Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
BilledMammal (talk | contribs) |
→Comments by DGG: re |
||
Line 92:
::As for offering training to those of your POV, that just sounds like a more in-depth version of what we already do. When I see a new editor making constructive edits on science articles, I leave them a welcome note and invite them to the Teahouse and to a relevant wikiproject and maybe offer to help them with their work. When I see a new editor POV-pushing obvious garbage I give them the sternest warning template I can find and don't offer to help. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 07:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
:::{{U|Opabinia regalis}}, if there is a topic in genuine dispute where the people on both sides are good faith editors, will you offer help only for those on the same side as your own? '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 01:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
::::Me, individually? I'm just a volunteer like anybody else, and can help or not help whoever I want for whatever reason. As for what we as a community should do, most people who come to push their POV are genuine in their beliefs, and believe in good faith that the article is better with their POV in it. But that's not really the same as sharing our goals. It's fair to give everyone a chance to read up on those goals, as we usually do with welcomes and warnings as appropriate. If they're not in alignment with that effort and make no effort to improve, then I don't think it's generally a good use of our time to keep trying. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 08:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by Sgerbic ==
| |||