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

Revision as of 15:25, 11 February 2024

Latest revision as of 21:11, 8 August 2025

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 5:

==Accusation==

{{shortcut|WP:ACCUSE}}

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

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

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

Line 37 ⟶ 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 121 ⟶ 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==