very invested in how people see Clarawood, and in your notions about it. This connection to Clarawood - your "interest" in it, is creating a conflict of interest here in Wikipedia, and that conflict is in turn driving the problems you are having with other editors. "
Wikipedia is going stark raving bonkers here!
A bit of background. When Jytdog says " I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia" that sounds like they have an official post - but no, this is just an editor who has decided they want to patrol wikipedia looking out for conflict of interest issues, they are not speaking for anyone except themselves.
As for the “ANI filing” - that was actually a filing by Clarawood123 themselves to a complaint board on wikipedia called “ANI” just the day before: Problem with admin who has erroneously accused me of disruptive editing on the page Clarawood
Now Jytdog’s aggression towards Clarawood123 is based on a false assumption surely. They must have assumed that Clarawood123 is a property developer writing an article to promote their property for financial gain. But Jytdog just assumes this without proof, doesn’t ask “Are you a property developer”. The attitude there is generally “guilty until proven innocent” basically.
Instead of getting support and sympathy, Clarawood123 find themselves in the middle of what’s called a “boomerang” on wikipedia. You go to complain about some bad conduct, and the argument reverses and you find that everyone is complaining about your conduct instead. Though those boards are supposed to help you, editors who run into issues on wikipedia soon find out that it's best just to steer well clear of thems unless you really know what you are doing, especially if you are a newbie complaining about the behaviour of an established editor there.
So, far from getting support there, suddenly many editors they have never come across before weigh in on whether to topic ban or site ban them.
SENTENCE FIRST, EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE LATER
It’s like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland in these dispute boards on wikipedia. They really could do with the advice of someone with some experience in the judiciary. It is all back to front. The editors there are rapid to sentence you first, declare you are guilty, then go on to examine the evidence - you try to defend yourself from this assumption of guilt after many people have already said you are guilty and sentenced you.
And you have no assistance. There is no system by which a neutral third party helps newbie editors to present their case. It’s like a legal case where you are sentenced first by the jury, then try to persuade the jury to reverse their sentence, have no judge, only a jury, and have no-one to help you mount a defense.
Alice's Adventures Under Ground - Lewis Carroll - British Library - original MS for Alice in Wonderland
You can read the debate here: Proposed ban / WP:BOOMERANG of Clarawood123
As you see, four editors say they should be topic banned, four say they should be site banned meaning prohibited from editing wikipedia at all in any topic area, and four oppose or strongly oppose. And many of them have already made their judgement before Clarawood123 learns about the case.
Probably many of them made the same assumption Jytdog made. Perhaps that’s why Clarawood123 faced so much hostility?
Then in the middle of that, they got this bizarre message on their talk page by Jytdog saying it is a conflict of interest to write about the place where you live.
USER “NORTH AMERICA” WARNS “CLARAWOOD123
If that wasn’t bizarre enough, they also get a warning on their talk page about their user name from another busybody wikipedian, complaining that their name implies they represent the Clarawood estate - by an editor of the name “North America” of all things.
User talk:Clarawood123 - Wikipedia
Welcome to Wikipedia.
I noticed that your username, "Clarawood123", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Your username implies that you represent the Clarawood housing estate. See WP:CORPNAME for more information. Please seriously consider creating a new account using a neutral username.
If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you . North America1000
… Clarawood123, you can safely ignore the above warning which I assume is based on a misunderstanding. The US (where I assume from their name Northamerica1000is from) has no tradition of centrally-planned housing and thus no real equivalent to estates, and NA1000 is probably assuming that this is a private development and you work for the developer. Northamerica1000, a British or Irish estate is for all practical purposes a government-planned village, usually complete with its own pubs, shops, churches etc (some of the larger ones like Becontree or Wythenshawe can be treated as full-blown cities in their own right); treat it as you would any other village. Estates are built by the government, not by private developers; unless you're insinuating that Clarawood123 works for the local authority, claiming a COI from the name would be like me banning you from North American articles owing to your username. ‑ Iridescent 08:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
(ping) @Iridescent: and Clarawood123: I struck my message above. I assumed it was a private development. Cheers, North America1000 22:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Cheers Clarawood123 (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This user later strikes out their comment, explaining that they made a mistake. But why not ask? It’s the same thing as with the ANI discussion. They just presume guilt on the basis of slender evidence and you then have to try to prove innocence.
