I've seen this come up a few times and I'm not sure what to think about it. Fact is, if you're so inclined, you can force a post to CW by repeatedly editing it (when you don't own it).
Is this abuse?
Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Since by definition edits to other people's non-CW posts require 2,000 rep, I would say that this is not technically abuse -- but I do not condone editing someone's post with the express purpose of converting it to wiki, and if I see users doing this repeatedly as a matter of course and with intent, there will be consequences.
(Also: since there are so many ridiculous complaints about this, I am reducing the CW threshold from 750 rep to 100 rep, effective immediately.)
Pretty sure i did this to a sofaq question at one point. Heh, pretty sure i did it to a sofaq answer as well, during a period on SO where the CW checkbox was unavailable to the author after an answer had been posted.
Didn't consider it abuse then; it was a popular, useful, and completely off-topic Q&A that benefited immensely from multiple authors - the perfect use for CW.
If you're just editing arbitrary questions to force them into CW mode... then that should probably be considered abusive. Heck, if you're just editing arbitrary questions without adding anything of value via your edits, then that's abusive. Edits should have a purpose, and "vendetta against the author" isn't a good one.
But even if you strongly believe a question should be CW (discussion/subjective/GTKY/whatever), please don't use this technique to force it. It's potentially confusing (why all these edits in the revision history?), and worse yet it's not terribly effective: answers aren't made CW when the question they're attached to is forced into that mode by repeated editing. So you end up in the situation where early answers collect reputation for their authors, while later ones (and the question itself) do not. FGITW may be a Good Thing when it comes to fast answers to technical questions, but there's probably no point in rewarding it for discussion/GTKY questions.