User talk:C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena/Archive 1

Best practice

 * It can be beneficial to insist on addressing only one editor at a time in a given discussion. Addressing many editors at once can be interpreted as WP:BLUD, which may justify preventing an editor from editing further.  There may be instances where an editor will be addressed while the editor is already having a discussion with another given editor.  Once again, it can be preferrable and recommended to politely decline to respond to many editors at once, and complete a single discussion with one editor before moving on to another.  The rationale is that in a conversation between two individuals, responses are typically equally matched in number and WP:BLUD can be more easily avoided.
 * Similarly as above, it can be useful to edit a single comment and incorporate a response within it (clarifying whatever was previously unclear, and being careful to always abide by WP:TALK), than to respond with additional and extensive comments. The practice can help prevent overwhelming talk pages with content, which could be interpreted as WP:DIS, and may justify preventing an editor from editing further.  There may be instances where an editor will produce many responses and extensive comments, and again it can be best to insist on responding within the original comment, clarifying it if possible.
 * When challenges to maintaining content deemed highly relevant to a particular page are encountered, it should be considered that there are means of achieving the most desirable outcome beyond simple editing. WP:RCD provides helpful information pertaining to the topic.
 * With respect to contentious edits, consensus is generally favored. Favoring consensus signifies that if a viewpoint is held by a minority, the view of the majority should prevail.  WP:VOTESTACKING denotes the practice of seeking involvement from others in order to generate consensus in favor of a particular view and may not be deemed appropriate (albeit adopted by many and broadly tolerated in practice).
 * There may appear to be pages which (regardless of intention, good faith is assumed) are designed in such a way as to frame an argument. Insisting on editing where achieving consensus is unlikely (as opposed to where achieving it is more likely) and there also demonstrating any of the behaviors described can be interpreted as WP:TEND, and may justify preventing an editor from editing further.
 * While it will be observed that editors and administrators seek to demonstrate respect and civility, it may be preferrable not to expect a fair editing experience (see WP:BURO, WP:IAR) while continuing to always strive for fairness and to abide by WP:PILLARS regardless of the situation.