User:ZuluPapa5/BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE

A Battleground Article has its roots in original researched content forking and it has a controversial title leading to battleground activity. It may have an article title which itself neglects a NPOV and establishes a POV with a judgmental descriptive title. Titles should be not based on opinion. The article tile may be based on unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position contrary to a NPOV article. It may be a list. It may have hat notes and headers which attempt to control the original researched content. The sourced content may be strung together to support an un-sourced subjective title. It may have an unusual tone and style; which, does not seem appropriate to the objective reader; however, the appearance of sourced content leaves cause for renaming or redirect disputes and deletion nominations. In these deletion or redirect nomination, low or no source justification is made, just the nominators and commentators opinions, wthout sources to support commentators opinions, battleground issues can really erupt, and often do. The deletion or redirect nomination can be the most misapplied tool.

Wikipedia is not a battleground, the controversy and disputes associated with Battleground Articles may be the source of Wikipedia disruption, leading to uncivil behavior and editor bans. Participants may find themselves in a topic where the Battleground Article itself is Activist bait.

Other articles, unrelated to a topic where a battleground may be occurring, can overflow into becoming Battleground Articles. This occurs when an attacking editor trolls or targets a victim editors user contribution list for articles which they intend to provoke an issue. The issue may become a dispute. While the issue at hand may or may not be valid, the motivation for the attacking editor to target the new article, can turn that article into a Battleground Article.

Battleground Article activity raises important questions about good faith and a users motivated role to improve content with sources. Very often, the dispute can only be settled with a third opinion or notice board assistance from uninvolved editors. Disputes can themselves turn notice boards and enforcement requests into battleground arenas as well. In the worst cases, the attacking editor will target the victims user space. The unwanted result is Dispute Resolution changes from content improvement to personal editor conflicts and many users space contributions.

When a Battleground Article is forced into user space, the result is fewer editors may contribute to improving the content. If the user space with the new content is under sanction, then attackers may try to apply administrative actions against the user space registrant to further the battleground.

A good course may be to withdraw from the dispute, which is an effect the attacker would desire, and results in article ownership issues because folks are run off. The best result is when editors can work together to improve content with sources.

The newly arriving uninvolved editors may not be aware of the past history between editors and are therefor best at resolving the true content issues at hand between editors in good faith.