BLOCKED AS A SOCK PUPPET
And then finally (you can read this on their talk page as well), Clarawood123 gets blocked as a sockpuppet!
What, I’m a sock puppet? Carlb-sockpuppet-02
I.e. the admins claim that they are not a genuine person, but rather, another experienced wikipedia user masquerading as a newbie Clarawood123 in order to harm wikipedia (a sockpuppet by definition is always someone doing something harmful, the idea is that they wear the other person’s identity much like the way someone might wear a sock as a puppet on a hand).
The result of this block is that they can’t contribute anywhere on wikipedia except their own talk page.
This is what Clarawood123 says when they find out that they have been blocked:
“User:Bbb23 has blocked me in connection with a sockpuppet investigation of me. I have just discovered this today. There is absolutely no way any investigation of this would have been able to prove any sockpuppetry as I am a genuine account and have no connection whatsoever to the disruptive editor or anyone else. I am not able to defend myself as I have been blocked. I would like to be unblocked immediately so that I can defend myself as I have, once again, been accused of multiple things I have not done.”
This appeal is declined
Decline reason:
Confirmed sockpuppet. And you are able to defend yourself just fine while blocked. You still have access to this page. You don't need to edit articles in order to defend yourself
I don't for a moment think they are a sock puppet. They are so obviously genuine and a newbie too, from the way they talked and reacted, from the nature of their first article, from the understandable but naive way they tried to go to ANI with a complaint and it boomeranged - everything they did shouts out newbie wikipedia editor. How anyone could conclude that they are a sockpuppet is beyond me.
Imagine facing all that as a newbie user with only 80 edits, attempting your first ever article in wikipedia.
Eventually they get unblocked with a warning
“As a result of an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. However, I strongly suggest that you get consensus for any possible controversial edits “
I would imagine they have probably thoroughly discouraged this newbie editor from taking part in wikipedia. They started trying to help wikipedia in February. That final unblocking happens in June. But naturally enough really, they haven’t contributed anything since then: User contributions for Clarawood123 - Wikipedia
I’ve seen many strange Alice through the Looking Glass conversations during my time of contributing to Wikipedia as an editor - but this one really takes the biscuit. Think how many people must get discouraged from editing wikipedia every year as a result of this absurd nonsense!
THEY ARE LIKE THE BORG
I’ve been the other side of something like this myself when I was banned from talking about the “four noble truths” on wikipedia. It’s relentless, and remorseless. Many editors who you have never met, who know nothing about the dispute, all echoing the same words, making the same false assumptions about you. Most don’t bother to read the original dispute and none of them have any time to listen to you. If you write two paragraphs of explanation you get told that it is too much for them to read. You only have minutes of their time to try to turn them away from their assumption of guilt to a proof that you are innocent. And they don’t even think about asking you questions outside of the dispute, say on your talk page, to get your own view on the situation.
I joke with my friends that it is a bit like encountering the Borg in Star Trek, who want to assimilate you. For most ordinary mortals, the only way to avoid being assimilated is to leave.
To do anything about it you need to be like Captain Janeway or Jean Luc Picard.
Jean Luc Picard as a Borg. One of the surprising twists of plot. The likes of Jean Luc Picard (fictional Star Trek captain) can do this and get away with it. I don’t recommend ordinary folk trying to fix the Borg like activity in wikipedia.
All this drama was for a newbie editor who has just started work on their first ever article in wikipedia. It’s obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that they never had any intent to disrupt and were doing their best in their small way to improve the encyclopedia.
Even if you come from the US and have this assumption about housing estates - there must be many people in the US too who live in housing estates built by private developers and want to write about them, who have no financial motive for the article. That the user has used the name of their housing estate as a user name is an extremely slender basis to proceed on a presumption of guilty, without even asking them.
CLARAWOOD - THE ARTICLE WHICH ALL THE FUSS WAS ABOUT
And having said all that, well I’ll also link to their original version of the article they wrote. It’s still there in the article history. And I think it’s a nice article myself :).
Clarawood (old version as written by Clarawood123)
I can see how some of it could be said to go against the wikipedia guidelines on “original research” which in my opinion are taken way too seriously there. You can’t say that there is an ancient oak tree growing in your village green or that it has a duck pond, unless you can find a newspaper story or similar remarking on it… I can understand the reason for those guidelines but I think even at the best of times they are somewhat over enforced
Anyway the original is much better than the latest version. And I get a bit of pleasure from sharing their original here after everything that happened to them.
