Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:00, 4 April 2021

Latest revision as of 21:11, 8 August 2025

(15 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 5:

==Accusation==

{{shortcut|WP:ACCUSE}}

{{Redirect|Wikipedia:ACCUSE|the word to watch|MOS:ACCUSE}}

* "You have broken this rule by saying/doing that."

* "That is a violation of [this] policy."

* "If you add that to/remove this from this article, it is vandalism."

Line 28:

On Wikipedia, [[WP:OWN|articles are not owned]]. Just because you created an article does not mean it is yours to decide how it should be written in the future. Once you save your initial edit, it is out there for [[WP:5P|anyone else to edit at will]].

Being the creator, a major contributor, or a scope-asserting wikiprojectWikiProject in no way, shape, or form grants any special rights to dictate or otherwise decide its contents.

==Empowerment==

Line 38:

Such arguments do not help reach an agreement in any way. They are only one person [[WP:BULLY|bullying]] the other. Wikipedia's mission is to provide ''readers'' with the best possible information to everyone. Wanting to have it [[narcissism|your way]] all the time defeats that purpose.

There are no [[WP:COOLDOWN|cooldown blocks]] for those involved in edit warring. The reason why editors can be blocked for edit warring is not as [[WP:PUNISH|punishment]] for breaking some rule. Likewise, pages are not [[WP:PADLOCKGOLDLOCK|fully protected]] to punish the community or to say a page is so important it cannot be edited. These measures are taken in order to keep the situation under control and prevent further [[WP:DE|disruption]].

==Experience/standing on Wikipedia==

Line 54:

==Expertise in the field==

{{seealso|Wikipedia:Amnesia test}}

{{hatnote|[[WP:EXPERTISE]] redirects here. You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Expert editors]], [[Wikipedia:Expert help]], [[Wikipedia:Expert retention]], [[Wikipedia:Expert review]] and [[Wikipedia:Expert rebellion]].}}

{{shortcut|WP:EXPERTISE|WP:IKNOW}}

* "I am an expert on this topic."

Line 66 ⟶ 67:

Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of <em>sourced</em> material, not [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|indiscriminate information]]. Unverified contribution of material in a subject of one's own so-called expertise may be [[WP:OR|original research]]. If one has direct involvement with a company, organization or individual that the article is about, this may violate [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] guidelines.

If you are an expert on a subject but are new to editing Wikipedia, please take some time to read [[Wikipedia:Expert editors#Advice for new expert editors|these help pages]].

==Fixed page==

Line 75 ⟶ 78:

* "Please discuss before making such drastic changes."

It is a big myth on Wikipedia that certain pages, such as some articles on high-profile subjects, Featuredfeatured articles, templates, and project pages are fixed, and can only be edited by those in a position of authority, with a certain level of experience, with a prior discussion, or otherwise with special permission.

[[WP:STONE|Nothing on Wikipedia is in stone]]. Not once. Ever. Every page is editable by at least someone, and most pages are editable by everyone. Editors are encouraged to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] while at the same time wise and responsible in making edits. No pages in any namespace have any individualized guidelines for editing, and all is up to [[WP:COMMONSENSE|common sense]].

Line 119 ⟶ 122:

The [[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] is a [[bright-line rule]] to draw the line somewhere. But making edits in a manner that just barely dodges this time frame does not make one immune from the consequences. An administrator still reserves the right to block an editor if it is obvious they are being disruptive with such constant reverts, and that no progress is being made toward a resolution. Unlike a guideline, Wikipedia enforces this rule.

If an editor were to make four reverts, say, three on January 26 at 9:45 AMam (09:45), 1:35 PM (13:35), and 7:22 PM (19:22), and then one on January 27 at 9:46 AMam (09:46), technically there have not been more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. But it is still a sign of edit warring.

==Other abuses==

Line 126 ⟶ 129:

* "I have already discussed/explained this in the edit summary."

[[WP:HIDDEN|Hidden text]] can be placed in the Wiki textwikitext of pages to help out others with editing the page or to indicate other changes that may come about in the future. But it is not to be used to express ownership of a page, or to instruct or discourage others not to make edits to disagree with one's point-of-view.

[[WP:EDITSUM|Edit summaries]] are here to let others know how the page was just edited, or to make others looking at the pages's or editor's history aware of the details of previous edits. They are not here to argue a point-of-view, and they are not a substitute for a discussion. In particular, they should not be used to argue back-and-forth during a multiple-revert edit war. Such discussions between two editors should be held on [[Wikipedia:User talk|user talk pages]] or on the discussion page of the article in question. Besides, when the edit summary is used, each message is considered a revert toward the maximum three, while you can post an unlimited number of civil messages on a talk page.

Line 136 ⟶ 139:

{{Arguments to avoid}}

[[Category:EssaysWikipedia essays about Wikipedian fallacies]]

[[Category:Wikipedia edit warring]]