368:, the purpose of my proposal is to protect bold editors of policy from hostile administrative action (bans, blocks, et cetera) if they make a bold policy edit that merely rephrases, clarifies, makes more explicit. Bold policy edits can get an editor into a lot of trouble, especially if he relies upon those policy edits at some later date. But they shouldnât get anyone in trouble if the bold policy edits do not make any *substantive* edits to policy. As you can see from the blockquote above, bold editors are already protected if they fix âspelling and grammatical errorsâ. Why stop there? I donât care much whether bold policy edits are reverted or not, what I mostly care about is whether the bold editors are sanctioned for no good reason.
454:
article earlier that day. The policy change I made was not reverted as of weeks later. At that time the issue resurfaced at the original article where I noticed the problem, so I mentioned the changed policy at article talk. At that point, I was accused of having edited policy to advance my position in a content dispute, my policy edit was reverted, and Iâve been topic-banned. I appealed repeatedly for removal of the topic ban, asserting that the policy edit merely made explicit what was already implied, and I donât recall that anyone ever denied that assertion, or agreed with that assertion, it was simply not considered relevant. The edit proposed above would ensure itâs relevant, next time it happens to someone else.
188:
158:
406:
talk so I referred to the policy which I had edited). It doesnât make sense to me that this policy protects bold editors when they fix spelling and grammar, but not when they rephrase or make an implication explicit. So Iâve been topic-banned now for maybe 15 years or so. Not trying here to get out of the topic ban, just trying to prevent it from happening to other people.
493:
this policy. But you may have a point, because if âThe Powers That Beâ donât like article content, then perhaps they will find some excuse to ban the editor who put it there, no matter what
Knowledge (XXG) policies may say, but I like to think that such backhanded censorship is odious enough to be rare.
382:
I am a fairly bold editor of policies and guidelines and I too frequently run into status quo warriors, some of whom have been administrators. However, I have never faced hostile administrative action for making the original change (even when the reverting editor thought my change was substantive).
453:
Almost. I made a policy change that I believed was basically copy editing or clarifying what the policy already implied (I inserted a sentence which is described at the end of my last comment above) and, in the edit summary, mentioned that the change would be useful because of my experience at an
492:
They have refused to explain why making something explicit in a policy, that was already implicit, was gaming the system. In my view, it never can be gaming the system. If this present policy would address the matter then that would help future editors in this situation, because they could quote
405:
Well, itâs a very hard thing to search for, but I have my own experience with it. I repeatedly argued that my bold edit to policy did not change the substantive meaning of the policy, but no one seemed to think that was relevant (weeks after making the edit the issue had come up again at article
294:
Likewise, changes that merely rephrase, or make explicit what is already implied, or otherwise clarify existing policy, are less likely to be problematic for the bold editor, as compared to changes that substantively alter existing
305:
In future, if people get into hot water for boldly editing policy (as once happened to me), a person who raises this particular issue should not be ignored or dismissed, because itâs an important distinction,
288:, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won compromiseâwhich may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to
149:
431:?) opposed the change, you repeatedly argued that the change was okay because it was not substantive. Ultimately, you received a topic ban. Do I have that right? -
74:
39:
80:
555:
340:
285:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
20:
427:
Reading between the lines, you made a change that you believed was copy editing and, when another editor (or was it other editor
69:
478:. If I am right then adding the sentence you propose here seems unlikely to protect future editors in a similar situation. -
475:
60:
412:, to clarify that there is not yet consensus to change article text until there is consensus on what it will be changed to.
298:
280:
474:
Whether justly or not, it appears that what happened to you arose from conduct that The Powers That Be believed was
157:
120:
545:
The first sentence reads "We would like everyone to be bold and help make
Knowledge (XXG) a better encyclopedia."
498:
459:
418:
373:
328:
311:
569:
Thank you for your effort to improve
Knowledge (XXG). There is an explanation of what "semi-protected" means at
168:
578:
559:
520:
483:
436:
388:
352:
240:
now points to a page that just says "Giatricotloi". The blanking was made three weeks ago, first by an account
409:
50:
252:
by another IP account 2001:ee0:229:14ce:d102:ed09:7ce3:c07b. I reverted again and will be taking it to
237:
215:
90:
65:
494:
455:
414:
369:
324:
307:
205:
24:
574:
548:
When I try to find the edit button, all I find is "View source" and "This page is semi-protected".
516:
479:
432:
384:
365:
348:
289:
241:
292:. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed.