Clarawood Park entrance. The editor who took this photograph and wrote the article has now been banned from wikipedia as a “sockpuppet”, a ridiculous allegation, after stirring up a hornets nest because they had the misfortune to cross paths with Jytdog.
And here is their article about it again :). Clarawood
So anyway apparently this is just one of many episodes involving Jytdog. Though you can’t criticize them on wikipedia, not very easily anyway - you are liable to be banned for the attempt as they tend to have many friends there, they are much discussed off wiki. Here is a great long discussion here about how disruptive Jytdog is on wikipedia.
Wikipediocracy - View topic - Jytdog
“EXTREMELY UNWISE” TO ACCEPT AN OFFER OF SYMPATHY
For another really bizarre episode involving another disruptive editor, after Jytdog silenced me I found out from another editor off-wiki about another editor SageRad who suffers from Misphonia - they say themselves on wikipedia, and had been working on an article about the condition. I’m not sure what it is but something to do with being adversely affected by sounds.
They’d been disciplined on Jytdog’s instigation - and told to go away for very similar reasons to me Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Wikipedia
"I'm honest, forthright, and speak what i see. In editing articles i've improved greatly since i began, and i think i understand the policies well. I edit according to policies. I speak honestly. I want good article -- nothing more. I want good articles that follow the best sources.
Other people have issues that i speak to problems in Wikipedia. Are you going to shoot me for speaking? If so then it's on your hands."
That is so like what I've encountered over and over.
I write Debunking Doomsday posts for people scared because of some youtube video or red top tabloid newspaper story that the world is about to end. Sometimes they say they are or were feeling suicidal so it is somewhat uppermost in my mind that people can be. So, when I saw that they used the word “Suicide” and “Dead” on the pages I wanted to contact them just in case they need emotional support, though I knew it was probably just a metaphor (as it was).
Anyway so I write this on their talk page (at the time they were in a period of “voluntarily” abstaining from wikipedia, though facing likely disciplinary action if they attempt to edit it even on their own talk page):
@SageRad: I've been in a very similar situation to you - in a different topic area in Medicine, the Morgellons article, with the same editor as you also. Didn't go as far as AE. As with you it was just for being honest and forthright on the talk page. I've had previous experiences like this and when they threatened AE I knew to stop, there is nothing more you can do at that point. I know from my own experience how scary and stressful it can be. You say to yourself "it's just wikipedia" but at that point you've got quite involved in it, got to really care about the quality of wikipedia articles, and it can be very distressing indeed to be threatened to be banned when all you are doing is trying to help here.
I'd just like to offer my sympathy especially as you talk about preferring to commit suicide - I hope that is just a metaphor and you didn't actually do it - saw that your user page says DEAD at the top, again I hope it is just a metaphor. Do contact me via email if you want support / sympathy / comparing experiences. You can message me via the messaging link on my user page or else you can email me at support@robertinventor.com - I'm a software developer and that's a public email address, so no problem sharing it here. Robert Walker (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Another editor who was opposed to me in the Morgellons discussion immediately jumps in saying
“Sage, it would be extremely unwise to take up this offer. Robert is promoting a fake disease, and if you go down that route you will be aligning yourself with the pseudoscientists and woo-mongers, and that will get you a full site ban much more quickly than what you're doing now. “
So now you can’t even offer sympathy there! I’ve come across that before though and wasn’t hugely surprised. Once you have other editors who think you are a problem - in this case because I had a different view on the Morgellons article - they then put your contributions to wikipedia on their watch list so that they know whenever you post on any other editor’s talk page and will jump in on the conversation if they think you are doing anything that might get some sympathy from them for your dispute.
What he or she says there is way off the mark however I wasn’t recruiting them at all. What would SageRad be expected to know about Morgellons or indeed me about Misphonia? Both are extremely rare conditions that few know much about.
For more about it see this comment on the whole episode on Reddit: Admin "warns" editor who mentioned suicide not to accept offer to talk it out
MUCH OF THIS MAY LOOK FINE IF YOU ARE AN ADMIN IN WIKIPEDIA
Incidentally, to write what I’ve said here, anywhere on wikipedia, including on my own talk page there, would surely get me banned instantly. The discussion wouldn’t last long at all, I’d probably get a site ban and not be able to edit it at all, for a year or indefinitely.
