I ve just been watching not writing I ll make one observation on the behavior of the editors It looks to me like there are some neutral editors Homunculus Zujine Sean Hoyland who seemed to be engaged in substantive discussions and are willing to collaborate and compromise while being civil They have different points of view on the subject but their engagement with the discussion is fair at least as far as I see it Then there are then some editors who are intent mainly on making attacks and accusations against others which ends up derailing the discussions with politically and ideologically charged rhetoric and remarks that don t seem to have anything to do with the content on the page i e Quigley Colipon PCPP Isn t Wikipedia meant to be edited by consensus I would consider getting involved and editing if it did not seem so political I m not familiar with the policy precisely that decides what is included but if there are serious and legitimate disputes about content shouldn t they be discussed before changes are forced onto the page That s all