261:
173:
344:
46:
570:
170:
253:
221:
197:
This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
257:
187:
172:
343:
from opposing any change to policy and guidelines. And if it won't then it's
582:
563:
524:
502:
487:
463:
440:
422:
392:
377:
356:
332:
315:
265:
383:
Do you have an example of where that happened to you or someone else? -
284:
The admonition "be careful" is especially important in relation to
277:
182:
174:
15:
554:
NB We'll see how long can this bold edit of mine can stay :)
214:
To ask for help with using and editing
Knowledge (XXG), use
339:
I'm not sure that this text will do anything to discourage
249:
245:
105:
98:
204:for discussions about the Knowledge (XXG) page
8:
511:have a point? I think you meant that I
275:Iâd like to add a sentence as follows:
323:Any comments, plaudits, or objections?
233:Redirect from WP:JUSTDOIT was blanked
7:
208:. To discuss an article, please use
23:for discussing improvements to the
14:
476:Knowledge (XXG):Gaming the system
248:by an IP account 65.25.1.132 and
45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
186:
156:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
290:discuss potential changes first
195:YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.
1:
583:16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
564:10:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
37:Put new text under old text.
599:
88:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
525:17:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
503:05:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
488:03:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
464:23:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
441:16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
423:22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
393:22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
378:21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
357:16:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
333:05:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
316:00:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
266:03:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
408:The edit I made was to
286:policies and guidelines
244:that no longer exists,
206:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold
70:avoid personal attacks
212:article's talk page.
150:Auto-archiving period
551:This is ridiculous.
515:have a point. đ -
366:User:Butwhatdoiknow
341:status quo warriors
220:Alternatively, see
219:
198:
81:dispute resolution
42:
413:
303:
302:
271:Adding a sentence
228:
227:
213:
193:
181:
180:
61:Assume good faith
38:
590:
407:
278:
190:
183:
175:
161:
160:
151:
108:
101:
16:
598:
597:
593:
592:
591:
589:
588:
587:
543:
495:Anythingyouwant
456:Anythingyouwant
415:Anythingyouwant
370:Anythingyouwant
325:Anythingyouwant
308:Anythingyouwant
273:
235:
196:
177:
176:
171:
148:
114:
113:
112:
111:
104:
97:
93:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
596:
594:
586:
585:
575:Butwhatdoiknow
556:202.40.137.196
542:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
517:Butwhatdoiknow
480:Butwhatdoiknow
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
446:
445:
444:
443:
433:Butwhatdoiknow
398:
397:
396:
395:
385:Butwhatdoiknow
360:
359:
349:Butwhatdoiknow
336:
335:
301:
300:
297:
282:
272:
269:
234:
231:
226:
225:
199:
194:
191:
179:
178:
169:
167:
166:
163:
162:
116:
115:
110:
109:
102:
94:
89:
87:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
595:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
565:
561:
557:
552:
549:
546:
540:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
465:
461:
457:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
425:
424:
420:
416:
411:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
394:
390:
386:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
337:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
296:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
270:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
232:
230:
223:
217:
211:
207:
203:
200:This page is
192:
189:
185:
184:
165:
164:
159:
155:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
122:
118:
117:
107:
103:
100:
96:
95:
92:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
553:
550:
547:
544:
541:Be bold?????
512:
508:
428:
410:WP:Consensus
304:
293:
274:
242:User:Gebelil
236:
229:
216:our Teahouse
209:
201:
153:
119:
19:This is the
238:WP:JUSTDOIT
256:shortly.
106:WT:BEBOLD
91:Shortcuts
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
258:Kire1975
121:Archives
51:get help
571:WP:SEMI
295:policy.
222:our FAQ
154:90Â days
99:WT:BOLD
25:Be bold
254:WP:ANI
345:kudzu
306:IMHO.
79:Seek
27:page.
579:talk
573:. -
560:talk
521:talk
499:talk
484:talk
460:talk
437:talk
419:talk
389:talk
374:talk
353:talk
347:. -
329:talk
312:talk
262:talk
250:then
246:then
210:that
202:only
68:and
509:may
581:)
562:)
523:)
513:do
507:I
501:)
486:)
462:)
439:)
421:)
391:)
376:)
355:)
331:)
314:)
299:â
281:â
264:)
152::
144:,
140:,
136:,
132:,
128:,
49:;
577:(
558:(
519:(
497:(
482:(
458:(
435:(
429:s
417:(
387:(
372:(
351:(
327:(
310:(
260:(
224:.
218:.
146:6
142:5
138:4
134:3
130:2
126:1
123::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