For that reason, the admins there just don’t get to see much of the complaints about what is going on unless they explore forums outside of wikipedia. They just see problem editors who they ban, and that solves the problem as far as they are concerned. The editors that remain know that they can’t say things like this there.
You might wonder how all this is possible under freedom of speech. However, wikipedia have this as a right, which is explained here: Wikipedia:Free speech - Wikipedia
“In short, editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so. Your only legal rights on Wikipedia are your right to fork (create another encyclopaedia independent of the Wikimedia Foundation) and your right to leave (stop editing).
“This being said, we're not trying to be jerks. Nor do we plan on being jerks. We do hope that you stay, and help us to build a better Wikipedia. There's lots of work to be done, and everyone who's willing to contribute constructively is needed. Including you.”
It’s not really that different from e.g. the right of someone who has a blog to delete troll posts in the comment threads. It’s an understandable right. I wouldn’t dispute it, they obviously need it for vandals and trolls.
I think that wikipedia would benefit from having some way that people can raise sincere criticisms there of other editors and of the processes themselves without risking being topic or site banned as a result. I don’t know how that could happen though.
However, of course that right only extends to wikipedia. The editors there can’t take any action against us for writing about them off wiki. There we are protected by freedom of speech. The power of these complaint boards only extends over the domain of wikipedia itself.
UNBLOCKABLE EDITORS - RECOGNIZED AS AN ISSUE BY ADMINS AS WELL
There are some editors on wikipedia who seem to have an endless supply of “Get out of Jail Free” cards. Inexperienced admins will find they can’t do anything about the unblockables because at some point, they rose to their bait and defended themselves against their personal attacks. If they do that, it makes them an involved admin who can never discipline them ever in the future.
More experienced admins still face the risk of losing their admin status unless super cautious in all their dealings with them. For details, see this post by a wikipedia admin, User Beeblebrox, about unblockable editors, and about how this phenomenon comes to happen and why an admin can’t do anything about it.
This means, they can say the most outrageous things to you or about you and won’t be disciplined at all, or if they do, their block or ban is instantly overturned. But you try to show that they have lied or said something wrong to you, and before you know it, you’ll find yourself topic banned or maybe blocked from editing wikipedia or even totally site banned. The more you try to extricate yourself from this mess, the worse your sanctions get.
For one recent particularly Kafka-esh case involving unblockables, see SageRad’s case. He has just been blocked for one year for alleged “battleground behaviour” by the unblockables Jytdog and JzG. Do read his section of the discussion and his talk page. Also these are a couple of comments that were removed from the discussion before the case was closed, which give another perspective Changes - Wikipedia.
You can edit for years and never meet them. Or if unlucky, meet them on your first article as happened to the unfortunate Clarawood123. Sadly, the way wikipedia works at present, then these people are somewhat encouraged (not intentionally).
If you have tangled with an unblockable, they continually try to bait you - don’t take the bait. Let them have the last word when they try to bait you. Unless you really know what you are doing, best not to call them out on things, don’t say they lied even though both you and they know they did. You can try just calmly saying the truth, without saying anything about whether they lied, leave the reader to make that inference. Or better, at least safer, just go away, take a wiki break, or edit another part of wikipedia. You may also be interested in POV railroad which is about some of the tactics they and other editors use that are hard to counter, and when done by an “unblockable” pretty much unstoppable.
And if you do get blocked anyway - well you are in excellent company :). You could be a professor and the best expert in the world on your topic, widely known for your depth of knowledge and understanding of your field, it would make no difference. Please don’t take it as any kind of a reflection on you as a person.
WATCH OUT FOR MAD HATTERS AND CHESHIRE CATS
So - generally if you are in any of the more controversial areas, you may find that it’s hard to make friends on wikipedia and you may encounter a lot of hostility, and some (of course not all) of the most prolific editors there are characters that wouldn’t be out of place in a book by Lewis Carroll - Mad Hatters, Red Queens, Mock Turtles, Cheshire Cats vanishing leaving only a smile behind. If you’ve ever been involved in this stuff you’ve probably met the equivalents of all those characters and more.
Cheshire Cat vanishing (detail) - original illustration by Tenniel.
It’s so much nicer writing here on quora than on wikipedia.
IS THERE A WAY FORWARD FOR WIKIPEDIA?
I hope somehow someone finds a way towards doing something about this. I don’t know what the solution is though, as it is quite entrenched there, this attitude. I’ve come across it many times now in my own experience too. In many different topic areas - Life on Mars, Manned Missions to Mars, Morgellons, Four Noble Truths, a wide variety of editors, with so little overlap that it can't be a minority approach but is surely pervasive within wikipedia.
