JAY JG said:
[....]
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."
Do you expect this kind of thing to happen a lot?
Certain areas of Wikipedia attract conflict; that's the way of the world.
I mean, you expect to
get into an edit war and then ask others to either come to your assistance
or relax the 3RR so you are permitted to continue?
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.
I think this is a highly contentious way of interacting
on Wikipedia, and
not one to be condoned. Talk pages exist for a good purpose.
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.
Revert
limits and guidelines counseling against edit warring also exist for a
good purpose. Edit warring is *not* considered a good way of dealing with
problems.
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.