User talk:Ed Poor/irony

In my recent RFA, one Wikipedian who opposed noted the "irony" that the man who wrote POV pushing should be labeled a tendentious editor. I agree, but for different reasons.

At Wikipedia, tendentious editing has two distinct meanings.
 * 1) An edit that makes an article biased
 * 2) An edit that goes against consensus

I've never gotten in trouble for making articles biased, because I'm a champion of encyclopedic neutrality. I used to be acknowledged for this and called upon to NPOVify articles.

Rather I got into trouble for doggedly editing against consensus, in articles on several topics which I found to be biased. It was my persistent attempts to include mentions of opposing minority points of view which was the problem.

I'm astonished at my own unawareness of the distinction between the two meanings. And I think it was this lack of awareness which got me into trouble.

Staying cool when the editing gets hot

 * There are users who simply cannot and do not want to write NPOV articles, users who want to delete relevant information, users who are notoriously anti-social, and so on. We think these are the types of users we do not really want on Wikipedia, and a few have been banned.

Ah, this is where I messed up the most. Once I had seen that a group had assembled with enough clout to flout NPOV, I should simply have walked away - or pursued dispute resolution. But I've always been a bit of a hothead - too bold for my own good. So I went head to head with the POV-pushers of the radical left: at global warming and evolution especially. It was at best quixotic, but unltimately foolish. A gentle, mild guy like me should never take on a tag team.