Perhaps if they had to use real names, it would help - that seems to help in other places. But you can understand why someone would sometimes need to edit it with a pseudonym.
Maybe it is something to do with the user interface? It’s awkward to edit, by modern standards - with users having to post in wikicode, scroll down through pages of comments to find out where to add your post at the end, and they don’t have auto collapse of long comments which is partly why you get so much hostility if you write anything of any length there. And users don’t have icons either - it’s a small thing but helps with friendliness I think.
Perhaps if they had a decent system of justice there - maybe set up with advice from someone with judiciary experience? Perhaps if they had experts who were respected in the topic areas - but that then would conflict with the community nature of the project rather easily.
The Jury (1861) painting by John Morgan- wikipedia appeal boards are like a legal system with a jury but no judge, no defendant, and on the basis of sentencing first, with the jury often meting out sentences there swiftly within minutes of filing the case, before the person accused has had a chance to reply to the accusations. Perhaps it would benefit from an overhaul and attention by people with a background in jurisprudence. Maybe it could even do with a full time paid member with jurisprucence experience.
But for that to happen, the volunteers who man wikipedia would need to agree that it needs overhaul. The admins there don’t even see that it is a problem. They don’t see all the posts and complaints by banned users because this happens off wiki. If I wrote this article on wikipedia I’d get site or topic banned swiftly.
I think this is one of the main issues holding wikipedia back at present myself.
Maybe they will find a way through this some day. I do think this is probably the main thing that is holding wikipedia back and limiting it now. Not vandals - that’s pretty much sorted out now. Not a shortage of people who want to help. But just this Alice through the Looking Glass attitude of some of the most prolific editors there, turns people off, and results in biased and inaccurate articles on many topics. It’s self perpetuating also - attracts people with the same attitudes to wikipedia, and turns other people away - or good editors may find that every edit they make is reverted until they give up.
MANY AREAS ARE EXCELLENT
Please don’t go away with the idea that all the articles or even most are like this. Wikipedia has so much promise and many areas of it are excellent. When it works well it can work very well indeed. I use it nearly every day - though I know to check the cites for anything important. I also edit it a fair bit too, fix mistakes, occasionally write longer pieces. It’s ediitng guidelines are good to for the most part - I don’t have complaints about them either. But it is also so vulnerable to this sort of thing.
I don't think there is too much I can do within wikipedia to deal with this situation. But perhaps writing about it in a humorous way off wiki can help in some indirect way. If nothing else, it may help those who have been in a similar situation to me to take it a bit less seriously and realize they aren't the only one who face this. Perhaps it might also reach the attention of a few who are in some position to do something about it? I don’t know if anyone can, but drawing attention to the issue is a starting point, if there is any way to fix it.
WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW!
If you are a reasonably experienced wikipedian, you can do a lot to help by working as an uninvolved commentator and voter on OCCASIONAL cases in WP:ANI. and other boards that permit participation by general editors.
See: What you can do about the Alice through the Looking Glass world of Wikipedia Editing - Right Now
See also Ideas for wikipedia reform for the long term
See also my answer to Is Wikipedia biased?
HOW TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT GETTING INTO TROUBLE
If you want to work on wikipedia, and want to do major work there, e.g. fill in some big gap in their coverage (they do still have large gaps in many specialist areas) then it is best to start with a non controversial topic. And - it is good to get lots of colleagues or friends involved in editing along with you. So long as there is no dispute in progress yet, there is no problem doing that and it doesn’t count as canvasing.
And if you have an article with lots of editors then it is much less likely to be destroyed or dramatically rewritten than a long article by a single editor. For professors and experts same as for anyone else. Try to edit the article as a group of several of you rather than as a sole editor and you are much more likely to succeed.
If a dispute does break out, then that’s the time to slow down. When you feel you have to reply, that’s often a sign that it’s a good time to take a break. A few comments stated clearly and calmly - and then you say nothing more for a day or two, will have much more impact than a long dialog in which you answer every point. Other editors may join in and make the points you would have made. Or if not, after a long conversation with the other editors ,to come back in and make a few points in a calm fashion again will work much better than to try a ding dong answering everything they say.
For more on this see my How to edit wikipedia without getting into trouble
About the Author
