3 ms·
Without knowing which 'particular situation' you're talking about, I can just save your confusion. There are articles in Wikipedia which will _always_ convey a
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
Without knowing which 'particular situation' you're talking about, I can just save your confusion.
There are articles in Wikipedia which will _always_ convey a certain perspective. Edits to them will always be reverted. The reverters will not engage with the audit process. The senior staff will not challenge those reverters. The procedure to handle this situation will not work. Arguments will be made that make literally no sense and will yet be accepted. If you persist in trying to make those changes your account will be banned on spurious grounds.
- Kim_Bruning 3y agoWell, that's not supposed to happen, obviously, not in the way you put it anyway. But definitely give me an article/situation on Wikipedia where you feel that this is the case, and I'll take a look with you. Diffs appreciated!
- Dan_Sylveste 3y agoThe user whimsicalism is probably more interested in discussing this, I'd take it up with them. I sense that this conversation will lead to a great deal of wordy justifications for the unjustifiable. I've already said that's part of the dissuasion process, I'm not interested in participating in it. These discussions were already had at great length on reddit r/wikiinaction and resulted only in the subreddit being castrated.