Wikipedia talk:Be bold

Political Spectrum

This is coming from a kid who wants to be a politician one day. There is something which would require LOTS of people due to the sheer scale of how widespread this issue is, but a fix is badly needed and I cannot do it by myself since it would require the changing of Wikipedia's standards for a Political Position. Wikipedia currently uses a simple left-right divide under the "Political Position" For a Party or Faction, but this causes a lot of problems and we need a more detailed section for the political position. I am going to write this on other talk pages just so more people can see it. Anyone wanna help? Petjayso (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It is best to choose a single, relevant location for a conversation. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics would be a good place to start a discussion about this issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Redirect from WP:JUSTDOIT was blanked

WP:JUSTDOIT now points to a page that just says "Giatricotloi". The blanking was made three weeks ago, first by an account User:Gebelil that no longer exists, then by an IP account 65.25.1.132 and then by another IP account 2001:ee0:229:14ce:d102:ed09:7ce3:c07b. I reverted again and will be taking it to WP:ANI shortly. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding a sentence

I’d like to add a sentence as follows:

“ The admonition "be careful" is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won compromise—which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed. 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 policy. ”

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 it’s an important distinction, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Any comments, plaudits, or objections? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this text will do anything to discourage status quo warriors from opposing any change to policy and guidelines. And if it won't then it's kudzu. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• User:Butwhatdoiknow, 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 shouldn’t 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 “spelling and grammatical errors”. Why stop there? I don’t 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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  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). Do you have an example of where that happened to you or someone else? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Well, it’s 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 talk so I referred to the policy which I had edited). It doesn’t 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 I’ve 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. The edit I made was to WP:Consensus, to clarify that there is not yet consensus to change article text until there is consensus on what it will be changed to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reading between the lines, you made a change that you believed was copy editing and, when another editor (or was it other editors?) 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? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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 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 I’ve 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 don’t recall that anyone ever denied that assertion, or agreed with that assertion, it was simply not considered relevant. The edit proposed above would ensure it’s relevant, next time it happens to someone else. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether justly or not, it appears that what happened to you arose from conduct that The Powers That Be believed was Wikipedia:Gaming the system. If I am right then adding the sentence you propose here seems unlikely to protect future editors in a similar situation. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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 this policy. But you may have a point, because if “The Powers That Be” don’t like article content, then perhaps they will find some excuse to ban the editor who put it there, no matter what Wikipedia policies may say, but I like to think that such backhanded censorship is odious enough to be rare. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)