Wikibooks talk:Don't throw stones from a glass house

Removal
I believe this edit removed too much. For one thing, it doesn't make much sense to change "edit war" to "conflict". A conflict can simply be a disagreement, whereas edit-warring is a specific action which is often treated hypocritically. The examples involving civility and assuming good faith were also helpful, since in some places those principles are frequently cited by users who should be removing the beam from their own eye.

I also think what had been the first paragraph of this essay was a good introduction, and should return. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Admittedly I haven't noticed any issues where I thought this essay could of helped, but giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe I just haven't come across them. I think citing some "edit wars" with links where the response was hypocritical and principles were cited by users who should remove beams from their own eye would be a helpful demonstration and useful for discussion and for collaborating to develop this essay. Otherwise if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I wonder, is my edit to this essay and this response to your comment an example of what you mean in and of itself? Where are some places that users frequently cite principles that you consider a problem area for Wikibooks? What differences between a disagreement and hypocritical treatment of actions do you believe need to be addressed? Also, what do you mean when you write "remove the beam from their own eye"? Do you think "content dispute" would be more appropriate and descriptive than "conflict"? --dark lama  11:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, creating this essay may have been a waste of time on my part, but has the Wikibooks community ever had trouble with instruction creep, or editors not staying cool? Given the lack of discussions which link to those essays, I tend to doubt it. . I figured that such essays exist in Wikibooks because those things have been issues on other Wikimedia projects, and so I added one that didn't yet exist here, based on WP:Don't call the kettle black. I began with "In some Wikimedia projects" so as not to create the impression that this has been a problem in Wikibooks.
 * Even if we're not going to give specific examples because they haven't noticeably happened on Wikibooks, the current point about "conflict" doesn't make much sense, nor would it be improved by substituting "content dispute".
 * I definitely don't regard your actions here as an example of what this essay addresses, since you have not even accused me of anything. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe there may have been issues in the past with keeping a cool head with at least one person others found difficult to work with at Wikibooks. I believe in that case Wikibreaks were often suggested rather than a direct reference to staying cool. I know it has been suggested to me in the past without a direct reference to WB:CREEP that some of my proposals in the Wikibooks namespace have been wordy and overcomplicated. The lack of direct references for people might be due in part with an attempt to create a more welcoming atmosphere and perhaps indirectly with not calling kettles black.
 * As I see it, I think the potential benefit of this essay could be to have people address problems while they are still simply a disagreement and before they get to the point where people are treating actions hypocritically. --dark lama  19:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)