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

Revision as of 14:40, 8 October 2018

Latest revision as of 21:11, 8 August 2025

(23 intermediate revisions by 17 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."'''''<br />

'''''* "That is a violation of [this] policy.'''''<br />"

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

'''''* "You are trying to assert ownership of this article."'''''<br />

'''''* "This must be a sock puppet account."'''''<br />

'''''* "You obviously have a problem with [subject]."'''''

Yes, there may be actual behaviorial policies and guidelines around. They can be interpreted however one may wish, and can be twisted to fit the beliefs of the one spouting their side of the argument. This is commonly known as [[WP:LAWYER|Wikilawyering]] and is not congruous with the guidelines cited in [[WP:GAME|gaming the system]].

Line 18:

==Creator/contributor==

{{shortcut|WP:IMADEIT}}

'''''* "I created this page."'''''<br />

'''''* "I have made most of the contributions to this article."'''''<br />

'''''* "I started this page; please run all proposed changes through me first."'''''<br />

'''''* "I am Wikipedia's top contributor in this field."'''''<br />

'''''* "I received a barnstar for this contribution."'''''<br />

'''''* "You're not even a member of the WikiProject with scope over this article."'''''<br />

'''''* "Those of us who worked hard to push this to Good Article get the final say about what's in it."'''''<br />

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==

{{shortcut|WP:EMPOWERMENT|WP:EMPOWER|WP:EMP|WP:MYWAY}}

'''''* "Now, stay out of this matter."'''''<br />

'''''* "I'm right, you're wrong."'''''<br />

'''''* "My way or the highway."'''''<br />

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]].

It is important to remember that whenever an edit war or any type of dispute does occur, the goal is to reach a compromise, not for one editor to get things his/her way and the other to get nothing.

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:PADLOCK|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==

{{shortcut|WP:MOREX}}

'''''* "I've been around longer than you."'''''<br />

'''''* "I have made over 9,000 more contributions than you."'''''<br />

'''''* "I am a registered user; your edits were made by an IP."'''''<br />

'''''* "I am an autoconfirmed user; you are brand new."'''''<br />

'''''* "I have received numerous barnstars."'''''<br />

'''''* "I have written these guidelines myself."'''''<br />

'''''* "I am an administrator."'''''

[[WP:NVC|There are no vested contributors]]. No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers. The editor who creates an article or plays a leading role in raising it to Featured article status does not "own" the article. As for titles, these grant only the ability to use certain types of features, not to have any say over which version is more correct.

Line 55 ⟶ 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."'''''<br />

'''''* "I have done some professional writing about that."'''''<br />

'''''* "I was the inventor/designer/producer of this."'''''<br />

'''''* "I have been to this place and seen it myself."'''''<br />

'''''* "I met that person and s/hethey told me that her/himselfthemself."'''''<br />

'''''* "This person is my cousin and I know this information to be untrue."'''''<br />

'''''''* "I have a college degree. You are a high school dropout.'''''''"

You may have a [[Ph.D]] in the subject. You may be an internationally recognized expert on the topic. You may have worked in the field for decades. But your own personal knowledge cannot be included in Wikipedia unless it can be [[WP:V|verified]] in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].

Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of <uem>sourced</uem> 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==

{{shortcut|WP:FIXED|WP:SPECRULES}}

'''''* "This page can no longer be edited; its final version has been published already."'''''<br />

'''''* "You do not qualify to edit this page."'''''<br />

'''''* "This page has special editing rules that must be followed."'''''<br />

'''''* "You must discuss before editing this page."'''''<br />

'''''* "Please discuss before making such drastic changes."'''''<br />

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 toby at least someone, and most pages are editable toby 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]].

Some pages may have some form of [[WP:PADLOCK|protection]] to prevent some people from editing them. But when this is the case, it is not an endorsement of the current version or an expression of ownership, and the purpose is not to prevent good-faith edits. Protection is here to protect pages only from [[WP:VAN|vandalism]] and edit warring.

Line 88 ⟶ 90:

==Outside guidelines==

{{shortcut|WP:OUTSIDE}}

'''''* "The law in [___location] says it should be this way."'''''<br />

'''''* "This violates the policy of [company]."'''''<br />

'''''* "This is prohibited according to [religious book]."'''''<br />

[[WP:NOTLAW|Wikipedia is not a system of laws]]. While Wikipedia does respect the well-being of people, companies, organizations, civil laws, and religions, its policies are not dictated by other sets of rules.

Line 96 ⟶ 98:

==Prior discussion==

{{shortcut|WP:PRIOR|WP:DISCUSSED}}

'''''* "It has been discussed already."'''''<br>

'''''* "There is a longstanding consensus about how to treat this issue."'''''

Yes, certain conclusions may have been reached some time back via a discussion. But [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. The surrounding world constantly changes, thereby affecting the standing of material on Wikipedia. A prior agreement or decision may have worked back then. But things are different now. [[WP:STONE|Nothing is ever in stone]].

Line 106 ⟶ 108:

{{redirects here|WP:THREATEN|3=Wikipedia:No legal threats}}

{{shortcut|WP:THREATEN|WP:INTIM|WP:INTIMIDATE|WP:INTIMIDATION}}

'''''* "If you do that again, I will report you."'''''<br />

'''''* "Don't do that or you will be blocked."'''''<br />

'''''* "Anyone changing this will be violating [this] policy."'''''<br />

'''''* "Do this and you will lose some privileges."'''''

On Wikipedia, [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks are not tolerated]]. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another with some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially [[WP:NEWBIE|those who are new]] are scared away from Wikipedia altogether.

L736E moved in this way versus Ctag67 by imposing is page for "Numero prmo forte" and blocking me accusing me of vandalism. I have created the voice on wikipedia and I know what to write inside. He gave no time to make community review.

==Three revert rule==

{{shortcut|WP:BEYOND24|WP:STRETCH}}

'''''* "The three-plus reverts I made have been stretched beyond 24 hours."'''''<br />

'''''* "I waited some time before I reverted it."'''''<br />

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 she/hethey isare 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==

{{shortcut|WP:OTHAB}}

'''''* "The hidden text says you shouldn't do that."'''''<br />

'''''* "I have already discussed/explained this in the edit summary."'''''<br />

[[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 138:

{{Civility}}

{{Arguments to avoid}}

[[Category:Wikipedia civility essays]]

[[Category:Wikipedia:Edit warringessays about Wikipedian fallacies]]

[[Category:Wikipedia civilityedit essayswarring]]