Ah, if only things typically worked that way; you must be editing in an entirely different area of Wikipedia than I do. In my experience other editors rarely care to get involved in areas in which they have no interest or expertise (if they notice the problem at all); instead the common reaction is "well, these two guys are just edit-warring, and I don't know who is right, so I'm not going to get worked up about it." As for the example, it's true it was off the top of my head, and perhaps there are many web sites and blogs that "support" that particular claim. A better example would have been the many people who read the theory or opinion or argument of a notable individual on a particular topic, well cited, and decide they need to insert their own "rebuttal" of that person's views, on the grounds that the cited views are completely wrong. Though I will repeatedly state "you can't just make up your own arguments as to why this guy is wrong, you have to cite others who rebut or disagree with this person", it typically has little impact. Jay. Jay.

Certain areas of Wikipedia attract conflict; that's the way of the world. I don't "expect to get into an edit war", nor have I ever suggested "relaxing" the 3RR;. Let's avoid straw-man arguments, and let's try to keep the discussion on the issue, not the person. Indeed they do. If only people used them, rather than POVing and "original research"ing articles, and then edit-warring to preserve their POV and original research insertions. No, it's not; however, it is sometimes the best of a number of bad choices. If only there were other remedies that actually worked effectively all the time. Jay.